Federal Register Vol. 82, No.54,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 54 (March 22, 2017)

Page Range14601-14810
FR Document

82_FR_54
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 14809 - National Poison Prevention Week, 2017PDF
82 FR 14756 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
82 FR 14741 - Endangered Species; Wild Bird Conservation; Receipt of Applications for PermitPDF
82 FR 14786 - Notice of Rail Energy Transportation Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
82 FR 14715 - Pesticide Emergency Exemptions; Agency Decisions and State and Federal Agency Crisis DeclarationsPDF
82 FR 14614 - Fatty Acids, Montan-Wax, Ethoxylated; Tolerance ExemptionPDF
82 FR 14631 - Aspergillus flavus AF36; Amendment to an Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
82 FR 14723 - National and Governmental Advisory CommitteesPDF
82 FR 14723 - Notification of a Public Teleconference of the Chartered Science Advisory Board (SAB)PDF
82 FR 14718 - Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide RegistrationsPDF
82 FR 14787 - 2nd & Main, LLC-Acquisition and Operation Exemption-Norland North Chicago, LLCPDF
82 FR 14704 - U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
82 FR 14764 - DTE Electric Company; Fermi, Unit 2; WithdrawalPDF
82 FR 14786 - 60-Day Notice of Intent To Seek Extension of Approval: Waybill SamplePDF
82 FR 14774 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 14728 - Notice of Agreements FiledPDF
82 FR 14717 - Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide RegistrationsPDF
82 FR 14713 - Board of Scientific Counselors Homeland Security Subcommittee; Notification of Public Teleconference and Public CommentPDF
82 FR 14633 - Octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”PDF
82 FR 14623 - Cyantraniliprole; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
82 FR 14724 - Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee; Request for Nominations to the Pesticide Program Dialogue CommitteePDF
82 FR 14620 - Cloquintocet-mexyl; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
82 FR 14636 - Polyglycerol Polyricinoleate; Tolerance ExemptionPDF
82 FR 14716 - Notification of Two Public Teleconferences of the Science Advisory Board Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee Augmented for the Review of EPA's Draft Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) AssessmentPDF
82 FR 14617 - Isoamyl Acetate; Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
82 FR 14731 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
82 FR 14709 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 14673 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 14767 - New Postal ProductsPDF
82 FR 14693 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 14759 - Uranerz Energy Corporation; Jane Dough UnitPDF
82 FR 14760 - Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4PDF
82 FR 14700 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 14726 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request (3064-0189)PDF
82 FR 14764 - South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3; Fire Pump Head and Diesel Fuel Day Tank ChangesPDF
82 FR 14757 - Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3; South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Annex and Radwaste Building ChangesPDF
82 FR 14766 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Design Reliability Assurance Program (D-RAP) ChangesPDF
82 FR 14755 - Vogtle Electric Generating Station, Units 3 and 4; Southern Nuclear Operating Company; IDS Fuse Isolation Panel AdditionsPDF
82 FR 14729 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
82 FR 14725 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
82 FR 14742 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Caldwell Canyon Mine and Reclamation Plan, Caribou County, IdahoPDF
82 FR 14693 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingsPDF
82 FR 14696 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Assessment Webinars for Atlantic Blueline Tilefish; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 14639 - Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2017; Medicare Advantage Bid Pricing Data Release; Medicare Advantage and Part D Medical Loss Ratio Data Release; Medicare Advantage Provider Network Requirements; Expansion of Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program Model; Medicare Shared Savings Program Requirements; CorrectionsPDF
82 FR 14711 - Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
82 FR 14710 - Notice of Commission Staff AttendancePDF
82 FR 14710 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-521); Comment Request; ExtensionPDF
82 FR 14707 - Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC and Venture Global Gator Express, LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
82 FR 14708 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 14712 - Town of Carbondale, Colorado; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To IntervenePDF
82 FR 14748 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
82 FR 14692 - Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances ReviewPDF
82 FR 14691 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances ReviewsPDF
82 FR 14806 - Genomic Medicine Program Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 14714 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products (Renewal)PDF
82 FR 14795 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel CLOSE E NUFF; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
82 FR 14797 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel FAST MOVING DIME; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
82 FR 14795 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel LAU LEA; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
82 FR 14798 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel LEI ALOHA; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
82 FR 14796 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel SLO GIN; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
82 FR 14797 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel TO LIFE; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
82 FR 14796 - Agency Requests for Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection(s): Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA)PDF
82 FR 14639 - Connect America FundPDF
82 FR 14674 - Information Collection; Interagency Generic Clearance for Federal Land Management Agencies Collaborative Visitor Feedback Surveys on Recreation and Transportation Related Programs and SystemsPDF
82 FR 14791 - Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption Renewal; Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler)PDF
82 FR 14785 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Abstract Expressionism Behind the Iron Curtain” ExhibitionPDF
82 FR 14690 - National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic and Other PopulationsPDF
82 FR 14607 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Shark River, Avon, NJPDF
82 FR 14737 - Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning a GearmotorPDF
82 FR 14702 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 14745 - Notice of Intent To Initiate Public Scoping and Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the San Juan Mine Deep Lease Extension Mining Plan ModificationPDF
82 FR 14799 - Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R); Request for Clearance for an Information Collection: Annual Tank Car SurveyPDF
82 FR 14800 - Agency Information Collection: Activity Under OMB Review; Report of Traffic and Capacity Statistics-The T-100 SystemPDF
82 FR 14735 - Meeting of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 14695 - U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS®) Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 14751 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Coal Mine Operator Response to Schedule for Submission of Additional Evidence and Operator Response to Notice of ClaimPDF
82 FR 14750 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Unemployment Insurance Benefits Operations Self-Assessment Report of ResponsesPDF
82 FR 14752 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Escape and Evacuation PlansPDF
82 FR 14794 - Limitation on Claims Against Proposed Public Transportation ProjectsPDF
82 FR 14641 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Resources of the South Atlantic; Commercial Trip Limit ReductionPDF
82 FR 14753 - Notice of Solicitation of Proposals for Calendar Year 2018 Basic Field Grant AwardsPDF
82 FR 14789 - Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; Truck Renting and Leasing Association, Inc. (TRALA)PDF
82 FR 14792 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of an Approved Information Collection: Request for Revocation of Authority GrantedPDF
82 FR 14690 - North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews: Notice of Completion of Panel ReviewPDF
82 FR 14793 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension of a Currently-Approved Information Collection: Accident Recordkeeping RequirementsPDF
82 FR 14734 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 14699 - Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 14733 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Assessment and Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 14732 - World Trade Center Health Program; Request for Nominations of Scientific Peer Reviewers of Proposed Additions to the List of WTC-Related Health ConditionsPDF
82 FR 14750 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection; The National Instant Criminal Background Check System Section (NICS) Checks by Criminal Justice AgenciesPDF
82 FR 14679 - Opportunity for Designation in the Plainview, Texas, Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This AreaPDF
82 FR 14678 - Opportunity for Designation in the Bloomington, Illinois, Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This AreaPDF
82 FR 14676 - Opportunity for Designation in the Grand Forks, North Dakota, Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This AreaPDF
82 FR 14677 - Opportunity for Designation in the Sioux City, Iowa, Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This AreaPDF
82 FR 14676 - Opportunity for Designation in the Owensboro, Kentucky, Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This AreaPDF
82 FR 14786 - SJI Board of Directors Meeting, NoticePDF
82 FR 14754 - Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee; MeetingPDF
82 FR 14726 - Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate the Receivership of 10464, Citizens First National Bank, Princeton, IllinoisPDF
82 FR 14726 - Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate the Receivership of 10332, Evergreen State Bank, Stoughton, WisconsinPDF
82 FR 14778 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the Direxion Daily Crude Oil Bull 3x Shares and Direxion Daily Crude Oil Bear 3x Shares Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200PDF
82 FR 14768 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Complex OrdersPDF
82 FR 14779 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change Modifying the NYSE Amex Options Fee SchedulePDF
82 FR 14781 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Describe the Illiquid Charge That May Be Imposed on MembersPDF
82 FR 14775 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange ServicesPDF
82 FR 14779 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To Amend IEX Rule 16.135 To Adopt Generic Listing Standards for Managed Fund SharesPDF
82 FR 14787 - Cavallo Bus Lines, LLC-Acquisition of Control of Assets-White Knight Limousine, Inc.PDF
82 FR 14734 - Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Small Business and Industry Assistance Regulatory Education for Industry Generic Drugs Forum; Public ConferencePDF
82 FR 14694 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement; Scoping Process; Notification of Scoping Meetings; Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 14680 - Inviting Applications for Rural Cooperative Development GrantsPDF
82 FR 14802 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request on disclosure of Returns and Return Information by Other AgenciesPDF
82 FR 14804 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Rev. Proc. 2008-27PDF
82 FR 14802 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Disabled Access CreditPDF
82 FR 14803 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Revenue Procedure 2010-52PDF
82 FR 14803 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
82 FR 14805 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Revenue Procedure 2004-29PDF
82 FR 14804 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
82 FR 14768 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 14730 - Meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and QualityPDF
82 FR 14736 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 14737 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 14736 - National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 14736 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 14768 - Product Change-First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 14768 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 14740 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; State Administrative Plan for the Hazard Mitigation Grant ProgramPDF
82 FR 14747 - Global Digital Trade I: Market Opportunities and Key Foreign Trade Restrictions; Notice of Correction Concerning Institution of Investigation and Scheduling of HearingPDF
82 FR 14698 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Native American Tribal Insignia DatabasePDF
82 FR 14696 - Trademark and Trial Appeal Board (TTAB) ActionsPDF
82 FR 14705 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights (PAIR)PDF
82 FR 14706 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Annual Client Assistance Program (CAP) ReportPDF
82 FR 14705 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Measures and Methods for the National Reporting System for Adult EducationPDF
82 FR 14729 - Submission for OMB Review; Contract FinancingPDF
82 FR 14728 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
82 FR 14729 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding CompaniesPDF
82 FR 14689 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Wyoming Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 14754 - Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Renew an Information CollectionPDF
82 FR 14688 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Virginia Advisory Committee To Discuss Potential Projects of StudyPDF
82 FR 14689 - Notice of Public Meeting of the District of Columbia Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 14608 - Limited Federal Implementation Plan; Prevention of Significant Deterioration Requirements for Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5PDF
82 FR 14805 - Notification of Rescheduled Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee March 21, 2017, Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 14748 - Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Consumer Products Containing the Same; Institution of InvestigationPDF
82 FR 14647 - Tobacco Product Standard for N-Nitrosonornicotine Level in Finished Smokeless Tobacco Products; Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
82 FR 14648 - Air Plan Approval; Washington: General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources, Energy Facility Site Evaluation CouncilPDF
82 FR 14654 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon: Permitting and General Rule RevisionsPDF
82 FR 14670 - Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Atlanta; Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone StandardPDF
82 FR 14611 - Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Atlanta; Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone StandardPDF
82 FR 14671 - Notice of Intention To Reconsider the Final Determination of the Mid-Term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model Year 2022-2025 Light Duty VehiclesPDF
82 FR 14642 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 14646 - Airworthiness Directives; CFE Company Turbofan EnginesPDF
82 FR 14601 - Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited AirplanesPDF
82 FR 14602 - Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. AirplanesPDF
82 FR 14606 - Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972PDF
82 FR 14604 - Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections III: Extension of Compliance Date for Provision Concerning Baggage Handling Statistics ReportPDF

Issue

82 54 Wednesday, March 22, 2017 Contents Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality; Cancellation, 14730-14731 2017-05588 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Forest Service

See

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

See

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14673-14674 2017-05697
AIRFORCE Air Force Department NOTICES Meetings: U.S. Air Force Academy Board of Visitors, 14699 2017-05625 Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic and Other Populations, 14690 2017-05649 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14731-14732 2017-05699 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: CDC Chamblee Campus 2025 Master Plan; Public Meeting, 14733-14734 2017-05624 Requests for Nominations: Scientific Peer Reviewers of Proposed Additions to List of World Trade Center-Related Health Conditions, 14732-14733 2017-05623 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services RULES Medicare Program: Revisions to Payment Policies Under Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2017, etc.; Correction, 14639 2017-05675 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: District of Columbia Advisory Committee, 14689 2017-05561 Virginia Advisory Committee, 14688-14689 2017-05562 Wyoming Advisory Committee, 14689-14690 2017-05565 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Shark River, Avon, NJ, 14607-14608 2017-05648 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

Patent and Trademark Office

Defense Department Defense Department See

Air Force Department

See

Navy Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Contract Financing, 14729-14730 2017-05570 Arms Sales, 14700-14704 2017-05646 2017-05689 Meetings: U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group, 14704-14705 2017-05715
Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Annual Client Assistance Program Report, 14706-14707 2017-05572 Measures and Methods for National Reporting System for Adult Education, 14705-14706 2017-05571 Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights, 14705 2017-05573 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District; Limited Federal Implementation Plan; Prevention of Significant Deterioration Requirements for Fine Particulate Matter, 14608-14611 2017-05557 Georgia; Atlanta; Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard, 14611-14614 2017-05459 Pesticide Tolerances: Cloquintocet-mexyl, 14620-14623 2017-05705 Cyantraniliprole, 14623-14630 2017-05707 Tolerance Exemptions: Aspergillus flavus AF36, 14631-14632 2017-05720 Fatty Acids, Montan-Wax, Ethoxylated, 14614-14617 2017-05721 Isoamyl Acetate, 14617-14620 2017-05701 Octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)], 14633-14636 2017-05708 Polyglycerol polyricinoleate, 14636-14638 2017-05703 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Georgia; Atlanta; Requirements for 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard, 14670-14671 2017-05461 Oregon; Permitting and General Rule Revisions, 14654-14670 2017-05463 Washington: General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources, Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, 14648-14654 2017-05467 Determination of Mid-Term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards: Model Year 2022-2025 Light Duty Vehicles, 14671-14672 2017-05316 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products, 14714-14715 2017-05662 Meetings: Board of Scientific Counselors Homeland Security Subcommittee; Teleconference, 14713-14714 2017-05709 Chartered Science Advisory Board; Teleconference, 14723-14724 2017-05718 National and Governmental Advisory Committees, 14723 2017-05719 Science Advisory Board Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee; Teleconferences, 14716 2017-05702 Pesticide Emergency Exemptions: Agency Decisions and State and Federal Agency Crisis Declarations, 14715-14716 2017-05722 Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations, 14717-14723 2017-05710 2017-05717 Requests for Nominations: Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee, 14724-14725 2017-05706 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Airplanes, 14601-14602 2017-05163 Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes, 14602-14604 2017-05161 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 14642-14646 2017-05251 CFE Company Turbofan Engines, 14646-14647 2017-05242 Federal Bureau Federal Bureau of Investigation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Instance Criminal Background Check System Section Checks by Criminal Justice Agencies, 14750 2017-05621 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Connect America Fund, 14639-14641 2017-05654 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14725 2017-05682 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14726-14728 2017-05688 Terminations of Receivership: Citizens First National Bank, Princeton, IL, 14726 2017-05612 Evergreen State Bank, Stoughton, WI, 14726 2017-05611 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: State Administrative Plan for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, 14740-14741 2017-05580 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14710-14711 2017-05672 Applications: Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC, 14711-14712 2017-05674 Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC; Venture Global Gator Express, LLC, 14707-14708 2017-05671 Combined Filings, 14708-14710 2017-05670 2017-05698 Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facilities: Town of Carbondale, CO, 14712-14713 2017-05669 Staff Attendances, 14710 2017-05673 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 14728 2017-05711 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Accident Recordkeeping Requirements, 14793-14794 2017-05629 Request for Revocation of Authority Granted, 14792-14793 2017-05631 Commercial Driver's License Standards; Exemption Applications: Daimler Trucks North America, 14791-14792 2017-05652 Hours of Service of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Truck Renting and Leasing Association, Inc., 14789-14790 2017-05632 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 14728-14729 2017-05567 2017-05683 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies, 14729 2017-05566 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Limitations on Claims Against Proposed Public Transportation Projects, 14794-14795 2017-05635 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered Species Permit Applications, 14741-14742 2017-05726 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration PROPOSED RULES Tobacco Product Standard for N-Nitrosonornicotine Level in Finished Smokeless Tobacco Products, 14647-14648 2017-05490 NOTICES Meetings: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Small Business and Industry Assistance Regulatory Education for Industry Generic Drugs Forum, 14734 2017-05602 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Interagency Generic Clearance for Federal Land Management Agencies Collaborative Visitor Feedback Surveys on Recreation and Transportation Related Programs and Systems, 14674-14675 2017-05653 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Contract Financing, 14729-14730 2017-05570 Grain Inspection Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration NOTICES Designations: Bloomington, IL Area, 14678-14679 2017-05619 Grand Forks, ND Area, 14676 2017-05618 Owensboro, KY Area, 14676-14677 2017-05616 Plainview, TX Area, 14679-14680 2017-05620 Sioux City, IA Area, 14677-14678 2017-05617 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 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14734-14735 2017-05627 Meetings: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee, 14735-14736 2017-05641
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Disabled Access Credit, 14802-14803 2017-05597 Disclosure of Returns and Return Information by Other Agencies, 14802 2017-05599 Extension of Amortization Period for Plan Sponsor of Multiemployer Pension Plan, 14803-14804 2017-05596 General Asset Accounts Under Accelerated Cost Recovery System., 14803 2017-05595 Late Filing of Certification or Notices, 14804-14805 2017-05598 LIFO Recapture Under Section 1363(d), 14804 2017-05593 Statistical Sampling in 274 Context, 14805 2017-05594 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Multilayered Wood Flooring From People's Republic of China, 14691-14692 2017-05666 Wooden Bedroom Furniture From People's Republic of China, 14692 2017-05667 Binational Panel Reviews: Completion of Panel Review, 14690 2017-05630 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Complaints: Certain Dental Ceramics, Products Thereof, and Methods of Making Same, 14748-14749 2017-05668 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Consumer Products Containing Same, 14748 2017-05494 Global Digital Trade I: Market Opportunities and Key Foreign Trade Restrictions; Correction, 14747 2017-05576 Justice Department Justice Department See

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Labor Department Labor Department See

Mine Safety and Health Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Coal Mine Operator Response to Schedule for Submission of Additional Evidence and Operator Response to Notice of Claim, 14751-14752 2017-05638 Unemployment Insurance Benefits Operations Self-Assessment Report of Responses, 14750-14751 2017-05637
Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Proposed Caldwell Canyon Mine and Reclamation Plan, Caribou County, ID, 14742-14744 2017-05679 Legal Legal Services Corporation NOTICES Funding Availability: Calendar Year 2018 Basic Field Grant Awards; Solicitation of Proposals, 14753-14754 2017-05633 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement, 14796-14797 2017-05655 Requests for Administrative Waivers of Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel CLOSE E NUFF, 14795-14796 2017-05661 Vessel FAST MOVING DIME, 14797 2017-05660 Vessel LAU LEA, 14795 2017-05659 Vessel LEI ALOHA, 14798 2017-05658 Vessel SLO GIN, 14796 2017-05657 Vessel TO LIFE, 14797-14798 2017-05656 Mine Mine Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Escape and Evacuation Plans, 14752-14753 2017-05636 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Contract Financing, 14729-14730 2017-05570 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration See

Office of Government Information Services

National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Determination of Mid-Term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards: Model Year 2022-2025 Light Duty Vehicles, 14671-14672 2017-05316 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 14736-14737 2017-05583 National Cancer Institute, 14736 2017-05584 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 14736-14737 2017-05585 2017-05586 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Snapper-Grouper Resources of South Atlantic; Commercial Trip Limit Reduction, 14641 2017-05634 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14693 2017-05693 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Fisheries of Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Scoping Meetings, 14694-14695 2017-05601 Meetings: Fisheries of South Atlantic South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 14693-14694 2017-05678 Fisheries of South Atlantic Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review; Assessment Webinars for Atlantic Blueline Tilefish, 14696 2017-05677 U. S. Integrated Ocean Observing System Advisory Committee:, 14695-14696 2017-05640 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14754-14755 2017-05563 Navy Navy Department RULES International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea; Certifications and Exemptions, 14606-14607 2017-05159 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Uranerz Energy Corp. Jane Dough Unit, 14759-14760 2017-05691 Exemptions and Combined License Amendments: South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3; Fire Pump Head and Diesel Fuel Day Tank Changes, 14764-14766 2017-05687 Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 Design Reliability Assurance Program Changes, 14766-14767 2017-05685 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3; South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. Annex and Radwaste Building Changes, 14757-14759 2017-05686 Vogtle Electric Generating Station, Units 3 and 4 Southern Nuclear Operating Company IDS Fuse Isolation Panel Additions, 14755-14756 2017-05684 Facility Operating Licenses: DTE Electric Co.; Fermi, Unit 2; Withdrawal, 14764 2017-05714 License Applications; Amendments: Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, 14760-14764 2017-05690 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 14756-14757 2017-05756 OGIS Office of Government Information Services NOTICES Meetings: Freedom of Information Act Advisory Committee, 14754 2017-05613 Patent Patent and Trademark Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Native American Tribal Insignia Database, 14698-14699 2017-05575 Trademark and Trial Appeal Board Actions, 14696-14698 2017-05574 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 14767-14768 2017-05695 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement, 14768 2017-05582 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement, 14768 2017-05590 Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 14768 2017-05581 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: National Poison Prevention Week (Proc 9578), 14807-14810 2017-05859 Rural Business Rural Business-Cooperative Service NOTICES Requests for Applications: Rural Cooperative Development Grants, 14680-14688 2017-05600 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14774-14775 2017-05712 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 14768-14774 2017-05608 Investors Exchange, LLC, 14779 2017-05604 National Securities Clearing Corp., 14781-14785 2017-05606 NYSE Arca, Inc., 14775-14779 2017-05605 2017-05609 NYSE MKT, LLC, 14779-14781 2017-05607 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Abstract Expressionism Behind the Iron Curtain Exhibition, 14785-14786 2017-05650 State Justice State Justice Institute NOTICES Meetings: Board of Directors, 14786 2017-05615 Surface Mining Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: San Juan Mine Deep Lease Extension Mining Plan Modification, 14745-14747 2017-05645 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Acquisition of Control of Assets: Cavallo Bus Lines, LLC; White Knight Limousine, Inc., 14787-14788 2017-05603 Acquisitions and Operation Exemptions 2nd and Main, LLC; Norland North Chicago, LLC, 14787 2017-05716 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Waybill Sample, 14786-14787 2017-05713 Meetings: Rail Energy Transportation Advisory Committee, 14786 2017-05725 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Transportation Statistics Bureau

RULES Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections III: Extension of Compliance Date for Provision Concerning Baggage Handling Statistics Report, 14604-14606 2017-05113 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Annual Tank Car Survey, 14799-14800 2017-05644
Transportation Statistics Transportation Statistics Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Report of Traffic and Capacity Statistics: T-100 System, 14800-14801 2017-05643 Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

See

United States Mint

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Final Determinations of Country of Origin: Certain Gearmotors, 14737-14740 2017-05647 U.S. Mint United States Mint NOTICES Meetings: Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee, 14805-14806 2017-05512 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Genomic Medicine Program Advisory Committee, 14806 2017-05664 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Presidential Documents, 14807-14810 2017-05859 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 54 Wednesday, March 22, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-0457; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-084-AD; Amendment 39-18751; AD 2016-25-25] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY:

The FAA is correcting an airworthiness directive (AD) that published in the Federal Register. That AD applies to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model 4101 airplanes. As published, the Product Identification line of the regulatory text contains an error. This document corrects that error. In all other respects, the original document remains the same.

DATES:

This correction is effective March 22, 2017.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of February 7, 2017 (82 FR 7, January 3, 2017).

ADDRESSES:

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1175; fax 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-25-25, Amendment 39-18751 (82 FR 7, January 3, 2017) (“AD 2016-25-25”), currently requires repetitive detailed inspections for cracks, corrosion, and other defects of the rear face of the wing rear spar, and repair if necessary, for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model 4101 airplanes.

As published, the Product Identification line of the regulatory text contains an error. The Product Identification line incorrectly identifies Bombardier as the product manufacturer, but should have identified BAE Systems (Operations) Limited. All other references to the product manufacturer appear correctly as BAE Systems (Operations) Limited throughout the preamble and regulatory text of AD 2016-25-25.

No other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been changed; therefore, only the changed portion of the final rule is being published in the Federal Register.

The effective date of this AD remains February 7, 2017.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Correction

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

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

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

§ 39.13 [Corrected]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-17079 (77 FR 36127, June 18, 2012), and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-25-25 BAE Systems (Operations) Limited: Amendment 39-18751; Docket No. FAA-2016-0457; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-084-AD. (a) Effective Date

This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective February 7, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD replaces AD 2012-11-15, Amendment 39-17079 (77 FR 36127, June 18, 2012) (“AD 2012-11-15”).

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model 4101 airplanes, certificated in any category, all models and all serial numbers.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by new reports of cracking found in the wing rear spar and technical analysis results, which confirmed that the crack initiation and propagation are due to fatigue, with no indication of any other crack initiation mechanism (e.g., stress corrosion). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the wing rear spar, which could propagate to a critical length, possibly affecting the structural integrity of the area and resulting in a fuel tank rupture, with consequent damage to the airplane and possible injury to its occupants.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections and Repair

Within 30 days after February 7, 2017 (the effective date of this AD), or within 1,600 flight cycles since the most recent detailed inspection was done as specified in BAE Systems Alert Service Bulletin J41-A57-029, whichever occurs later: Do a detailed inspection for cracks, corrosion, and other defects (defects include scratches, dents, holes, damage to fastener holes, or damage to surface protection and finish) of the rear face of the wing rear spars, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems Alert Service Bulletin J41-A57-029, Revision 3, dated April 8, 2014. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,600 flight cycles.

(1) If any cracking, corrosion, or other defect is found within the criteria defined in Chapter 57, Wings, of the Jetstream Series 4100 Structural Repair Manual (SRM), Volume 1, Publication Ref. No. (Transmittal No.) SA 4-4100/SRM/400, Revision 32, dated October 15, 2014 (“Chapter 57 of the SRM”): Before further flight, repair the affected area, in accordance with the repair instructions of Chapter 57 of the SRM.

(2) If any cracking, corrosion, or other defect is found exceeding the criteria defined in Chapter 57 of the SRM: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or BAE Systems (Operations) Limited's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

(h) Repair Does Not Constitute Terminating Action Except for Certain Repairs

Accomplishment of a repair, as required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD, unless the approved repair required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD states otherwise (e.g., the approved repair states the repair terminates the inspections for the repaired area only).

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1175; fax 425-227-1149.

Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of February 7, 2017 (the effective date of this AD), for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or BAE Systems (Operations) Limited's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0100, dated June 3, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-0457.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) BAE Systems Alert Service Bulletin J41-A57-029, Revision 3, dated April 8, 2014.

(ii) Chapter 57, Wings, of the BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Jetstream Series 4100 Structural Repair Manual, Volume 1, Publication Ref. No. (Transmittal No.) SA 4-4100/SRM/400, Revision 32, dated October 15, 2014.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/index.htm.

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

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 23, 2017. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-05163 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9302; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-037-AD; Amendment 39-18826; AD 2017-06-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce TAY 650-15 engines. This AD was prompted by reports of uncontained engine fan blade failures in Rolls-Royce TAY 650-15 engines. This AD requires installation of a caution placard in the flight compartment. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective April 26, 2017.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 26, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone: +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax: +31 (0)88-6280-111; email: [email protected]; Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9302.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9302; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce TAY 650-15 engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 1, 2016 (81 FR 75759) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of uncontained engine fan blade failures in Rolls-Royce TAY 650-15 engines. The fan blade failures occurred due to cracking of the fan blades, which was initiated under conditions of fan blade flutter during engine ground operation. The NPRM proposed to require installation of a caution placard in the flight compartment. We are issuing this AD to prevent certain engine thrust settings during ground operation, which can cause the fan blades to flutter and fail, resulting in damage to the airplane and possible injury to personnel.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive Airworthiness Directive 2013-0141, dated July 12, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce TAY 650-15 engines. The MCAI states:

In the past, two F28 [Mark] 0100 aeroplanes with TAY [650-15] engines were involved in incidents as a result of uncontained engine fan blade failures. The fan blade failures occurred due to cracking of the fan blades, which was initiated under conditions of fan blade flutter. This fan blade flutter can occur during stabilized reverse thrust operation within a specific N1 RPM-range [revolutions per minute], known as Keep Out Zone (KOZ), which has been identified to be between 57% and 75% N1 RPM.

To address this potential unsafe condition [which can result in damage to the airplane and possible injury to personnel], [Civil Aviation Authority—The Netherlands] CAA-NL issued [Dutch] AD (BLA) nr. 2002-119 for the aeroplane, while Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA) Germany issued [German] AD (LTA) 2002-090 (later revised) for the Rolls-Royce Tay [650-15] engines. More recently, LBA [German] AD 2002-090R1 was superseded by EASA AD 2013-0070.

During stabilized forward thrust operation of an engine with the aeroplane stationary on the ground (e.g. maintenance engine ground running), the same type of fan blade flutter can occur. To ensure maintenance personnel awareness of the engine speed KOZ when performing engine ground running (in forward or reverse thrust), a caution placard must be introduced in the flight compartment.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the installation of a caution placard in the flight compartment, between the Standby Engine Indicator (SEI) and the Multi-Functional Display Unit (MFDU).

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9302.

Comments

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-11-027, dated April 18, 2013. This service information describes procedures for the installation of a caution placard. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Installation of placard 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $46 $131 $524
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-06-02 Fokker Services B.V.: Amendment 39-18826; Docket No. FAA-2016-9302; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-037-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 26, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers if equipped with Rolls-Royce TAY 650-15 engines.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 11, Placards and Markings.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of uncontained engine fan blade failures in Rolls-Royce TAY 650-15 engines. We are issuing this AD to prevent certain engine thrust settings during ground operation, which can cause the fan blades to flutter and fail, resulting in damage to the airplane and possible injury to personnel.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Installation of Caution Placard

    Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, install a caution placard in the flight compartment, between the standby engine indicator (SEI) and the multi-functional display unit (MFDU), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-11-027, dated April 18, 2013.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD:

    Additional information can be found in Fokker All Operators Message AOF100.177 #05, dated April 18, 2013.

    (h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Fokker Services B.V.'s EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2013-0141, dated July 12, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9302.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.

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

    (j) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-11-027, dated April 18, 2013.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone: +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax: +31 (0)88-6280-111; email: [email protected]; Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 7, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05161 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary 14 CFR Part 234 [Docket No. DOT-OST-2014-0056] RIN 2105-AE66 Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections III: Extension of Compliance Date for Provision Concerning Baggage Handling Statistics Report AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Transportation is amending its regulations by extending the compliance date from January 1, 2018, to January 1, 2019, for the provision concerning reporting of baggage handling statistics in the Department's final rule on enhancing airline passenger protections. This extension is necessary to ensure consistency with the change of compliance date for the Department's final rule on reporting of data for mishandled baggage and wheelchairs.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective March 22, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Blane A. Workie, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC, 20590, 202-366-9342, 202-366-7152 (fax), [email protected] (email).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On November 3, 2016, the Department of Transportation published a final rule in the Federal Register (81 FR 76800), titled “Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections III” (RIN 2105-AE11). This rule, among other things, expands the pool of carriers that must report airline service and performance data from any carrier that accounts for at least 1% of domestic scheduled passenger revenue to any carrier that accounts for at least 0.5% of domestic scheduled passenger revenue. It also requires reporting carriers to separately report airline service and performance data for their domestic scheduled flights operated by their code-share partners. This means that, under the November 2016 final rule, for air transportation taking place on or after January 1, 2018, airlines that account for at least 0.5% of domestic scheduled passenger revenue must provide airline service and performance data for flights they operate and separately for flights held out with their designator code and operated by their code-share partners. The airline service and performance data that is required consists of on-time performance, mishandled baggage and oversales data.

    On March 2, 2017, the Department issued a rule extending the compliance date of its final rule on reporting of data for mishandled baggage and wheelchairs in aircraft cargo compartments to January 1, 2019. That final rule addressed the methodology for collection of mishandled baggage information and required separate statistics for mishandled wheelchairs and scooters used by passengers with disabilities. The change to the matrix on how to report mishandled baggage and to provide separate reporting of mishandled wheelchairs and scooters was incorporated into the Department's Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections III final rule. As such, this document is extending the compliance date to January 1, 2019 for the provision concerning baggage handling statistics in the Department's final rule on enhancing airline passenger protections. The compliance date for the requirements pertaining to on-time performance and oversales remain unchanged.

    As is the case today, until January 1, 2019, airlines that account for at least 1% of domestic scheduled passenger revenue will continue to provide mishandled baggage data only for flights they operate based on the number of Mishandled Baggage Reports and the number of domestic passenger enplanement. Airlines that account for at least 0.5% but less than 1% of the domestic scheduled passenger revenue are not required to provide mishandled baggage data until February 15, 2019 for air transportation taking place on or after January 1, 2019. Separate statistics for mishandled wheelchairs and scooters used by passengers with disabilities and transported in aircraft cargo compartment are not required until January 1, 2019.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 234

    Air carriers, Mishandled baggage, On-time statistics, Reporting, Uniform system of accounts.

    Issued this 9th day of March 2017, in Washington, DC under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.27(n): Judith S. Kaleta, Deputy General Counsel.

    Accordingly, the Department of Transportation amends 14 CFR part 234 as follows:

    PART 234—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 234 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 329, 41101, and 41701.

    2. Section 234.6 is revised to read as follows:
    § 234.6 Baggage-handling statistics.

    (a) For air transportation taking place before January 1, 2019, an air carrier certificated under 49 U.S.C. 41102 that accounts for at least 1 percent of domestic scheduled-passenger revenues in the most recently reported 12-month period as defined by the Department's Office of Airline Information, and as reported to the Department pursuant to part 241 of this title shall, for the flights it operates, report monthly to the Department on a domestic system basis, excluding charter flights, the total number of passengers enplaned system-wide and the total number of mishandled-baggage reports filed with the carrier for any nonstop flight, including a mechanically delayed flight, to or from any airport within the contiguous 48 states that accounts for at least 1 percent of domestic scheduled-passenger enplanements in the previous calendar year, as reported to the Department pursuant to part 241 of this title.

    (b) For air transportation taking place on or after January 1, 2019, an air carrier certificated under 49 U.S.C. 41102 that accounts for at least 0.5 percent of domestic scheduled-passenger revenues in the most recently reported 12-month period as defined by the Department's Office of Airline Information, and as reported to the Department pursuant to part 241 of this title shall report monthly to the Department on a domestic system basis, excluding charter flights:

    (1) The total number of checked bags enplaned, including gate checked baggage, “valet bags,” interlined bags, and wheelchairs and scooters enplaned in the aircraft cargo compartment for any domestic nonstop scheduled passenger flight, including a mechanically delayed flight, operated by the carrier to or from any U.S. large, medium, small or non-hub airport as defined in 49 U.S.C. 41702 and separately for any domestic nonstop scheduled passenger flight, including a mechanically delayed flight, held out with only the carrier's designator code to or from any U.S. large, medium, small, or non-hub airport as defined in 49 U.S.C. 47102 and operated by any code-share partner that is a certificated air carrier or commuter air carrier;

    (2) The total number of wheelchairs and scooters that were enplaned in the aircraft cargo compartment for any domestic nonstop scheduled passenger flight, including a mechanically delayed flight, operated by the carrier to or from any U.S. large, medium, small or non-hub airport as defined in 49 U.S.C. 41702 and separately for any domestic nonstop scheduled passenger flight, including a mechanically delayed flight, held out with only the carrier's designator code to or from any U.S. large, medium, small, or non-hub airport as defined in 49 U.S.C. 47102 and operated by any code-share partner that is a certificated air carrier or commuter air carrier;

    (3) The number of mishandled checked bags, including gate-checked baggage, “valet bags,” interlined bags and wheelchairs and scooters that were enplaned in the aircraft cargo compartment for any domestic nonstop scheduled passenger flight, including a mechanically delayed flight, operated by the carrier to or from any U.S. large, medium, small or non-hub airport as defined in 49 U.S.C. 41702 and separately for any domestic nonstop scheduled passenger flight, including a mechanically delayed flight, held out with only the carrier's designator code to or from any U.S. large, medium, small, or non-hub airport as defined in 49 U.S.C. 47102 and operated by any code-share partner that is a certificated air carrier or commuter air carrier; and

    (4) The number of mishandled wheelchairs and scooters that were enplaned in the aircraft cargo compartment for any domestic nonstop scheduled passenger flight, including a mechanically delayed flight, operated by the carrier to or from any U.S. large, medium, small or non-hub airport as defined in 49 U.S.C. 41702 and separately for any domestic nonstop scheduled passenger flight, including a mechanically delayed flight, held out with only the carrier's designator code to or from any U.S. large, medium, small, or non-hub airport as defined in 49 U.S.C. 47102 and operated by any code-share partner that is a certificated air carrier or commuter air carrier.

    (c) The information in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall be submitted to the Department within 15 days after the end of the month to which the information applies and must be submitted with the transmittal accompanying the data for on-time performance in the form and manner set forth in accounting and reporting directives issued by the Director, Office of Airline Information.

    [FR Doc. 2017-05113 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-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 PORTLAND (LPD 27) 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 March 22, 2017 and is applicable beginning March 2, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Commander Theron R. Korsak, (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 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 PORTLAND (LPD 27) 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(i)(i), Rule 27(a)(i) and (b)(i), pertaining to the placement of all-round task lights in a vertical line; Annex I, paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the horizontal distance between the forward and after masthead lights; and Annex I, paragraph 2(k) as described in Rule 30(a)(i), pertaining to the vertical separation between anchor 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), 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: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1605.

    2. Section 706.2 is amended by: a. In Table Three, adding, in alpha numerical order, by vessel number, an entry for USS PORTLAND (LPD 27); b. In Table Four, paragraph 20., adding, in alpha numerical order, by vessel number, an entry for USS PORTLAND (LPD 27); and c. In Table Five, by adding, in alpha numerical order, by vessel number, an entry for USS PORTLAND (LPD 27).

    The additions read as follows:

    § 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605. Table Three Vessel No. Masthead
  • lights arc of
  • visibility;
  • rule 21(a)
  • Side lights
  • arc of
  • visibility;
  • rule 21(b)
  • Stern light
  • arc of
  • visibility;
  • rule 21(c)
  • Side lights
  • distance
  • inboard of
  • ship's sides
  • in meters 3(b)
  • annex 1
  • Stern light,
  • distance
  • forward
  • of stern
  • in meters;
  • rule 21(c)
  • Forward
  • anchor light,
  • height above
  • hull in
  • meters; 2(K)
  • annex 1
  • Anchor lights
  • relationship
  • of aft
  • light to
  • forward
  • light in
  • meters
  • 2(K) annex 1
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * USS PORTLAND LPD 27 1.55 below. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Table Four

    20. * * *

    Vessel Number Angle in
  • degrees of
  • task lights
  • off the
  • vertical as
  • viewed from
  • directly ahead
  • or astern
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * USS PORTLAND LPD 27 10 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Table Five Vessel Number Masthead
  • lights 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 PORTLAND LPD 27 X 71 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Approved: March 2, 2017. A.S. Janin, Captain, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate, General (Admiralty and Maritime Law). Dated: March 8, 2017. A.M. Nichols, Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05159 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0137] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Shark River, Avon, NJ AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the NJ Transit Railroad Bridge across Shark River (South Channel), mile 0.9, at Avon, NJ. This deviation is necessary to facilitate testing and replacement of the drive motor. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 10 p.m. on March 24, 2017, through 6 a.m. on March 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2017-0137] 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. Martin Bridges, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6422, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The New Jersey Transit, who owns and operates the NJ Transit Railroad Bridge across the Shark River, mile 0.9, at Avon, NJ, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulation set out in 33 CFR 117.751, to facilitate replacement of the drive motor on the vertical span of the bridge.

    Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 10 p.m., March 24, 2017, to 6 a.m., March 25, 2017. The drawbridge is a single span which has a vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position of 9 feet above mean high water.

    The NJ Transit Railroad Bridge is used by recreational vessels, tug and barge traffic, fishing vessels, and small commercial vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic on the waterway in publishing this temporary deviation.

    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge span will not be able to open in case of an emergency and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. 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 that 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: March 6, 2017. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05648 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0727; FRL-9960-32-Region 9] Limited Federal Implementation Plan; Prevention of Significant Deterioration Requirements for Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5); California; North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing a limited Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) to apply to the North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District (North Coast Unified AQMD or District) in California. This limited FIP will implement provisions to regulate fine particulate matter (PM2.5) under the CAA Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program within the District. The EPA previously issued two findings of failure to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing these PSD requirements and also issued a partial disapproval action applicable to the North Coast Unified AQMD portion of the California SIP that triggered the duty under CAA section 110(c)(1) for the EPA to promulgate this limited FIP. Under this final rule, the EPA will be the CAA PSD permitting authority for any new or modified major sources subject to PSD review for PM2.5 or its precursors within the District.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on April 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0727 for this action. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index for this rulemaking. 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 hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 during normal business hours. For security purposes, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section during normal business hours to view a hard copy of the docket.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Laura Yannayon, (415) 972-3534 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    On December 22, 2016 (81 FR 93872), the EPA proposed a limited FIP for the North Coast Unified AQMD in California, which would apply the EPA's PSD regulatory program under 40 CFR 52.21 specifically to sources in the District subject to PSD review for emissions of PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors. CAA section 110(c)(1) requires the EPA Administrator to promulgate a FIP at any time within two years after the Administrator either finds that a state has failed to make a required SIP submission or disapproves a state's SIP in whole or in part, unless the state submits and the EPA approves a SIP that corrects the deficiency before the Administrator promulgates the FIP. In this case, as discussed in the EPA's proposal for this limited FIP action, the EPA is required to promulgate this FIP for sources subject to PSD review for emissions of PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors in the North Coast Unified AQMD in order to address SIP deficiencies relating to the PSD requirements for such sources that EPA identified in earlier actions; California has not submitted revised rules that resolve these deficiencies and thus we have not approved a SIP submittal for the North Coast Unified AQMD to correct these deficiencies.

    The requirement that the EPA promulgate this limited FIP for the North Coast Unified AQMD stems from several actions taken previously by the EPA in accordance with CAA requirements. In 2008, the EPA promulgated a rulemaking finalizing regulations to implement the New Source Review program for PM2.5 (PM2.5 NSR Rule).1 The PM2.5 NSR Rule required, among other things, that states develop SIPs addressing the PSD permitting requirements for the regulation of major stationary sources and major modifications of PM2.5 emissions, including such sources emitting precursors of PM2.5. In 2010, the EPA promulgated a rulemaking amending the PSD program regulations for PM2.5 to add provisions governing the maximum allowable increases in ambient pollutant concentrations (increments), with which new major stationary sources and major modifications of PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursor emissions must demonstrate compliance as a condition of obtaining a PSD permit (PM2.5 Increments Rule).2 The PM2.5 Increments Rule requires states to submit SIPs modifying their PSD permitting regulations to incorporate the PM2.5 increment provisions.

    1 Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.), 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008).

    2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentrations (SMC), 75 FR 64864 (Oct. 20, 2010). The PM2.5 Increments Rule also promulgated several optional revisions to the PSD permitting program which are not addressed in this notice.

    On January 15, 2013, the EPA issued a finding of failure to submit for the State of California in which it found that California had failed to make an infrastructure 3 SIP submittal providing certain required basic program elements of CAA section 110(a)(2) that are necessary to implement the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).4 Relevant here, the EPA found that California had not submitted a SIP to address the PSD permitting requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) for areas including the North Coast Unified AQMD. That finding resulted in a deadline of February 14, 2015, for the EPA to promulgate a FIP pursuant to CAA section 110(c)(1) to address the outstanding SIP elements unless, prior to that time, the State submitted, and the EPA approved, a SIP that corrected the identified deficiencies.5

    3 We refer to such SIP revision submittals as “infrastructure” SIPs because they are intended to address the basic structural SIP requirements for new or revised NAAQS.

    4 78 FR 2882, 2889.

    5 See 78 FR at 2886.

    On April 1, 2016, the EPA published a final rule partially approving and partially disapproving several CAA infrastructure SIP revisions submitted by the State of California related to the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the NAAQS for ozone, PM2.5, lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2).6 We partially disapproved a portion of these infrastructure SIP submittals as they pertained to the North Coast Unified AQMD with respect to the PSD-related requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) for all of these NAAQS, in part because we found that the District's SIP-approved PSD program did not include requirements for the regulation of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, or PSD increments for PM2.5.7 This infrastructure SIP partial disapproval action also triggered a duty for the EPA to promulgate a FIP pursuant to CAA section 110(c)(1) to address the identified deficiencies related to the District's PSD program for PM2.5, unless, prior to that time, the State submitted, and the EPA approved, a SIP that corrected the identified deficiencies.8 The State has not submitted a SIP revision that would correct the North Coast Unified AQMD's SIP deficiencies relating to the PSD program for PM2.5 and therefore EPA has not approved such a SIP revision. Thus, for these PM2.5 PSD requirements, the EPA remains subject to the duty to promulgate a FIP for the District that was triggered by our January 15, 2013 finding of failure to submit and our April 1, 2016 partial disapproval action for the infrastructure SIP requirements for the NAAQS discussed above.

    6 81 FR 18766.

    7 The EPA's April 1, 2016 partial disapproval action for infrastructure SIP requirements in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) for the North Coast Unified AQMD was also based on the EPA's finding that the District's SIP-approved PSD program did not regulate oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as an ozone precursor. 81 FR at 18773. However, we noted in that action that the EPA had already promulgated a limited FIP on August 8, 2011 to remedy that SIP deficiency, and thus our 2016 partial disapproval action did not trigger a new PSD FIP obligation related to NOX as an ozone precursor. See 81 FR at 18773, 18775; see also 76 FR 48006 (Aug. 8, 2011).

    8 See 81 FR at 18775-18776.

    On September 2, 2014, the EPA published a final rule finding that the North Coast Unified AQMD had failed to make a complete submittal to address new requirements for PM2.5 increments in its PSD program as required by implementing regulations that the EPA promulgated on October 20, 2010.9 That finding resulted in a duty and a deadline of October 2, 2016 for the EPA to promulgate a FIP pursuant to CAA section 110(c)(1) to address these outstanding SIP elements unless, prior to that time, the State submitted, and the EPA approved, a SIP that corrected the identified deficiencies. As noted above, the EPA has not approved a SIP revision for California that would address the requirements for PM2.5 increments in the PSD program for the North Coast Unified AQMD, thus the EPA remains subject to the requirement that it promulgate a FIP to do so.

    9 79 FR 51913.

    In sum, the EPA has not approved a PSD SIP revision for California that would address the District's PM2.5 PSD program SIP deficiencies identified in the January 15, 2013, September 2, 2014, and April 1, 2016 EPA actions discussed above. Accordingly, as authorized by CAA section 110(c)(1), the EPA proposed to promulgate a limited FIP for the North Coast Unified AQMD in order to address the identified deficiencies in the State's PSD program with respect to the regulation of major stationary sources and major modifications of sources subject to PSD review for emissions of PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors.

    II. Public Comments

    The EPA's proposed FIP action provided a 30-day public comment period, which closed on January 23, 2017. The EPA also preliminarily scheduled a public hearing for January 13, 2017 to receive written and oral comments on our proposed action, which we stated would be held only if we received a written request for such a hearing by December 29, 2016. No one requested such a hearing during this period and therefore the hearing was canceled. During the public comment period, we received no comments on our proposed action.

    III. EPA Action

    Under CAA section 110(c)(1) and for the reasons discussed in our December 22, 2016 proposed rule and in the Proposed Action section of this notice, we are finalizing the limited PSD FIP for the North Coast Unified AQMD as proposed. CAA section 110(c)(1) requires the Administrator to promulgate a FIP at any time within two years after the Administrator either finds that a state has failed to make a required submission or disapproves a state's SIP in whole or in part, unless the state submits and the EPA approves a SIP that corrects the deficiency before the Administrator promulgates a FIP. As indicated earlier in this notice, the EPA has not approved a PSD SIP revision for California to regulate PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in the North Coast Unified AQMD that would address the District's PM2.5 PSD program deficiencies identified in the January 15, 2013, September 2, 2014, and April 1, 2016 EPA actions discussed above. Accordingly, as authorized by CAA section 110(c)(1), the EPA is promulgating a limited FIP for the North Coast Unified AQMD in order to address the identified deficiencies in the State's PSD program with respect to the regulation of major stationary sources and major modifications of sources subject to PSD review for emissions of PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors.

    This limited FIP consists of the EPA regulations found in 40 CFR 52.21, including the PSD applicability provisions, with a limitation to assure that, strictly for purposes of this rulemaking, the FIP applies only to the regulation of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. Accordingly, for the purposes of ensuring compliance with the PSD permitting requirements with respect to PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors for sources within the North Coast Unified AQMD, the EPA will serve as the PSD permitting authority.

    The EPA has previously promulgated limited CAA PSD FIPs for the North Coast Unified AQMD to implement the federal PSD permitting program under 40 CFR 52.21 for certain other sources and pollutants, including the PSD program as it regulates oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as an ozone precursor, as discussed above; these limited FIPs remain in effect. See 40 CFR 52.270(b)(2). The EPA and the District have entered into partial delegation agreements pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21(u), dated January 8, 1993 and October 6, 2015, whereby the EPA has delegated authority to the District to conduct PSD review for certain sources subject to these limited PSD FIPs. The District may similarly seek a partial delegation of authority from the EPA, pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21(u), to conduct PSD review for the sources regulated under this limited PSD FIP. For all other major emitting facilities and pollutants not covered by the limited PSD FIPs applicable to the District as specified in 40 CFR 52.270(b)(2), the North Coast Unified AQMD will continue to serve as the PSD permitting authority under its SIP-approved PSD program.

    This limited FIP is narrow in scope, in that it will only address the PM2.5 PSD deficiencies for the District that were identified in our 2016 infrastructure SIP partial disapproval action. We note that such deficiencies include the deficiencies for PSD requirements for PM2.5 increments that were also the focus of the EPA's September 2, 2014 finding of failure to submit action. Today's final limited FIP action will satisfy the remaining FIP requirements for the North Coast Unified AQMD that were triggered by our January 15, 2013 finding of failure to submit relating to ozone infrastructure SIP requirements; our September 2, 2014 finding of failure to submit related to the District's PSD requirements for PM2.5 increments; and our April 1, 2016 partial disapproval action for the infrastructure SIP requirements for the NAAQS for ozone, PM2.5, lead, NO2, and SO2. This limited FIP will be codified in 40 CFR 52.270(b)(2)(v).

    This limited FIP will remain in place until California submits a SIP revision addressing the identified deficiencies relating to the District's PSD program for PM2.5 and we approve that SIP revision. The EPA is working with the North Coast Unified AQMD to develop District rules that would address these requirements.

    IV. 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 therefore was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. The OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations for PSD (e.g., 40 CFR 52.21) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0003. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are a single biomass generating facility, which is currently not operating. The Agency has determined that this single facility may experience an impact associated with the requirements of this action, but only in the event that the facility elects to significantly expand its operations. The EPA is not aware of any specific new sources that would be subject to regulation under this action in the future. We expect a negligible financial impact on any facilities subject to the requirements of this action because any such facility would be subject to substantially similar, and in some respects more stringent, regulatory requirements that are already in effect under state and federal law.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    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. While the EPA's action will lead to the application of federal PSD regulations for PM2.5 to sources within the North Coast Unified AQMD, general PSD requirements for major emitting facilities with emissions of other regulated NSR pollutants already apply within the District, and thus the incremental impact associated with application of the specific requirements of the PSD regulations for certain sources emitting PM2.5 or its precursors is expected to be relatively minor. In addition, there are few major emitting facilities currently located in the District that would be subject to the requirements of the FIP. The EPA is not aware of any specific new sources that would be subject to regulation under our narrow FIP in the future. Accordingly, the EPA has determined that this action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and that it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. The FIP is not applicable on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because, as a limited FIP establishing PSD regulatory requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS for certain sources located in the North Coast Unified AQMD, it implements a previously promulgated federal standard.

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

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

    J. 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). This action does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. With this action, the EPA is only implementing the PSD permitting requirements mandated by the CAA in order to ensure compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS and PM2.5 increments, which were promulgated in separate, prior rulemaking actions.

    K. Congressional Review Act

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

    L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 22, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section CAA 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 14, 2017. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator.

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

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart F—California 2. Section 52.270 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(2)(v) to read as follows:
    § 52.270 Significant deterioration of air quality.

    (b) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (v) Those projects that are major stationary sources or major modifications for emissions of PM2.5 or its precursors under § 52.21, and those projects that are major stationary sources under § 52.21 with the potential to emit PM2.5 or its precursors at a rate that would meet or exceed the rates specified at § 52.21(b)(23)(i).

    [FR Doc. 2017-05557 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0248; FRL-9957-89-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Atlanta; Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve the portion of a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted on February 6, 2015, by the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD), addressing the nonattainment new source review (NNSR) requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the Atlanta, Georgia 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the “Atlanta Area” or “Area”). The Atlanta Area is comprised of 15 counties in Atlanta (Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Newton, Paulding, and Rockdale). This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and its implementing regulations.

    DATES:

    This direct final rule is effective May 22, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by April 21, 2017. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0248 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, 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:

    Kelly Sheckler of the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mrs. Sheckler can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9222 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 parts per million (ppm). See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 50.15, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm. Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness requirement. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness as determined in appendix I of part 50.

    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS based on the three most recent years of ambient air quality data at the conclusion of the designation process. The Atlanta Area was designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2012 (effective July 20, 2012) using 2009-2011 ambient air quality data. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). At the time of designation, the Atlanta Area was classified as a marginal nonattainment area. On March 6, 2015, EPA issued a final rule entitled, “Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements” (SIP Requirements Rule), which establishes the requirements that state, tribal, and local air quality management agencies must meet as they develop implementation plans for areas where air quality exceeds the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.1 See 80 FR 12264. Areas that were designated as marginal ozone nonattainment areas were required to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS no later than July 20, 2015, based on 2012-2014 monitoring data. See 40 CFR 51.1103. The Atlanta Area did not attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by July 20, 2015, and therefore on April 11, 2016, the EPA Administrator signed a final rule reclassifying the Atlanta Area from a marginal nonattainment area to a moderate nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. See 81 FR 26697 (May 4, 2016). Moderate areas are required to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS no later than July 20, 2018, six years after the effective date of the initial nonattainment designations.2 See 40 CFR 51.1103.

    1 The SIP Requirements Rule addresses a range of nonattainment area SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including requirements pertaining to attainment demonstrations, reasonable further progress (RFP), reasonably available control technology, reasonably available control measures, major new source review, emission inventories, and the timing of SIP submissions and of compliance with emission control measures in the SIP. The rule also revokes the 1997 ozone NAAQS and establishes anti-backsliding requirements.

    2 Subsequent to the reclassification of the Atlanta Area, EPA determined that the Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on 2013-2015 monitoring data. See 81 FR 45419 (July 14, 2016). However, an attainment determination is not equivalent to a redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3). The Area will remain nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and subject to the NNSR requirements for that NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that the Area meets the requirements for redesignation to attainment.

    Based on the initial nonattainment designation for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, Georgia was required to develop a SIP revision addressing certain CAA requirements for the Atlanta Area. On February 6, 2015, Georgia submitted a SIP revision addressing the emissions inventory, emissions statements, and NNSR requirements related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Atlanta Area.3 On August 11, 2015, EPA approved Georgia's SIP revision as meeting the requirements of sections 110, 182(a)(1), and 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA by addressing the emissions inventory and emissions statements requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Atlanta Area. See 80 FR 48036. EPA is now taking action on the NNSR portion of Georgia's February 6, 2015, SIP revision. EPA's analysis of how this SIP revision addresses the NNSR requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is provided below.

    3 States have three years after the effective date of designation for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS to submit SIP revisions addressing NNSR for their nonattainment areas. See 40 CFR 51.1114. Georgia's SIP revision also certified that its SIP-approved state regulation addressing nonattainment new source review for all new stationary sources and modified existing stationary sources in the Atlanta Area, 391-3-1-.03(8)—Permit Requirements, exceeds the requirements of section 182(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. However, EPA does not believe that the two-year deadline contained in CAA section 182(a)(2)(C) applies to NNSR SIP revisions for implementing the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 12264, 12267 (March 6, 2015); 70 FR 71612, 71683 (November 29, 2005). The submission of NNSR SIPs due on November 15, 1992, satisfied the requirement for states to submit NNSR SIP revisions to meet the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173 within two years after the date of enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments. Id.

    II. Analysis of Georgia's Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements

    The minimum SIP requirements for NNSR permitting programs for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS are located in 40 CFR 51.165. See 40 CFR 51.1114. These NNSR program requirements include those promulgated in the “Phase 2 Rule” implementing the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (75 FR 71018 (November 29, 2005)) and the SIP Requirements Rule implementing the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Under the Phase 2 Rule, the SIP for each ozone nonattainment area must contain NNSR provisions that: Set major source thresholds for NOX and VOC pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1)(i)-(iv) and (2); classify physical changes as a major source if the change would constitute a major source by itself pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(3); consider any significant net emissions increase of NOX as a significant net emissions increase for ozone pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(E); consider certain increases of VOC emissions in extreme ozone nonattainment areas as a significant net emissions increase and a major modification for ozone pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(F); set significant emissions rates for VOC and NOX as ozone precursors pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A)-(C) and (E); contain provisions for emissions reductions credits pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)-(2); provide that the requirements applicable to VOC also apply to NOX pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(8); and set offset ratios for VOC and NOX pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(9)(i)-(iii) (renumbered as (a)(9)(ii)-(iv) under the SIP Requirements Rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS). Under the SIP Requirements Rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the SIP for each ozone nonattainment area designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and designated nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS on April 6, 2015, must also contain NNSR provisions that include the anti-backsliding requirements at 40 CFR 51.1105. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(12).

    Georgia's longstanding SIP-approved NNSR program, established in Air Quality Control Rule 391-3-1-.03(8)—Permit Requirements, applies to the construction and modification of major stationary sources in nonattainment areas. In its February 6, 2015 SIP revision, Georgia certifies that the version of Air Quality Control Rule 391-3-1-.03(8) in the SIP exceeds the federal NNSR requirements for the Atlanta Area. EPA last approved revisions to the SIP-approved version of Georgia's NNSR rule in 2010 addressing, among other things, the NNSR requirements in the Phase 2 Rule that were relevant to the counties designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in and around the Atlanta metropolitan area (1997 Atlanta Area) and that were not already satisfied by the SIP-approved rule.4 See 75 FR 71020 (November 22, 2010). Georgia's rule revision did not include Phase 2 Rule requirements for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious or above because the 1997 Atlanta Area was classified as a moderate nonattainment area.

    4 The 1997 Atlanta Area was comprised of Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding and Walton Counties.

    The version of Rule 391-3-1-.03(8) that is contained in the current SIP has not changed since the 2010 rulemaking.5 This version of the rule covers the entire Atlanta Area and remains adequate to meet all applicable NNSR requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Phase 2 requirements for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious or above remain inapplicable because the Atlanta Area is classified as a moderate nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour NAAQS and the anti-backsliding requirements added in the 2008 8-hour ozone implementation rule are inapplicable because the Atlanta Area was redesignated to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2013.

    5 The entry for Rule 391-3-1-.03 in the table of SIP-approved Georgia regulations at 40 CFR 52.570(e) is incorrect. The “Explanation” associated with the version of 391-3-1-.03 approved by EPA on April 9, 2013 (78 FR 21065) should read “Changes specifically to (6)—Exemptions” rather than “Changes specifically to (8)—Permit Requirements.” EPA will correct this inadvertent error in a future action.

    III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the portion of Georgia's February 6, 2015, SIP revision addressing the NNSR requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Atlanta Area. EPA has concluded that the State's submission fulfills the 40 CFR 51.1114 revision requirement and meets the requirements of CAA section 110 and the minimum SIP requirements of 40 CFR 51.165.

    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the NNSR portion of the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective May 22, 2017 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by April 21, 2017.

    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All adverse comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on May 22, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 22, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: March 7, 2017. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart L—Georgia 2. In § 52.570, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entry “2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements for the Atlanta Area” at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.570 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved Georgia Non-Regulatory Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal date/effective date EPA approval date Explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements for the Atlanta Area Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Newton, Paulding, and Rockdale Counties 2/6/2015 3/22/2017, [insert Federal Register citation]
    [FR Doc. 2017-05459 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0337; FRL-9958-10] Fatty Acids, Montan-Wax, Ethoxylated; 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 fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated (CAS No. 68476-04-0) when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation. Clariant Corporation 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 fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated on food or feed commodities.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective March 22, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 22, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0337, 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-2016-0337 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 May 22, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0337, 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 November 30, 2016 (81 FR 86312) (FRL-9954-06), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-10949) filed by Clariant Corporation, 4000 Monroe Road, Charlotte, NC 28205. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated (CAS No. 68476-04-0). 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 FDCA 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- fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated 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.

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

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

    8. The polymer's number average MW of 1,800 is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000,

    Thus, fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated 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 fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated.

    IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated 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 fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated is 20,500 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated 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 fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

    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 fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated, 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 fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated.

    VIII. Other Considerations A. Existing Exemptions From a Tolerance

    There are no existing exemptions from a tolerance for fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated.

    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 fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated.

    IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated 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: February 13, 2017. Daniel J. Rosenblatt, Acting 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 to the table to read as follows:
    §  180.960 Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Polymer CAS No. *         *         *         *         *         *         * fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated, minimum number average molecular weight (in amu), 1800 68476-04-0 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-05721 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0378; FRL-9956-02] Isoamyl Acetate; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of isoamyl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 123-92-2) when used as an inert ingredient (buffering agent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest. The Technology Sciences Group on behalf of the Jeneil Biosurfactant Company submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective March 22, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 22, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0378, 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. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0378 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 May 22, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0378, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of August 29, 2016 (81 FR 59165) (FRL-9950-22), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-10851) by the Technology Sciences Group, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036, on behalf of the Jeneil Biosurfactant Company, 400 N. Dekora Woods Blvd., Saukville, WI 53080. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of isoamyl acetate (CAS Reg. No.123-92-2) when used as an inert ingredient (buffering agent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the Technology Sciences Group on behalf of the Jeneil Biosurfactant Company the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. One comment was received and posted to this docket. The comment did not pertain to isoamyl acetate but to a totally unrelated compound.

    This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of isoamyl acetate when applied in accordance with the conditions under 40 CFR 180.910.

    III. Inert Ingredient Definition

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

    IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

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

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

    A. Toxicological Profile

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

    Isoamyl acetate exhibits low levels of acute toxicity with oral lethal dose (LD)50s for rats and rabbits being 16.6 grams/kilogram (g/kg) and 7.4 g/kg respectively. The dermal LD50 for rabbits is >5g/kg. It is not irritating to rabbit skin.

    The National Toxicology Program reported dogs exposed to 5,000 parts per million (ppm) isoamyl acetate via inhalation for one hour showed drowsiness and nasal irritation. Cats exposed to 4,000 ppm isoamyl acetate for 20 minutes experienced eye and nose irritation.

    The potential for eye irritation in rabbits was evaluated with a mixture of n-pentyl acetate and 2-methylbutyl acetate, two structural isomers of isoamyl acetate. Moderate conjunctival irritation, with no effects to the cornea or iris, resulted from ocular exposure and minor, transient conjunctival irritation was also observed. Conjunctival effects cleared up in 7 days.

    There are no repeat-dose toxicity studies with isoamyl acetate. However, there are studies available regarding isoamyl alcohol. Isoamyl acetate readily metabolizes to isoamyl alcohol and toxicity data on isoamyl alcohol may be used as a surrogate for isoamyl acetate.

    In a 4-week range-finding drinking water study, SPF-Wistar rats received isoamyl alcohol doses of 360 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) for two weeks and 1160 mg/kg/day for the next two weeks (20,000 and 16,000 ppm respectively). The higher concentration was unpalatable to the rats. Exposure to isoamyl alcohol did not affect body weight gain or food consumption and no effects were observed upon gross post-mortem examination. The NOAEL for this study is 1,160 mg/kg/day.

    In a subsequent 90-day study, rats were given daily drinking water concentrations of 0, 1,000, 4,000 and 16,000 ppm isoamyl alcohol (males 0, 73, 295, 1,068 mg/kg/day and females 91, 385, 1,657 mg/kg/day, respectively). Treatment did not induce any effect on mortality, body weight, various clinical chemistry parameters, or organ weights or any abnormality at gross and microscopic examination. There were marginal increases in red blood cell counts in the male animals of the mid- and high-dose groups and slight decreases in mean corpuscular volume and mean corpuscular hemoglobin content in the male animals of the high-dose group. The highest dose levels tested were the no observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAEL) in the drinking water study in rats (1,068 and 1,657 mg/kg/day in males and females respectively.

    In a 17-week oral gavage study, Ash/CSE rats were administered daily doses of 0, 150, 500 or 1,000 mg/kg/day isoamyl alcohol. Parameters and endpoints evaluated included clinical observations, body weight, food and water consumption, hematology, clinical chemistry, urinalysis, organ weights (brain, liver, heart, spleen, stomach, small intestine, caecum, adrenals, gonads, pituitary and thyroid) and macroscopic and microscopic evaluations. Two high-dose rats died from lung congestion which was attributed to gavage error. No deaths or abnormalities in behavior occurred during the study in any of the test groups. After 17 weeks treatment, there were slight decreases in body weight gain in the high-dose males. That was ascribed to 5-10% lower food consumption compared to controls. No other consistent test-related effects were seen in any of the test groups. The NOAEL under the conditions of this study was 1,000 mg/kg/day.

    Isoamyl acetate was negative in bacteria cell and in vitro genotoxicity assays as well as one in vivo study. It did not induce reverse gene mutations in Salmonella typhimurium in the absence and presence of metabolic activation.

    Prenatal toxicity to isoamyl alcohol was studied using Wistar rats and Himalayan rabbits exposed 6 hours/day on gestational days 6-15 and 7-19 respectively. Dose concentrations were 0, 500, 2,500 and 10,000 mg/m3 (0, 135, 675, 2,700 ppm). All rats and rabbits were sacrificed on days 20 and 29 respectively. In both species, maternal toxicity was manifested by slight retardation of body weight gain during the first days of the exposure period in animals of the high-dose group. The rabbits of this group had eye irritation (reddish, lid closure, or slight discharge) during exposure. There were no compound-related signs of embryo/fetotoxicity or teratogenicity in any of the treated rat groups. In rabbits, there was a statistically significant increase incidence of total fetal soft tissue variations mainly caused by a significant increase in the incidence of `separated origin of carotids'. However, the incidences of variations were within the range of biological variation and unexpectedly low in control animals. The NOAEL for maternal toxicity in both rats and rabbits was 2,500 mg/m3 (675 ppm; 1,013 mg/kg/day) and the NOAEL for developmental toxicity was 10,000 mg/m3 (2,700 ppm; 4,054 mg/kg/day).

    An in vitro Hydra attenuata developmental toxicity assay was conducted with isoamyl acetate. It was equally toxic to adults and embryos indicating low concern for developmental toxicity.

    The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives summarized a chronic study where male and female rats received 2% isoamyl alcohol in their drinking water. No adverse effects or tumors were observed up to 2,000 mg/kg/day in rats given isoamyl alcohol in their drinking water for 53-56 weeks.

    A DEREK analysis conducted on the isoamyl acetate structure did not reveal any structural alerts for possible carcinogenicity with regard to systemic and organ toxicity or mutagenicity. Therefore, based on the results of the DEREK analysis, the lack of toxicity in the submitted studies, and the lack of mutagenicity, isoamyl acetate is not expected to be carcinogenic to humans.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Due to the lack of adverse effects in the available data, no toxicological endpoint of concern has been identified. Therefore, a quantitative assessment of human exposure and risk is not necessary and have not been conducted.

    C. Exposure Assessment

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

    Under this exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, residues of isoamyl acetate may be found on foods from crops that were treated with pesticide formulations containing isoamyl acetate. However, a quantitative dietary exposure assessment was not conducted since an endpoint for risk assessment was not identified.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. Since a hazard endpoint of concern was not identified for the acute and chronic dietary assessment, a quantitative dietary exposure risk assessment for drinking water was not conducted, although exposures may be expected from use on food crops.

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

    Isoamyl acetate may be used in pesticide products and non-pesticide products that may be used around the home. Based on the discussion in Unit IV.B., a quantitative residential exposure assessment for isoamyl acetate was not conducted.

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

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

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

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

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

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

    V. 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.

    VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180.910 for isoamyl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 123-92-2) when used as an inert ingredient (buffering agent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

    VIII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: February 13, 2017. Michael Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.910, add alphabetically the inert ingredient to the table to read as follows:
    § 180.910 Inert ingredients used pre- and post-harvest; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Inert ingredients Limits Uses *        *        *        *        *        *        * Isoamyl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 123-92-2) Buffering Agent. *        *        *        *        *        *        *
    [FR Doc. 2017-05701 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0299; FRL-9959-11] Cloquintocet-mexyl; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of Cloquintocet-mexyl (acetic acid [5-chloro-8-quinolinyl) oxy]-1-methylhexyl ester) in or on teff when cloquintocet-mexyl is used as an inert ingredient (herbicide safener) in pesticide formulations containing pyroxsulam. Dow AgroSciences LLC requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) in order to cover residues of cloquintocet-mexyl in imported teff commodities.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective March 22, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 22, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0299, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0299 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 May 22, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0299, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of August 29, 2016 (81 FR 59165) (FRL-9950-22), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP# 5E8432) by Dow AgroSciences LLC, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180.560 be amended by establishing tolerances without U.S registrations for residues of the cloquintocet-mexyl for use as an inert ingredient (safener) in combination with the herbicide pyroxulam in or on the raw agricultural commodities teff, forage at 0.2 parts per million (ppm); teff, grain at 0.1 ppm; teff hay at 0.5 ppm; teff straw at 0.1ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Dow AgroSciences, LLC, the registrant, which is available in the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0299 at http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    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 for cloquintocet-mexyl in or on teff forage, grain, hay and straw, consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2).

    In the Federal Register of August 2, 2016 (81 FR 50630) (FRL-9947-78), EPA established tolerances for residues of cloquintocet-mexyl and its acid metabolite (5-chloro-8-quinolinoxyacetic acid) when used in pesticide formulations containing the active ingredient halauxifen-methyl, in or on barley grain, barley hay, barley straw, and wheat forage, wheat grain, wheat hay, and wheat straw. EPA is relying upon the risk assessments that supported the findings made in the August 2, 2016, Federal Register document in support of this action. The toxicity profile of cloquintocet-mexyl has not changed, and the previous risk assessments that supported the establishment of those tolerances remain valid.

    The Agency evaluated the request to establish tolerances in or on teff forage, grain, hay, and straw. Teff is prepared like other whole grains, such as rice and barley, and may also be used to make flour in a manner similar to wheat and other cereal grains. In considering likely residue levels on teff, EPA concludes that because of the similarity in application rates for pesticides containing cloquintocet-mexyl between teff and wheat, the likely decline in residue levels as teff moves through commerce, and the similarities to the small grains in terms of morphology, taxonomy and cultural practices, residue levels of cloquintocet-mexyl on teff will be similar to residue levels on wheat. The lack of teff consumption data being reported in the available food consumption data indicates a very low overall consumption of teff in the United States. When teff is consumed in the U.S., it is typically consumed in place of wheat. Using these assumptions regarding likely residue levels and consumption, EPA concludes that aggregate exposure and risk estimates resulting from cloquintocet-mexyl residues in/on teff would not be substantially different than those presented in the most recent human health risk assessment and published in the August 2, 2016 final rule. As those risk estimates were not of concern to the Agency, 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 cloquintocet-mexyl residues.

    For a detailed discussion of the aggregate risk assessments and determination of safety for these tolerances, please refer to the August 2, 2016, Federal Register document and its supporting documents, available at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0843. Further information about EPA's determination that an updated risk assessment was not necessary may be found in the document, “Cloquintocet-mexyl—Human Health Risk Assessment of Tolerances without a U.S. Registration for Use on Teff” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0299.

    For specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by cloquintocet-mexyl as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies, the reader is referred to the final rule published in the Federal Register of December 16, 2005 (70 FR 74679) (FRL-7753-4); Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0234.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology, high performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection (HPLC-UV); method REM 138.01for the cloquintocet-mexyl (parent) and the HPLC-UV Method RED 138.10 for its acid metabolite, are available to enforce the tolerance expression.

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

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    The Codex has not established a MRL for cloquintocet-mexyl.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for combined residues of cloquintocet-mexyl (acetic acid [(5-chloro-8-quinolinyl) oxy]-1-methylhexyl ester) and its acid metabolite (5-chloro-8-quinlinoxyacetic acid), expressed as cloquintocet-mexyl, for use as an inert ingredient (safener) in combination with the herbicide pyroxsulam in or on teff, forage at 0.2 ppm; teff, grain at 0.1 ppm; teff, hay at 0.5 ppm; and teff, straw at 0.1 ppm.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: March 6, 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 § 180.560: a. Revise paragraph (a) introductory text; and b. Add alphabetically entries for “teff, forage,” “teff, grain,” “teff, hay,” and “teff, straw” to the table in paragraph (a).

    The revision and additions read as follows:

    § 180.560 Cloquintocet-mexyl; pesticide tolerances.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the inert ingredient cloquintocet-mexyl, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the following table when used as a safener in pesticide formulations containing the active ingredients clodinafop-propargyl (wheat only), dicamba (wheat only), flucarbazone-sodium (wheat only), halauxifen-methyl (wheat or barley), pinoxaden (wheat or barley), or pyroxsulam (wheat or teff). Compliance with the tolerance levels specified is to be determined by measuring the combined residues of cloquintocet-mexyl, (acetic acid [(5-chloro-8-quinolinyl)oxy]-, 1-methylhexyl ester; CAS Reg. No. 99607-70-2) and its acid metabolite (5-chloro-8-quinolinoxyacetic acid), expressed as cloquintocet-mexyl, in or on the following commodities:

    Commodity Parts per million *    *    *    *    * Teff, forage 1 0.2 Teff, grain 1 0.1 Teff, hay 1 0.5 Teff, straw 1 0.1 *    *    *    *    * 1 There are no U.S. registrations for use on this commodity as of March 22, 2017.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05705 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0357; FRL-9958-53] Cyantraniliprole; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of cyantraniliprole in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company and Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective March 22, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 22, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0357 is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0357 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 May 22, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0357, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of January 28, 2015 (80 FR 4525) (FRL-9921-55), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PP 4F8258 and 4F8320) by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, 1007 Market St., Wilmington, DE 19898 and Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, respectively. The petitions requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide cyantraniliprole, in or on artichokes, globe (import tolerance) at 0.1 parts per million (ppm); berries, low growing, except strawberries (crop subgroup 13-07H) (import tolerance) at 0.08 ppm; coffee, bean, green (import tolerance) at 0.05 ppm; grapes (import tolerance) at 1.5 ppm; olives (import tolerance) at 1.5 ppm; peanuts at 0.01 ppm; peanut hay at 3 ppm; pomegranates (import tolerance) at 0.01 ppm; rice, grain (import tolerance) at 0.03 ppm; soybeans, seed at 0.4 ppm; strawberries at 1.0 ppm; vegetables, foliage of legume (crop group 7) at 50 ppm; vegetables, leaves of root and tuber (crop group 2) at 40 ppm; vegetables, legume, dried shelled, except soybean (crop subgroup 6C) at 0.9 ppm; vegetables, legume, edible podded (crop subgroup 6A) at 2 ppm; vegetables, legume, succulent shelled (crop subgroup 6B) at 0.2 ppm; vegetables, root, except sugar beet (crop subgroup 1B) at 0.4 ppm; and tea, dried (import tolerance) at 30 ppm (PP 4F8258) and corn, field and pop, forage at 0.04 ppm; corn, field and pop, grain at 0.01 ppm; corn, field and pop, stover at 0.015 ppm; corn, sweet, forage at 0.02 ppm; corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed at 0.01 ppm; and corn, sweet, stover at 0.08 ppm (PP 4F8320). That document referenced a summary of the petitions prepared by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company and Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, the registrants, which is available in the dockets EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0357 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0890, respectively, at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.

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

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

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

    A. Toxicological Profile

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

    In general, cyantraniliprole administration in mammals produces both adverse and adaptive changes in the liver, thyroid gland, and adrenal cortex. With repeated dosing, consistent findings of mild to moderate increases in liver weights across multiple species (rats, mice, and dogs) are observed. Dogs appear to be more sensitive than rats and mice; cyantraniliprole produces adverse liver effects (increases in alkaline phosphatase, decreases in cholesterol, and decreases in albumin) in dogs at lower dose levels than in rats. In addition, the liver effects in the dog show progressive severity with increased duration of exposure. The available data also show thyroid hormone homeostasis is altered in rats following exposure to cyantraniliprole after 90 days due to enhanced metabolism of the thyroid hormones by the liver. However, cyantraniliprole does not act directly on the thyroid; the thyroid effects observed are secondary to the effects on the liver.

    Cyantraniliprole is classified as “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” based on the absence of increased tumor incidence in carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice. In addition, there are no genotoxicity, mutagenicity, neurotoxicity, or immunotoxicity concerns. There are also no developmental or reproductive toxicity concerns and there is no evidence of an adverse effect attributable to a single dose.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by cyantraniliprole as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled “Cyantraniliprole. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed Uses on Root Vegetables (except Sugar Beet) (Crop Subgroup 1B), Leaves of Root and Tuber Vegetables (Crop Group 2), Legume Vegetables (Crop Group 6 except soybean), Leaves of Legume Vegetables (Crop Group 7 except soybean), Peanuts, Strawberries, Tobacco and Seed Treatment Uses on Corn (Field, Pop, Seed, Sweet). Tolerance Requests without U.S. Registration for Artichokes, Coffee Green Bean, Wine Grapes, Low Growing Berries (except Strawberries) (Crop Subgroup 13-07H), Olives, Pomegranate, and Tea Dried. Amended Tolerance Requests for Cucurbit Vegetables (Crop Group 9) due to New Use Pattern and Amended Uses for Tomatoes and Peppers” on page 40 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0357.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for cyantraniliprole used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of February 5, 2014 (79 FR 6826) (FRL-9388-7).

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to cyantraniliprole, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing cyantraniliprole tolerances in 40 CFR 180.672. EPA assessed dietary exposures from cyantraniliprole in food as follows:

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

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

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the 2003-2008 United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, a refined chronic (food and drinking water) dietary assessment was conducted assuming average field trial residues for all proposed crops (except sugar beet root), percent crop treated (PCT) where available, and percent crop treated for new uses (PCTn) for some crops. In addition, the estimated percentage of imported grapes was incorporated into the assessment. For processed commodities, input values included combined average residues of parent and the metabolite (IN-J9Z38) with relevant processing factors. The chronic assessment incorporated empirical processing factors, if available, or Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) Version 7.81 default processing factors as appropriate. Empirical processing factors were used for potato flakes and chips, tomatoes (paste, puree, dried, and juice), orange juice, apple juice, cottonseed oil, citrus oil, and dried plums. The processing factors for these commodities were set at 1 because the residue input values included combined residues of the parent and the metabolite with relevant processing factors. Crop field trial data depicting residues in/on citrus fruit peels (lemon and orange) were available and included into the assessment.

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

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

    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:

    • Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain the pesticide residue.

    • Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group.

    • Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area.

    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.

    The Agency estimated the PCT for existing uses as follows:

    Citrus: Oranges 62%, grapefruit 87%, and lemons 46%; pome fruit: Apples 61% and pears 76%; stone fruits: Apricots 53%, cherries 48%, peaches 41%, and plums/prunes 59%; tree nuts: Almonds 72%, hazelnuts 65%, pecans 22%, pistachios 49%, and walnuts 53%; bushberries (subgroup 13-07B): Blueberries 45%; fruiting vegetables: Peppers 45% and tomatoes 54%; cucurbits: Cantaloupes 50%, cucumbers 23%, pumpkins 18%, squash 24%, and watermelons 29%; leafy vegetables: Celery 70%, lettuce 78%, and spinach 53%; Brassica (cole) leafy vegetables: Broccoli 81%, cabbage 50%, and cauliflower 83%; onion 58%; potato 50%; oilseeds: Canola 15% and sunflower 35%; and corn 56%.

    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7 years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.

    The Agency estimated the PCT for new uses as follows:

    Cotton 41%; peanuts 41%; carrots 23%; soybeans 21%; strawberries 59%; vegetable crop group 7: Dry beans/peas 6%, soybeans 21%, beans (snap, bush, etc.) 49%, and peas fresh/green/sweet) 38%; vegetable crop group 2: Sugar beets 40%; vegetable crop group 6A: Soybeans 21%, beans (snap, bush, etc., string) 49%; peas fresh/green/sweet) 38%; vegetable crop group 6C: Dried bean and peas 6%. For the imported grapes (wine grapes) a 50% import estimate was used in the chronic dietary risk assessment.

    EPA estimates of the PCTn of cyantraniliprole represent the upper bound of use expected during the pesticide's initial five years of registration; that is, PCTn for cyantraniliprole is a threshold of use that EPA is reasonably certain will not be exceeded for each registered use site. The PCTn recommended for use in the chronic dietary assessment is calculated as the average PCT of the market leader or leaders (i.e., the currently registered pesticide(s) with the greatest PCT) on that site over the three most recent years of available data. Comparisons are only made among pesticides of the same pesticide type (e.g., the market leader for insecticides on the use site is selected for comparison with a new insecticide). The market leader included in the estimation may not be the same for each year since different pesticides may dominate at different times.

    Typically, EPA uses USDA/NASS as the source of data because it is publicly available and directly reports values for PCT. When a specific use site is not reported by USDA/NASS, EPA uses market survey data and calculates the PCT given reported data on acres treated and acres grown. If no data are available, EPA may extrapolate PCTn from other crops, if the production area and pest spectrum are substantially similar.

    A retrospective analysis to validate this approach shows few cases where the PCT for the overall market leaders were exceeded. Further review of these cases identified factors contributing to the exceptionally high use of a new pesticide. To evaluate whether the PCTn for cyantraniliprole could be exceeded, EPA considered whether there may be unusually high pest pressure, as indicated in emergency exemption requests for cyantraniliprole; how the pest spectrum of the new pesticide compares with the market leaders; and whether pest resistance issues with past market leaders provide cyantraniliprole with significant market potential. EPA also considered the potential for resistance to cyantraniliprole to develop as a limiting factor in its use. Given currently available information, EPA concludes that it is unlikely that actual PCT for cyantraniliprole will exceed the estimated PCT for new uses during the next five years.

    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which cyantraniliprole may be applied in a particular area.

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

    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and Pesticide in Water Calculator (PWC), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of cyantraniliprole for chronic exposures are estimated to be 24 ppb for surface water and 64 ppb for ground water, respectively.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. An acute dietary risk assessment was not conducted since no acute toxicological effects were found. For the chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 64 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Cyantraniliprole is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Turfgrass (including residential, recreational, and golf course turf), ornamentals, and structural buildings (including indoor crack/crevice and outdoor broadcast). EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Residential exposure may occur by the dermal, oral, and inhalation routes and is expected to be short-term in duration of exposures. However, since a dermal hazard has not been identified for cyantraniliprole, the only exposures of concern are handler inhalation (for adults), and post-application incidental oral (for children). For adults, the oral and inhalation routes of exposure were not aggregated since the endpoints of concern are not common. The turf and ornamental labels indicate that a maximum of two applications are allowed per season. Thus, intermediate-term exposures are not likely because of the intermittent nature of applications by homeowners. Post-application incidental oral exposures for children may occur for short- and intermediate-term durations due to the persistence of cyantraniliprole. Although intermediate-term incidental oral post-application exposures are possible (i.e., from soil ingestion, due to the persistence of cyantraniliprole), the short-term incidental oral exposures are protective of the possible intermediate-term incidental oral exposures because the POD for both durations is the same. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.

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

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

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of susceptibility in developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits. The developmental toxicity study in rats tested up to the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day). In the rabbit developmental toxicity study decreases in fetal body weight are seen at a dose higher than that resulting in maternal effects. In the reproductive toxicity study, increased incidence of thyroid follicular epithelium hypertrophy/hyperplasia occurs in F1 parental animals at a dose lower than that for the parental (P) generation. A clear NOAEL (1.4 mg/kg/day) is established for F1 parental animals, and the PODs selected for risk assessment from the dog studies (1 or 3 mg/kg/day) are protective of the effect (thyroid effect at 14 mg/kg/day) seen in the F1 parental animals. In addition, the submitted data support the conclusion that the effects on the thyroid are secondary to effects on the liver.

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

    i. The toxicity database for cyantraniliprole is complete.

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

    iii. There is no evidence of susceptibility in developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits. In the reproductive toxicity study, increased incidence of thyroid follicular epithelium hypertrophy/hyperplasia occurs in F1 parental animals at a dose lower than that for the parental (P) generation. However, for the reasons summarized in Unit III.D.2. these effects are not of concern.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The chronic dietary food exposure assessment was a refined assessment which assumed average field trial residues for all crops (except sugar beet root), PCT where available, and PCTn data. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to cyantraniliprole in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by cyantraniliprole.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

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

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

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to cyantraniliprole from food and water will utilize 98% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of cyantraniliprole is not expected.

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

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

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 149 for children 1-2 years old. For adults, the oral and inhalation routes of exposure were not aggregated since the endpoints of concern are not common. Because EPA's level of concern for cyantraniliprole is a MOE of 100 or below, this MOE is not of concern.

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

    Cyantraniliprole is currently registered for uses that could result in intermediate-term residential exposure, however, the short-term aggregate risk estimate described above is protective of potential intermediate-term exposures and risks in children.

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

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

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

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

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

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    For the commodities discussed in this action, there are only Codex MRLs established for residues of cyantraniliprole on coffee beans (0.03 ppm), cucurbit fruiting vegetables (0.3 ppm), legume animal feeds (in the U.S. identified as Foliage of legume vegetables) (0.8 ppm), and root and tuber vegetables (0.05 ppm). There are also Codex MRLs for residues of cyantraniliprole in/on ruminants at (0.01-0.05 ppm), milk (0.02 ppm), and poultry commodities at (0.01 ppm).

    The EPA has not harmonized the tolerances for these commodities with the existing Codex MRLs. The petitioner requested a tolerance on coffee without a U.S. registration be established at 0.05 ppm to be line with the existing MRL for coffee in Canada. The Codex MRLs established for residues of cyantraniliprole on cucurbit fruiting vegetables at 0.3 ppm, root and tuber vegetables at 0.05 ppm, and legume animal feeds at 0.8 ppm are lower than the U.S. tolerances of 0.7 ppm, 0.15 ppm and 40 ppm, respectively. The U.S. tolerances cannot be harmonized because following the label use directions could result in residues above the established Codex MRLs. The Codex MRLs for residues of cyantraniliprole in/on ruminants at (0.01-0.05 ppm), milk (0.02 ppm), and poultry commodities at (0.01 ppm) are lower than the U.S. tolerances. The U.S. and Codex livestock MRLs are not harmonized due to different animal diets and tolerances (MRLs) established for different animal feed commodities. The U.S. tolerances cannot be harmonized (lowered) because following the label use directions could result in residues above the Codex MRLs.

    C. Response to Comments

    A comment was submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Food Safety and was primarily concerned about EPA's consideration of the impacts of cyantraniliprole on the environment, pollinators, and endangered species. This comment is not relevant to the Agency's evaluation of safety of the cyantraniliprole tolerances under section 408 of the FFDCA, which requires the Agency to evaluate the potential harms to human health, not effects on the environment.

    EPA received two other comments to the Notices of Filing noting general concerns about the toxicity of this chemical and stating, in part, that “this product represents a clear and present danger” and “should not be approved to be sold.” The Agency understands the commenter's concerns and recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should be banned on agricultural crops. However, the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the FFDCA states that tolerances may be set when persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. EPA has assessed the effects of this chemical on human health and determined that aggregate exposure to it will be safe.

    D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The Agency is not establishing the proposed tolerances for corn, field and pop, forage; corn, field and pop stover; corn, sweet, forage; and corn, sweet stover because the proposed uses are seed treatment only, not a foliar use, so no residues will be present on these feed commodities. Therefore, these tolerances are not necessary.

    The proposed tolerance for residues of cyantraniliprole in/on rice, grain of 0.03 ppm is being modified to 0.02 ppm based on the OECD statistical calculation applied to the field trial residue data.

    The proposed wine grape tolerance is being modified from 1.5 ppm to 2.0 ppm and a tolerance is being established on olive oil at 2.0 ppm due to concentration demonstrated in the processing studies.

    The proposed tolerance for residues in/on legume vegetables, subgroup 6C of 0.9 ppm is being modified to 1.0 ppm based on the OECD statistical calculation applied to the field trial residue data.

    The proposed tolerance for residues in/on soybean seed including the foliage (forage and hay) is not being established since processing studies were not submitted for soybean processed commodities (hulls, meal, oil). Therefore, the proposed tolerance for residues of cyantraniliprole in/on vegetables, foliage of legume (crop group 7) is being revised to “Vegetable, foliage of legume, except soybean, group 7A.”

    Numerous ruminant commodity tolerances are already established. These ruminant (cattle, goats, horses, and sheep) commodity tolerances are being increased to reflect the new dietary burdens from the tolerances established by this document.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-methyl-6-[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on Artichoke, globe at 0.10 ppm; Berry, low growing, except strawberry, subgroup 13-07H at 0.08 ppm; Coffee, green bean at 0.05 ppm; Corn, field, grain at 0.01 ppm; Corn, pop, grain at 0.01 ppm; Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed at 0.01 ppm; Grape, wine at 2.0 ppm; Olive at 1.5 ppm; Olive, oil at 2.0 ppm; Peanut at 0.01 ppm; Pomegranate at 0.01 ppm; Rice, grain at 0.02 ppm; Strawberry at 1.0 ppm; Tea at 30 ppm; Vegetable, foliage of legume, except soybean, group 7A at 40 ppm; Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2 at 40 ppm; Vegetable, legume, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C at 1.0 ppm; Vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A at 2.0 ppm; Vegetable, legume, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B at 0.20 ppm; and Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B at 0.40 ppm.

    In addition, the following tolerances are modified as follows: Peanut, hay from 0.01 ppm to 3.0 ppm and Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 from 0.40 ppm to 0.70 ppm.

    Also, due to the tolerances being established the following tolerances are modified as follows: Cattle, fat from 0.01 ppm to 0.10 ppm; Cattle, meat from 0.01 ppm to 0.10 ppm; Cattle, meat byproducts from 0.01 ppm to 0.40 ppm; Goat, fat from 0.01 ppm to 0.10 ppm; Goat, meat from 0.01 ppm to 0.10 ppm; Goat, meat byproducts from 0.01 ppm to 0.40 ppm; Horse, fat from 0.01 ppm to 0.10 ppm; Horse, meat from 0.01 to 0.10 ppm; Horse, meat byproducts from 0.01 ppm to 0.40 ppm; Milk from 0.01 ppm to 0.20 ppm; Sheep, fat from 0.01 ppm to 0.10 ppm; Sheep, meat from 0.01 ppm to 0.10 ppm; and Sheep, meat byproducts from 0.01 to 0.40 ppm.

    Lastly, due to the tolerances being established above, the indirect or inadvertent tolerances under 40 CFR 180.672 (d) for Peanut, hay; Vegetable, foliage of legume (group 7); Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber vegetables (group 2); and Vegetable, root (subgroup 1A) are removed as unnecessary, and new tolerances are established under 180.672 (d) for Beet, sugar, roots at 0.02 ppm; Soybean, forage at 0.70 ppm; and Soybean, hay at 0.70 ppm.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: February 17, 2017. Daniel J. Rosenblatt, Acting 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 § 180.672, revise paragraphs (a) and (d) to read as follows:
    § 180.672 Cyantraniliprole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the insecticide cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-methyl-6-[((methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on commodities in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in the following table is to be determined by measuring only cyantraniliprole in or on the commodity.

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • Almond, hulls 8.0 Artichoke, globe 1 0.10 Berry, low growing, except strawberry, subgroup 13-07H 1 0.08 Brassica head and stem, subgroup 5A 3.0 Brassica leafy vegetables, subgroup 5B 30 Bushberry, subgroup 13-07B 4.0 Cattle, fat 0.10 Cattle, meat 0.10 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.40 Cherry, subgroup 12-12A 6.0 Citrus, oil 2.4 Coffee, green bean 1 0.05 Corn, field, grain 0.01 Corn, pop, grain 0.01 Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed 0.01 Cotton, gin byproducts 10 Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 0.70 Fruit, pome, group 11-10 1.5 Goat, fat 0.10 Goat, meat 0.10 Goat, meat byproducts 0.40 Grape, wine 1 2.0 Horse, fat 0.10 Horse, meat 0.10 Horse, meat byproducts 0.40 Milk 0.20 Nut, tree, group 14-12 0.04 Oilseed group 20 1.5 Olive 1 1.5 Olive, oil 1 2.0 Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A 0.04 Onion, green, subgroup 3-07B 8.0 Peach, subgroup 12-12B 1.5 Peanut 0.01 Peanut hay 3.0 Plum, subgroup 12-12C 0.50 Pomegranate 1 0.01 Rice, grain 1 0.02 Sheep, fat 0.10 Sheep, meat 0.10 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.40 Strawberry 1.0 Tea 1 30 Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 0.70 Vegetable, foliage of legume, except soybean, group 7A 40 Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 2.0 Vegetable, leafy, except Brassica, group 4 20 Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2 40 Vegetable, legume, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C 1.0 Vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A 2.0 Vegetable, legume, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B 0.20 Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B 0.40 Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C 0.15 1 There are no U.S. registrations for these commodities.

    (d) Indirect or inadvertant residues. Tolerances are established for indirect or inadvertant tolerances for residues of cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-methyl-6-[((methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on commodities in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in the following table is to be determined by measuring only cyantraniliprole in or on the commodity.

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • Animal feed, nongrass, group 18 0.20 Beet, sugar, roots 0.02 Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16 0.50 Grass forage, fodder and hay, group 17 0.50 Soybean, forage 0.70 Soybean, hay 0.70
    [FR Doc. 2017-05707 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0566; FRL-9959-92] Aspergillus flavus AF36; Amendment to an Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation amends the existing tolerance exemption for Aspergillus flavus AF36 by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Aspergillus flavus AF36 in or on almond and fig when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices. Interregional Research Project Number 4 submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting that EPA amend the existing tolerance exemption for Aspergillus flavus AF36. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of Aspergillus flavus AF36 under FFDCA.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective March 22, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 22, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0566, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0566 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 May 22, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0566, by one of the following methods:

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

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

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. Background

    In the Federal Register of November 30, 2016 (81 FR 86312) (FRL-9954-06), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 6E8471) by Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers University, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.1206 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Aspergillus flavus AF36 in or on almond and fig. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner IR-4, which is available in the docket via http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    III. Final Rule A. EPA's Safety Determination

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

    EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on Aspergillus flavus AF36 and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk assessment based on those data can be found within the February 2017, document entitled “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for Aspergillus flavus AF36.” This document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the docket for this action as described under ADDRESSES.

    Based upon its evaluation, EPA concludes that Aspergillus flavus AF36 is not toxic, not pathogenic, and not infective. Although there may be some exposure to residues when Aspergillus flavus AF36 is used on fig and almond in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices, there is a lack of concern due to the lack of potential for adverse effects. EPA also determined that retention of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor was not necessary as part of the qualitative assessment conducted for Aspergillus flavus AF36.

    Based upon its evaluation, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of Aspergillus flavus AF36. Therefore, the existing tolerance exemption for Aspergillus flavus AF36 is amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Aspergillus flavus AF36 in or on almond and fig when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

    B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

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

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes. As a result, this action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, EPA has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

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

    V. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: March 7, 2017. Robert McNally, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention 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 § 180.1206, add paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 180.1206 Aspergillus flavus AF36; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    (e) An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of Aspergillus flavus AF36 in or on almond and fig when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

    [FR Doc. 2017-05720 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0617; FRL-9958-97] Octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(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 octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)]; when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation. Ethox Chemicals, LLC 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 octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)] on food or feed commodities.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective March 22, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 22, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0617, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Publishing 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-2016-0617 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 May 22, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0617, 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 December 20, 2016 (81 FR 92758) (FRL-9956-04), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-10984) filed by Spring Trading Company on behalf of Ethox Chemicals, LLC, 1801 Perimeter Road, Greenville, SC 29605. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)]; CAS Reg. No. 1939051-18-9. 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). Octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(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 at least two of the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, and sulfur.

    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.

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

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

    8. The polymer's number average MW of 5,000 is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive functional groups.

    Thus, octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(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 octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)].

    IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(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 octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)] is 5,000 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(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 octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)] to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(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 octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(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 Web site 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 octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(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 octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)].

    VIII. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

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

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    The Codex has not established a MRL for octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)].

    IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(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: February 14, 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, alphabetically add the polymer to the table to read as follows:
    §  180.960 Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Polymer CAS No. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α', α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)], minimum number average molecular weight (in amu), 5,000 1939051-18-9 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-05708 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0606; FRL-9959-12] Polyglycerol Polyricinoleate; 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 polyglycerol polyricinoleate when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation. AgroFresh Inc., 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 polyglycerol polyricinoleate on food or feed commodities.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective March 22, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 22, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0606, 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-2016-0606 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 May 22, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0606, 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 December 20, 2016 (81 FR 927580) (FRL-9956-04), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-10970) filed by AgroFresh Inc., 400 Arcola Road, P.O. Box 7000 (RC3356), Collegeville, PA 19426. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of polyglycerol polyricinoleate (CAS Reg. No. 29894-35-7). 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). Polyglycerol polyricinoleate 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:

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

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

    c. 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).

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

    e. 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.

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

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

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

    h. The polymer's number average MW of 2,500 daltons is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive functional groups.

    Thus, polyglycerol polyricinoleate 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 polyglycerol polyricinoleate.

    IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that polyglycerol polyricinoleate 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 polyglycerol polyricinoleate is 2,500 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since polyglycerol polyricinoleate conforms 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 polyglycerol polyricinoleate to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and polyglycerol polyricinoleate does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that polyglycerol polyricinoleate does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

    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 polyglycerol polyricinoleate, 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 polyglycerol polyricinoleate.

    VIII. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

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

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    The Codex has not established a MRL for polyglycerol polyricinoleate.

    IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of polyglycerol polyricinole from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

    X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) 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: February 16, 2017. Michael Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 180 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 entry “Polyglycerol polyricinoleate; minimum number average molecular weight (in amu), 2,500” to the table to read as follows:
    § 180.960 Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Polymer CAS No. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Polyglycerol polyricinoleate; minimum number average molecular weight (in amu), 2,500 29894-35-7 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-05703 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Parts 405, 410, 411, 414, 417, 422, 423, 424, 425, and 460 [CMS-1654-CN4] RIN 0938-AS81 Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2017; Medicare Advantage Bid Pricing Data Release; Medicare Advantage and Part D Medical Loss Ratio Data Release; Medicare Advantage Provider Network Requirements; Expansion of Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program Model; Medicare Shared Savings Program Requirements; Corrections AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This document corrects technical errors in the addenda to the final rule published in the November 15, 2016, Federal Register entitled, “Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2017; Medicare Advantage Bid Pricing Data Release; Medicare Advantage and Part D Medical Loss Ratio Data Release; Medicare Advantage Provider Network Requirements; Expansion of Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program Model; Medicare Shared Savings Program Requirements.”

    DATES:

    This correcting document is effective March 21, 2017 and is applicable beginning January 1, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jessica Bruton (410) 786-5991.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In the addenda to FR Doc 2016-26668 (81 FR 80170 through 80562), the final rule entitled, “Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2017; Medicare Advantage Bid Pricing Data Release; Medicare Advantage and Part D Medical Loss Ratio Data Release; Medicare Advantage Provider Network Requirements; Expansion of Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program Model; Medicare Shared Savings Program Requirements” there was a technical error in an element of the payment calculation for several services that is identified and corrected in this correcting document. These corrections are effective as if they had been included with the document published November 15, 2016. Accordingly, the corrections are applicable beginning January 1, 2017.

    II. Summary and Correction of Errors in the Addenda on the CMS Web Site

    Due to a technical error in the allocation of indirect practice expense (PE) for CPT codes 97161 through 97168, the incorrect CY 2017 PE relative value units (RVUs) were included in Addendum B. The corrected CY 2017 PE RVUs for these codes are reflected in the corrected Addendum B available on the CMS Web site at www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/PhysicianFeeSched/index.html.

    III. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (the 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 Social Security Act (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. In addition, section 553(d) of the APA and section 1871(e)(1)(B)(i) of the Act mandate a 30-day delay in effective date after issuance or publication of a rule. Sections 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3) of the APA provide for exceptions from the APA notice and comment, and delay in effective date requirements; in cases in which these exceptions apply, sections 1871(b)(2)(C) and 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act provide exceptions from the notice and 60-day comment period and delay in effective date 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 notice and comment rulemaking procedures for good cause if the agency makes a finding that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and includes a statement of the finding and the reasons for it in the rule. In addition, section 553(d)(3) of the APA and section 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) allow the agency to avoid the 30-day delay in effective date where such delay is contrary to the public interest and the agency includes in the rule a statement of the finding and the reasons for it.

    In our view, this correcting document does not constitute a rulemaking that would be subject to these requirements. This document merely corrects technical errors in the CY 2017 PFS final rule. The corrections contained in this document are consistent with, and do not make substantive changes to, the policies and payment methodologies that were proposed subject to notice and comment procedures and adopted in the CY 2017 PFS final rule. As a result, the corrections made through this correcting document are intended to resolve inadvertent errors so that the rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in the final rule.

    Even if this were a rulemaking to which the notice and comment and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the CY 2017 PFS final rule or delaying the effective date of the corrections would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public interest to ensure that the rule accurately reflects our policies as of the date they take effect. Further, such procedures would be unnecessary because we are not making any substantive revisions to the final rule, but rather, we are simply correcting the Federal Register document to reflect the policies that we previously proposed, received public comment on, and subsequently finalized in the final rule. For these reasons, we believe there is good cause to waive the requirements for notice and comment and delay in effective date.

    Dated: March 16, 2017. Ann C. Agnew, Executive Secretary to the Department, Department of Health and Human Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05675 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 54 [WC Docket No. 10-90; FCC 16-33, 16-64, and 16-143] Connect America Fund AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; announcement of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, an information collection associated with the Commission's Connect America Fund, Report and Order, Order and Order on Reconsideration, April 25, 2016, Report and Order, July 7, 2016, and Order, November 22, 2016 (collectively, Orders). The Commission submitted new information collection requirements for review and approval by OMB, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, December 30, 2016, which were approved by the OMB on February 27, 2017. This notice is consistent with the Orders, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of new information collection requirements.

    DATES:

    The rules associated with the Orders related to certain high-cost carriers' obligation to report broadband location information where they have deployed facilities meeting their public interest obligations, as well as associated certifications and quarterly reports, published at 81 FR 24282, April 25, 2016, 81 FR 44414, July 7, 2016, and 81 FR 83706, November 22, 2016, as well as 47 CFR 54.316 and 54.320(d) are effective March 22, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jonathan Lechter, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document announces that, on February 27, 2017, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Orders, FCC 16-33, published at 81 FR 24282, April 25, 2016, FCC 16-64, published at 81 FR 44414, July 7, 2016, and FCC 16-143, published at 81 FR 83706, November 22, 2016. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1228. The Commission publishes this notice as an announcement of the effective date of the rules associated with the Orders related to certain high-cost carriers' obligation to report broadband location information where they have deployed facilities meeting their public interest obligations, as well as associated certifications and quarterly reports, published at 81 FR 24282, April 25, 2016, 81 FR 44414, July 7, 2016 (Phase II Auction Order), and 81 FR 83706, November 22, 2016, as well as 47 CFR 54.316 and 54.320(d). If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A620, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1228, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email please send them to [email protected]

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

    Synopsis

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on February 27, 2017, for the rules associated with t the Orders related to certain high-cost carriers' obligation to report broadband location information where they have deployed facilities meeting their public interest obligations, as well as associated certifications and quarterly reports, published at 81 FR 24282, April 25, 2016, 81 FR 44414, July 7, 2016, and 81 FR 83706, November 22, 2016, as well as 47 CFR 54.316 and 54.320(d). Under 5 CFR 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1228.

    The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

    The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1228.

    OMB Approval Date: February 27, 2017.

    OMB Expiration Date: February 29, 2020.

    Title: Connect America Fund—High Cost Portal Filing.

    Form No.: N/A.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,526 unique respondents; 3,595 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 8 hours-30 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion, quarterly reporting requirements, annual reporting requirements, one-time reporting requirement and recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 155, 201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, 405, 410, and 1302.

    Total Annual Burden: 65,713 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: We note that USAC must preserve the confidentiality of certain data obtained from respondents; must not use the data except for purposes of administering the universal service programs or other purposes specified by the Commission; and must not disclose data in company-specific form unless directed to do so by the Commission. Respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission or the Administrator believed confidential to be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the FCC's rules.

    Needs and Uses: This information collection addresses the requirement that certain carriers with high cost reporting obligations must file information about their locations which meet their broadband deployment public interest obligations via an electronic portal (“portal”). The Rate-of-Return Order required that the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) establish the portal so that carriers could file their location data with the portal starting in 2017. The Rate-of-Return Order required all recipients of Phase II model-based support and rate-of-return carriers to submit geocoded location data and related certifications to the portal. Recipients of Phase II model-based support had been required to file such information in their annual reports due by July 1. The Phase II Auction Order requires auction winners to build-out networks capable of meeting their public interest obligations and report, to an online portal, locations to which auction winners had deployed such networks. The ACS Phase II Order requires Alaska Communications Systems (ACS), a recipient of Phase II frozen support, to comply with the reporting, certification and non-compliance measures similar to those previously adopted for ETCs electing Phase II model-based support. For the same reason, the Commission also adopted a cost certification requirement for certain locations. This collection also implements the Rate-of-Return Order by moving and revising the currently approved requirements under OMB Control Numbers 3060-1200 and 3060-0986 to enable recipients of Phase II model-based support and rural broadband experiment funding to file their location information and associated reports and certifications in the portal instead of on the FCC Form 481 or as is currently required.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05654 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 130312235-3658-02] RIN 0648-XF290 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Resources of the South Atlantic; Commercial Trip Limit Reduction AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; commercial trip limit reduction.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS issues this temporary rule to reduce the commercial trip limit for vermilion snapper in or from the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic to 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight, 555 lb (252 kg), round weight. This trip limit reduction is necessary to protect the South Atlantic vermilion snapper resource.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, March 22, 2017, until 12:01 a.m., local time, July 1, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The commercial ACL (commercial quota) for vermilion snapper in the South Atlantic is divided into two 6-month time periods, January through June and July through December. For the January 1 through June 30, 2017, fishing season, the commercial quota is 388,703 lb (176,313 kg), gutted weight, 431,460 lb (195,707 kg), round weight (50 CFR 622.190(a)(4)(i)(D)).

    Under 50 CFR 622.191(a)(6)(ii), NMFS is required to reduce the commercial trip limit for vermilion snapper from 1,000 lb (454 kg), gutted weight, 1,110 lb (503 kg), round weight, when 75 percent of the fishing season commercial quota is reached or projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register, as established by Regulatory Amendment 18 to the FMP (78 FR 47574, August 6, 2013). The reduced commercial trip limit is 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight, 555 lb (252 kg), round weight. Based on current information, NMFS has determined that 75 percent of the available commercial quota for the January 1 through June 30, 2017, fishing season for vermilion snapper will be reached by March 22, 2017. Accordingly, NMFS is reducing the commercial trip limit for vermilion snapper to 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight, 555 lb (252 kg), round weight, in or from the South Atlantic EEZ at 12:01 a.m., local time, on March 22, 2017. This reduced commercial trip limit will remain in effect until the start of the next fishing season on July 1, 2017, or until the seasonal commercial quota is reached and the commercial sector closes, whichever occurs first.

    Classification

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

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.191(a)(6)(ii) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

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

    This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this commercial trip limit reduction constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule establishing and providing for a reduction in the commercial trip limit has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the commercial trip limit reduction. Providing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because any delay in reducing the commercial trip limit could result in the commercial quota being exceeded. There is a need to immediately implement this action to protect the vermilion snapper resource, since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Providing prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action would require time and increase the likelihood that the commercial sector could exceed its quota.

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

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 17, 2017. Jennifer M. Wallace, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05634 Filed 3-17-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 54 Wednesday, March 22, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-3984; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-119-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    We are revising an earlier proposal to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-10-03 for all Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. This action revises the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) by adding a replacement of certain main landing gear (MLG) with MLG that have an improved bogie beam. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Since these actions impose an additional burden over those proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this SNPRM by May 8, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For Airbus service information identified in this SNPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; email: [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

    For Messier-Bugatti-Dowty service information identified in this SNPRM, contact Messier Services Americas, Customer Support Center, 45360 Severn Way, Sterling, VA 20166-8910; phone: 703-450-8233; fax: 703-404-1621; Internet: https://techpubs.services/messier-dowty.com.

    You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-3984; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; fax: 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-3984; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-119-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    On May 13, 2013, we issued AD 2013-10-03, Amendment 39-17456 (78 FR 31386, May 24, 2013) (“AD 2013-10-03”). AD 2013-10-03 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200, -300, --500, and -600 series airplanes. (AD 2013-10-03 superseded AD 2010-02-10, Amendment 39-16181 (75 FR 4477, January 28, 2010)).

    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 1, 2016 (81 FR 10540) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of corroded and cracked bogie beams under the bogie stop pad. The NPRM proposed to remove Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes from the applicability, remove certain one-time inspections of the MLG bogie beams and the sliding piston sub-assembly, revise certain compliance times, and provide, for certain airplanes, an optional terminating action for the repetitive actions.

    Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM, we have determined that MLG having part number (P/N) 201252 series and P/N 201490 series should be replaced with a MLG that has an improved bogie beam, which would constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections on the modified MLG.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0108, dated June 8, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During a scheduled maintenance inspection on the Main Landing Gear (MLG), the bogie stop pad was found deformed and cracked. Upon removal of the bogie stop pad for replacement, the bogie beam was also found cracked. The results of a laboratory investigation indicated that an overload event had occurred and no fatigue propagation of the crack was evident. A second bogie beam crack was subsequently found on another aeroplane, located under a bogie stop pad which only had superficial paint damage.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to landing gear bogie detachment from the aeroplane, or landing gear collapse, or a runway excursion, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to the occupants and/or people on the ground.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2008-0223 to require accomplishment of a one-time detailed inspection under the bogie stop pad of both MLG bogie beams. As a result of the one-time inspection required by that [EASA] AD, numerous bogie stop pad were found corroded and a few cracked. The one-time inspection was retained in EASA AD 2011-0211 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2013-10-03], which superseded EASA AD 2008-0223, which also introduced repetitive inspections, except for A340-500/-600 aeroplanes.

    After EASA AD 2011-0211 was issued, further investigation led to the conclusion that the one-time inspection was no longer necessary and only the repetitive inspections should remain. In addition, it was determined that repetitive inspections were also necessary for MLG on A340-500/-600 aeroplanes.

    Prompted by these conclusions, EASA issued AD 2014-0120, partially retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2011-0211, which was superseded, and introducing repetitive detailed inspections of the MLG on A340-500 and A340-600 aeroplanes. Subsequently, further analysis indicated that repetitive inspections of the MLG on A340-500/-600 aeroplanes were not necessary after all. In addition, the threshold for the inspection of MLG P/N 10-210 series was raised from 24 to 126 months, and Airbus developed a modification of the MLG P/N 10-210 series which provides an (optional) terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

    Consequently, EASA AD 2014-0120 was revised to delete the requirements for A340-500/-600 aeroplanes, to amend the inspection threshold for MLG P/N 10-210 series, and to introduce an optional terminating action for aeroplanes with MLG P/N 10-210 series.

    Since EASA AD 2014-0120R1 was issued, Airbus developed a modification (mod 205289) of the MLG P/N 201252 series and P/N 201490 series that must be embodied in service with Airbus SB A330-32-3275 or SB A340-32-4305. It was also identified that A340-500/-600 aeroplanes could be removed from the applicability of this [EASA] AD as no more actions were required on these aeroplanes.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0120R1, which is superseded, removes the A340-500/-600 aeroplanes from the Applicability and requires the modification of the MLG P/N 201252 series and P/N 201490 series, which constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this [EASA] AD.

    The required actions include repetitive detailed inspections for damage and corrosion of the sliding piston sub-assembly, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. Related investigative actions include a test for indications of corrosion and damage to the bogie assembly base material, and a magnetic particle inspection for cracks, corrosion, and damage of the bogie beam. Corrective actions include repairing affected parts.

    The required terminating action (for MLG having P/N 201252 series or P/N 201490 series) and the optional terminating action (for MLG having P/N 10-210) are modifications of the bogie beam of an MLG, which consist of installing a nickel under chrome coating, a new bogie beam stop pad, and new stop pad brackets.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-3984.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3248, Revision 05, including Appendix 1, dated May 4, 2016; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4286, Revision 02, including Appendix 1, dated January 5, 2016; which describe procedures for doing an inspection for damage and corrosion of the MLG sliding piston sub-assembly, bogie beam stop pad and the bogie beam under the stop pad, and related investigative and corrective actions. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3268, Revision 01, dated September 21, 2015, which describes procedures for modification of the bogie beam of an MLG having P/N 10-210 that includes installing a nickel under chrome coating, a new bogie beam stop pad, and new stop pad brackets.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3275, dated December 23, 2015, which describes procedures for modification of the bogie beam of an MLG having P/N 201252 series or P/N 201490 series that include installing a nickel under chrome coating, a new bogie beam stop pad, and new stop pad brackets.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4300, dated April 20, 2015; and Revision 01, dated September 21, 2015; which describe procedures for modification of the bogie beam of an MLG having P/N 10-210 that include installing a nickel under chrome coating, a new bogie beam stop pad, and new stop pad brackets. These service bulletins are distinct since they are different revision levels.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4305, dated December 23, 2015, which describes procedures for modification of the bogie beam of an MLG having P/N 201252 series or P/N 201490 series that includes installing a nickel under chrome coating, a new bogie beam stop pad, and new stop pad brackets.

    Messier-Bugatti-Dowty has issued the following service information.

    • Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-305, including Appendix A, dated April 13, 2015, which describes procedures for modification of the bogie beam of an MLG having MLG P/N 10-210 series that includes installing a nickel under chrome coating, a new bogie beam stop pad, and new stop pad brackets.

    • Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-306, Revision 1, including Appendix A, dated May 31, 2016, which describes procedures for modification of the bogie beam of an MLG having P/N 201252 series or P/N 201490 series that includes installing a nickel under chrome coating, a new bogie beam stop pad, and new stop pad brackets.

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

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this proposed AD. We considered the comments received on the proposal and the FAA's response to each comment.

    Requests To Revise Applicability and Terminating Action

    Air France (AF) and American Airlines (AAL) requested that we revise the applicability of the proposed AD to exclude airplanes that have had Airbus Modification 204421 or Airbus Modification 205289 incorporated in production.

    AAL also requested that we exclude airplanes from the applicability that have accomplished the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3268, dated April 20, 2015, which describes procedures for modification of the bogie beam of an MLG having P/N 10-210, and Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3275, dated December 23, 2015, which describes procedures for modification of the bogie beam of an MLG having P/N 201490.

    AAL and AF also requested that we add Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3275, dated December 23, 2015, as a terminating action in paragraph (m) of the proposed AD. AF also asked that we add Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4305, dated December 23, 2015, as a terminating action in paragraph (m) of the proposed AD. AF and AAL referenced the applicability in the MCAI as justification for the requests.

    We partially agree with the commenters' requests. We have revised paragraph (c) of this proposed AD to exclude airplanes that have embodied Airbus Modification 204421 or Airbus Modification 205289 in production, which corresponds with the MCAI. However, we have not revised paragraph (c) of this proposed AD to exclude airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3268, dated April 20, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3275, dated December 23, 2015; has been done because those airplanes are not excluded from the MCAI.

    We have added information to paragraph (m) of this proposed AD to specify that accomplishing the actions specified in Messier-Bugatti-Dowty-Service Bulletin A33/34-32-305, including Appendix A, dated April 13, 2015, for MLG having P/N 10-210, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections. We also have added information in paragraph (m) of this proposed AD to specify that accomplishing the actions specified in the service information referenced in paragraph (k) of this proposed AD (which includes references to Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3275, dated December 23, 2015; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4305, dated December 23, 2015) constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

    Additional Changes to This SNPRM

    We have clarified the affected airplanes for paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(3) of this AD by changing the text “For airplanes . . . having an MLG P/N 201252 series and P/N 201490 series” to “For airplanes . . . having an MLG P/N 201252 series or P/N 201490 series” (replaced the “and” with an “or”).

    We have removed the reporting requirements from this SNPRM. We have also revised the Costs of Compliance section of this SNPRM to reflect the revised proposed requirements.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This SNPRM

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 89 Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate that it would take about 13 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $98,345, or $1,105 per product.

    Currently, there are no Model A340-200, or -300 series airplanes on the U.S. Register. However, if an affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, it would be subject to the same per-airplane cost specified above for the Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 24 work-hours and require parts costing $78, for a cost of $2,118 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

    According to the manufacturer, all of the parts costs of the optional terminating action specified in this SNPRM may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate. We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide the work-hour cost estimates for the optional terminating action specified in this proposed AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-10-03, Amendment 39-17456 (78 FR 31386, May 24, 2013), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-3984; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-119-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 8, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2013-10-03, Amendment 39-17456 (78 FR 31386, May 24, 2013) (“AD 2013-10-03”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category, all serial numbers, except those airplanes that have embodied Airbus Modification 204421 or Airbus Modification 205289 in production.

    (1) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303,

    -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.

    (2) Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of corroded and cracked bogie beams under the bogie stop pad. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damage or corrosion under the bogie stop pad of both main landing gear (MLG) bogie beams; this condition could result in a damaged bogie beam and consequent detachment of the beam from the airplane, collapse of the MLG, or departure of the airplane from the runway, possibly resulting in damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repetitive Inspections, Related Investigative Actions, and Corrective Actions

    For Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes; equipped with a MLG having part number (P/N) 201252 series, P/N 201490 series, or P/N 10-210 series: Do the applicable actions required by paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.

    (1) For airplanes equipped, as of the effective date of this AD, with a MLG that has been previously inspected as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3220, Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3248, Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4264, or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4286, as applicable: At applicable times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, do a detailed inspection for damage (e.g., cracking and fretting) and corrosion of the MLG sliding piston sub-assembly, bogie beam stop pad, and the bogie beam under the stop pad; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3248, Revision 05, including Appendix 1, dated May 4, 2016; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4286, Revision 02, including Appendix 1, dated January 5, 2016; as applicable; except as required by paragraph (j) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection of the MLG sliding piston sub-assembly, bogie beam stop pad, and the bogie beam under the stop pad, thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 2,500 flight cycles or 24 months, whichever occurs first.

    (2) For airplanes equipped, as of the effective date of this AD, with a MLG that has not been previously inspected as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3220, Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3248, Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4264, or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4286, as applicable: At the applicable times specified in paragraphs (h)(3) and (h)(4) of this AD, do a detailed inspection for damage (e.g., cracking and fretting) and corrosion of the MLG sliding piston sub-assembly, bogie beam stop pad, and the bogie beam under the stop pad; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3248, Revision 05, including Appendix 1, dated May 4, 2016 or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4286, Revision 02, including Appendix 1, dated January 5, 2016; as applicable; except as required by paragraph (j) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection of the MLG sliding piston sub-assembly, bogie beam stop pad, and the bogie beam under the stop pad, thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 2,500 flight cycles or 24 months, whichever occurs first.

    (h) Compliance Times for the Actions Required by Paragraph (g) of This AD

    Do the applicable actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD at the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), or (h)(4) of this AD.

    (1) For airplanes identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD having an MLG P/N 201252 series or P/N 201490 series: Before the accumulation of 2,500 total flight cycles or 24 months, whichever occurs first since the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Since first flight after a MLG overhaul.

    (ii) Since first flight after the most recent accomplishment of an inspection of the MLG, as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3220, Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3248, Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4286, or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4264, as applicable.

    (2) For airplanes identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD having an MLG P/N 10-210 series: Before the accumulation of 126 months since first flight of the MLG on an airplane or since first flight on an airplane after the most recent inspection of the MLG, as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3248, or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4286, as applicable.

    (3) For airplanes identified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD having an MLG P/N 201252 series or P/N 201490 series: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (h)(3)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Before the accumulation of 2,500 total flight cycles or 24 months, whichever occurs first since the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(3)(i)(A) and (h)(3)(i)(B) of this AD.

    (A) Since first flight of the MLG on an airplane.

    (B) Since first flight after a MLG overhaul.

    (ii) Within 16 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (4) For airplanes identified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD having MLG P/N 10-210 series: Before the accumulation of 126 months since first flight of the MLG on an airplane.

    (i) Optional Overhaul

    For the purposes of this AD, accomplishment of an MLG overhaul is acceptable instead of an inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD. The inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD are not terminated by an MLG overhaul, but are required at the next applicable compliance time required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (j) Service Information Exception

    If the applicable service information specified in paragraph (g) of this AD specifies to contact Messier-Dowty for instructions, or if any repair required by paragraph (g) of this AD is beyond the maximum repair allowance specified in the applicable service information specified in paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (k) MLG Modification

    For airplanes equipped with MLG having P/N 201252 series or MLG having P/N 201490 series: Before the accumulation of 126 months since first flight of the MLG on an airplane or since first flight on an airplane after the most recent overhaul as of the effective date of this AD, as applicable, replace that MLG with a MLG having P/N 201252 series or MLG having P/N 201490 series that has an improved bogie beam, as defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3275, dated December 23, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4305, dated December 23, 2015; as applicable; and in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-306, Revision 1, including Appendix A, dated May 31, 2016.

    (l) Terminating Action Limitation

    Accomplishment of corrective actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this AD.

    (m) Terminating Action for Certain Airplanes

    (1) For airplanes with any MLG having P/N 10-210 series: Modification of the bogie beam of each MLG having P/N 10-210 series, as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3268, Revision 01, dated September 21, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4300, dated April 20, 2015; or Revision 01, dated September 21, 2015; as applicable; and in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-305, including Appendix A, dated April 13, 2015; constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of this AD for that airplane, provided that, following in-service modification, the airplane remains in post-service bulletin configuration.

    (2) For airplanes with any MLG having P/N 201252 series or P/N 201490 series: Installation of both left-hand and right-hand MLG having P/N 201252 series or P/N 201490 series that has an improved bogie beam, as required by paragraph (k) of this AD, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections requirements of this AD for that airplane, provided that, following in-service modification, the airplane remains in post-service bulletin configuration.

    (n) Parts Installation Prohibition

    Do not install on any airplane a pre-Airbus modification MLG having P/N 201252 series or pre-Airbus modification MLG having P/N 201490 series, as specified in paragraph (n)(1) or (n)(2) of this AD, as applicable; or a pre-Airbus modification MLG having P/N 10-210 series, as specified in paragraph (n)(3) or (n)(4) of this AD, as applicable.

    (1) For any airplane that is in post-Airbus Modification 205289 configuration, or on which the modification required by paragraph (k) of this AD has been done: From the effective date of this AD.

    (2) For any airplane that is in pre-Airbus Modification 205289 configuration, or on which the modification required by paragraph (k) of this AD has not been done: After modification of that airplane, as required by paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (3) For any airplane that is in post-Airbus Modification 204421 configuration, or on which the modification specified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD has been done: From the effective date of this AD.

    (4) For an airplane that is in pre-Airbus Modification 204421, or on which the modification required by paragraph (m)(1) of this AD has not been done: After modification of that airplane, as required by paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.

    (o) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (o)(1)(vii) or (o)(2) of this AD, as applicable.

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3248, dated October 5, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3248, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated December 13, 2012, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2013-10-03, Amendment 39-17456 (78 FR 31386, May 24, 2013).

    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3248, Revision 02, dated April 16, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3248, Revision 03, dated November 27, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (v) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3248, Revision 04, dated January 5, 2016, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4286, dated October 5, 2011, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2013-10-03, Amendment 39-17456 (78 FR 31386, May 24, 2013).

    (vii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4286, Revision 01, dated November 27, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (k) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-306, dated December 21, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (p) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; fax: 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2013-10-03 are not approved as AMOCs with this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

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

    (q) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0108, dated June 8, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-3984.

    (2) For Airbus service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; email: [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. For Messier-Bugatti-Dowty service information identified in this AD, contact Messier Services Americas, Customer Support Center, 45360 Severn Way, Sterling, VA 20166-8910; phone: 703-450-8233; fax: 703-404-1621; Internet: https://techpubs.services/messier-dowty.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 9, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05251 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9380; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-21-AD RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; CFE Company Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    The FAA is withdrawing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The NPRM proposed a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain CFE Company (CFE) turbofan engines that published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2017. The proposed action that published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2017 was a duplicate of an NPRM, Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-21-AD, that published in the Federal Register on January 3, 2017. Accordingly, we withdraw the proposed rule that published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2017.

    DATES:

    As of March 22, 2017, the proposed rule published January 5, 2017 (82 FR 52) is withdrawn.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Martin Adler, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7157; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed AD (82 FR 1258, January 5, 2017). Since we published the NPRM, Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-21-AD, in the Federal Register on January 5, 2017 (82 FR 1258), we discovered that it was a duplicate of an NPRM, Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-21-AD, that published in the Federal Register on January 3, 2017 (82 FR 52). This duplication created overlapping comment periods with different comment period closing dates, which is confusing to commenters.

    Withdrawal of the NPRM (82 FR 1258, January 5, 2017) constitutes only such action, and does not preclude the agency from issuing another notice in the future, nor does it commit the agency to any course of action in the future.

    Since this action only withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking, it is neither a proposed nor a final rule. Therefore, Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979) do not cover this withdrawal.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Withdrawal

    Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket No. FAA-2016-9380; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-21-AD, published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2017 (82 FR 1258), is withdrawn.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on March 8, 2017. Carlos A. Pestana, Acting Assistant Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05242 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 1132 [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-2527] Tobacco Product Standard for N-Nitrosonornicotine Level in Finished Smokeless Tobacco Products; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is extending the comment period for the proposed rule that appeared in the Federal Register of January 23, 2017. In the proposed rule, FDA requested comments on its proposal to establish a limit of N-nitrosonornicotine (NNN) in finished smokeless tobacco products. The Agency is taking this action in response to requests for an extension to allow interested persons additional time to submit comments. The Agency is also providing notice of a typographical error in a formula in the Laboratory Information Bulletin (LIB) titled, “Determination of N-nitrosonornicotine (NNN) in Smokeless Tobacco and Tobacco Filler by HPLC-MS/MS” (LIB No. 4620, January 2017). In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review”, the Agency is also taking this opportunity to provide notice that, as with all regulatory actions subject to such memorandum, this proposed rule is being reviewed consistent with the memorandum.

    DATES:

    FDA is extending the comment period on the proposed rule published January 23, 2017 (82 FR 8004). Submit either electronic or written comments by July 10, 2017[. Late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before July 10, 2017. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of [July 10, 2017. 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.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2016-N-2527 for “Tobacco Product Standard for N-nitrosonornicotine Level in Finished Smokeless Tobacco Products.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see DATES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management 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 Division of Dockets Management. 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 Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Beth Buckler or Colleen Lee, Office of Regulations, Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), Food and Drug Administration, Document Control Center, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 877-287-1373, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Federal Register of January 23, 2017, FDA published a proposed rule with a 75-day comment period to request comments on our proposal to establish a limit for NNN in finished smokeless tobacco products. Comments on the proposed rule will inform FDA's rulemaking to establish a tobacco product standard for NNN.

    The Agency has received requests for a 75-day extension of the comment period for the proposed rule. Each request expressed concern that the current 75-day comment period does not allow the public sufficient time to develop thoughtful responses to the proposed rule.

    The Agency also has received a request to clarify a formula in the Laboratory Information Bulletin (LIB) titled, “Determination of N-nitrosonornicotine (NNN) in Smokeless Tobacco and Tobacco Filler by HPLC-MS/MS” (LIB No. 4620, January 2017). Upon further review, FDA has determined that the formula for converting NNN on a wet weight basis to a dry weight basis contains a typographical error—some of the terms and variables in the numerator and denominator were inadvertently switched. FDA has revised the LIB to correct this error (LIB No. 4623, March 2017, available at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/FieldScience/UCM546874.pdf). We note that the typographical error in the LIB did not affect our calculations in the preamble of the proposed rule or the supporting analyses.

    FDA has considered the requests and is extending the comment period for the proposed rule for 90 days, until [July 10, 2017. The 90-day extension will provide additional time for interested persons to submit comments on all aspects of the proposed rule, including whether the approach proposed in the rule is appropriate.

    Dated: March 15, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05490 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0785: FRL-9959-02-Region 10] Air Plan Approval; Washington: General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources, Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to revise the Washington State Implementation Plan (SIP) to approve updates to the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) air quality regulations. The EFSEC regulations primarily adopt by reference the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) general air quality regulations, which the EPA approved in the fall of 2014 and spring of 2015. Consistent with our approval of the Ecology general air quality regulations, we are also proposing to approve revisions to implement the preconstruction permitting regulations for large industrial (major source) facilities in attainment and unclassifiable areas, called the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. The PSD program for major energy facilities under EFSEC's jurisdiction has historically been operated under a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), in cooperation with the EPA and Ecology. If finalized, the EPA's proposed approval of the EFSEC PSD program would narrow the FIP to include only those few potential facilities, emission sources, geographic areas, and permits for which EFSEC does not have jurisdiction or authority. The EPA is also proposing to approve EFSEC's visibility protection permitting program which overlaps significantly with the PSD program in most cases.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before April 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0785 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:

    Jeff Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (AWT-150), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-0256; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background for Proposed Action II. Washington SIP Revisions A. Revised EFSEC Regulations B. Personnel, Funding, and Authority III. Effect of Recent Court Decisions Vacating and Remanding Certain Federal Rules A. Sierra Club v. EPA B. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA IV. The EPA's Proposed Action A. Regulations to Approve and Incorporate by Reference into the SIP B. Regulations to Approve but Not Incorporate by Reference C. Regulations to Remove from the SIP D. Proposed Transfer of Existing EPA-issued PSD Permits E. Scope of Proposed Action F. The EPA's Oversight Role V. Incorporation by Reference VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background for Proposed Action

    By statute, EFSEC has jurisdiction for managing the air program with respect to major energy facilities in the State of Washington. See Chapter 80.50 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). The EFSEC air quality regulations are contained in Chapter 463-78 Washington Administrative Code (WAC) General and Operating Permit Regulations for Air Pollution Sources. These EFSEC regulations rely primarily on the incorporation by reference of the corresponding Ecology general air quality regulations contained in Chapter 173-400 WAC General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources. On July 27, 2015, effective August 27, 2015, EFSEC updated its regulations to generally adopt by reference the version of Chapter 173-400 WAC approved into the SIP at that time.1 On December 20, 2016, EFSEC, in cooperation with Ecology, requested that the EPA approve the updated EFSEC regulations consistent with our phased approval of Chapter 173-400 WAC. See 79 FR 59653 (October 3, 2014, approval of general provisions), 79 FR 66291 (November 7, 2014, approval of major source nonattainment new source review), and 80 FR 23721 (April 29, 2015, approval of PSD and visibility protection permitting programs).

    1 On October 6, 2016, the EPA approved minor revisions to Chapter 173-400 WAC, primarily updating the adoption by reference date of cited Federal regulations (81 FR 69385). Because EFSEC already modified its regulations to include an updated adoption by reference date for cited Federal regulations, this minor change to Chapter 173-400 WAC does not substantively affect EFSEC's submission.

    II. Washington SIP Revisions A. Revised EFSEC Regulations

    The EPA last approved EFSEC's air quality regulations on May 23, 1996 (61 FR 25791). Aside from recodification from 463-39 to 463-78 WAC, grammatical changes, and minor clarifications, the EFSEC air quality regulations remain substantially unchanged since the EPA's last approval. The more substantive changes include EFSEC's modification of WAC 463-78-095 Permit Issuance to clarify that new permits, and modifications to existing permits, shall be conditioned upon compliance with all provisions of the federally-approved SIP. Other changes include updating citations in Chapter 463-78 WAC to better align with the associated provisions in Chapter 173-400 WAC. A full redline/strikeout comparison of the 1996 SIP-approved version of the EFSEC regulations to the submitted 2015 version is included in the docket for this action. We reviewed the revisions to the regulations and are proposing to determine that they meet the requirements of section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    The most substantive component of EFSEC's regulations is WAC 463-78-005 Adoption by Reference, which generally adopts by reference Chapter 173-400 WAC to match the EPA's October 3, 2014, November 7, 2014, and April 29, 2015 phased approval of Ecology's general air quality rules. We note that EFSEC's adoption by reference of Chapter 173-400 WAC is modified in three ways. First, references in Chapter 173-400 WAC regarding appeals are modified to reflect EFSEC's independent appeals process in WAC 463-78-140. Second, the cross references to fees under Chapter 173-455 WAC are modified to reflect EFSEC's independent fee structure set out in Chapter 80.50 RCW. Lastly, WAC 173-400-720 contains Ecology's adoption by reference of the federal PSD program regulations contained in 40 CFR 52.21, with some exceptions. EFSEC modified the adoption by reference of WAC 173-400-720 to reflect the most recent version of 40 CFR 52.21 available at that time (May 1, 2015).

    We note two additional factors regarding EFSEC's incorporation by reference of Chapter 173-400 WAC. First, while EFSEC generally adopts most of the provisions of Chapter 173-400 WAC by reference, not all provisions are included. For example, consistent with the EPA's prior approval of the EFSEC regulations, EFSEC did not adopt by reference the enforcement and authority provisions contained in WAC 173-400-220 through 260. For these provisions, EFSEC relies on its own independent authorities, which are currently part of Washington's federally-approved SIP under WAC 463-39-135 through 230. In other cases, such as WAC 173-400-118 Designation of Class I, II, and III Areas, WAC 173-400-151 Retrofit Requirements for Visibility Protection, and parts of WAC 173-400-070 Emission Standards for Certain Source Categories, EFSEC did not adopt these Chapter 173-400 WAC provisions by reference because they pertain to source categories or authorities outside the scope of EFSEC's jurisdiction. The second factor is that many parts of Chapter 173-400 WAC contain provisions that are not related to the criteria pollutants regulated under title I of the CAA, not related to the requirements for SIPs under section 110 of the CAA, or have not been revised since last approved by the EPA. For this reason, EFSEC only submitted for SIP approval those parts of the incorporation by reference of Chapter 173-400 WAC consistent with the EPA's October 3, 2014, November 7, 2014, and April 29, 2015 phased approval. A full listing of the Chapter 173-400 WAC provisions submitted for approval is included in Section IV.

    B. Personnel, Funding, and Authority

    Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the CAA requires that agencies have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out the SIP. EFSEC's authority under state law to carry out the air program for major energy facilities, including the PSD and visibility protection permitting programs, is derived from Chapter 80.50 RCW. With respect to personnel and funding, EFSEC has issued CAA PSD permits, in coordination with Ecology, under a partial delegation agreement with the EPA since 1993. These PSD permits include the visibility protection requirements of WAC 173-400-117 Special Protection Requirements for Federal Class I Areas, adopted by reference in EFSEC's regulations. As described in our April 29, 2015 final approval of WAC 173-400-117, these visibility protection requirements would also apply to visibility-related elements associated with permits issued under the major nonattainment new source review program under WAC 173-400-800 through 860, also adopted by reference in the EFSEC regulations (see 80 FR 23721, at page 23726). The staff of engineers and air quality modelers at both EFSEC and Ecology, who supported issuance of permits under the delegation agreement with the EPA, will continue to support EFSEC's issuance of permits under a SIP-approved PSD and visibility protection program. Chapter 80.50 RCW also provides EFSEC the authority to charge fees for the coordinated EFSEC and Ecology review of any new or modified permits. The EPA therefore proposes to find that EFSEC has adequate personnel, funding, and authority to implement the PSD and visibility protection programs for facilities in its jurisdiction.

    III. Effect of Court Decisions Vacating and Remanding Certain Federal Rules A. Sierra Club v. EPA

    The EPA's January 7, 2015 proposed approval of Ecology's PSD program included a discussion of the Sierra Club v. EPA, 703 F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013) decision which vacated certain provisions of the Federal PSD regulations related to fine particulate matter (PM2.5). See 80 FR 838, at page 842. As discussed in the proposed approval, Ecology's regulations at that time in WAC 173-400-720(4)(a)(vi) generally incorporated by reference the Federal PSD permitting provisions in effect as of August 13, 2012, including the vacated provisions of 40 CFR 52.21(i) (relating to the significant monitoring concentration) and 40 CFR 52.21(k) (relating to the significant impact level). The EPA subsequently removed the vacated PM2.5 SIL and SMC provisions from the Federal PSD regulations effective December 9, 2013 (78 FR 73698). Ecology resolved this issue by revising WAC 173-400-720(4)(a)(vi) to an updated version of 40 CFR 52.21 that did not contain the vacated provisions (81 FR 69385, October 6, 2016). Similarly, we are proposing to determine that EFSEC has resolved this issue by modifying its incorporation by reference of WAC 173-400-720(4)(a)(vi) to reflect the May 1, 2015 version of 40 CFR 52.21 that does not contain the vacated PM2.5 SIL and SMC provisions.

    B. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA

    On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, addressing the application of stationary source permitting requirements to greenhouse gases (GHGs). The U.S. Supreme Court held that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for the specific purpose of determining whether a source is a major source (or a modification thereof) and thus required to obtain a PSD or title V permit. In response to the Supreme Court's decision, and the subsequent vacatur of 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v) by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the EPA removed these requirements from the federal PSD regulations (80 FR 50199, August 19, 2015). Because the EPA's removal of the vacated provisions occurred after EFSEC's May 1, 2015 citation date incorporating 40 CFR 52.21, the EFSEC regulations adopted by reference in WAC 463-78-005 have not yet captured the EPA's update. In order to align with the Supreme Court decision and to prevent delay in the EPA's consideration of the EFSEC regulations, EFSEC clarified in the December 20, 2016 SIP submittal that it is not submitting the incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v) for approval. EFSEC intends to incorporate by reference a more recent version of 40 CFR 52.21 that does not contain the vacated provisions, as soon as practicable.

    EFSEC's SIP submittal does not discuss the fact that, because it adopted the EPA's PSD regulations as of May 1, 2015, its rules include the elements of the EPA's 2012 rule implementing Step 3 of the phase-in of PSD permitting requirements for GHGs described in the Tailoring Rule, which became effective on August 13, 2012 (77 FR 41051, July 12, 2012). The incorporation of the Step 3 rule provisions allows GHG-emitting sources to obtain plantwide applicability limits (PALs) for their GHG emissions on a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) basis. The Federal GHG PAL provisions, as currently written, include some provisions that may no longer be appropriate in light of the Supreme Court decision. Because the Supreme Court has determined that sources and modifications may not be defined as “major” solely on the basis of the level of greenhouse gases emitted or increased, PALs for greenhouse gases may no longer have value in some situations where a source might have triggered PSD based on GHG emissions alone. However, PALs for GHGs may still have a role in determining whether a modification that triggers PSD for a pollutant other than GHGs should also be subject to Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for GHGs. These provisions will likely be revised pending further legal action. However, these provisions do not add new requirements for sources or modifications that only emit or increase GHGs above the major source threshold or the 75,000 tons per year (tpy) GHG threshold in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(iv). Rather, the PALs provisions provide increased flexibility to sources that choose to address their GHG emissions in a PAL. Because this flexibility may still be valuable to sources in at least one context described above, we believe that it is appropriate to approve these provisions into the Washington SIP at this point in time. The EPA is therefore proposing to determine that EFSEC's SIP revision meets the necessary PSD requirements at this time, consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.

    IV. The EPA's Proposed Action A. Regulations To Approve and Incorporate by Reference Into the SIP

    The EPA proposes to approve and incorporate by reference into the Washington SIP at 40 CFR 52.2470(c)—Table 3—Additional Regulations Approved for the Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) Jurisdiction, the revised EFSEC regulations listed in Table 1 below.

    Table 1—Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) Regulations for Proposed Approval and Incorporation by Reference State/local
  • citation
  • Title/subject State/local
  • effective date
  • Explanation
    Chapter 463-78 WAC, General and Operating Permit Regulations for Air Pollution Sources. 78-005 Adoption by Reference 8/27/15 Except: (2), (3), (4), and (5). See table below for revised Chapter 173-400 WAC provisions incorporated by reference. 78-010 Purpose 8/27/15 78-020 Applicability 11/11/04 78-030 Additional Definitions 8/27/15 Except references to 173-401-200 and 173-406-101. 78-095 Permit Issuance 8/27/15 78-120 Monitoring and Special Report 11/11/04
    Table 2—Revised Chapter 173-400 WAC Regulations Incorporated by Reference in WAC 463-78-005 2 State citation Title/subject State effective date Explanations Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173-400—General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources. 173-400-030 Definitions 12/29/12 Except: 173-400-030(91). 173-400-036 Relocation of Portable Sources 12/29/12 173-400-040 General Standards for Maximum Emissions 4/1/11 Except: 173-400-040(2)(c); 173-400-040(2)(d); 173-400-040(3); 173-400-040(5); 173-400-040(7), second paragraph. 173-400-050 Emission Standards for Combustion and Incineration Units 12/29/12 Except: 173-400-050(2); 173-400-050(4); 173-400-050(5). 173-400-060 Emission Standards for General Process Units 2/10/05 173-400-070 Emission Standards for Certain Source Categories 12/29/12 Except: 173-400-070(1); 173-400-070(2); 173-400-070(3); 173-400-070(4); 173-400-070(6); 173-400-070(7); 173-400-070(8). 173-400-081 Startup and Shutdown 4/1/11 173-400-091 Voluntary Limits on Emissions 4/1/11 173-400-105 Records, Monitoring, and Reporting 12/29/12 173-400-110 New Source Review (NSR) for Sources and Portable Sources 12/29/12 Except: 173-400-110(1)(c)(ii)(C); 173-400-110(1)(e); 173-400-110(2)(d); The part of WAC 173-400-110(4)(b)(vi) that says, • “not for use with materials containing toxic air pollutants, as listed in chapter 173-460 WAC,”; The part of 400-110 (4)(e)(iii) that says, • “where toxic air pollutants as defined in chapter 173-460 WAC are not emitted”; The part of 400-110(4)(f)(i) that says, • “that are not toxic air pollutants listed in chapter 173-460 WAC”; The part of 400-110 (4)(h)(xviii) that says, • “, to the extent that toxic air pollutant gases as defined in chapter 173-460 WAC are not emitted”; The part of 400-110 (4)(h)(xxxiii) that says, • “where no toxic air pollutants as listed under chapter 173-460 WAC are emitted”; The part of 400-110(4)(h)(xxxiv) that says, • “, or ≤ 1% (by weight) toxic air pollutants as listed in chapter 173-460 WAC”; The part of 400-110(4)(h)(xxxv) that says, • “or ≤ 1% (by weight) toxic air pollutants”; The part of 400-110(4)(h)(xxxvi) that says, • “or ≤ 1% (by weight) toxic air pollutants as listed in chapter 173-460 WAC”; 400-110(4)(h)(xl), second sentence; The last row of the table in 173-400-110(5)(b) regarding exemption levels for Toxic Air Pollutants. 173-400-111 Processing Notice of Construction Applications for Sources, Stationary Sources and Portable Sources 12/29/12 Except: 173-400-111(3)(h); 173-400-111 (5)(a) (last six words); 173-400-111 (6); The part of 173-400-111(8)(a)(v) that says, • “and 173-460-040,”; 173-400-111(9). 173-400-112 Requirements for New Sources in Nonattainment Areas—Review for Compliance with Regulations 12/29/12 173-400-113 New Sources in Attainment or Unclassifiable Areas—Review for Compliance with Regulations 12/29/12 Except: 173-400-113(3), second sentence. 173-400-116 Increment Protection 9/10/11 173-400-117 Special Protection Requirements for
  • Federal Class I Areas
  • 12/29/12
    173-400-131 Issuance of Emission Reduction Credits 4/1/11 173-400-136 Use of Emission Reduction Credits (ERC) 4/1/11 173-400-171 Public Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment 12/29/12 Except:
  • The part of 173-400-171(3)(b) that says,
  • • “or any increase in emissions of a toxic air pollutant above the acceptable source impact level for that toxic air pollutant as regulated under chapter 173-460 WAC”;173-400-171(12). 173-400-175 Public Information 2/10/05 173-400-200 Creditable Stack Height and Dispersion Techniques 2/10/05 173-400-700 Review of Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution 4/1/11 173-400-710 Definitions 12/29/12 173-400-720 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 12/29/12 Except: 173-400-720(4)(a)(i through iv); 173-400-720(4)(b)(iii)(C); and 173-400-720(4)(a)(vi) with respect to the incorporation by reference of the text in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v). * For the purpose of EFSEC's incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.21, the date in WAC 173-400-720 (4)(a)(vi) is May 1, 2015. 173-400-730 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Application Processing Procedures 12/29/12 Except 173-400-730(4) 173-400-740 PSD Permitting Public Involvement
  • Requirements
  • 12/29/12
    173-400-750 Revisions to PSD Permits 12/29/12 Except: 173-400-750(2) second sentence. 173-400-800 Major Stationary Source and Major
  • Modification in a Nonattainment Area
  • 4/1/11
    173-400-810 Major Stationary Source and Major Modification Definitions 12/29/12 173-400-820 Determining if a New Stationary Source or Modification to a Stationary Source is Subject to these Requirements 12/29/12 173-400-830 Permitting Requirements 12/29/12 173-400-840 Emission Offset Requirements 12/29/12 173-400-850 Actual Emissions Plantwide Applicability Limitation (PAL) 12/29/12 173-400-860 Public Involvement Procedures 4/1/11
    B. Regulations To Approve but Not Incorporate by Reference

    2 Several of the provision of Chapter 173-400 WAC incorporated by reference remain unchanged since the EPA's last approval of EFSEC's regulations and were not resubmitted as part of the December 20, 2016 SIP revision.

    In addition to the regulations proposed for approval and incorporation by reference above, the EPA reviews and approves state submissions to ensure they provide adequate enforcement authority and other general authority to implement and enforce the SIP. However, regulations describing state enforcement and other general authorities are generally not incorporated by reference, so as to avoid potential conflict with the EPA's independent authorities. The EPA has reviewed and is proposing to approve WAC 463-78-135 Criminal Penalties, WAC 463-78-140 Appeals Procedure (except subsections 3 and 4 which deal with permits outside the scope of CAA section 110), WAC 463-78-170 Conflict of Interest, and WAC 463-78-230 Regulatory Actions, as providing EFSEC with adequate enforcement and other general authority for purposes of implementing and enforcing its SIP, but is not incorporating these sections by reference into the SIP codified in 40 CFR 52.2470(c). Instead, the EPA is proposing to include these sections in 40 CFR 52.2470(e), EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures, as approved but not incorporated by reference regulatory provisions.

    C. Regulations To Remove From the SIP

    As discussed in our July 10, 2014 proposed approval of revisions to Chapter 173-400 WAC, Ecology formerly relied on the registration program under WAC 173-400-100 for determining the applicability of the new source review (NSR) permitting program (see 79 FR 39351 at page 39354). By statutory directive, this means of determining NSR applicability was replaced by revisions to WAC 173-400-110 which set de minimis emission unit, activity, and annual emission thresholds. In our October 3, 2014 final action, we approved WAC 173-400-110 as the means of determining NSR applicability, and at Ecology's request, removed WAC 173-400-100 from the SIP (79 FR 59653). Consistent with our proposed and final approval of revisions to Chapter 173-400 WAC, we are now proposing to remove, at EFSEC's request, WAC 463-39-100 Registration (recodified to WAC 463-78-100) from the SIP because it is no longer used as the means of determining NSR applicability.

    As previously discussed, EFSEC adopted by reference most of the provisions in Chapter 173-400 WAC, but excluded certain provisions pertaining to authorities or source categories outside EFSEC's jurisdiction. WAC 173-400-151 Retrofit Requirements for Visibility Protection is one such provision. The EPA's May 23, 1996 approval of EFSEC's regulations included the incorporation by reference of WAC 173-400-151 (61 FR 25791). These regulations establish Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) as part of the visibility protection program for an “existing stationary facility.” Under WAC 173-400-151 an “existing stationary facility” is defined, among other factors, as a facility not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, and also in existence on August 7, 1977. EFSEC has advised the EPA that there are no sources under EFSEC's jurisdiction that meet the definition of BART-eligible sources. The EPA is therefore proposing to grant EFSEC's request to remove the incorporation by reference of WAC 173-400-151 from the SIP.

    D. Proposed Transfer of Existing EPA-Issued PSD Permits

    As part of the SIP submittal, EFSEC requested approval to exercise its authority to fully administer the PSD program with respect to those sources under EFSEC's permitting jurisdiction that have existing PSD permits issued by the EPA. This includes authority to conduct general administration of these existing permits, authority to process and issue any and all subsequent PSD permit actions relating to such permits (e.g., modifications, amendments, or revisions of any nature), and authority to enforce such permits. Since 1993, EFSEC has had partial delegation of the PSD permitting program under the FIP. Therefore, many of the EPA permits subject to proposed transfer were also issued under state authority. For those permits issued solely by the EPA prior to delegation, EFSEC, in coordination with Ecology, has demonstrated adequate authority to enforce and modify these permits. Concurrent with our approval of EFSEC's PSD program into the Washington SIP, we are proposing to transfer the EPA-issued permits to EFSEC for the Chehalis Generation Facility and Grays Harbor Energy Center facilities.

    E. Scope of Proposed Action

    The EPA is excluding from the scope of this proposed approval certain limitations as they relate to PSD requirements for carbon dioxide emissions from industrial combustion of biomass. As discussed in our April 29, 2015 approval of Ecology's PSD program, a Washington State statutory provision contained in RCW 70.235.020 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions—Reporting Requirements states, “Except for purposes of reporting, emissions of carbon dioxide from industrial combustion of biomass in the form of fuel wood, wood waste, wood by-products, and wood residuals shall not be considered a greenhouse gas as long as the region's silvicultural sequestration capacity is maintained or increased.” See 80 FR 23721, at page 23722. As a result, consistent with our prior approval, the EPA is proposing to retain a FIP to issue partial PSD permits to ensure that major sources in Washington have a means to satisfy the CAA construction permit requirements for GHGs when CO2 emissions from the industrial combustion of biomass in Washington are not being considered or regulated by EFSEC under its PSD rules.

    If finalized, the EPA is proposing to revise the PSD FIP at 40 CFR 52.2497 and the visibility protection FIP at 40 CFR 52.2498 to reflect the approval of EFSEC's PSD and visibility permitting programs. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to delete paragraph (a)(1) of 40 CFR 52.2497 and paragraph (a)(1) of 40 CFR 52.2498, both of which address facilities subject to the jurisdiction of EFSEC in these FIPs.

    F. The EPA's Oversight Role

    In approving state NSR rules into SIPs, the EPA has a responsibility to ensure that all states properly implement their SIP-approved preconstruction permitting programs. The EPA's proposed approval of EFSEC's PSD rules does not divest the EPA of the responsibility to continue appropriate oversight to ensure that permits issued by EFSEC are consistent with the requirements of the CAA, Federal regulations, and the SIP. The EPA's authority to oversee permit program implementation is set forth in sections 113, 167, and 505(b) of the CAA. For example, section 167 provides that the EPA shall issue administrative orders, initiate civil actions, or take whatever other action may be necessary to prevent the construction or modification of a major stationary source that does not “conform to the requirements of” the PSD program. Similarly, section 113(a)(5) of the CAA provides for administrative orders and civil actions whenever the EPA finds that a state “is not acting in compliance with” any requirement or prohibition of the CAA regarding the construction of new sources or modification of existing sources. Likewise, section 113(a)(1) provides for a range of enforcement remedies whenever the EPA finds that a person is in violation of an applicable implementation plan.

    In making judgments as to what constitutes compliance with the CAA and regulations issued thereunder, the EPA looks to (among other sources) its prior interpretations regarding those statutory and regulatory requirements and policies for implementing them. It follows that state actions implementing the Federal CAA that do not conform to the CAA may lead to potential oversight action by the EPA.

    V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to revise our incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.2470(c)—Table 3—Additional Regulations Approved for the Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) Jurisdiction to reflect the regulations shown in the tables in section IV.A. Regulations to Approve and Incorporate by Reference into the SIP and the rules proposed for removal from the SIP in section IV.C. Regulations to Remove from the SIP. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble 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 CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and

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

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. As discussed above, the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, except for non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation (also known as the 1873 Survey Area), or any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA provided a consultation opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a letter dated July 1, 2016. The EPA did not receive a request for consultation.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 10, 2017. Nancy J. Lindsay, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05467 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0333; FRL-9959-06-Region 10] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon: Permitting and General Rule Revisions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve, and incorporate by reference, specific changes to Oregon's State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on April 22, 2015. The changes relate to the criteria pollutants for which the EPA has established national ambient air quality standards—carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Specifically, the changes account for new federal requirements for fine particulate matter, update the major and minor source pre-construction permitting programs, and add state-level air quality designations. The changes also address public notice procedures for informational meetings, and tighten emission standards for dust and smoke. In addition, Oregon reorganized rules in the SIP by consolidating definitions, removing duplicate provisions, correcting errors, and removing outdated provisions. We note that certain rule changes are not appropriate for SIP approval, or are inconsistent with Clean Air Act requirements. In those cases, we are not approving the revisions.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0333, 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:

    Kristin Hall, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency—Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-6357; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

    Table of Contents I. Background II. Evaluation of Revisions A. Division 200: General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions B. Division 202: Ambient Air Quality Standards and PSD Increments C. Division 204: Designation of Air Quality Areas D. Division 206: Air Pollution Emergencies E. Division 208: Visible Emissions and Nuisance Requirements F. Division 209: Public Participation G. Division 210: Stationary Source Notification Requirements H. Division 212: Stationary Source Testing and Monitoring I. Division 214: Stationary Source Reporting Requirements J. Division 216: Air Contaminant Discharge Permits K. Division 222: Stationary Source Plant Site Emission Limits L. Division 224: New Source Review M. Division 225: Air Quality Analysis Requirements N. Division 226: General Emission Standards O. Division 228: Requirements for Fuel Burning Equipment and Fuel Sulfur Content P. Division 232: Emission Standards for VOC Point Sources Q. Division 234: Emissions Standards for Wood Products Industries R. Division 236: Emissions Standards for Specific Industries S. Division 240: Rules for Areas With Unique Air Quality Needs T. Division 242: Rules Applicable to the Portland Area U. Division 262: Heat Smart Program for Residential Woodstoves and Other Solid Fuel Heating Devices V. Division 264: Rules for Open Burning W. Division 268: Emission Reduction Credits X. Source Sampling Manual and Continuous Monitoring Manual IV. Proposed Action A. Rules Approved and Incorporated by Reference B. Rules Approved but Not Incorporated by Reference C. Rules Removed D. Rules Not Approved V. Incorporation by Reference VI. Oregon Notice Provision VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    Each state has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies used to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) established by the EPA for the criteria pollutants (carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide). The SIP is extensive, containing such elements as air pollution control regulations, emission inventories, monitoring network, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms. The SIP is a living compilation of these elements and is revised and updated by the state over time—to keep pace with federal requirements and to address changing air quality issues in the state.

    On April 22, 2015, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) submitted significant revisions to the Oregon SIP. Oregon made changes to 26 Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) divisions within Chapter 340, and two source sampling and monitoring manuals related to the rules. These changes, effective April 16, 2015, are part of Oregon's ongoing efforts to update state air quality rules and the SIP.

    Oregon's April 22, 2015 submission documents the public notice and hearing process undertaken by the state, including the state's response to comments received. The submission requests EPA approval of the following changes to air quality rules in Oregon's federally-approved State Implementation Plan (SIP):

    • Updates particulate matter emission standards;

    • revises permitting requirements for emergency generators and small natural gas or oil-fired equipment;

    • establishes two new state air quality area designations—sustainment and reattainment;

    • revises the major and minor source pre-construction permitting programs;

    • changes public processes for informational meetings;

    • revises the state's woodstove replacement program for small commercial solid fuel boilers regulated under the permitting program;

    • updates the Oregon Source Sampling Manual, Volumes I and II, and the Oregon Continuous Monitoring Manual; and

    • removes annual reporting requirements for small gasoline dispensing facilities.

    As part of the submission, Oregon included a staff report outlining the changes to the state air quality rules and how the revised rules have been designed to protect air quality standards. Oregon also developed a “crosswalk” document—a comprehensive list of the rule changes and why they were proposed. The submission, including the staff report, crosswalk document, public comments and responses, is located in the docket for this action.

    We note that on November 14, 2016, Oregon submitted a letter to correct administrative errors in the original April 20, 2015, cover letter and attachment. In the letter of correction, Oregon identified several rules that were submitted to the EPA in error. These rules were not adopted by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) as part of the Oregon SIP, and should not have been submitted for SIP approval. Oregon also noted one provision that was adopted by the EQC and should have been submitted. Please see the November 14, 2016 letter of correction in the docket for this action.

    Below, we discuss our review of the submitted changes to the Oregon SIP, and our proposed action. We have focused on the substantive rule revisions. We did not describe the many typographical corrections, minor edits, and renumbering changes. We also note this action does not address submitted revisions for small gasoline dispensing facilities because we approved the revisions on October 27, 2015 (80 FR 65655).

    II. Evaluation of Revisions A. Division 200: General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions Definitions

    Division 200 contains definitions used throughout the air quality divisions of Chapter 340 of the OAR, as well as other generally-applicable rules. However, over time, terms and definitions have also been established throughout other divisions. In the submitted changes, Oregon re-organized and streamlined rules to move most air quality terms and definitions into Division 200. Oregon also moved procedural elements out of the definitions in Division 200, and into the specific divisions to which they apply. Duplicate and obsolete terms were removed. In this section of our evaluation, we discuss key changes to existing definitions and new terms used in multiple divisions. Substantive new terms, or revisions to definitions that are mostly used in a single division, are evaluated in Sections B through X below (in the discussion of the changes to the specific division).

    To improve clarity, the state revised key definitions to consistently use certain terms—such as “regulated pollutant,” “control device,” “major modification,” “major source,” and “unclassified,”—and removed variations on these terms that may have created confusion. Oregon also added new definitions to Division 200. “Capture efficiency,” “control efficiency,” “destruction efficiency,” and “removal efficiency” were added to differentiate amongst similar terms. The state defined the term “internal combustion sources” to clarify the universe of regulated fuel burning equipment under Oregon's rules.

    Oregon also defined the term “portable,” as “designed and capable of being carried or moved from one location to another.” At the same time, the state revised the definition of “stationary source” to include portable sources required to have permits under Oregon's air contaminant discharge permitting (ACDP) program at Division 216. “Wood fuel-fired device” was used in multiple Oregon rules, but was never formally defined. The state added the term, defined as “a device or appliance designed for wood fuel combustion, including cordwood stoves, woodstoves, and fireplace stove inserts, fireplaces, wood fuel-fired cook stoves, pellet stoves and combination fuel furnaces and boilers that burn wood fuels.” The remainder of the new definitions established are common dictionary terms.

    Oregon also made substantive changes to several definitions. The definition of “adjacent” at OAR 340-200-0020(4) was narrowed by limiting the use of this defined term (“interdependent facilities that are nearby to each other”) to its use in the “major source” definition at OAR 340-200-0020(91), and in the air contaminant discharge permit program (ACDP) at OAR 340-216-0070. In other places where the term “adjacent” is used, the ODEQ's response to comments document in the submission indicates that the ODEQ intends to use the dictionary definition.

    Oregon revised the term “categorically insignificant activities” at OAR 340-200-0020(23) in several respects. In general, the revisions narrow when emissions may be excluded from consideration—in some aspects of Oregon's permitting program—as “insignificant.” For example, Oregon put a cap on the aggregate emissions from fuel burning equipment that may be considered categorically insignificant, and also restricted when emergency generators may be considered categorically insignificant (limiting the exemption to no more than 3,000 horsepower, in the aggregate). Oregon also narrowed when emissions from oil/water separators in effluent treatment systems may be considered categorically insignificant. We note that Oregon did create a new category of insignificant emissions—fuel burning equipment brought on site for six months or less for construction, maintenance, or similar purposes, provided the equipment performs the same function as the permanent equipment, and is operated within the source's existing plant site emission limit. Importantly, however, insignificant activity emissions must be included in determining whether a source is a “federal major source” (OAR 340-200-0020(66)) or a “major modification” (OAR 340-224-0025(2)(a)(B)) subject to federal major new source review (federal major NSR).1 In addition, as specified in OAR 340-200-0020(23), categorically insignificant activities must still comply with all applicable requirements.

    1 This includes both the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) new source review permitting program that applies in attainment and unclassifiable areas (40 CFR 51.166) and the nonattainment major source new source review permitting program that applies in nonattainment areas (40 CFR 51.165).

    Oregon revised the definition of “modification,” at OAR 340-200-0020(93), to differentiate it from the terms “major modification,” “permit modification,” and “title I modification,” and to make clear that it applies to a change in a portion of a source, as well as a source in its entirety. The state also simplified the definition of “ozone precursor” at OAR 340-200-0020(107) to remove redundant language pointing to the reference method for measuring volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Oregon made the same type of change to the definition of “particulate matter” at OAR 340-200-0020(110). For consistency, at OAR 340-200-0020(119) and (120), the short-hand terms for coarse and fine particulate matter, “PM10” and “PM2.5,” were updated to reference the test method for measuring each pollutant. The definition of “volatile organic compounds” or “VOC,” at OAR 340-200-0020(190), was updated to take into account changes to the EPA's definition of VOC in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 51.100(s).

    We have evaluated these changes, and the additional changes to definitions discussed in Sections B through X below, and propose to find that they are consistent with Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements and the EPA's implementing regulations. We therefore propose to approve the revised and added definitions into the Oregon SIP.

    LRAPA Jurisdiction

    A key aspect of the submitted revisions relates to jurisdiction. Oregon added new applicability language to Division 200, and throughout the air quality rules, to address the applicability of state rules in Lane County, the authority of the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) to implement and enforce state rules in the county, and the authority of LRAPA to adopt local rules. The changes clarify that the ODEQ administers its rules in all areas, except where the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) has designated the LRAPA to have primary jurisdiction in Lane County. The revisions also make clear that the LRAPA is authorized to implement state rules within Lane County, and may promulgate a local rule in lieu of a state rule provided: (1) It is as stringent as the state rule; and (2) it has been submitted to and approved by the EQC. We propose to approve the delegation of authority language in Division 200, and in all other divisions, because it is consistent with CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) requirements for state and local air agencies.

    We note that the state also submitted the ODEQ-LRAPA Stringency Analysis and Directive, comparing the Oregon state rule revisions to the corollary rules generally applicable in Lane County. The analysis identifies which of the revised state rules are more stringent, and directs the LRAPA to implement them, until such time as the LRAPA revises its own rules to be at least as strict. Please see Section IV below for a listing of the submitted rule revisions that we propose to approve as also applying in Lane County. The ODEQ-LRAPA Stringency Analysis and Directive is in Attachment B of the submission, and may be found in the docket for this action.

    Other Provisions

    The submission also includes changes to the generally applicable sections in Division 200. Oregon submitted changes to OAR 340-200-0030 to clarify that woodstove emissions are regulated, and may also be used to create emissions reduction credits. In addition, Oregon added a general rule section at OAR 340-200-0035, listing updated versions of key reference materials for air quality requirements. We propose to approve and incorporate by reference these changes.

    We note that this division contains rules on conflicts of interests at OAR 340-200-0100, 0110, and 0120. These rules were not substantively changed in the submittal and remain consistent with the CAA requirements for such rules at CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E) and 128. We propose to approve, but not incorporate by reference, OAR 340-200-0100, 0110, and 0120, to avoid the potential for confusion or potential conflict with the EPA's independent authorities. We note that, consistent with our 2003 action, we are not approving OAR 340-200-0050 because any compliance schedule established by Oregon under this provision must be submitted to, and approved by EPA, before it will be federally-enforceable or change the requirements of the EPA-approved SIP. 40 CFR 51.102(a)(2) and (c) and 260; 68 FR 2891, 2894 (Jan. 22, 2003).

    B. Division 202: Ambient Air Quality Standards and PSD Increments

    Division 202 contains Oregon's ambient air quality standards and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) increments. Oregon revised Division 202 by removing obsolete definitions and moving definitions used in more than one division to the general definitions in Division 200. At OAR 340-202-0050, Oregon added language expressly stating that no source may cause or contribute to a new violation of an ambient air quality standard or a PSD increment, even if the single source impact is less than the significant impact level. Oregon made this change to address a court decision vacating and remanding regulatory text for the PM2.5 significant impact level. Please see Section L below for a more detailed discussion of the basis for our determination that this change, along with other related changes, adequately addresses the court decision.

    At OAR 340-202-0210, the specific PSD increments were moved from a table to the text of the rule for readability. Oregon also clarified that PSD increments are compared to aggregate increases in pollution concentrations from the new or modified source, over the baseline concentration. The state moved ambient air quality thresholds for pollutants from Division 224 to this division, to centralize ambient standards and thresholds. Finally, Oregon consolidated requirements for areas subject to an approved maintenance plan, moving ambient standards and thresholds from Division 224 into a new section, at OAR 340-202-0225. We propose to approve the submitted revisions to Division 202 as being consistent with CAA requirements.

    C. Division 204: Designation of Air Quality Areas

    This division contains provisions for the designation of air quality areas in Oregon. In the submission, the state removed a reference to “Indian Governing Bodies” at OAR 340-204-0060 because the ODEQ does not have authority or jurisdiction to regulate them. Oregon also replaced an expired oxygenated gasoline requirement at OAR 340-204-0090 with an updated reference to the applicable maintenance plan and its associated provisions.

    A significant change in this division is the introduction of three new concepts: “sustainment areas,” “reattainment areas,” and “priority” sources. See OAR 340-204-0300 through 0320. Both sustainment and reattainment areas are new, state-level designations designed to add to federal requirements. Oregon has implemented a state-level designation in the past—specifically, the maintenance area designation. Now, Oregon has developed two new designations intended to help areas address air quality problems by further regulating emission increases from major and minor sources.

    To designate an area as sustainment or reattainment, the ODEQ will undertake the same process as used in the past to designate a state maintenance area. The process includes public notice, a rule change, and approval by the EQC. Oregon asserts that the new designations and associated requirements are intended to help solve air quality issues, and do not change attainment planning requirements or federal requirements for major stationary sources.

    The sustainment area designation at OAR 340-204-0300 is designed to apply to an area where monitored values exceed, or have the potential to exceed, ambient air quality standards, but has not been formally designated nonattainment by the EPA.2 To construct or modify a major or minor source in a sustainment area, the owner or operator may need to offset new emissions with reductions from other sources, including the option of targeting “priority” sources, in that area. Priority sources are defined as sources causing or contributing to elevated emissions levels in the area. This is determined using local airshed information, such as emissions inventories and modeling results. A new major or minor stationary source seeking to construct in a sustainment area may obtain more favorable offsets from priority sources.

    2 As codified at 40 CFR part 81.

    The reattainment area designation is designed to apply to an area that is formally designated nonattainment by the EPA, has an EPA-approved attainment plan, and also has three years of quality-assured/quality-controlled monitoring data showing the area is attaining the relevant standard. See OAR 340-204-0310. When an area has met attainment planning requirements and has attained the standard, the CAA requires that a state submit, and the EPA approve, a maintenance plan for the next ten years. The state may then request that the EPA redesignate the area to attainment. In the interim, Oregon may designate the area a reattainment area. The Oregon rules requires that all elements of the area's attainment plan continue to apply with a reattainment designation. However, minor sources will be subject to less stringent state new source review permitting requirements—unless the ODEQ has specifically identified a source as a significant contributor to air quality problems in the area, or has controlled the source and relied on the controls as part of the attainment plan. The federal requirements for redesignation remain in place and are unchanged.

    We propose to approve the revisions to Division 204 because the added rules for state-level designations are consistent with CAA requirements and the EPA's implementing regulations for attainment planning and major source pre-construction permitting. The changes to Oregon's major and minor source permitting program—and our evaluation of those changes—are discussed in detail in Section L below.

    D. Division 206: Air Pollution Emergencies

    This division establishes criteria for identifying and declaring air pollution episodes at levels below the levels of significant harm. Oregon submitted minor changes to this division, such as updating references to the outdated total suspended particulate matter standard, and moving information from four tables into regulatory text. We propose to approve these revisions.

    E. Division 208: Visible Emissions and Nuisance Requirements

    Division 208 contains provisions regulating visible emissions, odor, nuisance, and fugitive emissions from sources. Oregon made substantive changes to the visible emission standards at OAR 340-208-0100 through 0110, supported by a demonstration of why the state believes the changes continue to protect air quality. For all point sources, the state changed visible emission standards from an aggregate exception of three minutes in a 60-minute period to a six-minute block average, aligning the form of and test method for Oregon's visible emission standards with federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). At the same time, Oregon made visible emission standards applicable to each individual stack or emission point, to preclude averaging across the source.

    Oregon also made changes to phase out less stringent visible emission limits granted to certain older facilities in operation before 1970. These sources were required to meet a 40% visible emission limit. However, starting in 2020, these sources will be required to meet the state's standard 20% visible emissions limit. Wood-fired boilers constructed or installed before 1970, and not since modified, also will be held to the tighter 20% visible emissions limit starting in 2020, except for certain, limited situations.

    Oregon asserted in its SIP submittal that a visible emissions standard based on a six-minute average is no more or less stringent than a standard based on an aggregate exception of three minutes in any hour. Oregon argued that, theoretically, either basis could be more stringent than the other, but practically, sources do not typically have intermittent puffs of smoke. Oregon also claimed that changing to a six-minute average is appropriate because a reference compliance method has not been developed for the three-minute standard; EPA Method 9 results are also reported as six-minute averages; and using a three-minute standard results in additional costs for sources that also monitor visible emissions with continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS).

    Many COMS are designed for six-minute averages, and must be modified to record and report data for a three-minute standard. Oregon stated in the submittal that compliance with a six-minute average can be determined with 24 readings (six-minute observation period), while, compliance with a three-minute standard may require as many as 240 readings (60-minute observation period).

    We have evaluated the visible emissions rule changes and Oregon's justification for the changes. We propose to approve the revised version of OAR 340-208-0110 and the removal of OAR 340-208-0100 because we agree that the changes will streamline visible emissions and related testing and monitoring requirements for sources, impose more stringent requirements on certain older sources, and are, overall, at least as protective of the ambient air quality standards as the existing SIP requirements.

    The final changes made to this division revise fugitive emission requirements at OAR 340-208-0200 through 0210. The revised rules require sources to take reasonable precautions to prevent fugitive emissions, and may require a fugitive emissions control plan to prevent visible emissions from leaving a facility property for more than 18 seconds in a six-minute period. Compliance is based on EPA Method 22, Visual Determination of Fugitive Emissions from Material Sources and Smoke Emissions from Flares. Oregon also replaced the specific references to “asphalt” and “oil” in the lists of dust suppressants and control measures with the term “other suitable chemicals,” to discourage the use of oil and asphalt as dust suppressants.

    We propose to approve the revised version of OAR 340-208-0210 and the repeal of OAR 340-208-0200 because we have determined that the fugitive emissions rule changes are consistent with CAA requirements and are expected to improve the effectiveness of controls and compliance with emission limits.

    F. Division 209: Public Participation

    Division 209 governs public participation in the review of proposed permit actions. Oregon revised this division to modernize and clarify public notice requirements. The Oregon SIP provides four different levels of public process, depending on the type of permitting action, with Category I having the least amount of public notice and opportunities for public participation and Category IV having the most. Most new source review permitting actions are subject to category III, for which the ODEQ provides public notice and an opportunity for a hearing at a reasonable time and place if requested, or if the ODEQ otherwise determines a public hearing is necessary. For the state's category IV public process, which applies to Major NSR permitting actions, the ODEQ provides an informational meeting that occurs before issuing a draft permit for public review and comment. The ODEQ has revised the requirements for informational meetings to provide at least a 14-day public notice, prior to the scheduled informational meeting. The revisions also make clear that although the ODEQ accepts, and will consider, comments from the public during the informational meeting, the ODEQ does not maintain an official record of the informational meeting, or respond in writing to comments provided at the informational meeting.

    Oregon also revised this division to address permitting in new state-designated sustainment and reattainment areas, added email notification as an option, and specified where the public comment records would be made available. We note that revisions to the hearing procedures in OAR 340-209-0070 were reorganized, moving the notice and comment requirements for informational meetings to OAR 340-209-0030.

    We have concluded that the submitted revisions to Oregon's public participation rules remain consistent with the CAA and federal requirements for public notice of new source review actions in 40 CFR 51.161 Public availability of information, 40 CFR 51.165 Permit requirements, and 40 CFR 51.166 Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality, and we propose to approve them. We also propose to approve the hearing procedures, but not incorporate them by reference, to avoid confusion or potential conflict with the EPA's independent authorities.

    G. Division 210: Stationary Source Notification Requirements

    Division 210 contains a registration program for sources not subject to one of Oregon's operating permit programs, as well as some of the requirements for the construction and modification of sources. In OAR 340-210-0010, Oregon broadened the applicability of this division so that it applies to “air contaminant sources” and to “modifications of existing portable sources that are required to have permits under OAR 340 division 216”—in addition to stationary sources. Oregon also revised source registration requirements at OAR 340-210-0100 to specify in more detail the information an owner or operator must submit to register and re-register. In addition, at OAR 340-210-0205, Oregon made changes to clarify when a Notice of Construction application is required—with certain exceptions the state has specifically listed.

    Oregon revised construction approval and approval to operate provisions at OAR 340-210-0240 and 0250 to spell out when sources may proceed with construction or modification, and that construction approval does not mean approval to operate the source, unless the source is not required to obtain an ACDP under Division 216.

    We are proposing to approve the revisions to Division 210 because we have determined they are consistent with CAA requirements, and correct or clarify existing source notification requirements, to help ensure that changes to sources go through the appropriate approval process.

    H. Division 212: Stationary Source Testing and Monitoring

    This division contains general requirements for source testing and monitoring. Most of the revisions to this division were clarifications or updates. For example, Oregon revised Division 212 to clarify that the term “stationary source” in this division includes portable sources that require permits under Division 216. This change is consistent with the term as used in other divisions. Oregon also made clear that, with respect to stack height and dispersion technique requirements, the procedures referenced in 40 CFR 51.164 are the major and minor NSR review procedures used in Oregon, as applicable.

    OAR 340-212-0140 of this division sets forth test methods, and requires that sampling, testing, or measurements performed pursuant to Division 212 conform to the methods in Oregon's Source Sampling Manual, Volumes I and II, and Oregon's Continuous Monitoring Manual. The manuals, revised as of 2015, have been submitted for approval. As discussed below in Section X, we have concluded that the revised manuals are consistent with the EPA's monitoring requirements for criteria pollutants and we propose to approve them for the purpose of the limits approved into the SIP.

    A final change to this division is Oregon's request to remove rules that were approved into the Oregon SIP on January 22, 2003 (68 FR 2891). The specified rules, under the compliance assurance monitoring section, apply to title V sources only and implement the requirements of 40 CFR parts 64 and 70. We agree with Oregon that these rules are not necessary for SIP approval under section 110 of title I of the CAA, because the rules implement provisions of title V. Therefore, we propose to approve Oregon's request to remove OAR 340-212-0200 through 0280 from the federally-approved Oregon SIP.

    I. Division 214: Stationary Source Reporting Requirements

    This division contains Oregon's provisions for reporting and recordkeeping, information requests (CAA section 114 authority), credible evidence, business confidentiality, emissions statements, and excess emissions. Oregon made substantive changes to several sections of this division. First, at OAR 340-214-0010, Oregon changed the definition of “large source” to align with a recent court decision on the regulation of GHG emissions from new and modified major stationary sources in attainment and unclassifiable areas, in addition to title V sources. Please see our discussion at Section L, below. Oregon also removed from the definition of “large source,” those sources subject to a National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). NESHAP reporting requirements are separate and independent of the SIP and CAA section 110 criteria pollutant requirements, and we propose to approve the revision.

    Oregon revised OAR 340-214-0100 of this division to clarify that stationary sources include portable sources required to have ACDPs under Division 216. In addition, at OAR 340-214-0114(5), starting on July 1, 2015, owners and operators of specific sources must retain records of all required monitoring data and supporting information for five years. Oregon also revised the section on disclosure of information at OAR 340-214-0130, to spell out that emissions data cannot be exempted from disclosure as a trade secret. Under OAR 340-214-0200, with respect to emission statements for VOC and NOX sources, Oregon clarified that “actual emissions include, but are not limited, to routine process emissions, fugitive emissions, and excess emissions from maintenance, startups and shutdowns, equipment malfunction, and other activities.” We propose to approve these revisions because they are consistent with CAA requirements.

    Oregon made several revisions to the excess emissions and emergency provision requirements in Division 214, at OAR 340-214-0300 through 0360, that are currently in the SIP, and these revisions are included in the submittal that is the subject of this proposed action. First, in OAR 340-214-0300, the state clarified that “emissions in excess of applicable standards are not excess emissions if the standard is in an NSPS or NESHAP and the NSPS or NESHAP exempts startups, shutdowns and malfunctions as defined in the applicable NSPS or NESHAP.” By its terms, this provision only applies to standards in NSPS or NESHAPs, and Oregon's incorporation by reference of the federal NSPS and NESHAP standards are not included in the SIP. Because this addition relates solely to standards that are not in the SIP, the EPA is not approving this provision. The state also expanded the prohibition on planned startups, shutdowns, and scheduled maintenance—that may result in excess emissions during declared air quality alerts, warning or emergencies, or during times when residential wood burning is curtailed in PM10 nonattainment areas—to include sources in PM2.5 nonattainment areas.

    In addition, Oregon made changes to a provision in its SIP that contains criteria for determining whether Oregon will take an enforcement action for excess emissions (OAR 340-214-0350). In the context of the EPA's recent “SSM SIP Action of 2015,” the EPA evaluated the enforcement discretion provision of OAR 340-214-0350 (re-codified from OAR 340-028-1450) and found it to be consistent with CAA requirements and with the EPA's SSM policy as it applies to SIPs.3 The EPA's SSM SIP Action of 2015 responded to a petition from the Sierra Club requesting that the EPA address concerns about specific provisions approved into 39 state SIPs. Sierra Club's petition alleged that specific provisions in these states' SIPs were inconsistent with the CAA. With respect to Oregon's SIP, the petitioner objected to OAR 340-028-1450 (recodified as OAR 340-214-0350) which specifies criteria to be considered by Oregon in determining whether to pursue enforcement action for excess emissions.

    3 State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's [Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction] SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction: Final Rule.” (June 12, 2015, 80 FR 33839).

    In the SSM SIP Action of 2015, we noted that Oregon's provision provides that “[i]n determining whether to take enforcement action for excess emissions, DEQ considers, based upon information submitted by the owner or operator,” a list of factors. As discussed in the SSM SIP Action of 2015, the EPA has interpreted the CAA to allow states to elect to have SIP provisions that pertain to the exercise of enforcement discretion by state personnel. See 80 FR 33839, 33980. We explained that the provision cited by the petitioners—OAR 340-028-1450 (recodified as OAR 340-214-0350)—is plainly a statement of enforcement discretion, delineating factors to be considered by the ODEQ in determining whether to pursue state enforcement for violations of the applicable SIP emission limits due to excess emissions. The EPA further concluded that there was no language in this Oregon regulation suggesting that Oregon's determination to forgo enforcement by the state against a source would in any way prevent the EPA or the public from demonstrating that violations occurred and taking enforcement action. The EPA therefore concluded that Oregon's regulation was consistent with the requirements of the CAA and denied the petitioner's request to require Oregon to revise its SIP provision. See 80 FR 33839, 33973 (final action); 78 FR 12459, 12537 (February 22, 2013) (proposed action).

    In the submittal that is the subject of this proposed action, Oregon has added to OAR 340-214-0350 two criteria that the ODEQ considers in determining whether to take enforcement action: (1) Whether any federal NSPS or NESHAP apply to the source in question and whether the excess emission event caused a violation of the federal standard,4 and (2) whether the excess emission event was due to an “emergency.” 5 Because OAR 340-214-0350 is a true enforcement discretion provision, rather than an affirmative defense, the addition of these criteria does not change the EPA's recent conclusion that this provision is approvable, consistent with EPA guidance in the SSM SIP Action of 2015 and CAA requirements for SIP provisions.

    4 Unlike the provision addressing NSPS and NESHAP added to OAR 340-214-0300 above, which by its terms applies only to NSPS and NESHAP, which are not part of the SIP, the provision here is not limited to NSPS and NESHAP standards. For example, a SIP provision and an NSPS could each have an opacity limit of 20% that applies to the same emission unit at a facility. The fact that the NSPS limit does not apply during startup of the emission unit could be a relevant factor for Oregon to consider in determining whether to take an enforcement action for emissions in excess of the SIP opacity limit during startup.

    5 “Emergency” is defined as any situation arising from sudden and reasonably unforeseen events beyond the control of the owner or operator, including acts of God, which situation requires immediate corrective action to restore normal operation, and that causes the source to exceed a technology-based emission limit under the permit, due to unavoidable increases in emissions attributable to the emergency. An emergency does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by improperly designed equipment, lack of preventative maintenance, careless or improper operation, or operator error. See OAR 340-200-020(50).

    Further, Oregon changed an affirmative defense provision for excess emissions (OAR 340-214-0360) that is in the current SIP. OAR 340-214-0360 provides, by its title and language, an affirmative defense to excess emissions due to an “emergency.” The language in this provision closely follows language in regulations that govern title V operating permit programs, and states are currently authorized under the 40 CFR part 70 regulations to include this provision in title V permits. See 40 CFR 70.6(g).6 The EPA most recently approved this provision into the Oregon SIP on December 27, 2011 (76 FR 80747). Although this provision was not a subject of the SIP call, the SSM SIP Action of 2015 expressly concluded that affirmative defense provisions are inconsistent with CAA requirements for SIPs and cannot be approved. See 80 FR at 33852.

    6 The EPA proposed changes to federal title V regulations on June 14, 2016 (81 FR 38645). The proposed changes would remove this affirmative defense from the title V rules. If finalized, states would be required to make changes to their title V programs, where applicable, to conform to the revised federal title V regulations.

    Oregon revised OAR 340-214-0360 so that it provides an affirmative defense available only in penalty actions due to noncompliance with technology-based emission limits in title V operating permits; as revised, the affirmative defense would no longer be available for violations of SIP requirements. Oregon's revision makes OAR 340-214-0360 consistent with current requirements for title V operating permit programs. Oregon has not submitted the revised version of section 0360 for approval into the SIP and instead, as part of the current submittal, has requested that the EPA remove the old version of OAR 340-214-0360 from the SIP. The removal of this affirmative defense provision from the SIP is consistent with EPA guidance in the SSM SIP Call and CAA requirements for SIP provisions. We are therefore proposing to approve the removal of this title V affirmative defense provision from the Oregon SIP.

    We note that Oregon also repealed the sulfur dioxide emission inventory requirements at OAR 340-214-0400 through 0430. These provisions are not part of the federally-approved Oregon SIP. These provisions were repealed as a matter of state law because they were replaced with more stringent sulfur dioxide limits established as a part of the state's regional haze plan (July 5, 2011; 76 FR 38997).

    J. Division 216: Air Contaminant Discharge Permits

    Oregon's Air Contaminant Discharge Permit (ACDP) program is both Oregon's federally-enforceable non-title V state operating permit program, and also the administrative mechanism used to implement the notice of construction and new source review programs. There are six types of ACDPs under Oregon's rules: Construction, General, Short Term Activity, Basic, Simple, and Standard. The types of ACDPs have not changed, but the ODEQ has made some changes and clarifications to the criteria and requirements for the various ACDPs. Oregon also revised application requirements to set application renewal deadlines, and to clarify the required contents of applications.

    The applicability section at OAR 340-216-0020 references the table of applicability criteria for the various types of permits in OAR 340-216-8010. The associated fees are listed at OAR 340-216-8020. Oregon made clarifying changes throughout the table in OAR 340-216-8010, and made some revisions to the type of ACDP (Basic, General, Simple, or Standard) each source category is required to obtain prior to construction and operation. Overall, Oregon slightly expanded the list of sources required to obtain Basic, General, Simple, or Standard ACDPs, with one exception. Oregon removed the requirement that GHG-only sources obtain a Standard ACDP, and pay the associated permitting fees, consistent with the federal court decision described below in Section L.

    Oregon also made revisions, mostly clarifying, to the requirements for applying for and issuing certain types of permits, as well as the contents of the various permits. For Construction ACDPs at OAR 340-216-0052, Oregon added a qualifier to the rule that construction commence within 18 months after the permit is issued. This deadline now applies only if a source is subject to federal major NSR and certain state major NSR permitting (discussed in more detail below). Oregon also added language to the public notice requirements for a modified Construction ACDP, making clear when public notice as a Category I permit action is appropriate, as opposed to a Category II permit action under OAR 340 Division 209. Oregon spelled out that, although the construction permit itself expires, the requirements remain in effect and must be added to the subsequent operating permit (ACDP or Title V operating permit). See OAR 340-216-0082.

    General ACDP requirements at OAR 340-216-0060 were updated to refer to the appropriate public notice procedures, reference the fee class for specific source categories, and confirm the procedures the ODEQ will use to rescind a source's General ACDP if the source no longer qualifies and must obtain a Simple or Standard ACDP instead. Oregon also changed the rule to make clear that the ODEQ may rescind an individual source's assignment to a General Permit. When the ODEQ notifies the source that the department intends to rescind the permit, the source has 60 days to submit an application for a Simple or Standard ACDP. Oregon also revised General ACDP Attachments to clarify public notice requirements and fees.

    For Simple ACDPs at OAR 340-216-0064, it is now clear that the ODEQ may determine a source ineligible for a Simple ACDP with generic emission limits, and instead, require the source obtain a Standard ACDP with source-specific emission limits, as necessary. Oregon has also clarified the public notice requirements and fees for Simple ACDPs and removed redundant requirements from the Simple ACDP section that are also in the applicability and jurisdiction section.

    The Standard ACDP requirements at OAR 340-216-0066 were updated to lay out the different application requirements for sources seeking this type of permit when they are subject to federal major versus minor NSR. Oregon also changed this section to allow sources with multiple activities or processes at a single site, covered by more than one General ACDP or that has multiple processes, to obtain a Standard ACDP.

    With respect to processing permits, Oregon's provision at OAR 340-216-0082 now expressly provide that sources with expired ACDP permits may continue operating under the expired permit if they have submitted a timely and complete renewal application. Sources may also request a contested case hearing, if the ODEQ revokes a permit or denies a permit renewal. The ODEQ has clarified in a written supplement that department-initiated modifications at OAR 340-216-0084 follow the public notice procedures for the relevant ACDP permit type spelled out in Division 209. Based on the evaluation above and this clarification from the ODEQ, we propose to approve the revisions to Division 216.

    K. Division 222: Stationary Source Plant Site Emission Limits

    This division contains the Oregon program for managing airshed capacity through a Plant Site Emission Limit (PSEL). PSELs are used to protect ambient air quality standards, prevent significant deterioration of air quality, and to ensure protection of visibility. Establishing such a limit is a mandatory step in the Oregon permitting process. A PSEL is designed to be set at the actual baseline emissions from a source plus approved emissions increases and minus required emissions reductions. This design is intended to maintain a more realistic emissions inventory. Oregon uses a fixed baseline year of 1977 or 1978 (or a prior year if more representative of normal operation) and factors in all approved emissions increases and required emissions decreases since baseline, to set the allowable emissions in the PSEL. Increases and decreases since the baseline year do not affect the baseline, but are included in the difference between baseline and allowable emissions.

    “Netting basis” is a concept in Oregon's program that defines both the baseline emissions from which increases are measured—to determine if changes are subject to review—as well as the process for re-establishing the baseline, after changes have been through the new source review permitting process.

    As noted above, Oregon's PSEL program is used, in part, to implement NSR permitting. For major NSR, if a PSEL is calculated at a level greater than an established significant emission rate (SER) over the baseline actual emission rate, an evaluation of the air quality impact and major NSR permitting are required. If not, the PSEL is set without further review (a construction permit may also be required). For minor NSR (State NSR), a similar calculation is conducted. If the difference is greater than the SER, an air quality analysis is required to evaluate whether ambient air quality standards and increments are protected. The air quality analysis results may require the source to reduce the airshed impact and/or comply with a tighter emission limit.

    Oregon submitted a number of changes to the PSEL requirements in this division. Many of the changes are organizational, centralizing requirements related to PSELs in Division 222. We propose to approve the organizational changes. Other submitted changes are substantive. Oregon revised the criteria for establishing PSELs at OAR 340-222-0035 through 0090 by consolidating requirements from other sections into these provisions, and revising them to take into account the differentiated major and State NSR requirements. Oregon also updated the source-specific annual PSEL provision, at OAR 340-222-0041, to account for PM2.5 and major and State NSR requirements. We note that the current SIP-approved rule includes provisions at OAR 340-222-0041(3)(b) for PSEL increases that were not subject to New Source Review. The revised rule revokes those provisions and instead makes these PSEL increases subject to the new State New Source Review requirements in Division 224 (see new applicability provision in OAR 340-224-0010(2)(b)(B)). The comprehensive requirements for approval of such PSEL increases in sustainment, nonattainment, reattainment, maintenance, and attainment/unclassifiable areas are as stringent as the current requirements in OAR 340-222-0041(b)(A) through (D).

    Oregon also revised the short-term PSEL requirements at OAR 340-222-0042 to spell out the process a source must follow to request an increase in a short-term PSEL—and when that source must obtain offsets, or an allocation, from an available growth allowance in the area.

    At OAR 340-222-0046, Oregon clarified the process for setting the initial netting basis for PM2.5 and how potential increases are limited. The state also made changes to spell out how a source's netting basis may be reduced—when a rule, order or permit condition requires the reductions—and how unassigned emissions and emissions reduction credits are to be addressed. In addition, Oregon clarified that a source may retain a netting basis if that source relocates to a different site, as opposed to an adjacent site. However, it is only allowed if the ODEQ determines the different site is within or affects the same airshed, and that the time span between operation at the old site and new sites is less than six months.

    At OAR 340-222-0048, Oregon consolidated baseline period and baseline emission rate provisions, and indicated when a baseline emission rate may be recalculated—limited to circumstances when more accurate or reliable emission factor information becomes available or when regulatory changes require that additional emissions units be addressed. Changes were also made to OAR 340-222-0051, which addresses actual emissions, and how to appropriately calculate the mass emissions of a pollutant from an emissions source during a specified time period. The state revised this provision to account for the changes in the program that differentiate major NSR from State NSR.

    We note that Oregon also clarified OAR 340-222-0055, which establishes how unassigned emissions are to be treated. The rule was revised to state that a source may not use emissions that are removed from the netting basis—including emission reductions required by rule, order or permit condition—for netting any future permit actions.

    Oregon also revised OAR 340-222-0060, applicable to sources of hazardous air pollutants, and submitted it for approval. However, the provision is not appropriate for SIP approval because it is related to CAA section 112 and hazardous air pollutants, not CAA section 110 and the criteria pollutants. Oregon also updated OAR 340-222-0090, which addresses the impact on PSEL calculations and permitting requirements when sources combine, split, and change primary Standard Industrial Code. The changes make clear that sources must qualify to combine, and that it will impact the netting basis and SER, and trigger new source review and recordkeeping requirements, if applicable.

    With the exception noted below, we are proposing to approve the submitted changes to Division 222 because we believe the revisions to the PSEL provisions are intended to clarify and strengthen the rules. We are not approving OAR 340-222-0060 because it is related to CAA section 112 and hazardous air pollutants, not CAA section 110 and the criteria pollutants.

    L. Division 224: New Source Review

    Parts C and D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7515, set forth preconstruction review and permitting program requirements that apply to new and modified major stationary sources of air pollutants, known as major New Source Review (major NSR). The CAA major NSR programs include a combination of air quality planning and air pollution control technology program requirements. States adopt major NSR programs as part of their SIP. Part C is the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, which applies in areas that meet the NAAQS (attainment areas), as well as in areas for which there is insufficient information to determine whether the area meets the NAAQS (unclassifiable areas). Part D is the Nonattainment New Source Review (major nonattainment NSR) program, which applies in areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS (nonattainment areas). The EPA regulations for SIPs implementing these programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166, and appendix S to part 51. As discussed above, regulations addressing the EPA's minor new source review (NSR) requirements are set forth at 40 CFR 51.160 through 164. States generally have more flexibility in designing minor NSR programs. Minor NSR programs, however, must still ensure that emissions from the construction or modification of a facility, building, structure, or installation (or any combination thereof) will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, or violate an applicable portion of a control strategy approved into the SIP.

    Oregon's major NSR program has long differed from the federal major NSR programs in several respects. Oregon's program does not subject the same sources and modifications to major NSR as would the EPA's rules. Oregon's program has had lower major source thresholds for sources in nonattainment and maintenance areas. The program also requires fugitive emissions to be included in applicability determinations for all new major sources and modifications to existing major sources. However, Oregon also utilizes a PSEL approach to defining “major” modifications, rather than the contemporaneous net emissions increase approach used in the EPA's main, non-PAL major NSR program. The EPA has previously determined that, over all, Oregon's major NSR program is at least as stringent as the EPA's major NSR program and meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166. See 76 FR 80747, 80748 (December 27, 2011) (final action); 76 FR 59090, 59094 (Sept. 23, 2011) (proposed action).

    Under Oregon's SIP-approved program, to which the state has made changes, both federal major sources and large minor sources have been covered by this Division. The submitted changes to Division 224 revise this approach and establish distinct components within Division 224, referred to as Major New Source Review (Oregon Major NSR—sections 0045 through 0100) and State New Source Review (State NSR—sections 0245 through 0270) to help clarify the requirements that apply to federal major sources and larger minor sources. Pre-construction review and permitting of other minor sources continue to be covered in Division 210 Stationary Source Notification Requirements, Division 216 Air Contaminant Discharge Permits, and Division 222 Plant Site Emission Limits.

    As discussed above, Oregon has also created two new state designations. Sustainment areas are state-designated areas that are violating or close to violating the NAAQS but which are not formally designated nonattainment by the EPA. Reattainment areas are state-designated areas that have been designated nonattainment by the EPA but that now have air quality data showing the area is attaining the NAAQS. Key changes to the Oregon Major NSR and State NSR programs are discussed below.

    OAR 340-224-0010 Applicability, General Prohibitions, General Requirements, and Jurisdiction

    Oregon has narrowed the scope of sources that are subject to Oregon Major NSR in nonattainment and maintenance areas by increasing the thresholds, from the significant emission rate (SER) to the major source thresholds in the CAA specified for the current nonattainment areas in Oregon. See OAR 340-200-0020(66)(d) and OAR 340-224-0010(b). At the same time, Oregon's State NSR requirements under Division 224 apply to the construction of new sources with emissions of a regulated air pollutant at or above the SER, as well as increases in emissions of a regulated pollutant from existing sources that equal or exceed the SER over the netting basis.

    Oregon has divided its State NSR program into two parts: Type A, which generally applies in nonattainment, reattainment, and maintenance areas, and Type B, for attainment, unclassifiable, and sustainment areas. Sources subject to Type A State NSR remain subject to many of the same requirements that apply to such sources under Oregon's current SIP-approved program in nonattainment 7 and maintenance areas, whereas sources subject to Type B State NSR are subject to requirements equivalent to the minor NSR requirements under Oregon's PSEL rule at OAR 340-222-0041 in its current SIP.8 Because Oregon's changes to the definition of “federal major source” in nonattainment areas are consistent with the federal definition of “major stationary source” at 40 CFR 51.165 for the designated areas in Oregon, and because Oregon has retained most of the characteristics of the Oregon's SIP-approved Major NSR permitting program for Type A State NSR, the EPA is proposing to approve these revisions.

    7 Key changes are discussed below in the discussion of State NSR.

    8 Sources in sustainment areas subject to OAR 340-224-0245(2) are also subject to Type A NSR.

    The state also made revisions here, and in several other places in its rules, to be consistent with revisions to the federal PSD rules made in response to a Supreme Court decision 9 regarding the regulation of GHGs (May 7, 2015, 80 FR 26183). Specifically, Oregon revised definitions and procedures in Divisions 200, 214, 216, 222 and 224 to remove GHG-only sources from PSD applicability. Therefore, as required by the federal PSD program, a source is now subject to the Oregon Major NSR requirements for GHGs in attainment and unclassifiable areas only when the source is subject to Oregon Major NSR requirements anyway for one or more criteria pollutants. As specified in the federal PSD regulations, Oregon's rules continue to require that sources of GHGs subject to Oregon Major NSR in attainment and unclassifiable areas for a criteria pollutant, are also subject to Oregon Major NSR for GHGs.

    9Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014).

    Oregon also made clear in this section that a source is subject to Division 224 requirements for the designated area in which the source is located—for each regulated pollutant, including precursors. Finally, Oregon spelled out that sources subject to Division 224 must not begin actual construction, continue construction, or operate without complying with the requirements of Division 224 and obtaining an ACDP permit authorizing construction or operation.

    OAR 340-224-0025 Major Modification

    Importantly, Oregon moved the definition of “major modification” from Division 200 to Division 224, to reflect that the former definition was really a procedure for determining whether a major modification has or will occur, rather than a true definition. The revised definition and procedure are intended to better explain how emissions increases and decreases are tracked to determine whether a major modification has, or will, occur.

    Oregon also specified that emissions from categorically insignificant activities, aggregate insignificant emissions, and fugitive emissions must be included in determining whether a major modification has occurred. In addition, the state clarified that major modifications for ozone precursors, or PM2.5 precursors, also constitute major modifications for ozone and PM2.5, respectively. Finally, Oregon added language stating that the PSEL, netting basis, and emissions changes must be recalculated when more accurate or reliable emissions information becomes available to determine whether a major modification has occurred.

    OAR 340-224-0030 New Source Review Procedural Requirements

    Oregon revised this section to account for differing Oregon Major NSR and State NSR procedures. These revisions include when the ODEQ will determine whether an application is complete, when a final determination will be made, when construction is permitted, how to revise a permit and extend it, and when and how the ODEQ will terminate an NSR permit. With respect to the provision in the federal PSD regulations authorizing extensions to the 18-month construction time limitation in 40 CFR 52.21(r)(2) “upon a satisfactory showing that an extension is justified,” Oregon revised its extension provisions to be consistent with recent EPA guidance. This guidance set out the EPA's views on what constitutes an adequate justification for an extension of the 18-month timeframe under 40 CFR 52.21(r)(2) for commencing construction of a source that has been issued a PSD permit. See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors, Region 1-10, entitled Guidance on Extension of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permits under 40 CFR 52.21(r)(2), dated January 31, 2014 (Extension Guidance). In addition, Oregon extended the time period for making a final determination on an Oregon Major NSR or Type A State NSR permit from six months to one year, to reflect the more complex nature of such permitting actions. The one-year time-frame for permit issuance is consistent with the EPA's requirements for major NSR permitting. See 40 CFR 52.21(q)(2).

    OAR 340-224-0038 Fugitive and Secondary Emissions

    This section was moved and amended to account for State NSR requirements. For sources subject to Oregon Major NSR and Type A State NSR, fugitive emissions are included in the calculation of emission rates and subject to the same control requirements and analyses required for emissions from identifiable stacks or vents. Secondary emissions are not included in potential to emit calculations for Oregon Major NSR or Type A State NSR, but once a source is subject to Oregon Major NSR or Type A State NSR, secondary emissions must be considered in the required air quality impact analysis under Divisions 224 and 225.

    340-224-0045 to 340-224-0070 Major NSR

    Oregon has specified Oregon Major NSR requirements for each of the following designations: Sustainment, nonattainment, reattainment, maintenance, and attainment/unclassifiable.

    Major NSR in Sustainment Areas

    New sources and modifications subject to Oregon Major NSR in sustainment areas (areas that are classified as attainment/unclassifiable by the EPA but have air quality either violating the NAAQS or just below the NAAQS) must meet PSD requirements for each sustainment pollutant, but must also satisfy additional requirements for obtaining offsets and demonstrating a net air quality benefit to address the air quality problems in the area, as discussed in more detail below. Because such areas are designated as attainment/unclassifiable by the EPA, requiring compliance with Oregon's PSD requirements meets federal requirements. The additional requirements for obtaining offsets and demonstrating a net air quality benefit go beyond CAA requirements for attainment/classifiable areas and are thus approvable.

    Major NSR in Nonattainment Areas

    For new sources and modifications subject to Oregon Major NSR in nonattainment areas, Oregon reorganized and clarified the requirements, including that they apply for each pollutant for which the area is designated nonattainment. Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) and offsets continue to be required for such sources and modifications. Oregon's submitted revisions tighten offsets required in nonattainment areas (except with respect to ozone). Oregon's rules now initially require 1.2:1 offsets to emissions in non-ozone areas. If offsets are obtained from priority sources in the area, the ratio may be reduced to 1:1, equivalent to the federal requirement in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(9)(i). Oregon's revisions also tighten requirements for sources seeking construction permit extensions, and limits extension requests to two 18-month periods, with certain additional review and re-evaluation steps. We note that beyond the federal rules, Oregon's rules extend BACT and offset requirements to new and modified minor sources in nonattainment areas.

    The EPA is proposing limited, rather than full, approval of the Oregon Major NSR program for nonattainment areas because, although the submitted revisions strengthen the existing SIP-approved program, we cannot fully evaluate the program for the following reasons. On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 10 issued a decision that remanded the EPA's 2007 and 2008 rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Relevant here, the EPA's 2008 implementation rule addressed by the court decision, “Implementation of NSR Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)” (the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule),11 promulgated NSR requirements in both nonattainment areas (nonattainment NSR) and attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD). The court concluded that the EPA had improperly based the implementation rule solely upon the requirements of part D, subpart I, of the CAA, and had failed to address the requirements of part D, subpart 4, which establishes additional provisions for particulate matter nonattainment areas. The court ordered the EPA to “repromulgate these rules pursuant to subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.” Id. at 437.

    10 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.).

    11 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008).

    As a result of the court's decision, the EPA withdrew its guidance for implementing the 2006 PM2.5 standard 12 because the guidance was based largely on the remanded rule promulgated to implement the 1997 PM2.5 standard.13 On June 2, 2014, the EPA promulgated the Identification of Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (79 FR 31566). This rule promulgated classifications and deadlines under subpart 4, part D, title I of the CAA for 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment areas, including two areas in Oregon, specifically the Klamath Falls and Oakridge PM2.5 nonattainment areas. On August 24, 2016, the EPA finalized the Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements (81 FR 58010). The EPA has now set revised requirements for PM2.5 nonattainment areas, including new rules for major new and modified sources. The EPA also stated its intent to provide states with guidance regarding precursor demonstrations to supplement the new rules. Because these changes only recently became effective on October 24, 2016, and the EPA's guidance is still forthcoming, we intend to work with Oregon to address the requirements of subpart 4 for PM2.5 in a separate, future action. In this action, as stated above, we propose a limited approval of the revisions to the Oregon Major NSR program in nonattainment areas as strengthening the current federally-approved program.

    12 Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Mar. 2, 2012).

    13 Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Withdrawal of Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Jun. 6, 2013).

    Major NSR in Reattainment Areas

    In reattainment areas (areas meeting the NAAQS but not yet redesignated to attainment), new sources and modifications subject to Oregon Major NSR must continue to meet all nonattainment Oregon Major NSR requirements for the reattainment pollutant. In addition, to ensure air quality does not again deteriorate, Oregon now requires that sources subject to Oregon Major NSR also meet other requirements for each reattainment pollutant. Specifically, the owner or operator of the source must demonstrate the source will not cause or contribute to a new violation of the ambient air quality standard or PSD increment by conducting an air quality analysis as outlined in Division 225.

    Major NSR in Maintenance Areas

    In maintenance areas, as under Oregon's current federally-approved SIP, new sources and modifications subject to Oregon Major NSR must continue to comply with Oregon Major NSR requirements for attainment/unclassifiable areas (i.e., PSD) and also conduct a demonstration or obtain allowances to ensure a net air quality benefit in the area. Rather than setting out the specific PSD requirements in this section, however, this section now simply references the PSD requirements at OAR 340-224-0070.

    Major NSR in Attainment/Unclassifiable Areas (PSD)

    For the construction of new sources and modifications subject to Oregon Major NSR in attainment or unclassifiable areas, Oregon revised its rules to address several court decisions impacting federal PSD rules. First, as discussed above, Oregon revised definitions and procedures in Divisions 200, 214, 216, 222 and 224 to remove GHG-only sources from PSD applicability. Therefore, as required under the EPA's federal PSD program, a source is now subject to the Oregon Major NSR requirements for GHGs only when the source also is subject to Oregon PSD requirements for one or more criteria pollutants. As required, Oregon's rules continue to require that sources of GHGs subject to Oregon's PSD rules for a criteria pollutant are also subject to PSD for GHGs.

    Second, Oregon revised its requirements for preconstruction monitoring to address another court decision and resulting revisions to the EPA's PSD rules. On October 20, 2010, the EPA promulgated the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule revising the federal significant monitoring concentration (SMC) and SILs for PM2.5 (75 FR 64864). On January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Sierra Club v. EPA, 14 issued a judgment that, among other things, vacated the provisions adding the PM2.5 SMC to the federal regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c). In its decision, the court held that the EPA did not have the authority to use SMCs to exempt permit applicants from the statutory requirement in CAA section 165(e)(2) that ambient monitoring data for PM2.5 be included in all PSD permit applications. Although the PM2.5 SMC was not a required element, where a state program contained an SMC and applied it to allow new permits without requiring ambient PM2.5 monitoring data, the provision would be inconsistent with the court's opinion and CAA section 165(e)(2).

    14 703 F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

    At the EPA's request, the decision also vacated and remanded the portions of the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule that revised 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21 related to SILs for PM2.5. The EPA requested this vacatur and remand of two of the three provisions in the EPA regulations that contain SILs for PM2.5 because the wording of these two SIL provisions (40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2)) was inconsistent with the explanation of when and how SILs should be used by permitting authorities that we provided in the preamble to the Federal Register publication when we promulgated these provisions. Specifically, the EPA erred because the language promulgated in 2010 does not provide permitting authorities the discretion to require a cumulative impact analysis notwithstanding that the source's impact is below the SIL, where there is information that shows the proposed source would lead to a violation of the NAAQS or increments. The third SIL provision (40 CFR 51.165(b)(2)) was not vacated and remains in effect. On December 9, 2013, the EPA removed the vacated PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions from federal PSD regulations (78 FR 73698). The EPA is starting a rulemaking on the PM2.5 SILs to address the court's remand. In the meantime, we advised states to remove the vacated provisions from state PSD regulations.

    In response to the vacatur and remand, Oregon submitted revisions to several divisions, including Divisions 200, 202, 224 and 225. Oregon revised the PM2.5 SMC to zero, as the EPA did, to address this issue in the federal PSD regulations. Oregon also revised the definition of “significant impact levels” or “SIL” in state rules, removed the vacated language and added text to make clear that “no source may cause or contribute to a new violation of an ambient air quality standard or PSD increment even if the single source impact is less than the significant impact level.” We are proposing to approve Oregon's revisions as consistent with the court decision.

    Oregon also revised its PSD rules to address a court decision vacating provisions of EPA's 2011 biogenic deferral. In 2011, the EPA revised the definition of “subject to regulation” at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(ii)(a) to defer PSD permitting requirements for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic sources for three years. See Deferral for CO2 Emissions from Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Programs; Final Rule (July 20, 2011, 76 FR 43490) (Biogenic CO2 Deferral Rule)). On July 12, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 15 vacated the provisions of the Biogenic CO2 Deferral Rule. The deferral expired on July 21, 2014, and by its terms is no longer in effect. The current definition of “greenhouse gases or GHGs” in Division 200 states that CO2 emissions from the combustion or decomposition of biomass is not included in the definition, except to the extent required by federal law. We are proposing to approve Oregon's rules as consistent with current federal law, under which CO2 emissions from biogenic sources are regulated under Oregon's PSD program to the same extent as CO2 emissions from any other source.

    15 722 F.3d 401 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

    In addition to revisions addressing these three court decisions, Oregon also eliminated language that allowed the substitution of post-construction monitoring for preconstruction monitoring. Oregon added an exemption from the preconstruction ambient air monitoring requirement, with the ODEQ's approval, if representative or conservative background concentration data is available, and the source demonstrates that such data is adequate to determine that the source would not cause or contribute to a violation of an ambient air quality standard or any applicable PSD increment. These revisions, along with the other existing provisions regarding preconstruction monitoring in Oregon's PSD regulations, are consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(m)(iii) and therefore approvable.

    Finally, Oregon added the requirement to demonstrate a net air quality benefit for subject sources that will have a significant impact on air quality in a designated area other than the area in which the source is located. This demonstration of net air quality benefit is beyond federal PSD requirements, and will be discussed in more detail below.

    OAR 340-224-0245 to 340-224-0270, State NSR

    Division 224 now also specifies State NSR requirements for sustainment, nonattainment, reattainment, maintenance, and attainment/unclassifiable areas. For sources that emit between the SER and 100 tons per year in nonattainment and maintenance areas (Type A State NSR sources), Oregon has relaxed some of the requirements, as compared to its current SIP, that historically went beyond federal requirements. In nonattainment areas, if the increase in emissions from the source is the result of a major modification,16 BACT rather than LAER is now required. In maintenance areas, Type A State NSR sources are no longer required to conduct preconstruction monitoring to support the ambient air impact analysis for the source. In addition, in both nonattainment and maintenance areas, Oregon's new State NSR rules allow a reduction of the offset ratio if some of the offsets come from sources that are contributing to air quality problems in the area (which historically have been woodstoves). In sustainment and reattainment areas, Oregon's new State NSR requirements go beyond CAA requirements for minor NSR programs by requiring a demonstration of a net air quality benefit (discussed below).

    16 Oregon uses the term “major modification” for physical and operational changes that result in significant increases to both existing major and existing minor sources.

    Because BACT, LAER, pre-construction monitoring, and offsets are not required components of a State's SIP-approved minor NSR program, and because the offset requirements now provide sources with incentives to obtain offsets from sources found to be specifically contributing to air quality problems in the area, the EPA proposes to find that Oregon's minor NSR program continues to meet CAA requirements for approval.

    OAR 340-224-0500 to 340-224-0540, Net Air Quality Benefit Emission Offsets

    Oregon moved the net air quality benefit emission offset rules from Division 225 to Division 224 to better consolidate new source review requirements. The CAA requires that, for major nonattainment NSR, the proposed major source or major modifications must obtain emissions reductions of the affected nonattainment pollutant from the same source or other sources in the area to offset the proposed emissions increase. See CAA section 173(c). Consistent with that requirement, the EPA's major nonattainment NSR regulations require that major sources and major modifications in nonattainment areas obtain emissions offsets at a ratio of at least 1 to 1 (1:1) from existing sources in the area to offset emissions from the new or modified source. 40 CFR 51.165(a)(9)(i).

    Oregon revised the state's criteria for demonstrating a net air quality benefit. In addition to the incentives provided to sources subject to Type A State NSR in sustainment and reattainment areas to obtain offsets from priority sources discussed above, Oregon made an additional change. The state revised its rules to provide incentives for major sources to use priority source offsets for Oregon Major NSR sources in nonattainment and reattainment areas by increasing the required offset ratio for major sources to 1.2:1 from the current 1:1. If a source subject to Oregon Major NSR obtains offsets of some emissions increases from priority sources, the ratio may be reduced to no less than 1:1, the minimum offset level under the federal major nonattainment NSR program.

    We most recently reviewed and took action on submitted changes to Division 225 on December 27, 2011 (76 FR 80747). Although Oregon adopted the EPA's recommended inter-pollutant offset ratios for PM2.5 and submitted them to the EPA, we were unable to approve them in our 2011 action because, between the time that Oregon adopted the ratios and our 2011 action, the EPA granted a petition to reconsider the ratios and changed its policy. As a result, in 2011 we deferred action to give Oregon time to demonstrate that the ratios protected ambient air quality standards in Oregon, or otherwise revise the ratios—in line with the EPA's July 21, 2011, memorandum updating the inter-pollutant offset policy.17 Oregon did revise its rules, moved these provisions to Division 224, at OAR 340-224-0510, and submitted the changes in the April 2015 submission evaluated in this action. Specifically, Oregon removed the state-wide PM2.5 inter-pollutant offset ratios, and instead, added rule language to require that they be calculated on a case-by-case basis. However, the EPA's revised inter-pollutant offset policy states that a state should make a specific demonstration for set ratios in a SIP submittal.18 Oregon's submittal does not include a demonstration for set ratios in specific areas. With the exception of OAR 340-224-0510(3), we are proposing to approve the revisions to Oregon's net air quality benefit emissions rules (OAR 340-224-0500 through 0540).

    17 Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator. “Revised Policy to Address Reconsideration of Inter-pollutant Trading Provisions for Fine Particles (PM2.5),” Memorandum to Regional Administrators, July 21, 2011.

    18 Ibid.

    Summary

    We are proposing to approve the revisions to Division 224, with the exceptions and limitations noted above, because we have determined that, in conjunction with other provisions in Divisions 200, 222, and 225, the revisions are consistent with the requirements of the EPA's PSD, major nonattainment NSR, and minor NSR permitting programs. See 40 CFR 51.160 through 161, 51.165, and 51.166.

    M. Division 225: Air Quality Analysis Requirements

    This division contains the air quality analysis requirements, which are primarily used in Oregon's NSR program. By its terms, it does not apply unless a rule in another division, primarily Division 224, refers to Division 225 or a rule in Division 225.

    Substantive changes include revising the definition of “allowable emissions” at OAR 340-225-0020(1) to add “40 CFR part 62” to the list of referenced standards and clarifying the definition of “baseline concentration year” at OAR 340-225-0020(3) that varies depending on the pollutant for a particular designated area. Oregon revised the definitions of “competing PSD increment consuming source impacts” and “competing NAAQS [national ambient air quality standards] source impacts,” at OAR 340-225-0020(4) and (5) respectively, to broaden the reference to include all of Oregon's ambient air quality standards at Division 202 (which include the NAAQS)19 and to specify that in calculating these concentrations, sources may factor in the distance from the new or modified source to other emission sources (range of influence or ROI), spatial distribution of existing emission sources, topography, and meteorology. Oregon also clarified and reorganized the defined ROI formula at OAR 340-225-0020(10). The ROI is the distance from the new or modified source or source impact area to other emission sources that could impact that area. The ROI and source impact area are used to predict the air quality impacts of a new or modified source. Oregon continues to limit the maximum ROI to 50 kilometers and has moved the constant values in the ROI formula from the table at the end of the division into the text of the rule.

    19 Our approval of OAR 340-225-0020(4) and (5) would not extend to those ambient standards in Division 202 that we have excluded from our approval.

    Oregon revised the PSD requirements to align with the court decision vacating and remanding the PM2.5 SIL. Please see Section L above for a discussion of the court decision. Division 225 now includes language stating that application of a SIL as a screening tool does not preclude the ODEQ from requiring additional analysis to evaluate whether a proposed source or modification will cause or contribute to a violation of an air quality standard or PSD increment.

    The state also updated the PSD requirements for demonstrating compliance with air quality related values. Oregon made clear that, if applicable, the analysis applies to each emission unit that increases the actual emissions of a regulated pollutant above the portion of the netting basis attributable to that emission unit. The state also spelled out that the term “air quality related values” includes visibility, deposition, and ozone impacts. In addition, the state mandated a visibility analysis for sources impacting the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (Gorge), instead of recommending sources also evaluate potential impacts on the Gorge. We propose to approve the revisions to Division 225 as meeting CAA requirements, including the EPA's major NSR permitting regulations at 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166, and the regional haze requirements at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P.

    As discussed above, Oregon repealed the Requirements for Demonstrating a Net Air Quality Benefit section at OAR 340-225-0090, after moving the requirements into the Net Air Quality Benefit Emission Offsets section in Division 224, which we described above. We propose to approve the repeal of OAR 340-225-0090.

    N. Division 226: General Emission Standards

    This division contains emission standards and requirements of general applicability, including requirements for highest and best practicable treatment and control, operating and maintenance, typically achievable control technology, additional requirements imposed on a permit by permit basis, alternative emission limits (bubbles), and particulate emission limits for process equipment and other sources (other than fuel or refuse burning equipment or fugitive emissions). In OAR 340-226-0120, Oregon clarified that pressure drop and ammonia slip are operational, maintenance and work practice requirements that the ODEQ may establish in a permit condition or notice of construction approval. Oregon also revised OAR 340-226-0130 Typically Achievable Control Technology by moving procedural requirements from the definitions at Division 200 to this division, and revising them to account for Oregon's changes to NSR, Major NSR and Type A State NSR.

    Notably, the state made substantive revisions to the particulate emission limits under the Grain Loading Standards section starting at OAR 340-226-0200. Oregon's stated goal was to reduce emissions from certain sources built before June 1970. The rules phase in tighter standards for these older sources, based on typically available control technology, such as multiclones. The revisions generally tighten grain loading standards for existing sources from 0.2 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) to between 0.10 and 0.15 gr/dscf depending on whether there is existing source test data for the source and what that data shows. Oregon set timelines to achieve these rates depending on whether sources were built before or after June 1, 1970. Existing sources that operate equipment less frequently (less than 867 hours a year) must meet less stringent standards. For new sources, the ODEQ has increases the stringency of the grain loading standard by adding a significant digit, revising the standard from 0.1 gr/dscf to 0.10 gr/dscf. We propose to approve the revisions to Division 226 because they tighten particulate emission standards and strengthen the SIP.

    O. Division 228: Requirements for Fuel Burning Equipment and Fuel Sulfur Content

    These rules establish generally applicable requirements for fuel burning equipment, including limits on sulfur content and particulate matter. Oregon removed a coal space-heating exemption that expired in 1983 and clarified that sulfur dioxide emissions from recovery furnaces are not subject to this division but are instead regulated under the SO2 emissions limits for wood products industries in Division 234.

    Oregon revised Division 228 to tighten grain loading standards for fuel burning equipment in the same manner as in Division 226, discussed above. We propose to approve the revisions because they tighten particulate emission standards for fuel burning equipment and strengthen the SIP. We note that revisions to this division related to the federal Acid Rain Program (OAR 340-228-0300, and -0400 through -0530) were not submitted, but were included to show a complete record of the revisions. These rules are not a part of Oregon's federally-approved SIP.

    P. Division 232: Emission Standards for VOC Point Sources

    This division restricts emissions of VOC from new and existing listed source categories in the Portland and Medford Air Quality Maintenance Areas and in Salem-Keizer in the Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study Area as well as any source in these areas with the potential to emit over 100 tons of VOC per year. Consistent with CAA requirements, Oregon has clarified that the determination of whether a source has a potential to emit over 100 tons of VOC per year is made before consideration of add-on controls.

    Oregon expanded the section on marine tank vessels so that the marine vapor control requirements now apply to marine tank vessel loading of other volatile organic liquids in addition to gasoline, effective July 1, 2018. The loading of organic liquids stored in pressurized tanks, such as liquefied natural gas and propane, are not included in this expansion. Consistent with the change discussed above, the state also made clear that, in determining whether a course is subject to the rules on surface coating in manufacturing, determination of the source's potential to emit is made before consideration of add-on controls. Oregon also requires records under the surface coating in manufacturing rule to be retained for five years rather than two, consistent with title V. Finally, Oregon also clarified that determining potential to emit for rotogravure and flexographic printing sources subject to VOC requirements is made before consideration of add-on controls. We propose to approve the changes described above because they strengthen the SIP and are consistent with the CAA.

    Q. Division 234: Emissions Standards for Wood Products Industries

    Oregon repealed two sections of this division—the neutral sulfite semi-chemical section (OAR 340-234-0300 through 0360) and the sulfite pulp mill section (OAR 340-234-0400 through 0430)—because sources of this type no longer exist in the state. Any new sources constructed would be subject to new source review, as well as applicable NSPS and NESHAP requirements. As a result, Oregon removed terms no longer used in this division, including acid absorption tower, acid plant, average daily production, blow system, continual monitoring, continuous-flow conveying system, modified wigwam waste burner, neutral sulfite semi-chemical (NSSC) pulp mill, production, spent liquor incinerator, sulfite mill, and sulfur oxides.

    In the Kraft Pulp Mills section at OAR 340-234-0200 through 0270, the state revised what was formerly referred to as “significant upgrading” of equipment for purposes of determining whether more restrictive standards apply. This change was intended to enhance the enforceability of the requirement to meet more restrictive emission standards based on changes to the source. This section was also revised to update the non-recovery furnace opacity limit averaging times to six minutes in lieu of the previous three-minute exception. In making this change, Oregon relied on the same rationale discussed in Section E. above.

    Oregon also added source test methods for particulate matter and required demonstrations of oxygen concentrations in recovery furnace and lime kiln gases. Under the Reporting section at OAR 340-234-0250, the state removed the alternative sampling option where transmissometers are not feasible because all pulp mills in Oregon now have transmissometers.

    Oregon made minor changes to OAR 340-234-0270, a provision authorizing the ODEQ to determine that upset conditions at a subject source are chronic and correctable by the installation of new or modified process or control equipment and requiring a program and schedule to effectively eliminate the deficiencies causing the upset conditions. This provision makes clear that such upsets causing emissions in excess of applicable limits may be subject to a civil penalty or other appropriate action. The EPA is proposing to reapprove this provision with these changes based on the understanding that it does not excuse excess emissions from enforcement action seeking penalties or injunctive relief.

    Oregon moved the test method for the opacity limit for veneer and plywood manufacturing operations from the definitions into the requirement itself (OAR 340-234-0510(1)(b)(A)). The state also added test methods for moisture content to the emission standards for veneer and plywood manufacturing requirements. For hardboard tempering ovens, Oregon revised the emission requirements to require that alternative temperatures be approved using the procedures in the federal NESHAP for Plywood and Composite Wood Products, 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD. Because these rules did not include testing and monitoring requirements, Oregon added a new section, OAR 340-234-0540 Testing and Monitoring.

    We propose to approve the changes to Division 234, except with respect to requirements regulating total reduced sulfur and odor, because they strengthen the SIP and are consistent with CAA requirements. Total reduced sulfur and odor requirements are not appropriate for SIP approval because they are not criteria pollutants under title I of the CAA. We therefore are excluding from approval into the Oregon SIP the references to total reduced sulfur and odor in definitions at OAR 340-234-0010(8) and (10), and in Kraft Pulp Mill rules at OAR 340-234-0210(1), OAR 340-234-0220(2), OAR 340-234-0240(1), and OAR 340-234-0250(1) and (2).

    R. Division 236: Emissions Standards for Specific Industries

    Under Division 236, Oregon repealed rules designed to regulate aluminum (OAR 340-236-0100 through 0150) and laterite ore production of ferronickel (OAR 340-236-0200 through 0230) because sources of this type no longer exist in the state. Any new facilities would be subject to new source review as well as applicable NSPS and NESHAP requirements. Oregon also made clear the appropriate test method to determine compliance with the hot mix asphalt plant rules at OAR 340-236-0410(1). In addition, the state added a requirement that hot mix asphalt plants must develop a fugitive emissions control plan if requested by the ODEQ. See OAR 340-236-0410(4).

    We note that Oregon repealed OAR 340-236-0430 specific to portable hot mix asphalt plants, which addressed only permit requirements for such plants, because these plants are now regulated under general permits in Division 216. With the exception of the provisions regulating animal matter and municipal solid waste landfills, we propose to approve the revisions and repeals because they are consistent with CAA requirements. The provisions regulating animal matter and municipal solid waste landfills are not related to the criteria pollutants regulated under title I of the CAA, not essential for meeting and maintaining the NAAQS, nor related to the requirements for SIPs under section 110 of the CAA.

    S. Division 240: Rules for Areas With Unique Air Quality Needs

    In the submission, Oregon revised air quality control requirements for certain areas—these are generally areas that are, or have been, designated nonattainment by the EPA. At OAR 340-240-0050, the state clarified the appropriate test methods for determining compliance with emission standards in this division, improving the enforceability of the standards. In addition, visible emissions requirements, at OAR 340-240-0110, 0140, 0330, 0350, and 0510, were revised to update opacity testing averaging times from an aggregate three-minute exception in any one hour to a six-minute average. The state explained the basis for this change in its submission, and we describe, in Section E above, why we propose to approve this change.

    Oregon also revised particulate control requirements for air conveying systems, at OAR 340-240-0350, setting removal efficiency standards designed to ensure that the pollution collected from a source is not ultimately discharged into the atmosphere. In making this change, the state regulated design removal efficiency rather than actual removal efficiency because of the challenges of testing for removal efficiency, which requires measuring emissions at the inlet and the outlet. Oregon updated the grain loading standard for air conveying systems in the La Grande Urban Growth Area emitting ten tons or less a year (from 0.1 to 0.10 grains per standard cubic foot) but allowed extensions of up to one year, if necessary to install controls to meet the revised standard. Oregon made the changes intending to better align the rules with federally-approved standards and testing methods.

    Also in this division, Oregon repealed the charcoal producing plant rules at OAR 340-240-0170 because there are no longer any existing sources of this type in Oregon outside of Lane County (which is subject to rules in addition to, or in lieu of, these rules), and any new charcoal producing plants would be subject to new source review and any applicable NSPS and NESHAP requirements. In accord with changes to other divisions discussed above, the state removed the sanctioned use of asphalt and oil as dust suppressants. Oregon also repealed old, expired provisions in this division.

    We note that Oregon's federally-approved SIP currently controls sources in the Klamath Falls nonattainment area, and incentivizes sources in Klamath Falls to offset particulate emissions by decommissioning fireplaces, installing fireplace inserts, replacing old stoves with certified stoves, and replacing wood-fired heaters with alternatives like natural gas and electric baseboards. In this submission, Oregon updated requirements in Klamath Falls by removing an exception from the 20% opacity standard, and by uniformly applying the 6-minute averaging time to measure opacity, as described above in Section E.

    Oregon also revised this section to expand offsets to the Lakeview sustainment area as well as other eligible areas. See OAR 340-240-0560. We propose to approve the revisions because they are consistent with the CAA and strengthen the SIP.

    T. Division 242: Rules Applicable to the Portland Area

    This division contains additional requirements that apply in the Portland area. The industrial emissions management program was updated to account for the changes to Oregon's Major NSR and State NSR programs. Oregon also moved the net air quality benefit provisions to Division 224 to consolidate NSR requirements. We note that we already approved the changes to the Gasoline Vapors from Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing Operations section at OAR 340-242-0500, 0510, and 0520 on October 27, 2015 (80 FR 65655), and are therefore not addressing them in this action.

    Oregon repealed the Spray Paint rule sections at OAR 340-242-0700 through 0790 because the EPA has set national rules designed to be more stringent. The Oregon spray paint rules were originally a mass-based standard adopted in 1995 and projected to have a 15 percent reduction in VOCs in the 1996 Portland Ozone Maintenance Plan. On March 24, 2008, the EPA finalized national VOC rules (73 FR 15604). As described in the proposal for the EPA's rule, the EPA's reactivity-based standard would provide a 19 percent reduction in VOCs (July 16, 2007, 72 FR 38952). The EPA also cited the rule's projected 19 percent reduction of VOC in an EPA memo providing guidelines on emissions reduction credit.20 In addition, California Air Resource Board developed a reactivity-based standard, approved by the EPA in September 2005 (70 FR 53930). We find the repeal to be approvable and propose to approve the submitted changes to Division 242 as consistent with CAA requirements.

    20 Stephen Page, “Emission Reduction Credit for Three Federal Rules for Categories of Consumer and Commercial Products,” Memo to Regional Administrators, 2007.

    U. Division 262: Heat Smart Program for Residential Woodstoves and Other Solid Fuel Heating Devices

    Oregon submitted a change to the definitions section of this division, at OAR 340-262-0450. Oregon's rules now expressly exclude boilers providing process heat to a commercial, industrial, or institutional establishment (that obtain a construction approval from the ODEQ) from the definition of “solid fuel burning device” regulated under the Heat Smart Program. These units are currently exempt from the Heat Smart Program under Oregon's SIP and the revision to Oregon's rules continues that exemption. We propose to approve the change because as a matter of federal law, this revision results in no change to the Oregon SIP.

    V. Division 264: Rules for Open Burning

    The only substantive change to this division is the repeal of the forced air pit incinerators rule and associated references at OAR 340-264-0190. Forced air pit and air curtain incinerators are regulated under the EPA's rules for Commercial/Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators and are required to have title V operating permits. The ODEQ has therefore determined that such units should no longer be regulated under Oregon's rules for open burning. We propose to approve the repeal as consistent with the CAA.

    W. Division 268: Emission Reduction Credits

    In Division 268, Oregon submitted revisions to OAR 340-268-0030 to clarify when reductions in criteria pollutant emissions that are also hazardous air pollutant emissions are creditable. Emissions reductions required to meet federal NESHAP standards in 40 CFR part 61 or 63 are not creditable as emission reduction credits for purposes of Major NSR in nonattainment or reattainment areas in Oregon. However, criteria pollutant reductions that are in excess of, or incidental to, the required hazardous air pollutant reductions can potentially earn credits—as long as all conditions are met. Oregon also lowered the threshold for banking credits in the Klamath Falls and Lakeview areas from ten tons to one ton—to encourage trading activity. Finally, Oregon specified when such credits are considered used up, and when they expire. The revisions are consistent with the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations and we propose to approve them.

    X. Source Sampling Manual and Continuous Monitoring Manual

    Oregon submitted the ODEQ Source Sampling Manual, Volumes I and II, and the ODEQ Continuous Monitoring Manual, revised as of April 2015. These manuals are key reference materials used in OAR Divisions 200 through 268. As noted above, Oregon added references to the April 2015 edition of both manuals in Division 200. Oregon incorporates changes to testing and monitoring requirements—spelled out in these manuals—into the permits of source owners and operators, as necessary.

    The Source Sampling Manual addresses air emissions source sampling practices and procedures for projects in Oregon. Volume I of this manual was updated to account for changes to the EPA methods for measuring fine particulate matter, and other new and modernized methods. Volume II of this manual was revised to remove the annual reporting requirements for small gasoline dispensing facilities (throughput of less than 10,000 gallons of gasoline per month). The state determined that the annual reporting requirement was not needed to measure compliance because the ODEQ collected one-time throughput data from these facilities and is authorized to request additional information if needed.

    Oregon extensively revised the Continuous Monitoring Manual, originally published in 1992. The manual includes federal monitoring requirements for the NSPS, NESHAP, and Acid Rain programs and was updated primarily to address continuous monitoring systems of all types. The changes affect commercial operations that are required to install and operate continuous monitoring systems, contractors that audit or certify the systems, and vendors that sell or design the systems. We reviewed the revised manuals, and we propose to approve the changes as consistent with 40 CFR part 51, subpart M, and part 60, subparts A and B, for purposes of the emission limits and requirements approved into the SIP.

    IV. Proposed Action

    We propose to approve, and incorporate by reference, specific rule revisions submitted by Oregon on May 21, 2015. As documented in the submission, we propose to approve certain of the state rule revisions to also apply in Lane County, because the Oregon EQC has determined those rule to be more stringent that the corresponding local rules. We also propose to approve, but not incorporate by reference, specific provisions that provide the ODEQ with authority needed for SIP approval.

    In addition, we propose to remove repealed rules from Oregon's federally-approved SIP, as requested by the state, because they are obsolete or redundant. Finally, we are not approving certain rules that are inconsistent with CAA requirements, or that are inappropriate for SIP approval, because they are not related to the criteria pollutants regulated under title I of the CAA, not essential for meeting and maintaining the NAAQS, or not related to the requirements for SIPs under section 110 of the CAA.

    A. Rules Approved and Incorporated by Reference

    We propose to approve into the Oregon SIP, and incorporate by reference at 40 CFR part 52, subpart MM, the submitted revisions to Chapter 340 of the OAR listed below, state effective April 16, 2015:

    • Division 200—General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions (0010, 0020, 0025, 0030, 0035);

    • Division 202—Ambient Air Quality Standards and PSD Increments (0010, 0020, 0050, 0070, 0100, 0130, 0200, 0210, 0220, 0225);

    • Division 204—Designation of Air Quality Areas (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0050, 0060, 0070, 0080, 0090, 0300, 0310, 0320);

    • Division 206—Air Pollution Emergencies (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0050, 0060, 0070, 8010, 8020, 8030, 8040);

    • Division 208—Visible Emissions and Nuisance Requirements (0005, 0010, 0110, 0210);

    • Division 209—Public Participation (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0050, 0060, 0070, 0080);

    • Division 210—Stationary Source Notification Requirements (0010, 0020, 0100, 0110, 0120, 0205, 0215, 0225, 0230, 0240, 0250);

    • Division 212—Stationary Source Testing and Monitoring (0005, 0010, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0140, 0150);

    • Division 214—Stationary Source Reporting Requirements (0005, 0010, 0100, 0110, 0114, 0130, 0200, 0210, 0220, 0300—except introductory sentence related to NSPS and NESHAPs, 0310, 0320, 0330, 0340, 0350);

    • Division 216—Air Contaminant Discharge Permits (0010, 0020, 0025, 0030, 0040, 0052, 0054, 0060, 0062, 0064, 0066, 0068, 0070, 0082, 0084, 0090, 0094, 8010, 8020);

    • Division 222—Stationary Source Plant Site Emission Limits (0010, 0020, 0030, 0035, 0040, 0041, 0042, 0046, 0048, 0051, 0055, 0080, 0090);

    • Division 224—New Source Review (0010, 0020, 0025, 0030, 0034, 0038, 0040, 0045, 0050, 0055, 0060, 0070, 0245, 0250, 0255, 0260, 0270, 0500, 0510—except paragraph (3), 0520, 0530, 0540);

    • Division 225—Air Quality Analysis Requirements (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0045, 0050, 0060, 0070);

    • Division 226—General Emissions Standards (0005, 0010, 0100, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0140, 0210, 0310, 0320, 0400, 8010);

    • Division 228—Requirements for Fuel Burning Equipment and Fuel Sulfur Content (0010, 0020, 0100, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0200, 0210);

    • Division 232—Emission Standards for VOC Point Sources (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0050, 0060, 0080, 0085, 0090, 0100, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0140, 0150, 0160, 0170, 0180, 0190, 0200, 0210, 0220, 0230);

    • Division 234—Emission Standards for Wood Products Industries (0005, 0010—except (8) and (10), 0100, 0140, 0200, 0210—except (1), 0220—except (2), 0240—except (1), 0250—except (1) and (2), 0270, 0500, 0510, 0520, 0530, 0540);

    • Division 236—Emission Standards for Specific Industries (0005, 0010, 0400, 0410, 0420, 0440, 8010);

    • Division 240—Rules for Areas with Unique Air Quality Needs (0010, 0020, 0030, 0050, 0100, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0140, 0150, 0160, 0180, 0190, 0210, 0220, 0250, 0300, 0320, 0330, 0340, 0350, 0360, 0400, 0410, 0420, 0430, 0440, 0510, 0550, 0560, 0610);

    • Division 242—Rules Applicable to the Portland Area (0400, 0410, 0420, 0430, 0440, 0600, 0610, 0620, 0630);

    • Division 262—Heat Smart Program for Residential Woodstoves and Other Solid Fuel Heating Devices (0450);

    • Division 264—Rules for Open Burning (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0050, 0060, 0070, 0075, 0078, 0080, 0100, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0140, 0150, 0160, 0170, 0175, 0180); and

    • Division 268—Emission Reduction Credits (0010, 0020, 0030).

    Rules Also Approved for Lane County

    • Division 200—General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions (0020);

    • Division 202—Ambient Air Quality Standards and PSD Increments (0050);

    • Division 204—Designation of Air Quality Areas (0300, 0310, 0320);

    • Division 208—Visible Emissions and Nuisance Requirements (0110, 0210);

    • Division 214—Stationary Source Reporting Requirements (0114) (5);

    • Division 216—Air Contaminant Discharge Permits (0040, 8010);

    • Division 222—Stationary Source Plant Site Emission Limits (0090);

    • Division 224 -New Source Review (0030, 0530);

    • Division 225—Air Quality Analysis Requirements (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0045, 0050, 0060, 0070);

    • Division 226—General Emissions Standards (0210); and

    • Division 228—Requirements for Fuel Burning Equipment and Fuel Sulfur Content (0210).

    B. Rules Approved but Not Incorporated by Reference

    We propose to approve, but not incorporate by reference, the following provisions:

    • ODEQ Source Sampling Manual, Volumes I and II, April 2015 (for purposes of the limits approved into the SIP);

    • ODEQ Continuous Emissions Monitoring Manual, April 2015 (for purposes of the limits approved into the SIP);

    • ODEQ-LRAPA Stringency Analysis and Directive, Attachment B; and

    • Division 200—General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions (0100, 0110, 0120).

    C. Rules Removed

    We propose to remove the following sections from the Oregon SIP because they have been repealed, replaced by rules noted in paragraph A above, or the state has asked that they be removed:

    • Division 208—Visible Emissions and Fugitive Emissions Requirements (0100, 0200);

    • Division 212—Compliance Assurance Monitoring (0200, 0210, 0220, 0230, 0240, 0250, 0260, 0270, 0280);

    • Division 214—Stationary Source Reporting Requirements (0360);

    • Division 222—Stationary Source Plant Site Emissions Limits (0043, 0045, 0070);

    • Division 224—New Source Review (0080, 0100);

    • Division 225—Air Quality Analysis Requirements (0090);

    • Division 226—General Emission Standards (0200);

    • Division 228—Requirements for Fuel Burning Equipment and Fuel Sulfur Content (0400, 0410, 0420, 0430, 0440, 0450, 0460, 0470, 0480, 0490, 0500, 0510, 0520, 0530);

    • Division 234—Emission Standards for Wood Products Industries (0300, 0310, 0320, 0330, 0340, 0350, 0360, 0400, 0410, 0420, 0430);

    • Division 236—Emission Standards for Specific Industries (0100, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0140, 0150, 0200, 0210, 0220, 0230, 0430);

    • Division 240—Rules for Areas with Unique Air Quality Needs (0170, 0230, 0310);

    • Division 242—Rules Applicable to the Portland Areas (0700, 0710, 0720, 0730, 0740, 0750, 0760, 0770, 0780, 0790); and

    • Division 264—Rules for Open Burning (0190).

    D. Rules Not Approved

    For the reasons stated above, we are not approving the following revised provisions submitted by Oregon because they are inconsistent with CAA requirements, or because they are inappropriate for SIP approval under section 110, title I of the CAA:

    • Division 200—General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions (0050) (compliance schedules);

    • Division 214—Stationary Source Reporting Requirements (0300 introductory sentence related to NSPS and NESHAPs);

    • Division 222—Stationary Source Plant Site Emission Limits (0060) (hazardous air pollutants);

    • Division 224—New Source Review (0510(3)) (PM2.5 inter-pollutant offset ratios); and

    • Division 234—Emission Standards for Wood Products Industries (0010(8) and (10), 0210(1), 0220(2), 0240(1), 0250 (1) and (2)) (total reduced sulfur and odor).

    V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference the provisions described above in Section IV. Proposed Action. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    VI. Oregon Notice Provision

    Oregon Revised Statute 468.126 prohibits the ODEQ from imposing a penalty for violation of an air, water or solid waste permit unless the source has been provided five days' advanced written notice of the violation and has not come into compliance or submitted a compliance schedule within that five-day period. By its terms, the statute does not apply to Oregon's title V program or to any program if application of the notice provision would disqualify the program from federal delegation. Oregon has previously confirmed that, because application of the notice provision would preclude EPA approval of the Oregon SIP, no advance notice is required for violation of SIP requirements.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 9, 2017. Michelle L. Pirzadeh, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05463 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0248; FRL-9957-88-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Atlanta; Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the portion of a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Georgia, through Georgia Environmental Protection Division on February 6, 2015, addressing the nonattainment new source review requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards for the Atlanta, Georgia 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the “Atlanta Area”). The Atlanta Area is comprised of 15 counties in Atlanta (Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Newton, Paulding, and Rockdale). This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before April 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0248 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, 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:

    Kelly Sheckler of the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mrs. Sheckler can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9222 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the NNSR portion of Georgia's February 6, 2015 SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all adverse comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.

    Dated: March 7, 2017. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05461 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 523, 531, 533, 536 and 537 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 86 Notice of Intention To Reconsider the Final Determination of the Mid-Term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model Year 2022-2025 Light Duty Vehicles AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Transportation's (DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA announces its intention to reconsider the Final Determination of the Mid-Term Evaluation of greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for model year (MY) 2022-2025 light-duty vehicles and to coordinate its reconsideration with the parallel process to be undertaken by the DOT's NHTSA regarding Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for cars and light trucks for the same model years.

    DATES:

    March 22, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Charmley, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fuel Emissions Laboratory/OAR, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, telephone (734) 214-4466. Email: [email protected] and Rebecca Schade, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone: (202) 366-2992.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    By this notice, EPA announces its intention to reconsider its Final Determination of the Mid-Term Evaluation of GHG standards for MY 2022-2025 light-duty vehicles. The EPA has inherent authority to reconsider past decisions and to revise, replace or repeal a decision to the extent permitted by law and supported by a reasoned explanation. FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009). In 2012, EPA committed to continuing to coordinate development of its Clean Air Act (CAA) section 202(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 7521(a)) emission standards with NHTSA's development of CAFE standards for light-duty vehicles, but did not do so in development and publication of EPA's January 12, 2017 Midterm Evaluation of standards conducted under 40 CFR 86.1818-12(h) of EPA's regulations. EPA now announces it will reconsider that determination in coordination with NHTSA.

    The Mid-Term Evaluation was established to review standards set in a 2012 joint rulemaking by the EPA and NHTSA, which set federal GHG emissions and CAFE standards for MY 2017 and beyond for light-duty vehicles. 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Final Rule, 77 FR 62624 (Oct. 15, 2012). These standards, codified for EPA at 40 CFR 86.1818-12, apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles (i.e., sport utility vehicles, cross-over utility vehicles and light trucks), collectively referred to in this notice as light-duty vehicles.

    The EPA and NHTSA finalized separate sets of standards under their respective statutory authorities. EPA set GHG standards (including standards for emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide, methane and air conditioning refrigerants) for MY 2017-2025 passenger cars and light-trucks under section 202(a) of the CAA. NHTSA sets national CAFE standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 (49 U.S.C. 32902). NHTSA set final CAFE standards for MY 2017-2021 light-duty vehicles and issued augural standards for MYs 2022-2025.

    The 2012 rulemaking establishing these standards included a regulatory requirement for the EPA to conduct a Mid-Term Evaluation of the GHG standards established for MYs 2022-2025. 77 FR 62625 (October 15, 2012), codified at 40 CFR 86.1818-12(h). In July 2016, EPA, NHTSA, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released for public comment a jointly prepared Draft Technical Assessment Report, which examined a range of issues relevant to GHG emissions and CAFE standards for MYs 2022-2025. 81 FR 49217 (July 27, 2016). In November, 2016, EPA issued a proposed determination for the Mid-Term Evaluation. 81 FR 87927 (Dec. 6, 2016). On January 12, 2017, the EPA Administrator signed the Final Determination of the Mid-Term Evaluation of light-duty vehicle GHG emissions standards for MYs 2022- 2025.

    Under 40 CFR 86.1818-12(h), no later than April 1, 2018, the EPA Administrator must determine whether the GHG standards previously established under 40 CFR 86.1818-12(c) for MYs 2022-2025 are appropriate under section 202(a) of the CAA, in light of the record then before the Administrator. Given that CO2 makes up the vast majority of the GHGs that EPA regulates under section 202(a), and given that the technologies available for regulating CO2 emissions do so by improving fuel economy (which NHTSA regulates under EPCA/EISA), NHTSA's views with regard to what CAFE standards would be maximum feasible for those model years is an appropriate consideration in EPA's determining what GHG standards would be appropriate under the CAA. See 40 CFR 86.1818-12(h)(1)(vii) (listing as one of the factors EPA should consider in the Mid-Term Evaluation “[t]he impact of the greenhouse gas emission standards on the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards and a national harmonized program”). However, NHTSA has not yet considered what CAFE standards would be the maximum feasible standards for MYs 2022-2025. Accordingly, EPA has concluded that it is appropriate to reconsider its Final Determination in order to allow additional consultation and coordination with NHTSA in support of a national harmonized program.

    For its part, NHTSA will continue to engage with stakeholders as it works to develop a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to set CAFE standards for MYs 2022-2025. As explained in the 2012 final rule, this proposal will be part of “a de novo rulemaking conducted . . . with fresh inputs and a fresh consideration and balancing of all relevant factors, based on the best and most current information before the agency at that time.” 77 FR 62652. A final rule for MY 2022 is statutorily required to be issued by NHTSA by April 1, 2020.

    In accord with the schedule set forth in EPA's regulations, the EPA intends to make a new Final Determination regarding the appropriateness of the MY 2022-2025 GHG standards no later than April 1, 2018.

    Dated: March 3, 2017. Elaine L. Chao, Secretary, Department of Transportation. Dated: March 3, 2017. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05316 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    82 54 Wednesday, March 22, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request March 17, 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 April 21, 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.

    Risk Management Agency

    Title: Area Risk Protection Insurance.

    OMB Control Number: 0563-0083.

    Summary of Collection: The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) is a wholly-owned Government corporation created February 16, 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1501). The program was amended previously, but Public Law 96-365, dated September 26, 1980, provided for nationwide expansion of a comprehensive crop insurance program. The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended in later years further expanded this role of the crop insurance program to be the principal tool for risk management by producers of agricultural commodities. Barley, corn, cotton, forage production, grain sorghum, soybeans, oysters, popcorn, rice and wheat are crops insured under the Area Risk Protection Insurance (ARPI) policy.

    Need and Use of the Information: ARPI includes three separate plans of insurance: (1) Area Revenue Protection which protects against price declines and automatically includes Upside Harvest Price Protection (UHPP) which protects against price increases; (2) ARP with the Harvest Price Exclusion, which excludes UHPP and protects against price declines but not against price increases; and (3) Area Yield Protection which only protects against loss of yield.

    Using a wide range of data elements producers are required to report specific data when they apply for ARPI such as acreage and yields. Insurance companies accept applications; issue policies; establish and provide insurance coverage; compute liability, premium, subsidies, and losses; indemnify producers; and report specific data to FCIC as required in Appendix III/M13 Handbook.

    If producers and insurance companies did not submit the required data at the specified time, accurate liabilities, premium, and subsidies may not be determined, errors may not be resolved timely, producers may not receive accurate indemnities, payments may be late, crop insurance may not be actuarially sound as mandated by the Act.

    Description of Respondents: Producers and insurance companies.

    Number of Respondents: 25,432.

    Frequency of Responses: Weekly, monthly, quarterly, annually, semi-annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 98,322.

    Risk Management Agency

    Title: Subpart U-Ineligibility for Programs under the Federal Crop Insurance Act.

    OMB Control Number: 0563-0085.

    Summary of Collection: The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) is a wholly-owned Government corporation created February 16, 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1501). The program was amended previously, but Public Law 96-365, dated September 26, 1980, provided for nationwide expansion of a comprehensive crop insurance program. The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended in later years further expanded this role of the crop insurance program to be the principal tool for risk management by producers of agricultural commodities.

    Need and Use of the Information: The purpose of collecting the information is to ensure persons that are ineligible for benefits under the Federal crop insurance program are accurately identified as such and do not obtain benefits to which they are not eligible. Person can become ineligible for benefits for three reasons: (1) Debt on unpaid premium or overpaid indemnity (information provided by AIP; (2) Debt on unpaid CAT fee (information provided by AIP); and (3) Debarment/disqualification/suspension, including but not limited to judgement, civil fines, etc. The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and AIPs use the information collected to determine whether person seeking to obtain Federal crop insurance coverage are ineligible for such coverage according to the statutory/regulatory mandates identified.

    Description of Respondents: Business, or other for profit.

    Number of Respondents: 18.

    Frequency of Responses: Monthly, quarterly, on occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 1,841.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05697 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Information Collection; Interagency Generic Clearance for Federal Land Management Agencies Collaborative Visitor Feedback Surveys on Recreation and Transportation Related Programs and Systems AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the renewal of an information collection, Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMAs) Collaborative Visitor Transportation Information Collections.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received in writing on or before May 22, 2017 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Margaret Petrella, The Volpe Center (RVT-321), 55 Broadway Street, Cambridge, MA 02142. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to (617) 494-3522 or by email to: [email protected]

    The public may inspect comments received at 55 Broadway Street, Cambridge, MA 02142 in Room 3-67 during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 617-494-3582 to facilitate entry to the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Margaret Petrella, Social Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation, The Volpe Center, (617) 494-3582.

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Interagency Generic Clearance for Federal Land Management Agencies Collaborative Visitor Feedback Surveys on Recreation and Transportation Related Programs and Systems.

    OMB Number: 0596-0236.

    Expiration Date of Approval: November 30, 2017.

    Type of Request: Renewal and revision of currently approved collection.

    Abstract: From time to time, individual or combined units or subunits of various Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMAs) and/or FLMA Research Station units need to acquire direct visitor and authorized user feedback about site- or area-specific services, facilities, road and/or travel systems, needs, programs, demographics, management of FLMA lands, and/or other quantitative information on FLMA lands in cross-jurisdictional landscapes. FLMAs include, but are not limited to: USDA-Forest Service; National Park Service; Bureau of Land Management; US Fish & Wildlife Service; US Geological Survey; US Army Corps of Engineers; Presidio Trust and Bureau of Reclamation. This direct feedback is vital to establish and/or revise goals and objectives for FLMA recreation-related transportation system programs to and within FLMA recreation sites/opportunities, to inform land management plans, and to facilitate interagency coordination across multijurisdictional landscapes, which will better meet the needs of the public and the resources under FLMA management.

    The benefits of an FLMA interagency generic Information Collection (IC) would include significant public and agency time and cost savings. If multiple FLMAs in an area or landscape work jointly on one quantitative visitor feedback information collection under a generic clearance from OMB, there would be significant savings in government time and costs related to survey development and OMB survey approval, as well as savings in the costs of survey administration and data processing. In particular, the public burden would be diminished as the public would only need to respond to one jointly-sponsored survey, instead of to multiple similar surveys at multiple units in an area.

    Under the following authorities, the participating FLMAs are obligated to actively solicit public input to improve public lands management to better serve the public:

    1. Forest Service Administration Organic Act of 1897 [16 U.S.C. 473-478, 479-482, and 551] as amended by the Transfer Act of 1905 [16 U.S.C. 472, 524, 554];

    2. Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 [Pub. L. 86-15, § 3];

    3. Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources and Planning Act of 1974 [Pub. L. 93-378 § 3(2,3)] as amended;

    4. National Forest Management Act of 1976 [Pub. L. 94-588, §§ 2(3), 6(d)], as amended;

    5. Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 [Pub. L. 103-62] as amended;

    6. Executive Order 12862 of September 11, 1993;

    7. Executive Order 13571 of April 27, 2011;

    8. Executive Act 12996 of March 25, 1996;

    9. National Park Services Act of 1916;

    10. National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act;

    11. National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Act [Pub. L. 106-408];

    12. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976;

    13. General Survey Act of 1824; and

    14. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

    Survey respondents would include visitors and potential visitors to FLMA units or subunits, and residents of communities in or near FLMA units. Since many of the FLMA surveys are similar in terms of the populations being surveyed, the types of questions being asked, the research methodologies being used, and the database structures and data being utilized, the FLMAs propose a generic Interagency Information Collections clearance from OMB to obtain quantitative and/or qualitative visitor/user feedback utilizing collection mechanisms such as surveys, focus groups, and/or interviews.

    Information collection could occur at one location, several locations, across FLMA units, across regions, across the nation, and could be multi-jurisdictional at any of these levels. Information collection activities could occur once, could occur as iterative collections over a limited period of time, or could occur over long periods of time at some periodic, planned time interval. Direct visitor feedback could be collected through facilitated focus groups or through surveys or individual interviews (qualitative or quantitative), with either electronically-recorded or hand-written responses, via mail-back, or via internet, apps, or social media electronic surveys (e.g., Quick Response (QR) codes on Smartphones). Survey or interview information could be collected at pertinent site(s) or access point(s) as visitors arrive or complete their visit(s) or are in the midst of their activities; and could be collected pre- or post-visit.

    In general, questions will relate to visitor experience at one or more specific locations or locales (one FLMA's lands or multi-jurisdictional) and could address one or more of the following key categories, identified as goal areas in FLMA planning documents:

    Mobility and access (for example, different modes used to access sites; satisfaction with transportation related services and facilities; use and satisfaction with traveler information; reasons for non-visitation)

    System management (for example, support for different management policies)

    Safety (for example, safety concerns prior or during trip, safety-related incidents that occurred)

    Environment (for example, visitor priorities with respect to natural and cultural resources; perceptions related to sound)

    Economic development (for example, amount visitors spend within the area)

    Visitor/user demographics (for example, home city and state, age group, gender, race, number of people/vehicles in party)

    Trip characteristics (for example, length of trip, trip purpose, activities and destinations)

    To ensure anonymity, if any personally-identifiable information (PII) is collected, PII will not be stored with contact information at any time, and contact information will be purged from researchers' files once data collections are complete.

    Participation in surveys will be strictly voluntary. The information could be collected by FLMA personnel, or by private contractors, other government agency partners, or universities or other educational institutions conducting the information collection on behalf of the FLMAs. The data collected would provide managers with reliable information to better serve the public, by better-informing strategic planning; allocations of physical, fiscal, or human resources; modification or refinement of various program management goals and objectives or management plan revisions; and future planning efforts focused on developing more effective and efficient delivery of program services, whether on one or several unit(s) or at an interagency, cross-jurisdictional scope. FLMAs may also get requests for this kind of information from the general public and/or a variety of organizations including Congressional staffs, newspapers, magazines, and transportation and/or recreational trade organizations.

    Primary analysis of the information could be conducted by FLMA staff or by one or more research station(s), or by private contractors, other government agency partners, or universities or other educational institutions doing the analyses on behalf of the FLMA. All results will be aggregated so specific responses cannot be correlated to specific respondents.

    The information collected, including approved survey instruments, final reports, and data will be archived in a shared database that can be accessed by all FLMAs. In this way, FLMAs will be kept informed about the survey efforts of their partner agencies and can use the results to inform the development of their own surveys, thus reducing the duplication of effort and public burden. In addition, analyzed data could be shared among other agencies, stakeholders, educational institutions, interested parties, or the public through written or electronic reports. FLMA units will use this information to inform strategic planning, allocation of resources, revisions of management program goals and objectives, revisions of Land Management Plans, and long-range planning with statistically-reliable, visitor input data necessary to help FLMA units provide their customers with better service and coordinate more effectively across jurisdictions.

    Without these joint, coordinated information collections, the FLMAs will continue to lack the information necessary to identify and implement feasible and publicly-accepted transportation and other facility and service improvements to help protect public land resources and enhance visitor experience. These joint information collections will become ever more important as FLMA budgets continue to shrink and demand for access to FLMA recreation sites and opportunities continue to grow. These information collections will directly impact FLMA resources and visitor experience quality, and help the FLMAs meet their various resource, recreation, and transportation management mandates.

    Estimate of Annual Burden: Under a generic IC, the number of respondents will differ for each individual survey, depending on the purpose and design of each information collection. Therefore, the number of respondents is necessarily an estimate. The number of responses can be estimated as approximately 70% of the number of respondents approached, based on previous administrations of similar surveys in various FLMA units. Respondents will be asked to respond only one time. Overall, we assume 1200 respondents per survey effort, 10 respondents per focus group effort, 50 respondents per interview effort, and 500 comment cards per comment card effort. The burden of time to respond one time will vary, depending on the methodology employed. Surveys are estimated at approximately 15 minutes per person, based on previous administrations of similar surveys in various FLMA units; focus groups are estimated at 90 minutes per person; interviews are estimated at 30 minutes each; and comment cards are estimated at 3 minutes per person.

    Type of Respondents: Visitors or potential visitors to, or residents near, lands managed by one FLMA or by multiple FLMAs in cross-jurisdictional landscapes (e.g., Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service).

    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 23,300.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: One.

    Estimated Burden per Response: 15 minutes (survey); 90 minutes (focus group); 30 minutes (interview); 3 minutes (comment card)

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 5,085 hours.

    Comment Is Invited

    Comment is invited on:

    (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the FLMAs, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility;

    (2) the accuracy of the FLMAs' estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the assumptions used;

    (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval.

    Dated: February 24, 2017. Lenise Lago, Deputy Chief, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05653 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Opportunity for Designation in the Grand Forks, North Dakota, Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This Area AGENCY:

    Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The designation of the official agency listed below will end on March 31, 2017. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by this agency to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agency: Northern Plains Grain Inspection Service, Inc. (Northern Plains).

    DATES:

    Applications and comments must be received by April 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit applications and comments concerning this notice using any of the following methods:

    • Applying for Designation on the Internet: Use FGISonline (https://fgis.gipsa.usda.gov/default_home_FGIS.aspx) and then click on the Delegations/Designations and Export Registrations (DDR) link. You will need to obtain an FGISonline customer number and USDA eAuthentication username and password prior to applying.

    Submit Comments Using the Internet: Go to Regulations.gov. (http://www.regulations.gov). Instructions for submitting and reading comments are detailed on the site.

    Mail, Courier or Hand Delivery: Mark Wooden, Compliance Officer, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153.

    Fax: Mark Wooden, 816-872-1257.

    Email: [email protected]

    Read Applications and Comments: All applications and comments will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Wooden, 816-659-8413 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 79(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79 (f)). Under section 79(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.

    Areas Open for Designation: Northern Plains

    Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area in the States of Minnesota and North Dakota is assigned to this official agency.

    In Minnesota

    Kittson, Roseau, Lake of the Woods, Marshall, Beltrami, Polk, Pennington, Red Lake, and Clearwater Counties.

    In North Dakota

    Bounded on the north by the North Dakota State line; bounded on the east by the North Dakota State line south to the southern Grand Forks County line; bounded on the south by the southern Grand Forks and Nelson County lines west to the western Nelson County line; the western Nelson County line north to the southern Benson County line, the southern Benson and Pierce County lines west to State Route 3; and bounded on the west by State Route 3 north to the southern Rolette County line; the southern Rolette County line west to the western Rolette County line to the north to the North Dakota State line.

    Opportunity for Designation

    Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 79(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic areas in Minnesota and North Dakota is for the period beginning April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2022. To apply for designation or to request more information, contact Mark Wooden at the address listed above.

    Request for Comments

    We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Northern Plains official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Mark Wooden at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

    We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 71-87k.

    Randall D. Jones, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05618 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) Opportunity for Designation in the Owensboro, Kentucky, Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This Area AGENCY:

    Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The designation of the official agency listed below will end on March 31, 2017. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by this agency to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agency: J.W. Barton Grain Inspection Service, Inc. (Barton).

    DATES:

    Applications and comments must be received by April 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit applications and comments concerning this notice using any of the following methods:

    Applying for Designation on the Internet: Use FGISonline (https://fgis.gipsa.usda.gov/default_home_FGIS.aspx) and then click on the Delegations/Designations and Export Registrations (DDR) link. You will need to obtain an FGISonline customer number and USDA eAuthentication username and password prior to applying.

    Submit Comments Using the Internet: Go to Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov). Instructions for submitting and reading comments are detailed on the site.

    Mail, Courier or Hand Delivery: Mark Wooden, Compliance Officer, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153.

    Fax: Mark Wooden, 816-872-1257.

    Email: [email protected].

    All applications and comments will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Wooden, 816-659-8413 or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 79(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)). Under section 79(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.

    Areas Open for Designation Barton

    Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area in the States of Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee is assigned to this official agency.

    In Indiana

    Clark, Crawford, Floyd, Harrison, Jackson, Jennings, Jefferson, Lawrence, Martin, Orange, Perry, Scott, Spencer, and Washington Counties.

    In Kentucky

    Bounded on the north by the northern Daviess, Hancock, Breckinridge, Meade, Hardin, Jefferson, Oldham, Trimble, and Carroll County lines; bounded on the east by the eastern Carroll, Henry, Franklin, Scott, Fayette, Jessamine, Woodford, Anderson, Nelson, Larue, Hart, Barren, and Allen County lines; bounded on the south by the southern Allen and Simpson County lines; and bounded on the west by the western Simpson and Warren County lines; the southern Butler and Muhlenberg County lines; the Muhlenberg County line west to the Western Kentucky Parkway; the Western Kentucky Parkway west to State Route 109; State Route 109 north to State Route 814; State Route 814 north to U.S. Route Alternate 41; U.S. Route Alternate 41 north to the Webster County line; the northern Webster County line; the western McLean and Daviess County lines.

    In Tennessee

    Bounded on the north by the northern Tennessee State line from Sumner County east; bounded on the east by the eastern Tennessee State line southwest; bounded on the south by the southern Tennessee State line west to the western Giles County line; and bounded on the west by the western Giles, Maury, and Williamson County lines North; the northern Williamson County line east; the western Rutherford, Wilson, and Sumner County lines north.

    Opportunity for Designation

    Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 79(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic areas in Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee is for the period beginning April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2022. To apply for designation or to request more information, contact Mark Wooden at the address listed above.

    Request for Comments

    We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Barton official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Mark Wooden at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

    We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 71-87k.

    Randall D. Jones, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05616 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Opportunity for Designation in the Sioux City, Iowa, Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This Area AGENCY:

    Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The designation of the official agency listed below will end on March 31, 2017. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by this agency to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agency: Sioux City Inspection and Weighing Service Company (Sioux City).

    DATES:

    Applications and comments must be received by April 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit applications and comments concerning this notice using any of the following methods:

    Applying for Designation on the Internet: Use FGISonline (https://fgis.gipsa.usda.gov/default_home_FGIS.aspx) and then click on the Delegations/Designations and Export Registrations (DDR) link. You will need to obtain an FGISonline customer number and USDA eAuthentication username and password prior to applying.

    Submit Comments Using the Internet: Go to Regulations.gov.

    • (http://www.regulations.gov). Instructions for submitting and reading comments are detailed on the site.

    Mail, Courier or Hand Delivery: Jacob Thein, Compliance Officer, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153

    Fax: Jacob Thein, 816-872-1257

    Email: [email protected]

    READ APPLICATIONS AND COMMENTS:

    All applications and comments will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jacob Thein, 816-866-2223 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 79(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79 (f)). Under section 79(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.

    Areas Open for Designation Sioux City

    Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area in the States of Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Dakota is assigned to this official agency.

    In Iowa

    Bounded on the north by the northern Iowa State line from the Big Sioux River east to U. S. Route 169; bounded on the east by U.S. Route 169 south to State Route 9; State Route 9 west to U.S. Route 169; U.S. Route 169 south to the northern Humboldt County line; the Humboldt County line east to State Route 17; State Route 17 south to C54; C54 east to U.S. Route 69; U.S. Route 69 south to the northern Hamilton County line; northern Hamilton County line east to Interstate 35; Interstate 35 northeast to C55; C55 east to S41; S41 north to State Route 3; State Route 3 to east U.S. Route 65; U.S. Route 65 north to C25; C25 east to S56; S56 north to C23; C23 east to T47; T47 south to C33; C33 east to T64; T64 north to B60; B60 east to U.S. Route 218; U.S. Route 218 north to Chickasaw County; the western Chickasaw County line; and the western and northern Howard County lines. Bounded on the East by the Eastern Howard and Chickasaw County lines; the eastern and southern Bremer County lines; V49 south to D38; D38 west to State Route 21; State Route 21 south to State Route 8; State Route 8 west to U.S. Route 63; U.S. Route 63 south to Interstate 80; Interstate 80 east to the Poweshiek County line; the eastern Poweshiek, Mahaska, Monroe, and Appanoose County lines; bounded on the south by the southern Appanoose, Wayne, Decatur, Ringgold, and Taylor County lines; bounded on the west by the western Taylor County line; the southern Montgomery County line west to State Route 48; State Route 48 north to M47; M47 north to the Montgomery County line; the northern Montgomery County line; the western Cass and Audubon County Lines; the northern Audubon County line east to U.S. Route 71; U.S. Route 71 north to the southern Sac and Ida County lines; the eastern Monona County line south to State Route 37; State Route 37 west to State Route 175; State Route 175 west to the Missouri River; and bounded on the west by the Missouri River north to the Big Sioux River; the Big Sioux River north to the northern Iowa State line.

    In Minnesota

    Yellow Medicine, Renville, Lincoln, Lyon, Redwood, Pipestone, Murray, Cottonwood, Rock, Nobles, Jackson, and Martin Counties.

    In Nebraska

    Cedar, Dakota, Dixon, Pierce (north of U.S. Route 20), and Thurston Counties.

    In South Dakota

    Bounded on the North by State Route 44 (U.S. 18) east to State Route 11; State Route 11 south to A54B; A54B east to the Big Sioux River; bounded on the east by the Big Sioux River; and bounded on the south and west by the Missouri River. The following grain elevators are part of this geographic area assignment. In D. R. Schaal Agency's area: Maxyield Coop, Algona, Kossuth County; Stateline Coop, Burt, Kossuth County; Gold-Eagle, Goldfield, Wright County; and North Central Coop, Holmes, Wright County, Iowa; Agvantage F.S., Chapin, Franklin County and Five Star Coop, Rockwell, Cerro Gordo County, Iowa.

    The following grain elevators are not part of this geographic area assignment and are assigned to: Omaha Grain Inspection Service, Inc.: Scoular Elevator, Elliot, Montgomery County and two Scoular elevators, Griswold, Cass County, Iowa.

    Opportunity for Designation

    Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 79(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic areas in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Dakota is for the period beginning April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2022. To apply for designation or to request more information, contact Jacob Thein at the address listed above.

    Request for Comments

    We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Sioux City official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Jacob Thein at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

    We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 71-87k.

    Randall D. Jones, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05617 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) Opportunity for Designation in the Bloomington, Illinois, Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This Area AGENCY:

    Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The designation of the official agency listed below will end on March 31, 2017. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by this agency to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agency: Central Illinois Grain Inspection, Inc. (Central Illinois).

    DATES:

    Applications and comments must be received by April 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit applications and comments concerning this notice using any of the following methods:

    Applying for Designation on the Internet: Use FGISonline (https://fgis.gipsa.usda.gov/default_home_FGIS.aspx) and then click on the Delegations/Designations and Export Registrations (DDR) link. You will need to obtain an FGISonline customer number and USDA eAuthentication username and password prior to applying.

    Submit Comments Using the Internet: Go to Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov). Instructions for submitting and reading comments are detailed on the site.

    Mail, Courier or Hand Delivery: Sharon Lathrop, Compliance Officer, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153.

    Fax: Sharon Lathrop, 816-872-1257.

    Email: [email protected].

    All applications and comments will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sharon Lathrop, 816-891-0415 or FG[email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 79(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)). Under section 79(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.

    Areas Open for Designation Central Illinois

    Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area in the State of Illinois is assigned to this official agency.

    In Illinois

    Bounded on the north by State Route 18 east to U.S. Route 51; U.S. Route 51 south to State Route 17; State Route 17 east to Livingston County; and the Livingston County line east to State Route 47; bounded on the east by State Route 47 south to State Route 116; State Route 116 west to Pontiac, which intersects with a straight line running north and south through Arrowsmith to the southern McLean County line; the southern McLean County line east to the eastern DeWitt County line; the eastern DeWitt County Line; the eastern Macon County line south to Interstate 72; Interstate 72 northeast to the eastern Piatt County line; the eastern Piatt, Moultrie, and Shelby County lines; bounded on the south by the southern Shelby County line; and a straight line running along the southern Montgomery County line west to State Route 16 to a point approximately one mile northeast of Irving; and bounded on the west by a straight line from this point northeast to Stonington on State Route 48; a straight line from Stonington northwest to Elkhart on Interstate 55; a straight line from Elkhart northeast to the west side of Beason on State Route 10; State Route 10 west to the Logan County line; the western Logan County line; the southern Tazewell County line; the western Tazewell County line; the western Peoria County line north to Interstate 74; Interstate 74 southeast to State Route 116; State Route 116 north to State Route 26; and State Route 26 north to State Route 18.

    The following grain elevators are not part of this geographic area assignment and are assigned to: Champaign-Danville Grain Inspection Departments, Inc.: East Lincoln Farmers Grain Co., Lincoln, Logan County, Illinois; Okaw Cooperative, Cadwell, Moultrie County; ADM (3 elevators), Farmer City, Dewitt County; and Topflight Grain Company, Monticello, Piatt County, Illinois.

    Opportunity for Designation

    Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 79(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic areas in Illinois is for the period beginning April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2022. To apply for designation or to request more information, contact Sharon Lathrop at the address listed above.

    Request for Comments

    We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Central Illinois official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Sharon Lathrop at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

    We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 71-87k.

    Randall D. Jones, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05619 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Opportunity for Designation in the Plainview, Texas, Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This Area AGENCY:

    Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The designation of the official agency listed below will end on March 31, 2017. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by this agency to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agency: Plainview Grain Inspection and Weighing Service, Inc. (Plainview).

    DATES:

    Applications and comments must be received by April 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit applications and comments concerning this notice using any of the following methods:

    Applying for Designation on the Internet: Use FGISonline (https://fgis.gipsa.usda.gov/default_home_FGIS.aspx) and then click on the Delegations/Designations and Export Registrations (DDR) link. You will need to obtain an FGISonline customer number and USDA eAuthentication username and password prior to applying.

    Submit Comments Using the Internet: Go to Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov). Instructions for submitting and reading comments are detailed on the site.

    Mail, Courier or Hand Delivery: Jacob Thein, Compliance Officer, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153.

    Fax: Jacob Thein, 816-872-1257.

    Email: [email protected]

    All applications and comments will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jacob Thein, 816-866-2223 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 79(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79 (f)). Under section 79(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.

    Areas Open for Designation Plainview

    Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area in the State of Texas is assigned to this official agency.

    In Texas

    Bounded on the north by the northern Deaf Smith County line east to U.S. Route 385; U.S. Route 385 south to FM 1062; FM 1062 east to State Route 217; State Route 217 east to Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red River; Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red River southeast to the Briscoe County line; the northern Briscoe County line; the northern Hall County line east to U.S. Route 287; U.S. Route 287 southeast to the eastern Hall County line south to the northern Cottle County line; the northern Cottle County line east to the northern Hardeman County line; bounded on the east by the eastern Hardeman and Fourd County lines to the northern Baylor and Archer County lines to the eastern Archer, Throckmorton, Shacklelford, and Callahan County lines; bounded on the south by the southern Calahan, Taylor, Nolan, Mitchell, Howard, Martin, and Andrews County lines; and bounded on the west by the western Andrews, Gaines, and Yoakum County lines; the northern Yoakum and Terry county lines; the western Lubbock County line; the western Hale County line north to FM 37; FM 37 west to U.S. Route 84; U.S. Route 84 northwest to FM 303; FM 303 north to U.S. Route 70; U.S. Route 70 west to the Lamb County line; the western and northern Lamb County lines; the western Castro County line; the southern Deaf Smith County line west to State Route 214; State Route 214 north to the northern Deaf Smith County line.

    Opportunity for Designation

    Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 79(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic area in Texas is for the period beginning April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2022. To apply for designation or to request more information, contact Jacob Thein at the address listed above.

    Request for Comments

    We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Plainview official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Jacob Thein at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

    We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 71-87k.

    Randall D. Jones, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05620 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Business-Cooperative Service Inviting Applications for Rural Cooperative Development Grants AGENCY:

    Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice announces that the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (Agency) is accepting fiscal year (FY) 2017 applications for the Rural Cooperative Development Grant (RCDG) program. This Notice is being issued prior to enactment of a full year appropriation act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017. The RCDG program is authorized under section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONACT) as amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014. The purpose of announcing the RCDG program prior to the enactment of full year appropriations is to provide applicants sufficient time to prepare and submit their applications in response to this solicitation and to provide the Agency time to process applications within FY 2017. Expenses incurred in developing applications will be at the applicant's risk.

    The purpose of this program is to provide financial assistance to improve the economic condition of rural areas through cooperative development. Eligible applicants include a non-profit corporation or an institution of higher education.

    DATES:

    Completed applications must be submitted on paper or electronically according to the following deadlines:

    Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than June 2, 2017. You may also hand carry your application to one of our field offices, but it must be received by close of business on the deadline date. Late applications are not eligible for funding under this Notice and will not be evaluated.

    Electronic applications must be received by May 26, 2017, to be eligible for grant funding. Please review the Grants.gov Web site at http://grants.gov/applicants/organization_registration.jsp. For instructions on the process of registering your organization as soon as possible to ensure you are able to meet the electronic application deadline. Late applications are not eligible for funding under this Notice and will not be evaluated.

    ADDRESSES:

    You should contact a USDA Rural Development State Office (State Office) if you have questions. You are encouraged to contact your State Office well in advance of the application deadline to discuss your project and ask any questions about the application process. Contact information for State Offices can be found at http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices.

    Program guidance as well as application and matching funds templates may be obtained at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-cooperative-development-grant-program. If you want to submit an electronic application, follow the instructions for the RCDG funding announcement located at http://www.grants.gov. If you want to submit a paper application, send it to the State Office located in the State where you are headquartered. If you are headquartered in Washington, DC please contact the Grants Division, Cooperative Programs, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, at (202) 690-1374 for guidance on where to submit your application.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Grants Division, Cooperative Programs, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Mail Stop-3253, Room 4208-South, Washington, DC 20250-3253, (202) 690-1374.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Overview

    Federal Agency: Rural Business-Cooperative Service.

    Funding Opportunity Title: Rural Cooperative Development Grants.

    Announcement Type: Initial Notice.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 10.771.

    Date: Application Deadline. Paper applications must be postmarked, mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than June 2, 2017, or it will not be considered for funding. You may also hand carry your application to one of our field offices, but it must be received by close of business on the deadline date. Electronic applications must be received by http://www.grants.gov no later than midnight Eastern Time May 26, 2017, or it will not be considered for funding.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the paperwork burden associated with this Notice has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0570-0006.

    A. Program Description

    The RCDG program is authorized under section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONACT) (7 U.S.C. 1932 (e)) as amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79). You are required to comply with the regulations for this program published at 7 CFR part 4284, subparts A and F, which are incorporated by reference in this Notice. Therefore, you should become familiar with these regulations. The primary objective of the RCDG program is to improve the economic condition of rural areas through cooperative development. Grants are awarded on a competitive basis. The maximum award amount per grant is $200,000. Grants are available for non-profit corporations or higher education institutions only. Grant funds may be used to pay for up to 75 percent of the cost of establishing and operating centers for rural cooperative development. Grant funds may be used to pay for 95 percent of the cost of establishing and operating centers for rural cooperative development, when the applicant is a 1994 Institution as defined by 7 U.S.C. 301. The 1994 Institutions are commonly known as Tribal Land Grant Institutions. Centers may have the expertise on staff or they can contract out for the expertise, to assist individuals or entities in the startup, expansion or operational improvement of rural businesses, especially cooperative or mutually-owned businesses.

    Definitions

    The terms you need to understand are defined and published at 7 CFR 4284.3 and 7 CFR 4284.504. In addition, the terms “rural” and “rural area,” defined at section 343(a) (13) of the CONACT (7 U.S.C. 1991(a)), are incorporated by reference, and will be used for this program instead of those terms currently published at 7 CFR 4284.3. The term “you” referenced throughout this Notice should be understood to mean “you” the applicant. Finally, there has been some confusion on the Agency's meaning of the terms “conflict of interest” and “mutually-owned business,” because they are not defined in the CONACT or in the regulations used for the program. Therefore, the terms are clarified and should be understood as follows.

    Conflict of interest—A situation in which a person or entity has competing personal, professional, or financial interests that make it difficult for the person or business to act impartially. Regarding use of both grant and matching funds, Federal procurement standards prohibit transactions that involve a real or apparent conflict of interest for owners, employees, officers, agents, or their immediate family members having a financial or other interest in the outcome of the project; or that restrict open and free competition for unrestrained trade. Specifically, project funds may not be used for services or goods going to, or coming from, a person or entity with a real or apparent conflict of interest, including, but not limited to, owner(s) and their immediate family members. An example of conflict of interest occurs when the grantee's employees, board of directors, or the immediate family of either, have the appearance of a professional or personal financial interest in the recipients receiving the benefits or services of the grant.

    Mutually-owned business—An organization owned and governed by members who either are its consumers, producers, employees, or suppliers.

    B. Federal Award Information

    Type of Award: Competitive Grant.

    Fiscal Year Funds: FY 2017.

    Total Funding: To be determined.

    Maximum Award: $200,000.

    Anticipated Award Date: September 29, 2017.

    C. Eligibility Information

    Applicants must meet all of the following eligibility requirements. Applications which fail to meet any of these requirements by the application deadline will be deemed ineligible and will not be evaluated further.

    1. Eligible Applicants

    You must be a nonprofit corporation or an institution of higher education to apply for this program. Public bodies and individuals cannot apply for this program. See 7 CFR 4284.507. You must also meet the following requirements:

    a. An applicant is ineligible if they have been debarred or suspended or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs under Executive Order 12549, “Debarment and Suspension.” The Agency will check the System for Award Management (SAM) to determine if the applicant has been debarred or suspended. In addition, an applicant will be considered ineligible for a grant due to an outstanding judgment obtained by the U.S. in a Federal Court (other than U.S. Tax Court), is delinquent on the payment of Federal income taxes, or is delinquent on Federal debt. See 7 CFR 4284.6. The applicant must certify as part of the application that they do not have an outstanding judgment against them. The Agency will check the Credit Alert Interactive Voice Response System (CAIVRS) to verify this.

    b. Any corporation that has been convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the past 24 months or that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, is not eligible for financial assistance provided with funds appropriated by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113), unless a Federal agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government. Applicants will be required to complete Form AD-3030, “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants,” if you are a corporation.

    c. Applications will be deemed ineligible if the application includes any funding restrictions identified under Section D.6. a and b. Inclusion of funding restrictions outlined in Section D.6. a. and b. precludes the agency from making a federal award.

    d. Applications will be deemed ineligible if the application is not complete in accordance with the requirements stated in Section C.3.e., and will not be reviewed.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching

    Your matching funds requirement is 25 percent of the total project cost (5 percent for 1994 Institutions). See 7 CFR 4284.508. When you calculate your matching funds requirement, please round up or down to whole dollars as appropriate. An example of how to calculate your matching funds is as follows:

    a. Take the amount of grant funds you are requesting and divide it by .75. This will give you your total project cost.

    Example: $200,000 (grant amount)÷.75 (percentage for use of grant funds) = $266,667 (total project cost).

    b. Subtract the amount of grant funds you are requesting from your total project cost. This will give you your matching funds requirement.

    Example: $266,667 (total project cost)−$200,000 (grant amount) = $66,667 (matching funds requirement).

    c. A quick way to double check that you have the correct amount of matching funds is to take your total project cost and multiply it by .25.

    Example: $266,667 (total project cost) × .25 (maximum percentage of matching funds requirement) = $66,667 (matching funds requirement).

    You must verify that all matching funds are available during the grant period and provide this documentation with your application in accordance with requirements identified in Section D.2.e.8. If you are awarded a grant, additional verification documentation may be required to confirm the availability of matching funds.

    Other rules for matching funds that you must follow are listed below.

    • They must be spent on eligible expenses during the grant period.

    • They must be from eligible sources.

    • They must be spent in advance or as a pro-rata portion of grant funds being spent.

    • They must be provided by either the applicant or a third party in the form of cash or an in-kind contribution.

    • They cannot include board/advisory council members' time.

    • They cannot include other Federal grants unless provided by authorizing legislation.

    • They cannot include cash or in-kind contributions donated outside the grant period.

    • They cannot include over-valued, in-kind contributions.

    • They cannot include any project costs that are ineligible under the RCDG program.

    • They cannot include any project costs that are unallowable under the applicable grant “Cost Principles,” including 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (for-profits) or successor regulation.

    • They can include loan funds from a Federal source.

    • They can include travel and incidentals for board/advisory council members if you have established written policies explaining how these costs are normally reimbursed, including rates. You must include an explanation of this policy in your application or the contributions will not be considered as eligible matching funds.

    • You must be able to document and verify the number of hours worked and the value associated with any in-kind contribution being used to meet a matching funds requirement.

    • In-kind contributions provided by individuals, businesses, or cooperatives which are being assisted by you cannot be provided for the direct benefit of their own projects as USDA Rural Development considers this to be a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest.

    3. Other Eligibility Requirements a. Purpose Eligibility

    Your application must propose the establishment or continuation of a cooperative development center concept. You must use project funds, including grant and matching funds for eligible purposes only (see 7 CFR 4284.508). In addition, project funds may be used for programs providing for the coordination of services and sharing of information among the centers (see 7 U.S.C. 1932(e) (4) (C) (vi)).

    b. Project Eligibility

    All project activities must be for the benefit of a rural area.

    c. Multiple Application Eligibility

    Only one application can be submitted per applicant. If two applications are submitted (regardless of the applicant name) that include the same Executive Director and/or advisory boards or committees of an existing center, both applications will be determined not eligible for funding.

    d. Grant Period

    Your application must include a one-year grant period or it will not be considered for funding. The grant period should begin no earlier than October 1, 2017, and no later than January 1, 2018. Prior approval is needed from the Agency if you are awarded a grant and desire the grant period to begin earlier or later than previously discussed. Projects must be completed within a one-year timeframe. The Agency may approve requests to extend the grant period for up to an additional 12 months at its discretion. Further guidance on grant period extensions will be provided in the award document.

    e. Completeness

    Your application will not be considered for funding if it fails to meet an eligibility criterion by time of application deadline and does not provide sufficient information to determine eligibility and scoring. In particular, you must include all of the forms and proposal elements as discussed in the regulation and as clarified further in this Notice. Incomplete applications will not be reviewed by the Agency. For more information on what is required for an application, see 7 CFR 4284.510.

    f. Satisfactory Performance

    If you have an existing RCDG award, you must discuss the status of your existing RCDG award at application time under the Eligibility Discussion. You must be performing satisfactorily to be considered eligible for a new award. Satisfactory performance includes being up-to-date on all financial and performance reports and being current on all tasks as approved in the work plan. The Agency will use its discretion to make this determination. In addition, if you have an existing award from the Socially-Disadvantaged Groups Grant (SDGG) program, you must discuss the status of your existing SDGG award at application time under Eligibility Discussion and be performing satisfactorily to be considered for a new RCDG award.

    g. Indirect Costs

    Your negotiated indirect cost rate approval does not need to be included in your application, but you will be required to provide it if a grant is awarded. Approval for indirect costs that are requested in an application without an approved indirect cost rate agreement is at the discretion of the Agency.

    D. Application and Submission Information 1. Address To Request Application Package

    For further information, you should contact your State Office at http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices. Program materials may also be obtained at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-cooperative-development-grant-program. You may also obtain a copy by calling 202-690-1374.

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission

    You may submit your application in paper form or electronically through Grants.gov. If you submit in paper form, any forms requiring signatures must include an original signature.

    a. Electronic Submission

    To submit an application electronically, you must use the Grants.gov Web site at http://www.Grants.gov. You may not submit an application electronically in any way other than through Grants.gov.

    You can locate the Grants.gov downloadable application package for this program by using a keyword, the program name, or the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number for this program.

    When you enter the Grants.gov Web site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.

    To use Grants.gov, you must already have a DUNS number and you must also be registered and maintain registration in SAM. We strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov.

    You must submit all of your application documents electronically through Grants.gov. Applications must include electronic signatures. Original signatures may be required if funds are awarded.

    After electronically submitting an application through Grants.gov, you will receive an automatic acknowledgement from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number.

    b. Paper Submission

    If you want to submit a paper application, send it to the State Office located in the State where your project will primarily take place. You can find State Office Contact information at: http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices. An optional-use Agency application template is available online at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-cooperative-development-grant-program.

    c. Supplemental Information

    Your application must contain all of the required forms and proposal elements described in 7 CFR 4284.510 and as otherwise clarified in this Notice. Specifically, your application must include: (1) The required forms as described in 7 CFR 4284.510(b) and (2) the required proposal elements as described in 7 CFR 4284.510(c). If your application is incomplete, it is ineligible to compete for funds. Applications lacking sufficient information to determine eligibility and scoring will be considered ineligible. Information submitted after the application deadline will not be accepted. You are encouraged, but not required to utilize the application template found at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-cooperative-development-grant-program.

    d. Clarifications on Forms

    • Standard Form (SF) 424—Your DUNS number should be identified in the “Organizational DUNS” field on SF 424, “Application for Federal Assistance.” Since there are no specific fields for a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code and expiration date, you may identify them anywhere you want to on Form SF 424. In addition, you should provide the DUNS number and the CAGE code and expiration date under the applicant eligibility discussion in your proposal narrative. If you do not include the CAGE code and expiration date and the DUNS number in your application, it will not be considered for funding.

    • Form AD-3030, “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants,” if you are a corporation. A corporation is any entity that has filed articles of incorporation in one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, or the various territories of the United States including American Samoa, Guam, Midway Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands. Corporations include both for profit and non-profit entities.

    • You can voluntarily fill out and submit the “Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants,” as part of your application if you are a nonprofit organization.

    e. Clarifications on Proposal Elements

    1. You must include the title of the project as well as any other relevant identifying information on the Title Page.

    2. You must include a Table of Contents with page numbers for each component of the application to facilitate review.

    3. Your Executive Summary must include the items in 7 CFR 4284.510(c)(3), and also discuss the percentage of work that will be performed among organizational staff, consultants, or other contractors. It should not exceed two pages.

    4. Your Eligibility Discussion must not exceed two pages and cover how you meet the eligibility requirements for applicant, matching funds, other eligibility requirements and grant period. If you have an existing RCDG or the Socially-Disadvantaged Groups Grant (SDGG) program, you must discuss the current status of those award(s) under grant period eligibility.

    5. Your Proposal Narrative must not exceed 40 pages and should describe the essential aspects of the project.

    i. You are only required to have one title page for the proposal.

    ii. If you list the evaluation criteria on the Table of Contents and specifically and individually address each criterion in narrative form, then it is not necessary for you to include an Information Sheet. Otherwise, the Information Sheet is required under 7 CFR 4284.510(c)(ii).

    iii. You should include the following under Goals of the Project:

    A. A statement that substantiates that the Center will effectively serve rural areas in the United States;

    B. A statement that the primary objective of the Center will be to improve the economic condition of rural areas through cooperative development;

    C. A description of the contributions that the proposed activities are likely to make to the improvement of the economic conditions of the rural areas for which the Center will provide services. Expected economic impacts should be tied to tasks included in the work plan and budget; and

    D. A statement that the Center, in carrying out its activities, will seek, where appropriate, the advice, participation, expertise, and assistance of representatives of business, industry, educational institutions, the Federal government, and State and local governments.

    iv. The Agency has established annual performance evaluation measures to evaluate the RCDG program. You must provide estimates on the following performance evaluation measures.

    • Number of groups who are not legal entities assisted.

    • Number of businesses that are not cooperatives assisted.

    • Number of cooperatives assisted.

    • Number of businesses incorporated that are not cooperatives.

    • Number of cooperatives incorporated.

    • Total number of jobs created as a result of assistance.

    • Total number of jobs saved as a result of assistance.

    • Number of jobs created for the Center as a result of RCDG funding.

    • Number of jobs saved for the Center as a result of RCDG funding.

    It is permissible to have a zero in a performance element. When you calculate jobs created, estimates should be based upon actual jobs to be created by your organization as a result of the RCDG funding or actual jobs to be created by cooperative businesses or other businesses as a result of assistance from your organization. When you calculate jobs saved, estimates should be based only on actual jobs that would have been lost if your organization did not receive RCDG funding or actual jobs that would have been lost without assistance from your organization.

    v. You can also suggest additional performance elements for example where job creation or jobs saved may not be a relevant indicator (e.g. housing). These additional criteria should be specific, measurable performance elements that could be included in an award document.

    vi. You must describe in the application how you will undertake to do each of the following. We would prefer if you described these undertakings within proposal evaluation criteria to reduce duplication in your application. The specific proposal evaluation criterion where you should address each undertaking is noted below.

    A. Take all practicable steps to develop continuing sources of financial support for the Center, particularly from sources in the private sector (should be presented under proposal evaluation criterion j., utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.j.);

    B. Make arrangements for the Center's activities to be monitored and evaluated (should be addressed under proposal evaluation criterion number h. utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.h.); and

    C. Provide an accounting for the money received by the grantee in accordance with 7 CFR part 4284, subpart F. This should be addressed under proposal evaluation criterion number a., utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.a.

    vii. You should present the Work Plan and Budget proposal element under proposal evaluation criterion number h., utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.h. of this Notice to reduce duplication in your application.

    viii. You should present the Delivery of Cooperative development assistance proposal element under proposal evaluation criterion number b., utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.b. of this Notice.

    ix. You should present the Qualifications of Personnel proposal element under proposal evaluation criterion number i., utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.i. of this Notice.

    x. You should present the Local Support and Future Support proposal elements under proposal evaluation criterion number j., utilizing the requirements of Section E.1.j. of this Notice.

    xi. Your application will not be considered for funding if you do not address all of the proposal evaluation criteria. See Section E.1. of this Notice for a description of the proposal evaluation criteria.

    xii. Only appendices A-C will be considered when evaluating your application. You must not include resumes of staff or consultants in the application.

    6. You must certify that there are no current outstanding Federal judgments against your property and that you will not use grant funds to pay for any judgment obtained by the United States. To satisfy the Certification requirement, you should include this statement in your application: “[INSERT NAME OF APPLICANT] certifies that the United States has not obtained an unsatisfied judgment against its property, is not delinquent on the payment of Federal income taxes, or any Federal debt, and will not use grant funds to pay any judgments obtained by the United States.” A separate signature is not required.

    7. You must certify that matching funds will be available at the same time grant funds are anticipated to be spent and that expenditures of matching funds are pro-rated or spent in advance of grant funding, such that for every dollar of the total project cost, not less than the required amount of matching funds will be expended. Please note that this Certification is a separate requirement from the Verification of Matching Funds requirement. To satisfy the Certification requirement, you should include this statement in your application: “[INSERT NAME OF APPLICANT] certifies that matching funds will be available at the same time grant funds are anticipated to be spent and that expenditures of matching funds shall be pro-rated or spent in advance of grant funding, such that for every dollar of the total project cost, at least 25 cents (5 cents for 1994 Institutions) of matching funds will be expended.” A separate signature is not required.

    8. You must provide documentation in your application to verify all of your proposed matching funds. The documentation must be included in Appendix A of your application and will not count towards the 40-page limitation. Template letters are available for each type of matching funds contribution at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-cooperative-development-grant-program.

    a. If matching funds are to be provided in cash, you must meet the following requirements.

    You: The application must include a statement verifying (1) the amount of the cash and (2) the source of the cash. You may also provide a bank statement dated 30 days or less from the application deadline date to verify your cash match.

    Third-party: The application must include a signed letter from the third party verifying (1) how much cash will be donated and (2) that it will be available corresponding to the proposed grant period or donated on a specific date within the grant period.

    b. If matching funds are to be provided by an in-kind donation, you must meet the following requirements.

    You: The application must include a signed letter from you or your authorized representative verifying (1) the nature of the goods and/or services to be donated and how they will be used, (2) when the goods and/or services will be donated (i.e., corresponding to the proposed grant period or to specific dates within the grant period), and (3) the value of the goods and/or services. Please note that most applicant contributions for the RCDG program are considered applicant cash match in accordance with this Notice. If you are unsure, please contact your State Office because identifying your matching funds improperly can affect your scoring.

    Third-Party: The application must include a signed letter from the third party verifying (1) the nature of the goods and/or services to be donated and how they will be used, (2) when the goods and/or services will be donated (i.e., corresponding to the proposed grant period or to specific dates within the grant period), and (3) the value of the goods and/or services.

    To ensure that you are identifying and verifying your matching funds appropriately, please note the following:

    • If you are paying for goods and/or services as part of the matching funds requirement, the expenditure is considered a cash match, and you must verify it as such. Universities must verify the goods and services they are providing to the project as a cash match and the verification must be approved by the appropriate approval official (i.e., sponsored programs office or equivalent).

    • If you have already received cash from a third-party (i.e., Foundation) before the start of your proposed grant period, you must verify this as your own cash match and not as a third-party cash match. If you are receiving cash from a third-party during the grant period, then you must be verifying the cash as a third-party cash match.

    • Board resolutions for a cash match must be approved at the time of application.

    • You can only consider goods or services for which no expenditure is made as an in-kind contribution.

    • If a non-profit or another organization contributes the services of affiliated volunteers, they must follow the third-party, in-kind donation verification requirement for each individual volunteer.

    • Expected program income may not be used to fulfill your matching funds requirement at the time you submit your application. However, if you have a contract to provide services in place at the time you submit your application, you can verify the amount of the contract as a cash match.

    • The valuation process you use for in-kind contributions does not need to be included in your application, but you must be able to demonstrate how the valuation was derived if you are awarded a grant. The grant award may be withdrawn or the amount of the grant reduced if you cannot demonstrate how the valuation was derived.

    Successful applicants must comply with requirements identified in Section F, Federal Award Administration.

    3. Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) and System for Awards Management (SAM)

    In order to be eligible (unless you are excepted under 2 CFR 25.110(b), (c) or (d), you are required to:

    (a) Provide a valid DUNS number in your application, which can be obtained at no cost via a toll-free request line at (866) 705-5711;

    (b) Register in SAM before submitting your application. You may register in SAM at no cost at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/. You must provide your SAM Cage Code and expiration date or evidence that you have begun the SAM registration process at time of application, and

    (c) Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which you have an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.

    If you have not fully complied with all applicable DUNS and SAM requirements, the Agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and the Agency may use that determination as a basis for making an award to another applicant. Please refer to Section F.2 for additional submission requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program.

    4. Submission Dates and Times

    Application Deadline Date: June 2, 2017.

    Explanation of Deadlines: Complete applications must be submitted on paper or electronically according to the following deadlines:

    Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than June 2, 2017, to be eligible for grant funding. The Agency will determine whether your application is late based on the date shown on the postmark or shipping invoice. You may also hand carry your application to one of our field offices, but it must be received by close of business on the deadline date. If the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the reporting package is due the next business day. Late applications will automatically be deemed ineligible.

    Electronic applications must be received by http://www.grants.gov no later than midnight Eastern Time May 26, 2017, to be eligible for grant funding. Please review the Grants.gov Web site at http://grants.gov/applicants/organization_registration.jsp for instructions on the process of registering your organization as soon as possible to ensure you are able to meet the electronic application deadline. Grants.gov will not accept applications submitted after the deadline.

    5. Intergovernmental Review of Applications

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” applies to this program. This E.O. requires that Federal agencies provide opportunities for consultation on proposed assistance with State and local governments. Many States have established a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to facilitate this consultation. For a list of States that maintain a SPOC, please see the White House Web site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants_spoc. If your State has a SPOC, you may submit a copy of the application directly for review. Any comments obtained through the SPOC must be provided to your State Office for consideration as part of your application. If your State has not established a SPOC, or if you do not want to submit a copy of the application, our State Offices will submit your application to the SPOC or other appropriate agency or agencies.

    6. Funding Restrictions

    a. Project funds, including grant and matching funds, cannot be used for ineligible grant purposes (see 7 CFR 4284.10). Also, you shall not use project funds for the following:

    • To purchase, rent, or install laboratory equipment or processing machinery;

    • To pay for the operating costs of any entity receiving assistance from the Center;

    • To pay costs of the project where a conflict of interest exists;

    • To fund any activities prohibited by 2 CFR part 200; or

    • To fund any activities considered unallowable by 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, “Cost Principles,” and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (for-profits) or successor regulations.

    b. In addition, your application will not be considered for funding if it does any of the following:

    • Focuses assistance on only one cooperative or mutually-owned business;

    • Requests more than the maximum grant amount; or

    • Proposes ineligible costs that equal more than 10 percent of total project costs. The ineligible costs will NOT be removed at this stage to proceed with application processing. For purposes of this determination, the grant amount requested plus the matching funds amount constitutes the total project costs.

    We will consider your application for funding if it includes ineligible costs of 10 percent or less of total project costs, as long as the remaining costs are determined eligible otherwise. However, if your application is successful, those ineligible costs must be removed and replaced with eligible costs before the Agency will make the grant award, or the amount of the grant award will be reduced accordingly. If we cannot determine the percentage of ineligible costs, your application will not be considered for funding.

    7. Other Submission Requirements

    a. You should not submit your application in more than one format. You must choose whether to submit your application in hard copy or electronically. Applications submitted in hard copy should be mailed or hand-delivered to the State Office located in the State where you are headquartered. You can find State Office contact information at: http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices. To submit an application electronically, you must follow the instruction for this funding announcement at http://www.grants.gov. A password is not required to access the Web site.

    b. National Environmental Policy Act.

    All recipients under this Notice are subject to the requirements of 7 CFR part 1970. However, technical assistance awards under this Notice are classified as a Categorical Exclusion according to 7 CFR 1970.53(b), and usually do not require any additional documentation.

    The Agency will review each grant application to determine its compliance with 7 CFR part 1970. The applicant may be asked to provide additional information or documentation to assist the Agency with this determination.

    c. Civil Rights Compliance Requirements.

    All grants made under this Notice are subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as required by the USDA (7 CFR part 15, subpart A) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

    E. Application Review Information

    The State Offices will review applications to determine if they are eligible for assistance based on requirements in 7 CFR part 4284, subparts A and F, this Notice, and other applicable Federal regulations. If determined eligible, your application will be scored by a panel of USDA employees in accordance with the point allocation specified in this Notice. A recommendation will be submitted to the Administrator to fund applications in highest ranking order. Applications that cannot be fully funded may be offered partial funding at the Agency's discretion.

    1. Scoring Criteria

    Scoring criteria will follow criteria published at 7 CFR 4284.513 as supplemented below including any amendments made by the Section 6013 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-234), which is incorporated by reference in this Notice. The regulatory and statutory criteria are clarified and supplemented below. You should also include information as described in Section D.2.e.5.vi. if you choose to address these items under the scoring criteria. Evaluators will base scores only on the information provided or cross-referenced by page number in each individual evaluation criterion. The maximum amount of points available is 100. Newly established or proposed Centers that do not yet have a track record on which to evaluate the following criteria should refer to the expertise and track records of staff or consultants expected to perform tasks related to the respective criteria. Proposed or newly established Centers must be organized well-enough at time of application to address its capabilities for meeting these criteria.

    a. Administrative capabilities (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your demonstrated track record in carrying out activities in support of development assistance to cooperatively and mutually owned businesses. At a minimum, you must discuss the following administrative capabilities:

    1. Financial systems and audit controls;

    2. Personnel and program administration performance measures;

    3. Clear written rules of governance; and

    4. Experience administering Federal grant funding no later than the last 5 years, including but not limited to past RCDGs. Please list the name of the Federal grant program(s) and the amount(s) of funding received.

    You will score higher on this criterion if you can demonstrate that the Center has independent governance. For applicants that are universities or parent organizations, you should demonstrate that there is a separate board of directors for the Center.

    b. Technical assistance and other services (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your demonstrated expertise no later than the last 5 years in providing technical assistance and accomplishing effective outcomes in rural areas to promote and assist the development of cooperatively and mutually owned businesses. You must discuss at least:

    1. Your potential for delivering effective technical assistance;

    2. The types of assistance provided;

    3. The expected effects of that assistance;

    4. The sustainability of organizations receiving the assistance; and

    5. The transferability of your cooperative development strategies and focus to other areas of the U.S.

    A chart or table showing the outcomes of your demonstrated expertise based upon the performance elements listed in Section D.2.e.5.iv. or as identified in your award document on previous RCDG awards. At a minimum, please provide information for FY 2013—FY 2015 awards. We prefer that you provide one chart or table separating out award years. The intention here is for you to provide actual performance numbers based upon award years even though your grant period for the award was for the next calendar or fiscal year. Please provide a narrative explanation if you have not received a RCDG award.

    You will score higher on this criterion if you provide more than 3 years of outcomes and can demonstrate that the organizations you assisted within the last 5 years are sustainable. Additional outcome information should be provided on RCDG grants awarded before FY 2013. Please describe specific project(s) when addressing a-e of this paragraph.

    c. Economic development (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your demonstrated ability to facilitate:

    1. Establishment of cooperatives or mutually owned businesses;

    2. New cooperative approaches (i.e., organizing cooperatives among underserved individuals or communities; an innovative market approach; a type of cooperative currently not in your service area; a new cooperative structure; novel ways to raise member equity or community capitalization; conversion of an existing business to cooperative ownership); and

    3. Retention of businesses, generation of employment opportunities or other factors, as applicable, that will otherwise improve the economic conditions of rural areas.

    You will score higher on this criterion if you provide economic statistics showing the impacts of your past development projects no later than 5 years old and identify your role in the economic development outcomes.

    d. Past performance in establishing legal business entities (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your demonstrated past performance in establishing legal cooperative business entities and other legal business entities during January 1, 2014-December 31, 2016. Provide the name of the organization(s) established, the date of formation and your role in assisting with the incorporation(s) under this criterion. In addition, documentation verifying the establishment of legal business entities must be included in Appendix C of your application and will not count against the 40-page limit for the narrative. The documentation must include proof that organizational documents were filed with the Secretary of State's Office (i.e. Certificate of Incorporation or information from the State's official Web site naming the entity established and the date of establishment); or if the business entity is not required to register with the Secretary of State, a certification from the business entity that a legal business entity has been established and when. Please note that you are not required to submit articles of incorporation to receive points under this criterion. You will score higher on this criterion if you have established legal cooperative businesses.

    e. Networking and regional focus (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your demonstrated commitment to:

    1. Networking with other cooperative development centers, and other organizations involved in rural economic development efforts, and

    2. Developing multi-organization and multi-state approaches to addressing the economic development and cooperative needs of rural areas.

    You will score higher on this criterion if you can demonstrate the outcomes of your multi-organizational and multi-state approaches. Please describe the project(s), partners and the outcome(s) that resulted from the approach.

    f. Commitment (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your commitment to providing technical assistance and other services to under-served and economically distressed areas in rural areas of the United States. You will score higher on this criterion if you define and describe the underserved and economically distressed areas within your service area, provide statistics, and identify projects within or affecting these areas, as appropriate.

    g. Matching Funds (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your commitment for the 25 percent (5 percent for 1994 Institutions) matching funds requirement. A chart or table should be provided to describe all matching funds being committed to the project. However, formal documentation to verify all of the matching funds must be included in Appendix A of your application. You will be scored on how you identify your matching funds.

    1. If you met the 25 percent (5 percent for 1994 Institutions) matching requirement, points will be assigned as follows:

    • In-kind only—1 point,

    • Mix of in-kind and cash—3-4 points (maximum points will be awarded if the ratio of cash to in-kind is 30 percent and above of matching funds), or

    • Cash only—5 points.

    2. If you exceeded the 25 percent (5 percent for 1994 Institutions) matching requirement, points will be assigned as follows:

    • In-kind only—2 points,

    • Mix of in-kind and cash—6-7 points (maximum points will be awarded if the ratio of cash to in-kind is 30 percent and above of matching funds), or

    • Cash only—10 points.

    h. Work Plan/Budget (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your work plan for detailed actions and an accompanying timetable for implementing the proposal. The budget must present a breakdown of the estimated costs associated with cooperative and business development activities as well as the operation of the Center and allocate these costs to each of the tasks to be undertaken. Matching funds as well as grant funds must be accounted for in the budget.

    You must discuss at a minimum:

    1. Specific tasks (whether it be by type of service or specific project) to be completed using grant and matching funds;

    2. How customers will be identified;

    3. Key personnel; and

    4. The evaluation methods to be used to determine the success of specific tasks and overall objectives of Center operations. Please provide qualitative methods of evaluation. For example, evaluation methods should go beyond quantitative measurements of completing surveys or number of evaluations.

    You will score higher on this criterion if you present a clear, logical, realistic, and efficient work plan and budget.

    i. Qualifications of those Performing the Tasks (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your application to determine if the personnel expected to perform key tasks have a track record of:

    1. Positive solutions for complex cooperative development and/or marketing problems; or

    2. A successful record of conducting accurate feasibility studies, business plans, marketing analysis, or other activities relevant to your success as determined by the tasks identified in the work plan; and

    3. Whether the personnel expected to perform the tasks are full/part-time employees of your organization or are contract personnel.

    You will score higher on this criterion if you demonstrate commitment and availability of qualified personnel expected to perform the tasks.

    j. Local and Future Support (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your application for local and future support. Support should be discussed directly within the response to this criterion.

    1. Discussion on local support should include previous and/or expected local support and plans for coordinating with other developmental organizations in the proposed service area or with state and local government institutions. You will score higher if you demonstrate strong support from potential beneficiaries and formal evidence of intent to coordinate with other developmental organizations. You may also submit a maximum of 10 letters of support or intent to coordinate with the application to verify your discussion. These letters should be included in Appendix B of your application and will not count against the 40-page limit for the narrative.

    2. Discussion on future support will include your vision for funding operations in future years. You should document:

    (i) New and existing funding sources that support your goals;

    (ii) Alternative funding sources that reduce reliance on Federal, State, and local grants; and

    (iii) The use of in-house personnel for providing services versus contracting out for that expertise. Please discuss your strategy for building in-house technical assistance capacity.

    You will score higher if you can demonstrate that your future support will result in long-term sustainability of the Center.

    2. Review and Selection Process

    The State Offices will review applications to determine if they are eligible for assistance based on requirements in 7 CFR part 4284, subparts A and F, this Notice, and other applicable Federal regulations. If determined eligible, your application will be scored by a panel of USDA employees in accordance with the point allocation specified in this Notice. A recommendation will be submitted to the Administrator to fund applications in highest ranking order. Applications that cannot be fully funded may be offered partial funding at the Agency's discretion. If your application is evaluated, but not funded, it will not be carried forward into the next competition.

    F. Federal Award Administration Information 1. Federal Award Notices

    If you are selected for funding, you will receive a signed notice of Federal award by postal mail from the State Office where your application was submitted, containing instructions on requirements necessary to proceed with execution and performance of the award.

    If you are not selected for funding, you will be notified in writing via postal mail and informed of any review and appeal rights. You must comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, and notice requirements before the grant award will be approved. There will be no available funds for successful appellants once all FY 2017 funds are awarded and obligated. See 7 CFR part 11 for USDA National Appeals Division procedures.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

    Additional requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program can be found in 7 CFR part 4284, subpart F; the Grants and Agreements regulations of the Department of Agriculture codified in 2 CFR parts 180, 400, 415, 417, 418, 421; 2 CFR parts 25 and 170; and 48 CFR 31.2, and successor regulations to these parts.

    In addition, all recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation (see 2 CFR part 170). You will be required to have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-282) reporting requirements (see 2 CFR 170.200(b), unless you are exempt under 2 CFR 170.110(b)).

    The following additional requirements apply to grantees selected for this program:

    • Agency-approved Grant Agreement.

    • Letter of Conditions.

    • Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”

    • Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions.”

    • Form AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters-Primary Covered Transactions.”

    • Form AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions.”

    • Form AD-1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Grants).”

    • Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.”

    • SF LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” if applicable.

    • Form AD-3031, “Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants.” Must be signed by corporate applicants who receive an award under this Notice.

    3. Reporting

    After grant approval and through grant completion, you will be required to provide the following:

    a. A SF-425, “Federal Financial Report,” and a project performance report will be required on a semiannual basis (due 30 working days after end of the semiannual period). The project performance reports shall include the following: A comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for that period;

    b. Reasons why established objectives were not met, if applicable;

    c. Reasons for any problems, delays, or adverse conditions, if any, which have affected or will affect attainment of overall project objectives, prevent meeting time schedules or objectives, or preclude the attainment of particular objectives during established time periods. This disclosure shall be accompanied by a statement of the action taken or planned to resolve the situation; and

    d. Objectives and timetable established for the next reporting period.

    e. Provide a final project and financial status report within 90 days after the expiration or termination of the grant.

    f. Provide outcome project performance reports and final deliverables.

    G. Agency Contacts

    If you have questions about this Notice, please contact the appropriate State Office at http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices. Program guidance as well as application and matching funds templates may be obtained at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-cooperative-development-grant-program. If you want to submit an electronic application, follow the instructions for the RCDG funding announcement located at http://www.grants.gov. You may also contact National Office staff: Natalie Melton, RCDG Program Lead, [email protected], or call the main line at 202-690-1374.

    H. Nondiscrimination Statement

    In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

    To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

    (1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410;

    (2) Fax: (202) 690-7442; or

    (3) Email: [email protected]

    Dated: March 15, 2017. Mark Brodziski, Acting Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05600 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Virginia Advisory Committee To Discuss Potential Projects of Study AGENCY:

    Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the Virginia Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 12:00 p.m. (EDT) on Thursday, April 6, 2017. The purpose of the meeting is to begin discussion of a project proposal on hate crime in Virginia.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday, April 6, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. EST.

    Public Call Information: Dial: 888-601-3861, Conference ID: 417838.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ivy L. Davis, at [email protected] or by phone at 202-376-7533.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-601-3861 and conference ID: 417838. Please be advised that before being placed into the conference call, you will be prompted to provide your name, organizational affiliation (if any), and email address (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.

    Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-601-3861 and conference call ID: 417838.

    Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Eastern Regional Office at (202) 376-7533.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=279; click the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone numbers, email or street address.

    Agenda I. Welcome and Introductions —Rollcall II. Planning Meeting —Discuss Hate Crime project concept III. Other Business IV. Adjournment Dated: March 16, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05562 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the District of Columbia Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the District of Columbia Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 11:30 a.m. (EDT) Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at the offices of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425. The purpose of the planning meeting is to discuss and select the topic for the committee's civil rights project.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 4, 2017, at 11:30 a.m. EDT.

    ADDRESSES:

    1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ivy Davis, DFO, at [email protected] or 202-376-7533.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public are entitled to attend the meeting or to submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office by Tuesday, May 2, 2017. Comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425 or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected] Persons with accessibility needs should contact the Eastern Regional Office no later than 10 working days before the scheduled meeting by sending an email to the following email address at [email protected]

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=241; click the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone numbers, email or street address.

    Agenda I. Welcome and Introductions —Rollcall II. Planning Meeting —Discuss Mental Health Project and Other Topics for Civil Right Project III. Other Business Adjournment Dated: March 16, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05561 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Wyoming Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the Wyoming Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 11:00 a.m. (MDT) on Thursday, March 30, 2017, via teleconference. The purpose of the meeting is to receive additional information on hate crimes legislation, update on progress of education bill, and select a topic for study.

    DATES:

    Thursday, March 30, 2017, at 11 a.m. (MDT)

    ADDRESSES:

    To be held via teleconference: Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-888-339-3503, Conference ID: 1496942.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Malee V. Craft, DFO, [email protected], (303) 866-1040.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public may listen to the discussion by dialing the following Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-888-339-3503, Conference ID: 1496942. Please be advised that before being placed into the conference call, the operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and an email address (if available) prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free phone number.

    Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-977-8339 and provide the FRS operator with the Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-888-339-3503, Conference ID: 1496942. Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Monday, May 1, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 13-201, Denver, CO 80294, faxed to (303) 866-1050, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at (303) 866-1040.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=283 and clicking on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at the above phone number, email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Roll-call Malee V. Craft, Regional Director, Rocky Mountain Regional Office (RMRO) Chair Comments Anetra D.E. Parks, Chair, Wyoming State Advisory Committee Discussion Hate Crimes Legislation American Indian Education Bill Selection of Topic to Study Next Steps Dated: March 16, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05565 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic and Other Populations AGENCY:

    Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public virtual meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is giving notice of a virtual meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic and Other Populations (NAC). The Committee will address the U.S. Census Bureau's release of the 2015 National Content Test Race and Ethnicity Analysis Report, which presents findings to the Census Bureau Director and executive staff on the optimal design elements of the race/ethnicity question(s) as preparations continue for the 2020 Census. The 2015 National Content Test is part of the research and development cycle leading up to a re-engineered 2020 Census. The test was designed to compare different questionnaire design strategies for race and ethnicity.

    The NAC will meet virtually on Wednesday, April 5, 2017. Last minute changes to the schedule are possible, which could prevent giving advance public notice of schedule adjustments. Please visit the Census Advisory Committees Web site for the most current meeting agenda at: https://www.census.gov/about/cac/nac.html.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, April 5, 2017. The virtual meeting will begin at approximately 1:00 p.m. ET and end at approximately 4:00 p.m. ET.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via WebEx at the following URL link: https://census.webex.com/census/j.php?MTID=m9ac9810e9f4eb0eb26bcb85ba8345731. For audio please call the following phone number: 800-857-5160. When prompted, please use the following Participant Code: 2017451.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tara Dunlop Jackson, Advisory Committee Branch Chief, Customer Liaison and Marketing Services Office, [email protected], Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H177, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233, telephone 301-763-5222. For TTY callers, please use the Federal Relay Service 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NAC was established in March 2012 and operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, Section 10). NAC members are appointed by the Director, U.S. Census Bureau, and consider topics such as hard to reach populations, race and ethnicity, language, aging populations, American Indian and Alaska Native tribal considerations, new immigrant populations, populations affected by natural disasters, highly mobile and migrant populations, complex households, rural populations, and population segments with limited access to technology. The Committee also advises on data privacy and confidentiality, among other issues.

    All meetings are open to the public. A brief period will be set aside at the meeting for public comment on April 5. Individuals with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing to: [email protected] (subject line “April 5 NAC Virtual Meeting Public Comment”), or by letter submission to the Committee Liaison Officer, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H179, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233.

    Dated: March 16, 2017. John H. Thompson, Director, Bureau of the Census.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05649 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews: Notice of Completion of Panel Review AGENCY:

    NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Completion of Panel Review of the Determination on Remand made by the United States International Trade Commission in the matter of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico (Secretariat File No. USA-MEX-2014-1904-02).

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Final Panel Decision of the Binational Panel dated February 2, 2017, affirming the Determination on Remand described above, the Panel Review was completed on March 16, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul E. Morris, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On February 2, 2017, the Binational Panel issued a Final Panel Decision affirming the U.S. International Trade Commission's Determination on Remand in the matter of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico. As a result, the NAFTA Secretariat was instructed to issue a Notice of Completion of Panel Review on the 31st day following the issuance of the Notice of Final Panel Action, if no request for an Extraordinary Challenge Committee was filed. No such request was filed. Therefore, on the basis of the Final Panel Decision and Rule 80 of the NAFTA Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews, the Panel Review was completed and the panelists were discharged from their duties effective March 16, 2017.

    Dated: March 16, 2017. Paul E. Morris, United States Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05630 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-970, C-570-971] Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Reviews AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    On February 7, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published its notice of initiation and preliminary results of changed circumstances reviews (“CCR”) of the antidumping duty (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) orders on multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) (Preliminary Results). The Department preliminarily determined that Yihua Lifestyle Technology Co., Ltd. (“Yihua Tech”) is the successor-in-interest to Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd. (“Yihua Timber”) for purposes of the AD and CVD orders on wood flooring from the PRC and, as such, is entitled to Yihua Timber's AD and CVD cash deposit rates with respect to entries of subject merchandise. We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. As no parties submitted comments, and there is no other information or evidence on the record calling into question our Preliminary Results, the Department is making no changes to the Preliminary Results. For these final results, the Department continues to find that Yihua Tech is the successor-in-interest to Yihua Timber.

    DATES:

    Effective March 22, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jonathan Hill, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3518.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On December 8, 2011, the Department published the AD and CVD orders on multilayered wood flooring from the PRC.1 On July 28, 2016, Yihua Tech requested that the Department initiate expedited CCRs and determine that it is the successor-in-interest to Yihua Timber for purposes of determining AD and CVD liabilities.2 On February 7, 2017, the Department initiated CCRs and made preliminary findings that Yihua Tech is the successor-in-interest to Yihua Timber and is entitled to Yihua Timber's AD and CVD cash deposit rates with respect to entries of subject merchandise.3 We provided interested parties 14 days from the date of publication of the Preliminary Results to submit case briefs. No interested parties submitted case briefs or requested a hearing.

    1See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 76690 (December 8, 2011); see also Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 76 FR 76692 (December 8, 2011, as amended, Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Amended Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 77 FR 5484 (February 3, 2012) (“Orders”).

    2See Letter from Yihua Tech to the Secretary of Commerce “Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China (AD) and Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China (AD/CVD); Request for Changed Circumstances Review,” dated July 28, 2016 (“CCR Request”).

    3See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Reviews; 82 FR 9561 (February 7, 2017) (“Preliminary Results”) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the orders includes wood flooring, subject to certain exceptions. Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the following subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”): 4412.31.0520; 4412.31.0540; 4412.31.0560; 4412.31.2510; 4412.31.2520; 4412.31.3175; 4412.31.4040; 4412.31.4050; 4412.31.4060; 4412.31.4070; 4412.31.4075; 4412.31.4080; 4412.31.5125; 4412.31.5135; 4412.31.5155; 4412.31.5165; 4412.31.5175; 4412.31.6000; 4412.31.9100; 4412.32.0520; 4412.32.0540; 4412.32.0560; 4412.32.0565; 4412.32.0570; 4412.32.2510; 4412.32.2520; 4412.32.2525; 4412.32.2530; 4412.32.3125; 4412.32.3135; 4412.32.3155; 4412.32.3165; 4412.32.3175; 4412.32.3185; 4412.32.5600; 4412.39.1000; 4412.39.3000; 4412.39.4011; 4412.39.4012; 4412.39.4019; 4412.39.4031; 4412.39.4032; 4412.39.4039; 4412.39.4051; 4412.39.4052; 4412.39.4059; 4412.39.4061; 4412.39.4062; 4412.39.4069; 4412.39.5010; 4412.39.5030; 4412.39.5050; 4412.94.1030; 4412.94.1050; 4412.94.3105; 4412.94.3111; 4412.94.3121; 4412.94.3131; 4412.94.3141; 4412.94.3160; 4412.94.3171; 4412.94.4100; 4412.94.5100; 4412.94.6000; 4412.94.7000; 4412.94.8000; 4412.94.9000; 4412.94.9500; 4412.99.0600; 4412.99.1020; 4412.99.1030; 4412.99.1040; 4412.99.3110; 4412.99.3120; 4412.99.3130; 4412.99.3140; 4412.99.3150; 4412.99.3160; 4412.99.3170; 4412.99.4100; 4412.99.5100; 4412.99.5105; 4412.99.5115; 4412.99.5710; 4412.99.6000; 4412.99.7000; 4412.99.8000; 4412.99.9000; 4412.99.9500; 4418.71.2000; 4418.71.9000; 4418.72.2000; 4418.72.9500; and 9801.00.2500.

    While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.4

    4 For a complete description of the Scope of the Orders, please see Preliminary Results and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Final Results of Changed Circumstances Reviews

    Because the record contains no information or evidence that calls into question the Preliminary Results, for the reasons stated in the Preliminary Results, the Department continues to find that Yihua Tech is the successor-in-interest to Yihua Timber, and is entitled to Yihua Timber's AD and CVD cash deposit rates with respect to entries of subject merchandise.5

    5 For a complete discussion of the Department's findings, which remain unchanged in these final results and which are herein incorporated by reference and adopted by this notice, see generally the Preliminary Decision Memorandum accompanying the Preliminary Results.

    Instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection

    Based on these final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to collect estimated AD and CVD duties for all shipments of subject merchandise exported by Yihua Tech and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice in the Federal Register at the current AD and CVD cash deposit rates for Yihua Timber (i.e., 17.37 percent and 1.38 percent, respectively).6 These cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.

    6See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014, 81 FR 46899 (July 19, 2016); see also Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2013, 81 FR 32291 (May 23, 2016).

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    We are issuing and publishing this final results notice in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3).

    Dated: March 16, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05666 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-890] Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    On February 7, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published its notice of initiation and preliminary results of a changed circumstances review (“CCR”) of the antidumping duty (“AD”) order on wooden bedroom furniture (“WBF”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) (Preliminary Results). The Department preliminarily determined that Yihua Lifestyle Technology Co., Ltd. (“Yihua Tech”) is the successor-in-interest to Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd. (“Yihua Timber”) for purposes of the AD order on WBF from the PRC and, as such, is entitled to Yihua Timber's AD cash deposit rate with respect to entries of subject merchandise. We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. As no parties submitted comments, and there is no other information or evidence on the record calling into question our Preliminary Results, the Department is making no changes to the Preliminary Results. For these final results, the Department continues to find that Yihua Tech is the successor-in-interest to Yihua Timber.

    DATES:

    Effective March 22, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jonathan Hill, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3518.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On January 5, 2005, the Department published the AD order on WBF from the PRC.1 On July 28, 2016, Yihua Tech requested that the Department initiate an expedited CCR and determine that it is the successor-in-interest to Yihua Timber for purposes of determining AD liabilities.2 On February 7, 2017, the Department initiated a CCR and made a preliminary finding that Yihua Tech is the successor-in-interest to Yihua Timber and is entitled to Yihua Timber's AD cash deposit rate with respect to entries of subject merchandise.3 We provided interested parties 14 days from the date of publication of the Preliminary Results to submit case briefs. No interested parties submitted case briefs or requested a hearing.

    1See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005) (“Order”).

    2See Letter from Yihua Tech to the Secretary of Commerce “Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China (AD) and Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China (AD/CVD); Request for Changed Circumstances Review,” dated July 28, 2016 (“CCR Request”).

    3See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review; 82 FR 9560 (February 7, 2017) (“Preliminary Results”) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Scope of the Order

    The product covered by the order is wooden bedroom furniture, subject to certain exceptions.4 Imports of subject merchandise are classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings: 9403.50.9042, 9403.50.9045, 9403.50.9041, 9403.60.8081, 9403.20.0018, 9403.90.8041, 7009.92.1000, or 7009.92.5000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description in the Order remains dispositive.5

    4See Order, 70 FR at 332-33.

    5 For a complete description of the Scope of the Order, please see Preliminary Results and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review

    Because the record contains no information or evidence that calls into question the Preliminary Results, for the reasons stated in the Preliminary Results, the Department continues to find that Yihua Tech is the successor-in-interest to Yihua Timber, and is entitled to Yihua Timber's AD cash deposit rate with respect to entries of subject merchandise.6

    6 For a complete discussion of the Department's findings, which remain unchanged in these final results and which are herein incorporated by reference and adopted by this notice, see generally the Preliminary Decision Memorandum accompanying the Preliminary Results.

    Instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection

    Based on these final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to collect estimated AD duties for all shipments of subject merchandise exported by Yihua Tech and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice in the Federal Register at the current AD cash deposit rate for Yihua Timber (i.e., 21.53 percent).7 These cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.

    7See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of Administrative Review Pursuant to Court Decision, 79 FR 68410 (November 17, 2014).

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    We are issuing and publishing this final results notice in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3).

    Dated: March 14, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05667 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Marine Recreational Fishing Expenditure Survey (MRFES).

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0693.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (revision and extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 83,426.

    Average Hours per Response: Durable goods survey, 15 minutes; trip expenditure surveys, 5 to 8 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 3,142.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for revision and extension of an existing data collection.

    The objective of the survey is to collect information on both trip expenditures and annual durable good expenditures made by marine recreational anglers. The survey will be conducted in two parts. One part will ask anglers about the expenses incurred on their most recent marine recreational fishing trip. The other part of the survey will ask anglers about their purchases of durable goods such as fishing gear, boats, vehicles, and second homes. As specified in the Magnuson-Stevenson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996 (and reauthorized in 2007), NMFS is required to enumerate the economic impacts of the policies it implements on fishing participants and coastal communities. The expenditure data collected in this survey will be used to estimate the economic contributions and impacts of marine recreational fishing to each coastal state and nationwide. Slight revisions will be made to the existing trip expenditure questions to clarify certain types of expenditures, and two questions on the trip expenditure instrument will be dropped.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Frequency: Every three years.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05693 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF302 Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Snapper Grouper, Mackerel Cobia and Cobia Sub-Panel, and Dolphin Wahoo Advisory Panels (AP).

    SUMMARY:

    The Council will hold meetings of its Snapper Grouper AP, Mackerel Cobia and Cobia Subpanel AP and Dolphin Wahoo AP from April 17-21, 2017 in Charleston, SC. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    DATES:

    The Snapper Grouper AP meeting will be held on Monday, April 17, 2017, from 1:30 p.m. until 5 p.m., Tuesday, April 18, 2017, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m., and Wednesday, April 19, 2017, from 9 a.m. until 12 p.m.

    The Mackerel Cobia and Cobia Sub-Panel AP meeting will be held Wednesday, April 19, 2017, from 1:30 p.m. until 5 p.m. and Thursday, April 20, 2017, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m.

    The Dolphin Wahoo AP meeting will be held Friday, April 21, 2017, from 9 a.m. until 2:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meetings will be held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, 4831 Tanger Outlet Blvd., North Charleston, SC 29418.

    Council address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel

    The Snapper Grouper AP will receive an update on the status of amendments to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (FMP) recently approved by the Council and submitted for Secretarial review. In addition, the AP members will review and provide recommendations on actions in draft Amendment 43 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (FMP) addressing management measures for red snapper and recreational reporting, Vision Blueprint Regulatory Amendment 26 (Recreational measures), and Vision Blueprint Regulatory Amendment 27 (Commercial measures). The Vision Blueprint amendments are being developed to address management needs identified in the Council's 2016-2020 Vision Blueprint for the snapper grouper fishery.

    Other discussion items include a review of the Council's Research Priorities and updates on on-going projects/programs including the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) stock assessment program, socio-economic characterization of the commercial snapper grouper fishery, the Council's Citizen Science Program and the Charter Vessel Reporting Pilot Project. The AP will provide recommendations for Council consideration as appropriate.

    Mackerel Cobia Advisory Panel and Cobia Sub-Panel

    The Mackerel Cobia AP and Cobia Sub-Panel will meet jointly. The AP and Cobia Sub-Panel will receive updates and discuss management issues pertaining to cobia including Atlantic cobia recreational fishing seasons, ongoing cobia research, permit requirements for commercial harvest of cobia in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic (including the east coast of Florida), cobia bag limits for the east coast of Florida, and input on fishery performance. The AP and Sub-Panel will also receive updates and discuss management measures relative to king and Spanish mackerel including limited entry for federal commercial permits for Spanish mackerel and possible gear endorsements and modifications to gill net size for the Spanish mackerel fishery. The AP and Sub-Panel will discuss latent permits in the commercial king mackerel fishery and trip limits for king mackerel on Spanish mackerel gillnet trips. The AP and Sub-Panel will provide recommendations as appropriate.

    Dolphin Wahoo Advisory Panel

    The Dolphin Wahoo AP will receive a presentation on recent findings from the Dolphinfish Research Program and updates on recent Council actions relative to Amendment 10 to the Dolphin Wahoo Fishery Management Plan. The amendment includes actions to address Optimum Yield for the dolphin fishery, revise the recreational Annual Catch Target for dolphin, establish a commercial Annual Catch Target for dolphin, allow adaptive management of sector annual catch limits for dolphin, revise accountability measures for dolphin, revise the acceptable biological catch control rule for dolphin and wahoo, allow vessels with gear onboard that are not authorized for use in the dolphin fishery to possess dolphin or wahoo, and removes the Operator Card requirement. The AP will also discuss potential items to include in future amendments to the Dolphin Wahoo Fishery Management Plan. The AP will provide recommendations as appropriate.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 business days prior to the meeting.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 17, 2017. Jeffrey N. Lonergan, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05678 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF263 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement; Scoping Process; Notification of Scoping Meetings; Request for Comments AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; intent to prepare an environmental impact statement; scoping process; notification of scoping meetings; requests for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council announces its intent to prepare, in cooperation with NMFS, an environmental impact statement in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. An environmental impact statement may be necessary to assess potential effects on the human environment of an amendment to manage Atlantic chub mackerel (Scomber colias) as a stock in the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. This notice announces a public process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying significant issues related to Council management of Atlantic chub mackerel, including setting annual catch limits, accountability measures, and other conservation and management measures required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act for stocks in the fishery.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before May 31, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be sent by any of the following methods:

    • Email to the following address: [email protected];

    • Mail to Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, Delaware 19901. Mark the outside of the envelope “Chub Mackerel Amendment Scoping Comments”;

    • Fax to (302) 674-5399; or

    • Verbally or in writing at six public scoping meetings.

    More information on this amendment is available at http://www.mafmc.org/actions/chub-mackerel-amendment. A scoping document will be posted to this site on or around April 18, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901, (telephone 302-674-2331).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council manages Atlantic mackerel, longfin squid and Illex squid throughout the U.S. east coast from Maine through Florida and butterfish from Maine through Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, under the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Current measures include limited entry, permit and reporting requirements, catch limits, possession limits, and gear restrictions, among others.

    A targeted commercial chub mackerel fishery developed in the Mid-Atlantic and Southern New England in recent years, averaging 2.86 million lb of landings over 2013-2015. In August 2016, the Council approved an annual landings limit and a possession limit for chub mackerel as part of the Unmanaged Forage Fish Omnibus Amendment. Rulemaking to implement these measures is currently being developed by NMFS. These measures would be the first regulations for chub mackerel fisheries off the U.S. Atlantic coast, if approved by the Secretary of Commerce. As proposed, these measures are temporary, and would expire three years after implementation. This is because the Council intends to develop alternatives for longer-term management of chub mackerel fisheries by integrating this species into the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP.

    The Council initiated an amendment to consider managing Atlantic chub mackerel as a “stock in the fishery” under the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP in December 2016 when they approved their 2017 Implementation Plan. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) lists several required provisions of FMPs for stocks that are in the fishery, including:

    • Annual catch limits (ACLs) specified in relation to acceptable biological catch limits recommended by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee;

    • Accountability measures for when the ACLs are exceeded;

    • Essential fish habitat designations; and

    • Definition of the management unit.

    The Council may also consider management measures not explicitly required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, but which may be necessary to prevent overfishing and promote long-term stability of Atlantic chub mackerel fisheries. These measures could include, but are not limited to:

    • Permit requirements;

    • Limited access;

    • Commercial and/or recreational annual catch targets;

    • Commercial quotas;

    • Recreational harvest limits;

    • Possession limits;

    • Commercial and/or recreational minimum fish size restrictions;

    • Gear restrictions;

    • Reporting requirements; and

    • Commercial and/or recreational fishing seasons.

    This amendment will affect targeted commercial chub mackerel fisheries and, depending on the management measures considered, may also affect fisheries that catch chub mackerel incidentally (e.g., the Illex squid fishery) and recreational chub mackerel fisheries.

    Public Comment

    The Council seeks comments on the scope of alternatives to be considered in this amendment, as well as general comments or concerns relating to Council management of Atlantic chub mackerel. In addition to the public comment period provided for in this announcement, the Council will also hold multiple public scoping hearings on this amendment. The dates and locations of these hearings are listed below. The public will have the opportunity to provide additional comments during these hearings. After the scoping process is completed, the Council will begin development of alternatives for chub mackerel management measures, and may prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to analyze the impacts of the range of alternatives. If NMFS determines that the management alternatives under consideration are not expected to have significant impacts on the human environment, the Council and NMFS may prepare an environmental assessment (EA) in place of an EIS. This determination will depend on the scope of issues raised and the alternatives developed. Information obtained during the scoping process will be used to develop either an EIS or an EA as appropriate. If an EIS is developed to support this action, the Council will hold future public hearings to receive comment on the draft amendment and on the analysis of its impacts presented in the Draft EIS.

    Scoping Hearings

    Six scoping meetings to facilitate public comment will be held on the following dates and locations:

    1. Thursday, May 4, 2017. 7:00-9:00 p.m. Kingsborough Community College, Room V-219. 2001 Oriental Boulevard, Brooklyn, NY 11235. Telephone: 718-368-5000.

    2. Monday, May 15, 2017. 6:00-7:30 p.m. Virginia Marine Resources Commission 4th Floor Meeting Room. 2600 Washington Avenue, Newport News, VA 23607. Telephone: 757-247-2200.

    3. Tuesday, May 16, 2017. 6:30-8:00 p.m. Princess Royale Oceanfront Resort & Conference Center. 9100 Coastal Highway, Ocean City, Maryland 21842. Telephone: 410-524-7777.

    4. Tuesday, May 23, 2017. 6:30-8:00 p.m. Congress Hall Hotel. 200 Congress Place, Cape May, NJ 08204. Telephone: 888-944-1816.

    5. Wednesday, May 24, 2017. 6:30-8:00 p.m. 215 South Ferry Road, Narragansett, RI 02882. Telephone: 401-874-6222.

    6. Wednesday, May 25, 2017. 6:00-7:30 p.m. Webinar. Audio and visual access available at http://mafmc.adobeconnect.com/chubscoping/. The webinar can be accessed via phone only by calling 1-800-832-0736, Room #5068871.

    The scoping hearings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders (302-674-2331, ext. 18) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 16, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05601 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS®) Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS®) Advisory Committee (Committee) in Washington, DC.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 19, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Thursday, April 20, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. These times and the agenda topics described below are subject to change. Refer to the Web page listed below for the most up-to-date meeting agenda.

    ADDRESSES:

    On Wednesday, April 19, 2017, the meeting will be held in the Conference Room, 11th Floor, Consortium for Ocean Leadership, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005. On Thursday, April 20, 2017, the meeting will be held in the Conference Room, 4th Floor, Consortium for Ocean Leadership, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carl Gouldman, Designated Federal Official, U.S. IOOS Advisory Committee, U.S. IOOS Program, 1315 East-West Highway, Second Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20910; Phone (240) 533-9456; Fax (301) 713-3281; Email [email protected] or visit the U.S. IOOS Advisory Committee Web site at http://ioos.noaa.gov/community/u-s-ioos-advisory-committee/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Committee was established by the NOAA Administrator as directed by Section 12304 of the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act, part of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-11). The Committee advises the NOAA Administrator and the Interagency Ocean Observation Committee (IOOC) on matters related to the responsibilities and authorities set forth in section 12302 of the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009 and other appropriate matters as the Under Secretary refers to the Committee for review and advice. The Committee will provide advice on:

    (a) Administration, operation, management, and maintenance of the System;

    (b) Expansion and periodic modernization and upgrade of technology components of the System;

    (c) Identification of end-user communities, their needs for information provided by the System, and the System's effectiveness in dissemination information to end-user communities and to the general public; and

    (d) Any other purpose identified by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere or the Interagency Ocean Observation Committee.

    The meeting will be open to public participation with a 15-minute public comment period on April 19, 2017, from 4:35 p.m. to 4:50 p.m. and on April 20, 2017, from 2:30 p.m. to 2:45 p.m. (check agenda on Web site to confirm time.) The Committee expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of three (3) minutes. The Designated Federal Official should receive written comments by April 18, 2017, to provide sufficient time for Committee review. Written comments received after April 18, 2017, will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. Seats will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.

    Matters to be Considered: The meeting will focus on ongoing committee priorities, including discussions on the integration challenges of the IOOC, expanding on the big data topic, and developing the next set of recommendations. The latest version will be posted at http://ioos.noaa.gov/community/u-s-ioos-advisory-committee/.

    Special Accommodations: These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Carl Gouldman, Designated Federal Official at (240) 533-9456 by April 14, 2017.

    Dated: March 13, 2017. Carl Gouldman, Director, U.S. IOOS Program, National Ocean Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05640 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF301 Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Assessment Webinars for Atlantic Blueline Tilefish; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of SEDAR 50 Assessment Webinars 1 and 2.

    SUMMARY:

    The SEDAR 50 assessment of the Atlantic stock of Blueline Tilefish will consist of a series of workshops and webinars: Stock ID Work Group Meeting; Data Workshop; Assessment Workshop and Webinars; and a Review Workshop.

    DATES:

    The SEDAR 50 Assessment Webinars 1 and 2 will be held on Thursday, April 20, 2017, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. and Monday, May 8, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Additional Assessment Webinars, Assessment Workshop, and Review Workshop dates and times will publish in a subsequent issue in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meetings will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julia Byrd at SEDAR (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below) to request an invitation providing webinar access information. Please request webinar invitations at least 24 hours in advance of each webinar.

    SEDAR address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405; www.sedarweb.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julia Byrd, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing a workshop and/or webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: Data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

    The items of discussion at the Assessment webinars are as follows:

    Participants will discuss any remaining data issues and provide modeling advice to prepare for the Assessment Workshop.

    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 this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice 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 intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see ADDRESSES) at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 17, 2017. Jeffrey N. Lonergan, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05677 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Trademark and Trial Appeal Board (TTAB) Actions ACTION:

    Proposed collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 invites public comments about the proposed extension of an existing information collection: Trademark and Trial Appeal Board (TTAB) Actions.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before May 22, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include “0651-0040 comment” in the subject line of the message.

    Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to LaToya Brown, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-4283; or by email to [email protected] with “0651-0040 comment” in the subject line. Additional information about this collection is also available at http://www.reginfo.gov under “Information Collection Review.”

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This collection of information is required by the Trademark Act of 1946, Sections 13, 14, and 20, 15 U.S.C. 1063, 1064, and 1070, respectively. Under the Trademark Act, any individual or entity that adopts a trademark or service mark to identify its goods or services may apply to federally register its mark. Section 14 of the Trademark Act allows individuals and entities to file a petition to cancel a registration of a mark, while Section 13 allows individuals and entities who believe that they would be damaged by the registration of a mark to file an opposition, or an extension of time to file an opposition, to the registration of a mark. Section 20 of the Trademark Act allows individuals and entities to file an appeal from any final decision of the Trademark Examining Attorney assigned to review an application for registration of a mark.

    The USPTO administers the Trademark Act pursuant to 37 CFR part 2, which contains the various rules that govern the filing of petitions to cancel the registration of a mark, notices of opposition to the registration of a mark, extensions of time to file an opposition, appeals, and other submissions filed in connection with inter partes and ex parte proceedings. These petitions, notices, extensions, and additional papers are filed with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), an administrative tribunal empowered to determine the right to register and subsequently determine the validity of a trademark.

    The information in this collection must be submitted electronically through the Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA). There are no paper forms associated with this collection. If applicants or entities wish to submit the petitions, notices, extensions, and additional papers in inter partes and ex parte cases, they must use the forms provided through ESTTA. This collection contains nine electronic forms.

    The additional submissions filed in inter partes and ex parte proceedings must be filed electronically. Submissions filed in paper form are permitted only when ESTTA is unavailable due to technical problems, or when extraordinary circumstances are present.

    The information in this collection is a matter of public record, and is used by the public for a variety of private business purposes related to establishing and enforcing trademark rights. This information is important to the public, as both common law trademark owners and federal trademark registrants must actively protect their own rights.

    II. Method of Collection

    The method of collection is by electronic submission through ESTTA when a party files a petition to cancel a trademark registration, an opposition to the registration of a trademark, a request to extend the time to file an opposition, a notice of appeal, or additional papers for inter partes and ex parte proceedings with the USPTO. Submissions filed in paper form via mail or hand delivery are permitted only when ESTTA is unavailable due to technical problems, or when extraordinary circumstances are present. Certain submissions in paper must also be accompanied by a Petition to the Director. That petition is being added to collection 0651-0054 (Substantive Submissions).

    III. Data

    OMB Number: 0651-0040.

    IC Instruments and Forms: PTO 2120, 2151, 2153, 2188, 2189, and 2190.

    Type of Review: Extension of a Previously Existing Information Collection.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits; not-for-profit institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 78,000 responses per year. Of this total, the USPTO estimates that approximately 99% (77,220) will be filed electronically.

    Estimated Time per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take the public from 10 to 30 minutes (0.17 to 0.50 hours), depending on the complexity of the situation, to gather the necessary information, prepare the appropriate documents, and submit the information required for this collection.

    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 15,991.67 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Respondent (Hourly) Cost Burden: $4,405,704.17. The USPTO estimates that it will take a combined effort by attorneys and paraprofessional/paralegals to complete the requirements in this collection. The hourly rate for attorneys is $410, while the hourly rate for paraprofessional/paralegals is $141. After calculating the average of these rates, the USPTO estimates that the hourly rate for completing the petitions, notices, requests, and other papers will be $275.50. Using this hourly rate, the USPTO estimates that the total respondent cost burden for this collection will be $4,405,704.17 per year.

    Number Item Estimated
  • time for
  • response
  • (hours)
  • Estimated
  • annual
  • responses
  • Estimated
  • annual
  • burden hours
  • Rate
  • ($/hr)
  • (a) (b) (a) × (b)/60 = (c) 1 Petition to Cancel 0.5 5 2.5 $275.50 1 Electronic Petition to Cancel 0.5 1,895 947.5 275.50 2 Notice of Opposition 0.5 5 2.5 275.50 2 Electronic Notice of Opposition 0.5 6,195 3,097.5 275.50 3 Request for Extension of Time to File an Opposition 0.17 10 1.67 275.50 3 Electronic Request for Extension of Time to File an Opposition 0.17 18,900 3,150 275.50 4 Papers in Inter Partes Cases 0.17 750 125 275.50 • Answers • Amendments to Pleadings • Amendment of Application or Registration During Proceeding • Motions (such as consent motions, motions to extend, motions to suspend, etc.) • Evidence • Briefs • Surrender of Registration • Abandonment of Application • Documents Related to Concurrent Use Applications • Notice of Intent to Appeal a TTAB decision 4 Electronic Submissions in Inter Partes Cases 0.17 40,740 6,790 275.50 • Answers • Amendments to Pleadings • Amendment of Application or Registration During Proceeding • Motions (such as consent motions, motions to extend, motions to suspend, etc.) • Evidence • Briefs • Surrender of Registration • Abandonment of Application • Documents Related to Concurrent Use Applications • Notice of Intent to Appeal a TTAB decision 5 Notice of Appeal 0.25 5 1.25 275.50 5 Electronic Notice of Appeal 0.25 3,495 873.75 275.50 6 Miscellaneous Ex Parte Papers 0.17 5 0.83 275.50 6 Electronic Miscellaneous Ex Parte Submissions 0.17 5,995 999.17 275.50 Total 78,000 15,991.67

    Estimated Total Annual (Non-hour) Respondent Cost Burden: $5,744,000.00. There are no capital start-up, maintenance, or record keeping costs associated with this information collection. However, some filings in this collection have filing fees. The petitions to cancel, the notices of opposition, the notices of appeal, the extensions of time to file an opposition, and the additional papers filed in inter partes and ex parte cases must be submitted to the USPTO electronically or served on other parties by email. Express or first-class mail through the United States Postal Service or hand delivery to the TTAB is only available under extraordinary circumstances. There are also filing fees associated with this collection. This includes new fees as well as fees being returned from collection 0651-0072, which has been discontinued. These fees are listed in the accompanying table below.

    Number Item Estimated
  • annual
  • responses
  • Filing fee
  • ($)
  • Total
  • non-hour
  • cost burden
  • ($)
  • (a) (b) (a) × (b) = (c) 1 Petition to Cancel 5 $500.00 $2,500.00 1 Electronic Petition to Cancel 1,895 400.00 758,000.00 2 Notice of Opposition 5 500.00 2,500.00 2 Electronic Notice of Opposition 6,195 400.00 2,478,000.00 3 Ex Parte Appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Filed on Paper 5 300.00 1,500.00 3 Electronic Ex Parte Appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board 3,495 200.00 699,000.00 4 Request for Extension of Time to File an Opposition under § 2.102(c)(3) 5 200.00 1,000.00 4 Electronic Request for Extension of Time to File an Opposition under § 2.102(c)(3) 9,600 100.00 960,000.00 5 Request for Extension of Time to File an Opposition under § 2.102(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2) 5 300.00 1,500.00 5 Electronic Request for Extension of Time to File an Opposition § 2.102(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2) 4,200 200.00 840,000.00 Total 25,410 5,744,000.00

    Therefore, the USPTO estimates that the total annual (non-hour) cost burden for this collection, in the form of filing fees, is $5,744,000.00 per year.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on:

    (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

    (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

    (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, e.g., the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: March 10, 2017. Marcie Lovett, Records and Information Governance Division Director, OCTO United States Patent and Trademark Office.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05574 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1650-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Native American Tribal Insignia Database

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) 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: Native American Tribal Insignia Database.

    OMB Control Number: 0651-0048.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Number of Respondents: 4 responses per year.

    Average Hours per Response: The USPTO estimates that a recognized Native American tribe will require an average of 1 hour to complete a request to record an official insignia, including time to prepare the appropriate documents and submit the completed request to the USPTO.

    Burden Hours: 4 hours.

    Cost Burden: $4.80.

    Needs and Uses: The Trademark Law Treaty Implementation Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-330, sec. 302, 112 Stat. 3071) required the USPTO to study issues surrounding the protection of the official insignia of federally and state-recognized Native American tribes under trademark law. At the direction of Congress, the USPTO created a database containing the official insignia of recognized Native American tribes.

    The USPTO database of official tribal insignias provides evidence of what a federally or state-recognized Native American tribe considers to be its official insignia. The database thereby assists trademark examining attorneys in their examination of applications for trademark registration by serving as a reference for determining the registrability of a mark that may falsely suggest a connection to the official insignia of a Native American tribe. The entry of an official insignia into the database does not confer any rights to the tribe that submitted the insignia, and entry is not the legal equivalent of registering the insignia as a trademark under 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.

    This information collection is used by the USPTO to enter an official insignia submitted by a federally or state-recognized Native American tribe into the database. There are no forms associated with this collection.

    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 “0651-0048 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 April 21, 2017 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.

    Dated: March 10, 2017. Marcie Lovett, Director, Records and Information Governance Division, Office of the Chief Technology Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05575 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy; Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    U.S. Air Force Academy Board of Visitors, DOD.

    ACTION:

    Meeting notice.

    In accordance with 10 U.S.C. Section 9355, the U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) Board of Visitors (BoV) will hold a meeting at Polaris Hall, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO on Thursday, 6 April and Friday, 7 April, 2017. The meeting for 6 April is for BoV members only. The meeting on 7 April will begin at 0900 and conclude at 1345. The purpose of this meeting is to review morale and discipline, social climate, strategic communication, infrastructure, and other matters relating to the Academy. Specific topics for this meeting include a Superintendent's Update; Capital Projects and Construction Update; Status of Discipline; Graduate Assessment Update. Public attendance at this USAFA BoV meeting shall be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis up to the reasonable and safe capacity of the meeting room. In addition, any member of the public wishing to provide input to the USAFA BoV should submit a written statement in accordance with 41 CFR Section 102-3.140(c) and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the procedures described in this paragraph. Written statements must address the following details: The issue, discussion, and a recommended course of action. Supporting documentation may also be included as needed to establish the appropriate historical context and provide any necessary background information. Written statements can be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at the Air Force address detailed below at any time. However, if a written statement is not received at least 10 calendar days before the first day of the meeting which is the subject of this notice, then it may not be provided to or considered by the BoV until its next open meeting. The DFO will review all timely submissions with the BoV Chairman and ensure they are provided to members of the BoV before the meeting that is the subject of this notice. If after review of timely submitted written comments and the BoV Chairman and DFO deem appropriate, they may choose to invite the submitter of the written comments to orally present the issue during an open portion of the BoV meeting that is the subject of this notice. Members of the BoV may also petition the Chairman to allow specific personnel to make oral presentations before the BoV. In accordance with 41 CFR Section 102-3.140(d), any oral presentations before the BoV shall be in accordance with agency guidelines provided pursuant to a written invitation and this paragraph. Direct questioning of BoV members or meeting participants by the public is not permitted except with the approval of the DFO and Chairman. For the benefit of the public, rosters that list the names of BoV members and any releasable materials presented during the open portions of this BoV meeting shall be made available upon request.

    Contact Information: For additional information or to attend this BoV meeting, contact Major James Kuchta, Accessions and Training Division, AF/A1PT, 1040 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330, (703) 695-4066, [email protected]

    Henry Williams, Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05625 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 16-41] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107 or Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217; DSCA/SA&E-RAN.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 16-41 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: March 17, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN22MR17.001 EN22MR17.002 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 16-40 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Kuwait

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $36 million Other $ 1 million Total $37 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    Two hundred and fifty (250) Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) Tail Kits for 500-pound bombs Two hundred and fifty (250) JDAM Tail Kits for 1,000-pound bombs Two hundred and fifty (250) JDAM Tail Kits for 2,000-pound bombs

    Non-MDE includes:

    Two (2) 500-pound and two (2) 2,000-pound load Build Trainers, spares, support equipment, repair and return, and other associated logistical support.

    (iv) Military Department: Air Force, KU-D-YAC (A3)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: KU-D-YAB (A2), 15 Jun 2015 ($7.6M)

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Annex attached.

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: December 20, 2016

    * as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Kuwait—Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) Tail Kits

    The Government of Kuwait has requested a possible total sale of seven hundred and fifty (750) JDAM Tail Kits (two hundred and fifty (250) for 500-pound bombs, two hundred and fifty (250) kits for 1,000-pound bombs, and two hundred and fifty (250) kits for 2,000-pound bombs). Sale also includes two (2) 500-pounds and two (2) 2,000-pounds JDAM Load Build Trainers spares, support equipment, repair and return, and other associated logistical support. The estimated cost is $37 million.

    This proposed sale contributes to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of a Major Non-NATO Ally which continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East. Kuwait plays a large role in U.S. efforts to advance stability in the Middle East, providing basing, access, and transit for U.S. forces in the region.

    This proposed sale improves Kuwait's capability to deter regional threats and strengthens its homeland defense. Kuwait will be able to absorb this additional equipment and support into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support does not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The proposed sale does not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Kuwait.

    The sole-source contractor is the original equipment manufacturer, Boeing, Chicago, Illinois. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    There is no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 16-40 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) is a guidance tail kit that converts unguided free-fall bombs into accurate, adverse weather “smart” munitions. With the addition of a new tail section that contains an inertial navigational system and a global positioning system guidance control unit, JDAM improves the accuracy of unguided, general-purpose bombs in any weather condition. JDAM can be launched from very low to very high altitudes in a dive, toss and loft, or in straight and level flight with an on-axis or off-axis delivery. JDAM enables multiple weapons to be directed against single or multiple targets on a single pass. The JDAM All Up Round and all of its components are UNCLASSIFIED; technical data for JDAM is classified up to SECRET.

    2. If a technologically advanced adversary obtains knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    3. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification. The benefits to be derived from this sale, as outlined in the Policy Justification, outweigh the potential damage that could result if the sensitive technology were revealed to unauthorized persons.

    4. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of Kuwait.

    [FR Doc. 2017-05689 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 17-02] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107 or Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217; DSCA/SA&E-RAN.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-02 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: March 17, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN22MR17.000 Transmittal No. 17-02 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: United Kingdom

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $135.0 million Other $ 15.0 million Total $150.0 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE): One thousand (1,000) AGM-114-R1/R2 Hellfire II Semi-Active Laser (SAL) Missiles Non-MDE: Logistics support services and other related program support

    (iv) Military Department: Air Force (YAI)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: UK-D-YAC—$22M—May 2008; UK-D-YAF—$21M—Mar 2011; UK-D-YAY—$134M—Aug 2013

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: March 16, 2017

    * as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION United Kingdom—Hellfire Missiles

    The Government of the United Kingdom (UK) requested a possible sale of 1,000 AGM-114-R1/R2 Hellfire II Semi-Active Laser (SAL) Missiles with logistics support services and other related program support. The estimated cost is $150 million.

    This proposed sale directly contributes to the foreign policy and national security policies of the United States by enhancing the close air support capability of the UK in support of NATO and other coalition operations. Commonality between close air support capabilities greatly increases interoperability between our two countries' military and peacekeeping forces and allows for greater burden sharing.

    The proposed sale improves the UK's capability to meet current and future threats by providing close air support to counter enemy attacks on coalition ground forces in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility (AOR) and other areas, as needed. The UK already has Hellfire missiles in its inventory and will have no difficulty absorbing these additional missiles.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    There is no principal contractor for this sale as the missiles are coming from U.S. stock.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the UK.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 17-02 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. AGM-114-R1/R2 Hellfire. The AGM-114-R1/R2 Hellfire II Semi-Active Laser (SAL) Missiles are rail-launched guided missiles developed and produced by Lockheed Martin. The guidance system employs a SAL seeker. The SAL missile homes in on the laser energy reflected off a target that has been illuminated by a laser designator. The laser can be on either the launch platform or another platform that can be separated from it by several kilometers. The target sets are armor, bunkers, caves, enclosures, boats, and enemy personnel. The weapon system hardware, as an “All Up Round,” is UNCLASSIFIED. The highest level of classified information to be disclosed regarding the AGM-114-R1/R2 Hellfire II missile software is SECRET. The highest level of classified information that could be disclosed by a proposed sale or by testing of the end item is SECRET and the highest level that must be disclosed for production, maintenance, or training is CONFIDENTIAL.

    The AGM-114 R1/R2 Hellfire II missiles use pulse-coded laser illumination. The R2 variant includes a Height-of-Burst (HOB)/proximity sensor. The AGM-114-R1/R2 missiles each have a multi-purpose selectable warhead and inertial measurement unit (IMU)-Aided Trajectories. The missiles United Kingdom operators employ are only handled by USAF personnel. The United Kingdom does not take possession of, or store the missile, and this policy has been in place since 2008.

    2. If a technologically advanced adversary obtained knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems which might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    3. A determination has been made that the United Kingdom can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the AGM-114-R1/R2 Hellfire II missiles as the U.S. Government. Transfer of these missiles to the UK is necessary in the furtherance of U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives.

    4. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the United Kingdom.

    [FR Doc. 2017-05646 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Office of the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group will take place.

    DATES:

    Day 1—Closed to the public Tuesday, April 18, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and Day 2—Closed to the public Wednesday, April 19, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Dougherty Conference Center, Building 432, 906 SAC Boulevard, Offutt AFB, Nebraska 68113.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. John Trefz, Jr., Designated Federal Officer, (402) 294-4102 (Voice), (402) 294-3128 (Facsimile), [email protected] (Email). Mailing address is 901 SAC Boulevard, Suite 1 F7, Offutt AFB, NE 68113-6030.

    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. This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix), the Government in Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is to provide advice on scientific, technical, intelligence, and policy-related issues to the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, during the development of the Nation's strategic war plans.

    Agenda: Topics include: Policy Issues, Space Operations, Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Assessment, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Intelligence Operations, Cyber Operations, Global Strike, Command and Control, Science and Technology, Missile Defense.

    Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the Department of Defense has determined that the meeting shall be closed to the public. Per delegated authority by the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John E. Hyten, Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, in consultation with his legal advisor, has determined in writing that the public interest requires that all sessions of this meeting be closed to the public because they will be concerned with matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(l).

    Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140(c), the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the membership of the Strategic Advisory Group at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. Written statements should be submitted to the Strategic Advisory Group's Designated Federal Officer; the Designated Federal Officer's contact information can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database—http://www.facadatabase.gov/. Written statements that do not pertain to a scheduled meeting of the Strategic Advisory Group may be submitted at any time. However, if individual comments pertain to a specific topic being discussed at a planned meeting, then these statements must be submitted no later than five business days prior to the meeting in question. The Designated Federal Officer will review all submitted written statements and provide copies to all the committee members.

    Dated: March 17, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05715 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2017-ICCD-0038] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights (PAIR) AGENCY:

    Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 22, 2017.

    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-0038. 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 226-62, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Samuel Pierre, 202-245-6488.

    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: Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights (PAIR).

    OMB Control Number: 1820-0627.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 57.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 912.

    Abstract: The Annual Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights (PAIR) Program Performance Report (Form RSA-509) will be used to analyze and evaluate the effectiveness of eligible systems within individual states in meeting annual priorities and objectives. These systems provide services to eligible individuals with disabilities to protect their legal and human rights. Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) uses the form to meet specific data collection requirements of Section 509 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (the act), and its implementing federal regulations at 34 CFR part 381. PAIR programs must report annually using the form, which is due on or before December 30 each year. Form RSA-509 has enabled RSA to furnish the President and Congress with data on the provision of protection and advocacy services and has helped to establish a sound basis for future funding requests. These data also have been used to indicate trends in the provision of services from year-to-year.

    Dated: March 16, 2017. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05573 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0104] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Measures and Methods for the National Reporting System for Adult Education AGENCY:

    Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 21, 2017.

    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-2016-ICCD-0104. 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 226-62, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact John LeMaster, 202-245-6218.

    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: Measures and Methods for the National Reporting System for Adult Education.

    OMB Control Number: 1830-0027.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 57.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 5,700.

    Abstract: Title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 (WIOA—P.L. 113-128), entitled the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA), was enacted on July 22, 2014. AEFLA creates a partnership among the Federal government, States, and localities to provide, on a voluntary basis, adult education and literacy services. Section 116 of WIOA requires States and Local Areas that operate the six core programs of the workforce development system to comply with common performance accountability requirements for those programs. In addition to the WIOA Joint Performance ICR, ED's Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE) has modified its previously-approved ICR, used by States for performance reporting under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) through the National Reporting System for Adult Education (NRS ICR), to conform to the new requirements under WIOA. The NRS ICR obtains aggregate data annually from States using a set of data tables developed by ED (OMB Control No. 1830-0027).

    Through this proposal, the Department is submitting a revised NRS ICR to include additional data collection elements consistent with the WIOA performance accountability requirements for the AEFLA program. These new requirements will become effective July 1, 2017. Thus, for purposes of the AEFLA program, States will be required to complete and submit annually to OCTAE the WIOA Annual Statewide Performance Report Template (in the Joint Performance ICR) and the aggregate data tables in the revised NRS ICR under OMB Control No. 1830-0027.

    This revised NRS ICR contains 17 tables, two of which are required only for States that offer distance education; one optional table; two financial reports; one narrative report; and one data quality checklist. These tables and report forms are included in the document titled “Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Reporting Tables.” States include in the tables all participants in programs (1) that meet the purposes of AEFLA, and (2) for which expenditures are reported on the Federal Financial Report. In June 2016, OMB approved the data collection required by AEFLA (OMB 1830-0027) by approving non-substantive changes that conformed to the performance accountability requirements in WIOA section 116. OCTAE is requesting an extension of this approval, with proposed minor changes in order to obtain a more accurate reporting of participants served in the various AEFLA activities, services, and programs that support the purposes of AEFLA. These minor enhancements will increase the efficiency of the data collection process and ensure the quality of the data that States report.

    Dated: March 16, 2017. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05571 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2017-ICCD-0037 Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Annual Client Assistance Program (CAP) Report AGENCY:

    Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education. (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 22, 2017.

    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-0037. 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 226-62, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Jim Doyle, 202-245-6630.

    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: Annual Client Assistance Program (CAP) Report.

    OMB Control Number: 1820-0528.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 57.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 912.

    Abstract: Form RSA 227 is used to meet specific data collection requirements contained in Section 112 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and its implementing Federal Regulations at 34 CFR part 370. Data from the form have been used to evaluate individual programs. These data also have been used to indicate trends in the provision of services from year-to-year. In addition, Form RSA-227 is used to analyze and evaluate the effectiveness of individual Client Assistance Program (CAP) grantees. These agencies provide services to individuals seeking or receiving services from programs and projects authorized by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. Form RSA-227 has enabled RSA to furnish the President and Congress with data on the provision of advocacy services and has helped to establish a sound basis for future funding requests.

    Dated: March 16, 2017. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05572 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP17-66-000; CP17-67-000; PF15-27-000] Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC and Venture Global Gator Express, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on February 28, 2017, Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC (Plaquemines LNG) and Venture Global Gator Express, LLC (Gator Express Pipeline), 2200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 600 West, Washington, DC 20037, filed an application pursuant to sections 3 and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Parts 157 and 284 of the Commission's Regulations requesting authority to construct a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal and pipeline facilities located in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. Together the proposals are referred to as the Plaquemines LNG and Gator Express Pipeline Project or Project. Specifically, Plaquemines LNG and Gator Express Pipeline request Commission authorization to construct and operate a new LNG export terminal and associated facilities along the west bank of the Mississippi River in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana (Terminal) and to construct and operate two new 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline laterals that will connect the Terminal to the pipeline facilities of Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company and Texas Eastern Transmission. The two parallel and adjacent laterals (11.7 and 15.1 miles long) would be operated at an MAOP of 1,200 pounds per square inch and will be designed to provide firm transportation capacity of approximately 1,970,000 Dt/d to the Terminal. Total cost of the pipeline portion of the project is estimated to be approximately 284 million dollars.

    The filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions concerning this application should be directed to Fory Musser, Senior Vice President, Development, Venture Global LNG, Inc., 2200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 600 West, Washington, DC 20037, telephone: (202) 759-6738, facsimile: (202) 331-5054 or email: [email protected]

    On July 2, 2015 the Commission granted Plaquemines LNG's request to utilize the Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF15-27-000 to staff activities involved in the Project. Now, as of the filing of the March 1 application, the Pre-Filing Process for this project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP17-66-000 and CP17-67-000 as noted in the caption of this Notice.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 5 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 3, 2017.

    Dated: March 13, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05671 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC17-91-000.

    Applicants: Kingfisher Wind, LLC, Comanche Solar PV, LLC, BlackRock, Inc.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Action of Kingfisher Wind, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 3/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20170315-5188.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/5/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2633-031; ER10-2570-031; ER10-2717-031; ER10-3140-031; ER13-55-021.

    Applicants: Birchwood Power Partners, L.P., Shady Hills Power Company, L.L.C., EFS Parlin Holdings, LLC, Inland Empire Energy Center, LLC, Homer City Generation, L.P.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the GE Companies.

    Filed Date: 3/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20170315-5187.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/5/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1036-001.

    Applicants: Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.

    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.19a(b): Refund Report to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 3/14/17.

    Accession Number: 20170314-5188.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-923-001.

    Applicants: Ashley Energy LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Application for MBR to be effective 2/20/2017.

    Filed Date: 3/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170316-5130.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1191-000.

    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Supplements to Rate Schedule No. 151 to be effective 7/30/2010.

    Filed Date: 3/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20170315-5166.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/5/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1192-000.

    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Supplements to Rate Schedule No. 168 to be effective 7/30/2010.

    Filed Date: 3/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20170315-5168.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/5/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1193-000.

    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Filing Related to CASOT Service Agreements to be effective 7/30/2010.

    Filed Date: 3/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20170315-5169.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/5/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1194-000.

    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Intel Cancellation of NITSA, NOA, and IA to be effective 3/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 3/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170316-5005.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1199-000.

    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-03-16 NSP Addendum No. 1—JPZ Agrmt—304 to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170316-5047.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1200-000.

    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: NSPM Addendum No 1 to the JPZ Agrmt 304 0.0.0 to be effective 4/16/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170316-5048.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1201-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of WMPA SA No. 3580; Queue No. Y1-071 to be effective 5/8/2017.

    Filed Date: 3/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170316-5049.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1204-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of SA No. 3329; Queue No. X1-049 to be effective 5/12/2017.

    Filed Date: 3/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170316-5072.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1205-000.

    Applicants: Norwalk Power LLC.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation to be effective 3/17/2017.

    Filed Date: 3/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170316-5073.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1213-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: ISA Service Agreement No. 4634, Queue Position AB1-135 to be effective 2/15/2017.

    Filed Date: 3/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170316-5098.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1214-000.

    Applicants: Coso Geothermal Power Holdings, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: CIS & 819 Tariff Revisions to be effective 3/17/2017.

    Filed Date: 3/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170316-5124.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1215-000.

    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Notice of Termination of Ainsworth CASOT Service Agreement to be effective 7/30/2010.

    Filed Date: 3/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170316-5125.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1216-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to WMPA SA No. 3246; Queue No. W1-119 to be effective 4/30/2014.

    Filed Date: 3/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170316-5126.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1217-000.

    Applicants: Total Gas & Power North America, Inc.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: FERC MBR Application to be effective 4/6/2017.

    Filed Date: 3/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170316-5128.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1218-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to WMPA SA No. 3247; Queue No. W1-120 to be effective 4/30/2014.

    Filed Date: 3/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170316-5129.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 16, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05670 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1656-010.

    Applicants: CSOLAR IV West, LLC.

    Description: Notification of Change in Status of CSOLAR IV West, LLC.

    Filed Date: 3/9/17.

    Accession Number: 20170309-5116.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-756-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2017-03-07_SA 2884 Amendment of Otter Tail-Crowned Ridge GIA (G736) to be effective 1/7/2017.

    Filed Date: 3/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170307-5155.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1123-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Service Agreements re: MAIT Assignment—Partially Executed Consents to be effective 7/17/2008.

    Filed Date: 3/8/17.

    Accession Number: 20170308-5174.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1124-000.

    Applicants: Consumers Energy Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance with Letter Order to be effective 10/7/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/9/17.

    Accession Number: 20170309-5078.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1125-000.

    Applicants: The Order of St. Benedict of New Hampshire.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Notice of Name Change to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 3/9/17.

    Accession Number: 20170309-5082.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1127-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Oklahoma.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: PSO-OGE Cemetery Road Delivery Point Agreement to be effective 2/22/2017.

    Filed Date: 3/9/17.

    Accession Number: 20170309-5147.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1128-000.

    Applicants: AEP Texas North Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: TNC-White Camp Solar PDA Cancellation to be effective 3/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 3/9/17.

    Accession Number: 20170309-5148.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1129-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Duke Energy Florida, LLC, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: OATT Attachment C-1 Intra-Day Amendment to be effective 6/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 3/9/17.

    Accession Number: 20170309-5154.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1130-000.

    Applicants: AEP Texas Central Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: TCC-Petronila Wind Farm PDA Cancellation to be effective 3/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 3/9/17.

    Accession Number: 20170309-5158.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1131-000.

    Applicants: AEP Texas Central Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: TCC-Midway Farms Wind PDA Cancellation to be effective 3/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 3/9/17.

    Accession Number: 20170309-5165.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1132-000.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-03-09 Tariff Clarifications Amendment to be effective 3/10/2017.

    Filed Date: 3/9/17.

    Accession Number: 20170309-5169.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1133-000.

    Applicants: AEP Texas Central Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: TCC-Javelina Wind Energy SUA Cancellation to be effective 3/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 3/9/17.

    Accession Number: 20170309-5171.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1134-000.

    Applicants: AEP Texas Central Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: TCC-EC&R Development PDA Cancellation to be effective 3/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 3/9/17.

    Accession Number: 20170309-5176.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1135-000.

    Applicants: AEP Texas Central Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: TCC-Anacacho Wind SUA Cancellation to be effective 3/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 3/9/17.

    Accession Number: 20170309-5180.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1136-000.

    Applicants: AEP Texas North Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: TNC-Blue Summit Wind SUA Cancellation to be effective 3/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 3/9/17.

    Accession Number: 20170309-5187.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings.

    Docket Numbers: RD17-4-000.

    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.

    Description: Petition of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation for Approval of Proposed Reliability Standards IRO-002-5 and TOP-001-4.

    Filed Date: 3/6/17.

    Accession Number: 20170306-5233.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/5/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 9, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05698 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of Tucson Electric Power Company, UNS Electric, Inc., Public Service Company of New Mexico, Arizona Public Service Company, El Paso Electric Company, Black Hills Power, Inc., Black Hills Colorado Electric Utility Company, LP, Cheyenne Light, Fuel, & Power Company, NV Energy, Inc.; and Xcel Energy Services, Inc. on behalf of Public Service Company of Colorado:

    Planning Management Committee Meeting March 15, 2017, 9 a.m.-3 p.m. (MST) Planning Management Committee Meeting April 19, 2017, 9 a.m.- 3 p.m. (MST)

    The March 15, 2017 Planning Management Committee Meeting will be held at:

    Energy Strategies, 215 State St. #200, Salt Lake City, UT 84111

    The April 19, 2017 Planning Management Committee Meeting will be held at:

    Xcel Energy, 1800 Larimer St., Denver, CO 80202

    The above-referenced meetings will be available via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meetings are open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at http://www.westconnect.com/.

    The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceeding:

    ER13-75, Public Service Company of New Mexico; El Paso Electric Company

    For more information contact Nicole Cramer, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-6775 or [email protected]

    Dated: March 13, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05673 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC17-4-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-521); Comment Request; Extension AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collection and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on FERC-521 (Payments for Benefits from Headwater Improvements) and will be submitting FERC-521 to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due May 22, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by Docket No. IC17-4-000 by either of the following methods:

    eFiling at Commission's Web site: 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-521, Payments for Benefits from Headwater Improvements

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0087.

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-521 information collection requirements with no changes to the reporting requirements.

    Abstract: The information collected under the requirements of FERC-521 is used by the Commission to implement the statutory provisions of Section 10(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA).1 The FPA authorizes the Commission to determine headwater benefits received by downstream hydropower project owners. Headwater benefits are the additional energy production possible at a downstream hydropower project resulting from the regulation of river flows by an upstream storage reservoir.

    1 16 U.S.C. 803.

    When the Commission completes a study of a river basin, it determines headwater benefits charges that will be apportioned among the various downstream beneficiaries. A headwater benefits charge and the cost incurred by the Commission to complete an evaluation are paid by downstream hydropower project owners. In essence, the owners of non-federal hydropower projects that directly benefit from a headwater improvement must pay an equitable portion of the annual charges for interest, maintenance, and depreciation of the headwater project to the U.S. Treasury. The regulations provide for apportionment of these costs between the headwater project and downstream projects based on downstream energy gains and propose equitable apportionment methodology that can be applied to all river basins in which headwater improvements are built. The Commission requires owners of non-federal hydropower projects to file data for determining annual charges as outlined in 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 11.

    Type of Respondents: There are two types of entities that respond, Federal and Non-Federal hydropower project owners. The Federal entities that typically respond are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation. The Non-Federal entities may consist of any Municipal or Non-Municipal hydropower project owner.

    Estimate of Annual Burden:2 The Commission estimates the total Public Reporting Burden for this information collection as:

    The estimates for cost per response are derived using the 2017 FERC average salary plus benefits of $158,754/year (or $76.50/hour). Commission staff finds that the work done for this information collection is typically done by wage categories similar to those at FERC.

    2 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, refer to 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

    FERC-521—Payments for Benefits From Headwater Improvements Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses
  • per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • number of
  • responses
  • Average burden &
  • cost per
  • response
  • Total annual burden
  • hours & total
  • annual cost
  • Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) Federal and Non-Federal hydropower project owners 3 1 3 40 hrs.; $3,060 120 hrs.; $9,180 $3,060 Total cost 120 hrs.; $9,180 $3,060

    The total estimated annual cost burden to each respondent is $3,060 [40 hours * $76.50/hour = $3,060].

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Dated: March 13, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05672 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2302-085] Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Proceeding: Amendment of License.

    b. Project No.: 2302-085.

    c. Date Filed: February 24, 2017.

    d. Licensee: Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC.

    e. Name of Project: Lewiston Falls Project.

    f. Location: The project is located on the Androscoggin River in the town of Lewiston, Androscoggin County, Maine.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    h. Licensee Contact: Mr. Nate Stevens, Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC, 150 Main Street, Lewiston, ME 99156, (207) 755-5610, [email protected].

    i. FERC Contact: Ms. Rebecca Martin, (202) 502-6012, [email protected].

    j. Deadline for filing comments, interventions, and protests is April 13, 2017. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-2302-085.

    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests to remove the Canal System and its four non-operating canal generating facilities from the Lewiston Falls Project and convey the canals and the conveyance facilities to the City of Lewiston for non-hydropower redevelopment and public use. This would reduce the project's installed capacity from 35.6 MW to 28 MW, but the operation of the project would remain unchanged.

    l. This filing may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction in the Commission's Public Reference Room located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .212 and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the license amendment. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: March 13, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05674 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CD17-8-000] Town of Carbondale, Colorado; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene

    On March 9, 2017, the Town of Carbondale, Colorado, filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed Town of Carbondale Nettle Creek WTP Hydro Project would have an installed capacity of 28 kilowatts (kW), and would be located along an existing raw water pipeline adjacent to the applicant's water treatment plant. The project would be located near the Town of Carbondale in Pitkin County, Colorado.

    Applicant Contact: Mark O'Meara, Utility Director, Town of Carbondale, 511 Colorado Avenue, Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone No. (970) 963-3140.

    FERC Contact: Christopher Chaney, Phone No. (202) 502-6778, email: [email protected]

    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed project would consist of: (1) An new pressure reduction valve vault containing one turbine/generating unit with an installed capacity of 28 kW; (2) a short, 10-inch-diameter penstock teeing off the existing raw water pipeline; (3) a short, 10-inch-diameter discharge pipe returning water to the existing raw water pipeline; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an estimated annual generating capacity of 190,000 kilowatt-hours.

    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.

    Table 1—Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Statutory provision Description Satisfies
  • (Y/N)
  • FPA 30(a)(3)(A), as amended by HREA The conduit the facility uses is a tunnel, canal, pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or similar manmade water conveyance that is operated for the distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption and not primarily for the generation of electricity Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i), as amended by HREA The facility is constructed, operated, or maintained for the generation of electric power and uses for such generation only the hydroelectric potential of a non-federally owned conduit Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii), as amended by HREA The facility has an installed capacity that does not exceed 5 megawatts Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii), as amended by HREA On or before August 9, 2013, the facility is not licensed, or exempted from the licensing requirements of Part I of the FPA Y

    Preliminary Determination: The proposed addition of the hydroelectric project along the existing raw water pipeline will not alter its primary purpose. Therefore, based upon the above criteria, Commission staff preliminarily determines that the proposal satisfies the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, which is not required to be licensed or exempted from licensing.

    Comments and Motions To Intervene: Deadline for filing comments contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 45 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.

    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the “COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” as applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through 385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.1 All comments contesting Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.

    1 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2016).

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed and reproduced at the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number (i.e., CD17-8) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected] For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 13, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05669 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0765; FRL-9960-04-ORD] Board of Scientific Counselors Homeland Security Subcommittee; Notification of Public Teleconference and Public Comment AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notification of public meeting and public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hereby provides notice that the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Homeland Security Subcommittee (HSS) will host a public teleconference. The meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 28, 2017 from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. All times noted are Eastern Time and are approximate. The primary discussions will focus on finalizing the draft report on the effective and efficient tools, strategies and methods to characterize and assess exposure and decontamination following a biological contamination incident. There will be a public comment period at 11:15 a.m. For information on registering to participate on the call or to provide public comment, please see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Due to unforeseen administrative circumstances, EPA is announcing this meeting with less than fifteen calendar days' notice.

    DATES:

    The BOSC HSS meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 28, 2017 from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. All times noted are Eastern Time and are approximate.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions or correspondence concerning the meeting should be directed to Tom Tracy, Designated Federal Officer, Environmental Protection Agency, by mail at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., (MC 8104 R), Washington, DC 20460; by telephone at 202-564-6518; fax at 202-565-2911; or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Charter of the BOSC states that the advisory committee shall provide independent advice to the Administrator on technical and management aspects of the ORD's research program. Additional information about the BOSC is available at: http://www2.epa.gov/bosc.

    Registration: In order to participate in the meeting, you must register at the following site: https://us-epa-2017-bosc-hs-subcommittee-teleconference.eventbrite.com. Once you have completed the online registration, you will be contacted and provided with the meeting information. Registration will close on March 27, 2017.

    Oral Statements: Members of the public who wish to provide oral comment during the meeting must preregister. Individuals or groups making remarks during the public comment period will be limited to five (5) minutes. To accommodate the number of people who want to address the BOSC HSS, only one representative of a particular community, organization, or group will be allowed to speak.

    Written Statements: Written comments for the public meeting must be received by Monday, March 27, 2017, and will be included in the materials distributed to the BOSC HSS prior to the meeting. Written comments should be sent to Tom Tracy, Environmental Protection Agency, via email at [email protected] or by mail to 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., (MC 8104 R), Washington, DC 20460, or submitted through regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0765. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted online at regulations.gov.

    Information about Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For information about services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Tom Tracy, at 202-564-6518 or via email at [email protected] To request special accommodations, please contact Tom Tracy no later than March 23, 2017, to give the Environmental Protection Agency sufficient time to process your request. All requests should be sent to the address, email, or phone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    Dated: March 7, 2017. Fred S. Hauchman, Director, Office of Science Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05709 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0563; FRL-9959-73-OAR] Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products (40 CFR part 59, subpart C) (Renewal), OMB Control No. 2060-0348, EPA ICR No. 1764.07,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through June 30, 2017. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before May 22, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0563 online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Tina Ndoh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Minerals and Manufacturing Group (D243-04), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: 919-541-2750; fax number: 919-541-5450; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, the EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    Abstract: The information collection includes initial reports and periodic recordkeeping necessary for the EPA to ensure compliance with Federal standards for volatile organic compounds in consumer products. Respondents are manufacturers, distributors, and importers of consumer products. All information submitted to the EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, Confidentiality of Business Information.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/Affected Entities: Manufacturers, distributors, and importers of consumer products.

    Respondent's Obligation To Respond: Responses to the collection are mandatory under 40 CFR part 59, subpart C, National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 300 (total).

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Total Estimated Burden: 16,126 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total Estimated Cost: $1,765,427 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease of 13,487 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease is due to adjustments to the estimated hours for each level of review. These adjustments are consistent with the assumptions used routinely in ICR renewals, and are discussed in the supporting statements for this action.

    Dated: February 24, 2017. Peter Tsirigotis, Director, Sector Policies and Programs Division.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05662 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0009; FRL-9959-45] Pesticide Emergency Exemptions; Agency Decisions and State and Federal Agency Crisis Declarations AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has granted emergency exemptions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for use of pesticides as listed in this notice. The exemptions were granted during the period October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 to control unforeseen pest outbreaks.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed at the end of the emergency exemption.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0009, 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.

    II. Background

    EPA has granted emergency exemptions to the following State and Federal agencies. The emergency exemptions may take the following form: Crisis, public health, quarantine, or specific.

    Under FIFRA section 18 (7 U.S.C. 136p), EPA can authorize the use of a pesticide when emergency conditions exist. Authorizations (commonly called emergency exemptions) are granted to State and Federal agencies and are of four types:

    1. A “specific exemption” authorizes use of a pesticide against specific pests on a limited acreage in a particular State. Most emergency exemptions are specific exemptions.

    2. “Quarantine” and “public health” exemptions are emergency exemptions issued for quarantine or public health purposes. These are rarely requested.

    3. A “crisis exemption” is initiated by a State or Federal agency (and is confirmed by EPA) when there is insufficient time to request and obtain EPA permission for use of a pesticide in an emergency.

    EPA may deny an emergency exemption: If the State or Federal agency cannot demonstrate that an emergency exists, if the use poses unacceptable risks to the environment, or if EPA cannot reach a conclusion that the proposed pesticide use is likely to result in “a reasonable certainty of no harm” to human health, including exposure of residues of the pesticide to infants and children.

    If the emergency use of the pesticide on a food or feed commodity would result in pesticide chemical residues, EPA establishes a time-limited tolerance meeting the “reasonable certainty of no harm standard” of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    In this document: EPA identifies the State or Federal agency granted the exemption, the type of exemption, the pesticide authorized and the pests, the crop or use for which authorized, number of acres (if applicable), and the duration of the exemption. EPA also gives the Federal Register citation for the time-limited tolerance, if any.

    III. Emergency Exemptions A. U.S. States and Territories California Department of Pesticide Regulation

    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on a maximum of 18,000 acres of pomegranates to control leaf footed plant bug. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action was established in 40 CFR 180.442(b); Effective October 6, 2016 to December 31, 2016.

    Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of clothianidin on a maximum of 125,376 acres of immature (3 to 5 years old) citrus trees to manage the transmission of Huanglongbing (HLB) disease vectored by the Asian citrus psyllid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action was established in 40 CFR 180.668(b); Effective March 1, 2017 to October 31, 2017.

    Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce

    Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 337,500 acres of cotton to control tarnished plant bug. Tolerances in connection with a previous action have been established in 40 CFR 180.668(a); Effective December 23, 2016 to October 31, 2017.

    EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 115,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b); Effective May 1, 2017 to October 31, 2017.

    North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of thiabendazole for postharvest use on 80,000 acres of sweet potatoes to control black rot disease. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.680(b); Effective January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017.

    Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of etofenprox for use in mushroom cultivation on up to 16 million square feet (equivalent to 2,000 mushroom houses) to control Sciarid and Phorid fly species. Tolerances in connection with a previous action have been established in 40 CFR 180.620(a), to cover any residues as a result of this emergency exemption use; Effective December 21, 2016 to December 20, 2017.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: March 1, 2017. Michael Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05722 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9960-06-OA] Notification of Two Public Teleconferences of the Science Advisory Board Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee Augmented for the Review of EPA's Draft Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) Assessment AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces two public teleconferences of the SAB Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee Augmented for the Review of the Draft Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) Assessment (CAAC-RDX Panel) to peer review EPA's draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Toxicological Review of Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) (External Review Draft—September 2016).

    DATES:

    The public teleconferences will be held on Thursday April 13, 2017, and Monday April 17, 2017. The teleconferences will be held from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) on both days.

    ADDRESSES:

    Location: The public teleconference will be conducted by telephone only.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Any member of the public wishing further information concerning the teleconferences may contact Dr. Diana Wong, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), SAB Staff Office, by telephone at (202) 564-2049; or at [email protected] General information concerning the EPA Science Advisory Board can be found at the EPA SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDAA) codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the SAB CAAC—RDX Panel will hold two public teleconferences to discuss its draft report regarding the draft IRIS Toxicological Review of Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (External Review Draft—September 2016). The Panel will provide advice to the Administrator through the chartered SAB regarding this IRIS assessment.

    The SAB CAAC—RDX Panel held a public meeting on December 12-14, 2016. The purpose of that meeting was to develop responses to the peer review charge on the agency's draft IRIS Toxicological Review of Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (External Review Draft—September 2016). The purpose of these public teleconferences is for the Panel to discuss these responses and draft report. The two public teleconferences will be conducted as one complete meeting, beginning on April 13, 2017, and if necessary, will continue on April 17, 2017.

    Availability of Meeting Materials: Additional background on this SAB activity, the teleconference agenda, draft report, and other materials for the teleconferences will be posted on the SAB Web site at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/IRIS%20RDX?OpenDocument.

    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to the EPA. Members of the public can submit relevant comments pertaining to the meeting materials or the group conducting this SAB activity. Input from the public to the SAB will have the most impact if it consists of comments that provide specific scientific or technical information or analysis for SAB committees and panels to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the DFO directly.

    Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation on a public teleconference will be limited to three minutes per speaker. Interested parties wishing to provide comments should contact Dr. Diana Wong, DFO (preferably via email), at the contact information noted above, by April 6, 2017, to be placed on the list of public speakers for the teleconference.

    Written Statements: Written statements will be accepted throughout the advisory process; however, for timely consideration by Panel members, statements should be should be supplied to the DFO (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by April 6, 2017. It is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post written comments on the Web page for the advisory meeting or teleconference. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its Web sites. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted to the SAB Web site. Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder.

    Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Dr. Diana Wong at (202) 564-2049 or [email protected] To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Dr. Wong preferably at least ten days prior to the teleconferences, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: March 8, 2017. Khanna Johnston, Acting Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05702 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0014; FRL-9958-52] Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces EPA's order for the cancellations, voluntarily requested by the registrants and accepted by the Agency, of the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II., pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This cancellation order follows an August 20, 2014 Federal Register (79 FR 49311) (FRL-9914-46) Notice of Receipt of Requests from the registrants listed in Table 2 of Unit II. to voluntarily cancel these product registrations. In the August 20, 2014 notice, EPA indicated that it would issue an order implementing the cancellations, unless the Agency received substantive comments within the 180-day comment period that would merit its further review of these requests, or unless the registrants withdrew their requests. The Agency did not receive any comments on the notice. Further, the registrants did not withdraw their requests. Accordingly, EPA hereby issues in this notice a cancellation order granting the requested cancellations. Any distribution, sale, or use of the products subject to this cancellation order is permitted only in accordance with the terms of this order, including any existing stocks provisions.

    DATES:

    The cancellations are effective March 22, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Yanchulis, Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-0237; email address: [email protected]

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

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0014, 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.

    II. What action is the Agency taking?

    This notice announces the cancellation, as requested by registrants, of products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number in Table 1 of this unit. The following registration numbers that were listed in the Federal Register of August 14, 2014 have already been cancelled in a previous Federal Register notices: 042750-00259 on June 3, 2015 (80 FR 31596) (FRL-9926-88) and AR-130001 on March 17, 2015 (80 FR 13846) (FRL-9923-29).

    Table 1—Product Cancellations EPA registration No. Product name Chemical name MI-030002 Velocity Herbicide Bispyribac-sodium. PR-090001 Du Pont Coragen Insect Control Chlorantraniliprole.

    Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit.

    Table 2—Registrants of Cancelled Products EPA
  • company No.
  • Company name and address
    59639 (MI-030002) Valent U.S.A. Corporation, 1600 Riviera Avenue, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. 352 (PR-090001) E. I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, Chestnut Run Plaza, 974 Centre Road, Wilmington, DE 19805.
    III. Summary of Public Comments Received and Agency Response to Comments

    During the public comment period provided, EPA received no comments in response to the August 20, 2014 Federal Register notice announcing the Agency's receipt of the requests for voluntary cancellations of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II.

    IV. Cancellation Order

    Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)), EPA hereby approves the requested cancellations of the registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. Accordingly, the Agency hereby orders that the product registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. are canceled. The effective date of the cancellations that are the subject of this notice is March 22, 2017. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II. in a manner inconsistent with any of the provisions for disposition of existing stocks set forth in Unit VI. will be a violation of FIFRA.

    V. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register. Thereafter, following the public comment period, the EPA Administrator may approve such a request. The notice of receipt for this action was published for comment in the Federal Register of August 14, 2014. The comment period closed on February 17, 2015.

    VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. The existing stocks provisions for the products subject to this order are as follows.

    The registrants may continue to sell and distribute existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. until March 22, 2018, which is 1-year after the publication of the Cancellation Order in the Federal Register. Thereafter, the registrants are prohibited from selling or distributing products listed in Table 1, except for export in accordance with FIFRA section 17 (7 U.S.C. 136o), or proper disposal. Persons other than the registrants may sell, distribute, or use existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. until existing stocks are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the canceled products.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: January 31, 2017, Delores Barber, Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05710 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0345; FRL-9958-51] Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces EPA's order for the cancellations, voluntarily requested by the registrants and accepted by the Agency, of the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II., pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This cancellation order follows a July 12, 2016 Federal Register Notice of Receipt of Requests from the registrants listed in Table 2 of Unit II. to voluntarily cancel these product registrations.

    DATES:

    The cancellations are effective March 22, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Yanchulis, Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-0237; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0321, 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.

    II. What action is the Agency taking?

    In the July 12, 2016 notice, EPA indicated that it would issue an order implementing the cancellations, unless the Agency received substantive comments within the 180-day comment period that would merit its further review of these requests, or unless the registrants withdrew their requests. The Agency did not receive any comments on this notice. The registration numbers below were listed in the July 12, 2016 notice and already have been canceled by other FR notices so are not listed in this notice. The products are listed by their cancellation FR notice: (1) Federal Register of June 30, 2016 (81 FR 42702; FRL-9947-16): 100-1249, 524-314, 524-316, 524-329, 524-344, 524-418 and 524-523; and (2) Federal Register of September 21, 2016 (81 FR 64897; FRL-9951-71): 498-197, 1677-205, 1677-206, 1839-85, 1839-102, 1839-128, 1839-138, 1839-188, 4822-554, 5813-28, 5813-33, 5813-36, 5813-41, 5813-54, 5813-56, 5813-83, 6836-18, 6836-19, 6836-28, 6836-30, 6836-41, 6836-48, 6836-68, 6836-74, 6836-87, 6836-89, 6836-108, 6836-163, 6836-167, 6836-204, 6836-205, 6836-206, 6836-231, 6836-267, 6836-268, 6836-269, 47371-47, 47371-52, 47371-53, 47371-59, 47371-71, 47371-87, 67619-15 and 67619-19. Accordingly, EPA hereby issues in this notice a cancellation order granting the requested cancellations. Any distribution, sale, or use of the products subject to this cancellation order is permitted only in accordance with the terms of this order, including any existing stocks provisions.

    This notice announces the cancellation, as requested by registrant, of products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number in Table 1 of this unit.

    Table 1—Product Cancellations Registration No. Company No. Product name Chemical name 100-1004 100 Demon EC Insecticide Cypermethrin. 100-1006 100 Probuild TC Termiticide Cypermethrin. 100-1051 100 Talon-G Rodenticide Bait Pack Pellets with Bitrex Brodifacoum. 100-1057 100 Talon-G Rodenticide Mini-Pellets with Bitrex Brodifacoum. 100-1170 100 Optigard ZT Insecticide Thiamethoxam. 100-1209 100 Abamectin Granular Fire Ant Killer Abamectin. 100-1302 100 Cypermethrin ME 2.0% Concentrate Cypermethrin. 100-1303 100 Cypermethrin ME 0.2% RTU Cypermethrin. 100-1393 100 Hurricane WDG Metalaxyl-M; Fludioxonil. 100-1512 100 Econem Pasteuria Usgae—BL1. 228-380 228 Riverdale 565 Selective Herbicide Cloransulam-methyl. 264-652 264 Rely Herbicide Glufosinate. 264-663 264 Remove Herbicide Glufosinate. 264-932 264 Gustafson Lorsban 30 Flowable Chlorpyrifos. 432-887 432 Chipco Ronstar 50 WP Oxadiazon. 432-891 432 Chipco 26019 WDG Fungicide Iprodione. 432-894 432 Chipco Aliette WSP Brand Fungicide Fosetyl-Al. 432-898 432 Chipco Ronstar G T/L Herbicide Oxadiazon. 432-1222 432 Prostar 50WP Flutolanil. 432-1326 432 Dylox 80 SP Nursery Insecticide Trichlorfon. 432-1336 432 Bayleton 1% Granular Turf and Sod Production Fungicide Triadimefon. 432-1340 432 Merit 0.3 G Lawn and Garden Insecticide Imidacloprid. 432-1341 432 Merit 0.15 G Lawn and Garden Insecticide Imidacloprid. 432-1342 432 Merit 0.25 G Lawn and Garden Insecticide Imidacloprid. 432-1343 432 Merit 0.35 G Lawn and Garden Insecticide Imidacloprid. 432-1420 432 Topchoice Select Insecticide Fipronil. 432-1423 432 Topchoice 0.0143 Plus Turf Fertilizer Insecticide Fipronil. 432-1425 432 Topchoice 0.00953 Plus Turf Fertilizer Insecticide Fipronil. 432-1432 432 Compass G Fungicide Trifloxystrobin. 432-4877 432 Triticonazole 70 WDG Fungicide Triticonazole. 498-195 498 Champion Sprayon Fire Ant Killer Dust Deltamethrin. 499-497 499 Whitmire Micro-Gen TC 232 D-Limonene. 499-519 499 TC 232 W&HH D-Limonene. 499-20204 499 Babolna Insect Attractant Trap 2-Cyclopenten-1-one, 2-hydroxy-3-methyl-. 1448-172 1448 M-5-2 2-(Thiocyanomethylthio)benzothiazole; Methylene bis(thiocyanate). 1677-196 1677 Eco 2000-XP Freshbait Boric acid. 1839-49 1839 CD 3.2 Detergent/Disinfectant Quaternary ammonium compounds. 1839-50 1839 CD 1.6 Detergent/Disinfectant Quaternary ammonium compounds. 3525-71 3525 Utikem Black Algae Killer Busan 77. 3525-91 3525 Coastal Mint Disinfectant Quaternary ammonium compounds. 3525-96 3525 Jolt Pool Shock Treatment for Control of Algae Lithium hypochlorite. 3525-109 3525 Algaecide & Pool Conditioner Busan 77. 5383-176 5383 Fungitrol 400SE Fungicide Carbamic acid, butyl-, 3-iodo-2-propynyl ester. 5383-188 5383 Nuosept 515RX Preservative 2-Methyl-3(2H)-isothiazolone; 5-Chloro-2-methyl-3(2H)-isothiazolone. 5383-189 5383 Nuosept 220 Preservative 2,2-Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide. 5813-107 5813 Sonic Sodium hypochlorite. 6836-25 6836 Barquat 4250 Quaternary ammonium compounds. 6836-180 6836 Lonza Rd-10 Disinfectant Sanitizer Deodorant Quaternary ammonium compounds. 6836-201 6836 Barquat MM-55I Quaternary ammonium compounds. 6836-284 6836 Lonza Formula LNZ-64 Quaternary ammonium compounds; 1,3-Propanediamine, N-(3-aminopropyl)-N-dodecyl-. 7173-293 7173 Chlorophacinone Refillable Bait Station Chlorophacinone. 10807-162 10807 Misty Fog Plus Fogger Pyrethrins; Permethrin; Piperonyl butoxide. 10807-200 10807 Misty Repco Kill IV Bromacil; 2,4-D, 2-ethylhexyl ester. 10807-201 10807 Misty Repco Kill VF Bromacil; 2,4-D, 2-ethylhexyl ester. 10807-439 10807 R Value's Roach Kil Boric acid. 10807-440 10807 Mop Up Boron sodium oxide (B8Na2O13), tetrahydrate (12280-03-4). 10807-441 10807 Borid Sewer Treatment Borax. 10807-452 10807 Drax Roach D-Stroy Mix Boric acid. 10807-453 10807 Drax Roach Assault PGF Boric acid. 10807-455 10807 Borid Barrier with Boric Acid Boric acid. 10807-456 10807 Impede Roach Bait with Growth Inhibitor Kills and Controls Cockroaches Pyriproxyfen. 10807-457 10807 Invader II with Propoxur Propoxur. 10807-458 10807 Drax Liquid Ant Killer—SWT Boric acid. 10807-459 10807 Drax Liquid Ant Killer with Nylar and Boric Acid Pyriproxyfen; Boric acid. 10807-460 10807 Drax Ant Kill Gel RBA Boric acid. 10807-461 10807 Drax Ant Kil Gel 2X RBA Boric acid. 10807-463 10807 Drax Granular Bait with Boric Acid Boric acid. 10807-464 10807 Drax 2X Granular Bait with Boric Acid Boric acid. 10807-465 10807 Drax 2X Granular Bait with Boric Acid & Nylar Pyriproxyfen; Boric acid. 10807-468 10807 Country Vet Roach Kil Boric acid. 10807-470 10807 Country Vet Fogger with IGR Prallethrin; Esfenvalerate, Pyriproxyfen. 10807-471 10807 Country Vet Fogger with Pyrethrins Pyrethrins; MGK 264; Piperonyl butoxide. 35935-68 35935 Oxadiazon Technical Oxadiazon. 35935-97 35935 Flumioxazin Technical Flumioxazin. 40849-59 40849 Enforcer Next Day Grass & Weed Killer Concentrate Diquat dibromide. 66222-32 66222 Mana Cotoran 4l Fluometuron. 66222-65 66222 Apollo 42% Ovicide/Miticide Clofentezine. 66330-260 66330 Flomet 4L Fluometuron. 69681-30 69681 Clor Mor Spa Essence Tabs Sodium dichloro-s-triazinetrione. 70596-12 70596 Mecoprop-P Technical Acid Mecoprop-P. 81880-13 81880 NC-398 WG Halosulfuron-methyl; Dicamba, sodium salt. 81880-14 81880 Achiva Herbicide Halosulfuron-methyl. 81880-17 81880 NC-319 75WG T Halosulfuron-methyl. 81880-19 81880 MON 12037 Herbicide Halosulfuron-methyl. 81880-21 81880 MON 12000 Herbicide Halosulfuron-methyl. 81880-22 81880 Sempra CA Herbicide Halosulfuron-methyl. 81880-23 81880 GWN-9843 Halosulfuron-methyl. 81927-15 81927 Alligare Picloram + D RTU Picloram, triisopropanolamine salt; 2,4-D, triisopropanolamine salt. 81927-17 81927 Alligare Picloram K Picloram-potassium. 81927-21 81927 Alligare Quinclorac 75 WDG Quinclorac. 90924-6 90924 Bactron K-55W Microbiocide Formaldehyde. AL080004 59639 Sumagic Plant Growth Regulator Uniconazole P. AR030011 100 Dual Magnum Herbicide S-Metolachlor. AR050006 66222 Bifenthrin Nursery G Acephate. AR130007 100 Halex GT Herbicide Mesotrione; Glyphosate; S-Metolachlor. AR140001 87290 Willowood Clomazone 3ME Clomazone. AR830015 400 Comite Agricultural Miticide Propargite. AR930004 59639 Select 2EC Herbicide Clethodim. CA030012 100 Clinch Ant Bait Abamectin. CA040004 62719 Lorsban 50W Insecticide In Water Soluble Packets Chlorpyrifos. CA040024 8033 Topsin M WSB Thiophanate-methyl. CA050015 62719 GF-120 NF Naturalyte Fruit Fly Bait Spinosad. CA050020 8033 Topsin M 70WP Thiophanate-methyl. CA060008 2935 Wilbur-Ellis Dusting Sulfur Sulfur. CA060013 62719 Intrepid 2F Methoxyfenozide. CA070013 21164 Akta Klor 25 Sodium chlorite. CA140001 70506 Manzate Pro-Stick Fungicide Mancozeb. CA140003 70506 Penncozeb 4FL Flowable Fungicide Mancozeb. CA960027 50534 Bravo 720 Chlorothalonil. CA990010 62719 Transline Clopyralid, monoethanolamine salt. CO100005 59639 Chateau Herbicide WDG Flumioxazin. CT070001 62719 Dithane DF Rainshield Mancozeb. CT070002 62719 Goal 2XL Oxyfluorfen. DE090001 2724 Zoecon Altosid Liquid Larvicide Concentrate S-Methoprene. DE100001 62719 Starane Ultra Fluroxypyr 1-methylheptyl ester. FL030002 59639 Regiment Herbicide Bispyribac-sodium. FL110001 59639 Arena 50 WDG Insecticide Clothianidin. FL140008 100 Revus Fungicide Mandipropamide Technical. GA020006 59639 Regiment Herbicide Bispyribac-sodium. GA940004 62719 Dithane DF Agricultural Fungicide Mancozeb. HI080003 61842 Lime-Sulfur Solution Lime sulfur. ID020006 8033 Topsin M WSB Thiophanate-methyl. ID080003 71711 Moncut 70 DF Fungicide Flutolanil. ID090009 66222 Abba 0.15EC Abamectin. ID100002 59639 Chateau WDG Herbicide Flumioxazin. ID150007 62719 Transform WG Sulfoxaflor. ID980010 2935 Supreme Oil Mineral oil. IL110002 89459 Prentox Synpren-Fish Toxicant Piperonyl butoxide; Rotenone; Cube Resins other than rotenone. IN080002 70506 Dupont Manzate Pro-Stick Fungicide Mancozeb. IN960003 62719 Dithane DF Agricultural Fungicide Mancozeb. KS050007 34704 Atrazine 4L Herbicide Atrazine. KS150001 100 Halex GT Herbicide Mesotrione; Glyphosate; S-Metolachlor. KY030002 62719 Dithane DF Rainshield Gas cartRidge; Mancozeb. KY080001 70506 Dupont Manzate Pro-Stick Fungicide Mancozeb. LA070007 62719 Goal 2XL Oxyfluorfen. LA070008 62719 Goal 2XL Oxyfluorfen. LA110001 66222 Galigan 2E Oxyfluorfen. LA130001 100 Halex GT Herbicide Mesotrione; Glyphosate; S-Metolachlor. LA140003 87290 Willowood Clomazone 3ME Clomazone. LA150003 100 Halex GT Herbicide Mesotrione; Glyphosate; S-Metolachlor. LA990012 59639 Select 2EC Herbicide Clethodim. MA020003 62719 Dithane DF Rainshield Mancozeb. MA080001 70506 Dupont Manzate Pro-Stick Fungicide Mancozeb. MD090004 2724 Zoecon Altosid Liquid Larvicide Concentrate S-Methoprene. MD950002 62719 Dithane DF Rainshield Mancozeb. ME130004 81880 GWN-1715 Pyridaben. MN000004 100 Aatrex 4L Herbicide Atrazine. MN080004 8033 Topsin M WSB Thiophanate-methyl. MN080011 59639 Sureguard Herbicide Flumioxazin. MO100004 89459 Prentox Prenfish Toxicant Rotenone; Cube Resins other than rotenone. MO140003 87290 Willowood Clomazone 3ME Clomazone. MO150002 100 Halex GT Herbicide Mesotrione; Glyphosate; S-Metolachlor. MO950004 62719 Dithane DF Rainshield Mancozeb. MO970003 59639 Select 2EC Herbicide Clethodim. MS020016 62719 Goal 2XL Herbicide Oxyfluorfen. MS140004 87290 Willowood Clomazone 3ME Clomazone. MS830024 400 Comite Agricultural Miticide Propargite. MS930008 59639 Select 2EC Herbicide Clethodim. MT070002 10163 Onager Miticide Hexythiazox. NC020002 62719 Goal 2XL Herbicide Oxyfluorfen. NC020005 62719 Dithane DF Rainshield Mancozeb. NC020006 59639 Select 2EC Herbicide Clethodim. NC120007 100 Gramoxone SL 2.0 Paraquat dichloride. NV020003 62719 Goal 2XL Herbicide Oxyfluorfen. NV070001 10163 Onager Miticide Hexythiazox. NV100002 59639 Chateau Herbicide WDG Flumioxazin. NY050001 100 Dual Magnum S-Metolachlor. NY070002 8033 Topsin M WSB Thiophanate-methyl. NY090001 61842 Whitecap SC Aquatic Herbicide Fluridone. NY090004 100 Dual Magnum Herbicide S-Metolachlor. NY140002 352 Dupont Aproach Fungicide Picoxystrobin. OK100001 8033 F4688 50 WSP Insecticide Termiticide Acetamiprid; Bifenthrin. OK150004 100 Halex GT Herbicide Mesotrione; Glyphosate; S-Metolachlor. OR020024 62719 Goal 2XL Herbicide Oxyfluorfen. OR020025 62719 Goal 2XL Herbicide Oxyfluorfen. OR020026 62719 Goal 2XL Herbicide Oxyfluorfen. OR070008 10163 Onager Miticide Hexythiazox. OR070023 71512 Beleaf 50SG Insecticide Flonicamid. OR080021 66222 Abba 0.15EC Abamectin. OR080035 100 Callisto Herbicide Mesotrione. OR090023 66222 Prometryn 4L Prometryn. OR100010 100 Callisto Herbicide Mesotrione. OR110001 87290 Willowood Pronamide 50 WSP Propyzamide. OR110002 87290 Willowood Pronamide 50 WSP Propyzamide. OR110010 87290 Willowood Oxyflo 2 EC Oxyfluorfen. OR110011 87290 Willowood Oxyflo 2 EC Oxyfluorfen. OR150010 62719 Transform WG Sulfoxaflor. OR990006 62719 Goal 2XL Herbicide Oxyfluorfen. OR990010 2935 Supreme Oil Mineral oil. OR990036 62719 Goal 2XL Herbicide Oxyfluorfen. PA950005 62719 Dithane DF Rainshield Mancozeb. PA960005 62719 Goal 2XL Herbicide Oxyfluorfen. SC030001 59639 Velocity Herbicide Bispyribac-sodium. SC030002 62719 Dithane DF Rainshield Mancozeb. SC050004 100 Caparol 4L Prometryn. SC070001 70506 Clopyr AG Herbicide Clopyralid, monoethanolamine salt. SC130002 66222 Mana Atrazine 90DF Atrazine. SC960008 62719 Goal 2XL Herbicide Oxyfluorfen. SD090003 241 Pendulum 0.86% Plus Fertilizer Pendimethalin. SD090009 100 Princep 4L Simazine. SD090010 100 Princep Caliber 90 Herbicide Simazine. SD100001 7969 Sharpen Herbicide Saflufenacil. SD110001 7969 Integrity Powered By Kixor Herbicide Saflufenacil; Dimethenamide-P. TN050007 100 Caparol 4L Prometryn. TX030014 59639 Velocity Herbicide Bispyribac-sodium. TX090008 39039 4-Poster-Tickicide Permethrin. TX100019 70506 Devrinol 50-DF Selective Herbicide Napropamide. TX140001 87290 Willowood Clomazone 3ME Clomazone. TX830028 400 Comite Agricultural Miticide Propargite. UT040001 89459 Prentox Perm-X UL 4-4 Permethrin; Piperonyl butoxide. UT050003 89459 Prentox Perm-X UL 30-30 Permethrin; Piperonyl butoxide. VA080003 8033 Topsin M WSB Thiophanate-methyl. VA940001 62719 Dithane DF Agricultural Fungicide Mancozeb. WA020027 62719 Goal 2XL Herbicide Oxyfluorfen. WA040036 62719 Goal 2XL Oxyfluorfen. WA060009 8033 Tristar 30 SG Insecticide Acetamiprid. WA060015 62719 Accord Concentrate Glyphosate-isopropylammonium. WA060021 10163 Onager 1E Hexythiazox. WA070005 59639 Chateau Herbicide WDG Flumioxazin. WA080004 66222 Abba 0.15EC Abamectin. WA080008 62719 Starane Ultra Fluroxypyr 1-methylheptyl ester. WA080010 62719 Rally 40WSP Myclobutanil. WA090018 66222 Prometryn 4L Prometryn. WA980023 2935 Supreme Oil Mineral oil. WI070009 8033 Topsin M WSB Thiophanate-methyl. WY040003 7969 Basagran Herbicide Sodium bentazon.

    Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit.

    Table 2—Registrants of Canceled Products EPA company No. Company name and address 100 Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. 228 Nufarm Americas, Inc., 4020 Aerial Center Parkway, Suite 101, Morrisville, NC 27560. 241 BASF Corporation, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. 264 Bayer Cropscience LP, P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. 352 E. I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, Chestnut Run Plaza, 974 Centre Road, Wilmington, DE 19805. 400 MacDermid Agricultural Solutions, Inc., 245 Freight Street, Waterbury, CT 06702. 432 Bayer Environmental Science, A Division of Bayer Cropscience LP, P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. 498 Chase Products Co., P.O. Box 70, Maywood, IL 60153. 499 BASF Corporation, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. 1448 Buckman Laboratories Inc., 1256 North McLean Blvd., Memphis, TN 38108. 1677 Ecolab, Inc., 370 North Wabasha Street, St. Paul, MN 55102. 1839 Stepan Company, 22 W. Frontage Road, Northfield, IL 60093. 2724 Wellmark International, 1501 E. Woodfield Road, Suite 200 West, Schaumburg, IL 60173. 2935 Wilbur-Ellis Company, 2903 S. Cedar Avenue, Fresno, CA 93725. 3525 Qualco Inc., 225 Passaic Street, Passaic, NJ 07055. 5383 Troy Chemical Corp., 8 Vreeland Road, Florham Park, NJ 07932. 5813 The Clorox Co., c/o PS&RC, P.O. Box 493, Pleasanton, CA 94566. 6836 Lonza Inc., 90 Boroline Road, Allendale, NJ 07401. 7173 Liphatech, Inc., 3600 W. Elm Street, Milwaukee, WI 53209. 7969 BASF Corporation, Agricultural Products, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. 8033 Nisso America, Inc., Agent for Nippon Soda Co., Ltd., 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10005. 10163 Gowan Company, P.O. Box 5569, Yuma, AZ 85366. 10807 ZEP, Inc., c/o Compliance Services, Agent for AMREP, Inc., 1529 Seaboard Industrial Blvd. NW., Atlanta, GA 30318. 21164 Basic Chemicals Company, LLC, 5005 LBJ Freeway, Dallas, TX 75244. 34704 Loveland Products, Inc., P.O. Box 1286, Greeley, CO 80632. 35935 Nufarm Americas Inc., 4020 Aerial Center Parkway, Suite 101, Morrisville, NC 27560. 39039 Y-Tex Corporation, 1825 Big Horn Avenue, Cody, WY 82414. 40849 ZEP, Inc., c/o Compliance Services, Agent for ZEP Commerical Sales & Service, 1529 Seaboard Industrial Blvd. NW, Atlanta, GA 30318. 50534 GB Biosciences Corporation, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. 59639 Valent U.S.A. Corporation, 1600 Riviera Avenue, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. 61842 Pyxis Regulatory Consulting, Inc., Agent for Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc., 4110 136th Street CT NW, Gig Harbor, WA 98332. 62719 Dow Agrosciences LLC, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268. 66222 Makhteshim Agan of North America, Inc., D/B/A Adama, 3120 Highwoods Blvd., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27604. 66330 Arysta Lifescience North America, LLC, 15401 Weston Parkway, Suite 150, Cary, NC 27513. 69681 Allchem Performance Products, Inc., 6010 NW First Place, Gainesville, FL 32607. 70506 United Phosphorus, Inc., 630 Freedom Business Center, Suite 402, King Of Prussia, PA 19406. 70596 Nufarm Americas, Inc., 4020 Aerial Center Parkway, Suite 101, Morrisville, NC 27560. 71512 ISK Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn Road, Suite A, Concord, OH 44077. 71711 Nichino America, Inc., 4550 New Linden Hill Road, Suite 501, Wilmington, DE 19808. 81880 Canyon Group LLC, c/o Gowan Company, 370 S. Main Street, Yuma, AZ 85364. 81927 Pyxis Regulatory Consulting, Inc., Agent for Alligare, LLC, 4110 136th Street CT NW, Gig Harbor, WA 98332. 87290 Wagner Regulatory Associates, Inc., Agent for Willowood, LLC, P.O. Box 640, Hockessin, DE 19707. 89459 Central Garden & Pet Company, 1501 E. Woodfield Road, Suite 200 West, Schaumburg, IL 60173. 90924 Ecolab, Inc., Agent for Nalco Champion, 370 North Wabasha Street, St. Paul, MN 55102. III. Summary of Public Comments Received and Agency Response to Comments

    During the public comment period provided, EPA received no comments in response to the July 12, 2016 Federal Register notice announcing the Agency's receipt of the requests for voluntary cancellations of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II.

    IV. Cancellation Order

    Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)), EPA hereby approves the requested cancellations of the registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. Accordingly, the Agency hereby orders that the product registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. are canceled. The effective date of the cancellations that are the subject of this notice is March 22, 2017. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II. in a manner inconsistent with any of the provisions for disposition of existing stocks set forth in Unit VI. will be a violation of FIFRA.

    V. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register. Thereafter, following the public comment period, the EPA Administrator may approve such a request. The notice of receipt for this action was published for comment in the Federal Register of July 12, 2016 (81 FR 45153) (FRL-9948-04). The comment period closed on January 9, 2017.

    VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. The existing stocks provisions for the products subject to this order are as follows.

    The registrants may continue to sell and distribute existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. until January 15, 2016 or the date of publication of this FR notice, whichever is later. Thereafter, the registrants are prohibited from selling or distributing products listed in Table 1, except for export in accordance with FIFRA section 17 (7 U.S.C. 136o), or proper disposal. Persons other than the registrants may sell, distribute, or use existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. until existing stocks are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the canceled products.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: January 31, 2017. Delores Barber, Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05717 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9959-97-OARM] National and Governmental Advisory Committees AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of public advisory committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the National Advisory Committee and the Governmental Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, March 28 and Wednesday, March 29, 2017 in Washington, DC. The meeting is open to the public. Due to unforeseen administrative circumstances, EPA is announcing this meeting with less than 15 calendar days notice.

    DATES:

    The National and Governmental Advisory Committees will hold an open meeting on Tuesday, March 28, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and Wednesday, March 29, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m.

    Purpose of Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is to provide advice on the draft CEC 2017-18 Operational Plan and to discuss other trade and environment issues in North America. The meeting will also include a public comment session.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the U.S. EPA, Conference Room 2138, located in the William Jefferson Clinton South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. Telephone: 202-564-2294. The meeting is open to the public, with limited seating on a first-come, first-served basis.

    General Information: The agenda, meeting materials, and general information about the NAC and GAC will be available at http://www2.epa.gov/faca/nac-gac. If you wish to make oral comments or submit written comments to the NAC/GAC please contact Oscar Carrillo at least five days prior to the meeting at [email protected]pa.gov.

    Meeting Access: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Oscar Carrillo at 202-564-0347 or [email protected] To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Oscar Carrillo, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: February 28, 2017. Oscar Carrillo, Designated Federal Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05719 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9959-79-OA] Notification of a Public Teleconference of the Chartered Science Advisory Board (SAB) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public teleconference of the Chartered SAB to discuss the draft SAB Review of Lake Erie Nutrient Load Reduction Models and Targets (February, 2017) and conduct a quality review. Due to unforeseen administrative circumstances, EPA is announcing this meeting with less than 15 calendar days' notice.

    DATES:

    The teleconference will be held on Thursday, March 30, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. (Eastern Time).

    Location: The public teleconference will be held by telephone only.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Any member of the public wishing to obtain information concerning the public teleconference may contact Mr. Thomas Carpenter, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office (1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; by telephone/voice mail at (202) 564-4885 or at [email protected] General information about the SAB, as well as any updates concerning the meeting announced in this notice, may be found on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the scientific and technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the SAB will hold a public meeting to discuss and deliberate on the topics below.

    The Chartered SAB will conduct a quality review of the Lake Erie Phosphorus Objective Review Panel draft report before it is transmitted to the EPA Administrator. The SAB quality review process ensures that all draft reports developed by SAB panels, committees or workgroups are reviewed and approved by the Chartered SAB before being finalized and transmitted to the EPA Administrator. These reviews are conducted in a public meeting as required by FACA.

    EPA Region 5 has asked the SAB to provide advice on further modeling, monitoring, and analyses needed to support implementation and evaluation of the nutrient reduction goals as part of an ongoing, adaptive management approach. Background on the Lake Erie Nutrient Targets and Adaptive Management activity is available on the SAB Web site at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/GLWQA%20Annex%204?OpenDocument.

    Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the Chartered SAB will hold a public teleconference to discuss the SAB Review of Lake Erie Nutrient Load Reduction Models and Targets (February 2017). The Chartered SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.

    Technical Contacts: Any technical questions concerning the documents reviewed by the SAB should be directed to Ms. Santina Wortman, Water Division, U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (WW-15J), Chicago, Illinois 60604, phone (312) 353-8319 or via email at [email protected]

    Availability of Meeting Materials: Prior to the meeting, the review documents, agenda and other materials will be accessible on the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab/.

    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for consideration by the EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a different purpose from public comment provided to the EPA program offices. Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program office.

    Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to the EPA. Members of the public can submit comments for a federal advisory committee to consider as it develops advice for the EPA. Interested members of the public may submit relevant written or oral information on the topic of this advisory activity, and/or the group conducting the activity, for the SAB to consider during the advisory process. Input from the public to the SAB will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis for SAB to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should follow the instructions below to submit comments. Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation on a public teleconference will be limited to three minutes. Each person making an oral statement should consider providing written comments as well as their oral statement so that the points presented orally can be expanded upon in writing. Interested parties should contact Mr. Thomas Carpenter, DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by March 23, 2017, to be placed on the list of public speakers. Written Statements: Written statements should be supplied to the DFO via email at the contact information noted above by March 23, 2017, so that the information may be made available to the SAB members for their consideration. It is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post written comments on the Web page for the advisory meeting or teleconference. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its Web sites. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted to the SAB Web site. Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder.

    Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Thomas Carpenter at the contact information provided above. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Mr. Carpenter preferably at least ten days prior to each meeting to give the EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: February 16, 2017. Khanna Johnston, Acting Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Staff Office.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05718 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0042; FRL-9958-85] Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee; Request for Nominations to the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs is inviting nominations from a diverse range of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment to the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC). The PPDC is chartered to provide advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on a broad range of issues concerning pesticide regulatory development and reform initiatives, evolving public policy and program implementation issues, and science issues associated with evaluating and reducing risks from pesticide use. To maintain the representation outlined by the charter, nominees will be selected to represent: Environmental/public interest and animal rights groups; farm worker organizations; pesticide industry and trade associations; pesticide user, grower, and commodity groups; federal/state/local and tribal governments; academia; and public health organizations. Vacancies are expected to be filled by July 2017. Sources in addition to this Federal Register Notice may be utilized in the solicitation of nominees.

    DATES:

    Nominations should be submitted no later than April 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit nominations electronically with the subject line “PPDC Membership 2017” to [email protected] You may also submit nominations by mail to: Dea Zimmerman (LC-8J), PPDC Designated Federal Officer, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604. Non-electronic submissions must follow the same format and contain the same information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dea Zimmerman, Designated Federal Officer for the PPDC, telephone number: (312) 353-6344; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of particular interest to persons who work in agricultural settings or persons who are concerned about implementation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); and the amendments to both of these major pesticide laws by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996; and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: Agricultural workers and farmers; pesticide industry and trade associations; environmental, consumer, and farmworker groups; pesticide users and growers; animal rights groups; pest consultants; State, local and Tribal governments; academia; public health organizations; and the public. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0042, 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.

    II. Background

    The PPDC is a federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463. EPA established the PPDC in September 1995 to provide advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on issues associated with pesticide regulatory development and reform initiatives, evolving public policy and program implementation issues, and science issues associated with evaluating and reducing risks from use of pesticides. The following sectors are represented on the current PPDC: Environmental/public interest and animal rights groups; farm worker organizations; pesticide industry and trade associations; pesticide user, grower, and commodity groups; federal and state/local/tribal governments; the general public; academia; and public health organizations.

    The PPDC usually meets face-to-face twice a year, generally in the spring and the fall. Additionally, members may be asked serve on work groups to develop recommendations to address specific policy issues. The average workload for members is approximately 4 to 6 hours per month. PPDC members may receive travel and per diem allowances where appropriate and according to applicable federal travel regulations.

    III. Nominations

    The EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an effort to obtain nominations of diverse candidates, the agency encourages nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups. All nominations will be fully considered, but applicants need to be aware of the specific representation sought as outlined in the Summary above. Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified persons to be considered for appointment to this advisory committee. Individuals may self-nominate. Nominations may be submitted in electronic format (preferred) or mailed to Dea Zimmerman at the address listed under ADDRESSES.

    To be considered, all nominations should include:

    • Current contact information for the nominee, including the nominee's name, organization (and position within that organization), current business address, email address, and daytime telephone number;

    • Brief Statement describing the nominee's interest and availability in serving on the PPDC;

    • Résumé and a short biography (no more than 2 paragraphs) describing the professional and educational qualifications of the nominee, including a list of relevant activities, or any current or previous experience on advisory committees; and

    • Letter(s) of recommendation from a third party supporting the nomination. The letter should describe how the nominee's experience and knowledge will bring value to the work of the PPDC.

    Other sources, in addition to this Federal Register notice, may also be utilized in the solicitation of nominees.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: February 1, 2017. Jack Housenger, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05706 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-1008] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before May 22, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control No.: 3060-1008.

    Title: Section 27.50, Power and Antenna Height Limits; Section 27.602, Guard Band Manager Agreements.

    Form No.: Not applicable.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, and State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 148 respondents and 208 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour up to 6 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement, On occasion reporting requirement and Third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157 and 309(j), as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 553 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: None.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: The information gathered in this collection will be used to support the development of new services in the Lower 700 MHz Band. Further, Guard Band Managers are required to enter into written agreements with other licensees who plan on using their licensed spectrum by others, subject to certain conditions outlined in the rules. They must retain these records for at least two years after the date such agreement expire. Such records need to be kept current and be made available upon request for inspection by the Commission or its representatives.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Howard, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05682 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate the Receivership of 10332, Evergreen State Bank, Stoughton, Wisconsin

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Evergreen State Bank, Stoughton, Wisconsin (the “Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Evergreen State Bank on January 28, 2011. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: March 16, 2017. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05611 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate the Receivership of 10464, Citizens First National Bank, Princeton, Illinois

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Citizens First National Bank, Princeton, Illinois (the “Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Citizens First National Bank on November 2, 2012. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: March 16, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05612 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request (3064-0189) AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. On November 25, 2016, (81 FR 85223), the FDIC requested comment for 60 days on a proposal to revise the information collection described below. The comment period for the November 25, 2016 notice ended on January 24, 2017 and no comments were received. The FDIC hereby gives notice that it has sent the collection of information revision to OMB for review.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by April 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit written comments, which should refer to “Annual Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions with Total Consolidated Assets of $50 Billion or More” by any of the following methods:

    Agency Web site: https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the FDIC's Web site.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/federal/notices.html. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected] Include “Annual Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions with Total Consolidated Assets of $50 Billion or More” in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Manny Cabeza (202-898-3767), Counsel, Attn: Comments Room MB-3007, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Comments may be hand delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located on F Street) on business days between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

    Public Inspection: All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/ including any personal information provided. Paper copies of public comments may be requested from the FDIC Public Information Center by telephone at (877) 275-3342 or (703) 562-2200.

    Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB desk officer for the agencies by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by fax to (202) 395-6974; or by email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    You can request additional information from Manny Cabeza, Counsel, (202) 898-3767, Legal Division, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., MB-3016, Washington, DC 20429. In addition, copies of the templates referenced in this notice can be found on the FDIC's Web site (http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The FDIC is requesting comment on the following changes to the information collection:

    Title: Company-Run Annual Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions with Total Consolidated Assets of $50 Billion or More under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

    OMB Control Number: 3064-0189.

    Description: Section 165(i)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 1 (“Dodd-Frank Act”) requires certain financial companies, including state nonmember banks and state savings associations, to conduct annual stress tests 2 and requires the primary financial regulatory agency 3 of those financial companies to issue regulations implementing the stress test requirements.4 A state nonmember bank or state savings association is a “covered bank” and therefore subject to the stress test requirements if its total consolidated assets are more than $10 billion. Under section 165(i)(2), a covered bank is required to submit to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board”) and to its primary financial regulatory agency a report at such time, in such form, and containing such information as the primary financial regulatory agency shall require.5

    1 Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (July 21, 2010).

    2 12 U.S.C. 5365(i)(2)(A).

    3 12 U.S.C. 5301(12).

    4 12 U.S.C. 5365(i)(2)(C).

    5 12 U.S.C. 5365(i)(2)(B).

    On October 15, 2012, the FDIC published in the Federal Register a final rule implementing the section 165(i)(2) annual stress test requirement.6 The final rule requires covered banks to meet specific reporting requirements under section 165(i)(2). In 2012, the FDIC first implemented the reporting templates for covered banks with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more and provided instructions for completing the reports.7 This information collection notice describes revisions by the FDIC to the relevant reporting templates and related instructions as well as required information. The information contained in these information collections may be given confidential treatment to the extent allowed by law (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)).

    6 77 FR 62417 (October 15, 2012).

    7 77 FR 52719 (August 30, 2012) and 77 FR 70435 (November 26, 2012).

    Consistent with past practice, the FDIC intends to use the data collected to assess the reasonableness of the stress test results of covered banks and to provide forward-looking information to the FDIC regarding a covered institution's capital adequacy. The FDIC also may use the results of the stress tests to determine whether additional analytical techniques and exercises could be appropriate to identify, measure, and monitor risks at the covered bank. The stress test results are expected to support ongoing improvement in a covered bank's stress testing practices with respect to its internal assessments of capital adequacy and overall capital planning.

    The FDIC recognizes that many covered banks with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more are required to submit reports using the Board's Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (“CCAR”) reporting form, FR Y-14A. The FDIC also recognizes the Board has modified the FR Y-14A, and the FDIC will keep its reporting requirements as similar as possible with the Board's FR Y-14A in order to minimize burden on affected institutions. Therefore, the FDIC is revising its reporting requirements to remain consistent with the Board's FR Y-14A for covered banks with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more. Because these revisions primarily involve removal of items not reported by FDIC-supervised institutions, there is no change in burden associated with the revisions.

    Proposed Revisions to Reporting Templates for Institutions With $50 Billion or More in Assets

    The proposed revisions to the DFAST-14A reporting templates consist of clarifying instructions, adding and removing schedules, adding, deleting, and modifying existing data items, and altering the as-of dates. These proposed changes would increase consistency between the DFAST-14A with the FR Y-14A and CALL Report. The revised reporting templates can be viewed at https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/reform/dfast/.

    Summary Schedule, Standardized RWA Worksheet

    The proposed revision includes multiple line items changes intended to promote consistency with the FR Y-14A and ensure the collection of accurate information.

    Summary Schedule, Capital Worksheet

    Covered institutions would be required to estimate their supplementary leverage ratio for the planning horizon beginning on January 1, 2018. The FDIC proposes adding two items to the Summary Schedule: Supplementary Leverage Ratio Exposure (SLR Exposure) and Supplementary Leverage Ratio (the SLR). The SLR would be a derived field.

    In addition, to collect more precise information regarding deferred tax assets (DTAs), the FDIC proposes modifying one existing item on the Capital—DFAST worksheet of the Summary schedule as-of December 31, 2016. The FDIC proposes changing existing item 112 on the Capital—DFAST worksheet of the Summary schedule, “Deferred tax assets arising from temporary differences that could not be realized through net operating loss carrybacks, net of DTLs, but before related valuation allowances”, to “Deferred tax assets arising from temporary differences, net of DTLs.” A covered institution in a net deferred tax liability (DTL) position would report this item as a negative number. This modification would provide more specific information about the components of the “DTAs arising from temporary differences that could not be realized through net operating loss carrybacks, net of related valuation allowances and net of DTLs” subject to the common equity tier 1 capital deduction threshold.

    The proposed revisions would also remove certain items that pertained to the capital regulations in place before the adoption of the Basel III final rule.

    Summary Schedule, Retail Balances and Loss Worksheet

    The FDIC proposes to remove the Retail Balances and Loss Worksheet.

    Summary Schedule, Retail Repurchase Worksheet

    The FDIC proposes to remove the Retail Repurchase Worksheet.

    Summary Schedule, High-Level OTTI Methodology and Assumptions for AFS and HTM Securities by Portfolio Worksheet

    The FDIC proposes to remove the High-Level OTTI Methodology and Assumptions for AFS and HTM Securities by Portfolio Worksheet.

    Summary Schedule, Projected OTTI for AFS Securities and HTM Securities Worksheet

    The FDIC proposes to remove the Projected OTTI for AFS Securities and HTM Securities Worksheet.

    Summary Schedule, Actual AFS and HTM Fair Market Value Sources by Portfolio Worksheet

    The FDIC proposes to remove the Actual AFS and HTM Fair Market Value Sources by Portfolio Worksheet.

    Summary Schedule, Trading Worksheet

    The FDIC proposes to remove the Trading Worksheet.

    Summary Schedule, Counterparty Credit Risk Worksheet

    The FDIC proposes to remove the Counterparty Credit Risk Worksheet.

    Summary Schedule, PPNR Metrics Worksheet

    The FDIC proposes to remove the PPNR Metrics Worksheet.

    Regulatory Capital Instruments Schedule

    The FDIC proposes to remove the Regulatory Capital Instruments Schedule.

    Regulatory Capital Transitions Schedule

    The FDIC proposes to remove the Regulatory Capital Transitions Schedule.

    Operational Risk Schedule

    The FDIC proposes to remove the Operational Risk Schedule.

    Burden Estimates

    The FDIC estimates that the proposed revisions will not affect the burden estimates of this information collection. The vast majority of the deleted schedules are applicable only to institutions with total assets greater than $250 billion or with foreign exposure greater than $10 billion. The FDIC does not supervise any state nonmember banks or state savings associations that meet that definition. Accordingly, in the case of the FDIC, the majority of the deleted schedules were not being used and the burden will remain as follows:

    Number of Respondents:8 5.

    8 The total number of respondents increased by one due to one covered institution growing above $50 billion in total assets.

    Annual Burden per Respondent: 1,114.

    Total Annual Burden: 5,570.

    The FDIC recognizes that the Board requires bank holding companies to prepare the templates for the FR Y-14A. The FDIC believes that the systems covered institutions use to prepare the FR Y-14A reporting templates will also be used to prepare the reporting templates described in this notice.

    Request for Comment

    Comments continue to be invited on:

    (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the FDIC, including whether the information has practical utility;

    (b) The accuracy of the FDIC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;

    (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

    (e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

    Dated at Washington, DC, this 17th day of March 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05688 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of the agreements are available through the Commission's Web site (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or [email protected]

    Agreement No.: 012146-001.

    Title: HLAG/HSDG USWC-Mediterranean Vessel Sharing Agreement.

    Parties: Hapag-Lloyd AG and Hamburg Sud.

    Filing Party: Wayne Rohde, Cozen O'Connor; 1200 19th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.

    Synopsis: The amendment adds Guatemala to the geographic scope of the Agreement.

    Agreement No.: 012473.

    Title: CMA CGM/COSCO SHIPPING Slot Exchange Agreement, China-U.S. West Coast.

    Parties: CMA CGM S.A. and COSCO SHIPPING Lines Co., Ltd.

    Filing Party: Draughn Arbona; CMA CGM (America) LLC; 5701 Lake Wright Drive; Norfolk, VA 23502.

    Synopsis: This agreement authorizes CMA CGM S.A. and COSCO SHIPPING Lines Co. Ltd. to charter space to each other in the trade between China (including Hong Kong) and the West Coast of the United States.

    Agreement No.: 012474.

    Title: NYK/ELJSA Space Charter Agreement.

    Parties: Nippon Yusen Kaisha and the Evergreen Line Joint Service Agreement.

    Filing Party: Joshua Stein; Cozen O'Connor; 1200 19th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.

    Synopsis: The Agreement authorizes NYK to charter space to ELJSA in the trade between the U.S. and Japan and also authorizes the parties to enter into arrangements related to the chartering of such space.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: March 17, 2017. Rachel E. Dickon, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05711 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 14, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

    1. Minier Financial, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan with 401(k) provisions, Minier, Illinois; to acquire an additional 9.8 percent, for a total of 51 percent, of Minier Financial, Inc., Minier, Illinois, and thereby increase its indirect ownership of First Farmers State Bank, Minier, Illinois.

    2. WB Bancorp, Inc., New Berlin, Illinois; to merge with MC Bancorp, Inc. and thereby indirectly acquire Bank of Modesto, both of Modesto, Illinois.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. Madison County Financial, Inc.; to become a bank holding company by acquiring Madison County Bank, both in Madison County, Nebraska.

    C. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:

    1. A.N.B. Holding Company, Ltd., Terrell, Texas; to acquire additional shares, up to 38 percent, of The ANB Corporation, Terrell, Texas, and thereby indirectly acquire The American National Bank of Texas, Terrell, Texas, and Lakeside Bancshares, Inc., Rockwall, Texas, and thereby indirectly acquire Lakeside National Bank, Rockwall, Texas.

    D. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:

    1. Columbia Banking System, Inc., Tacoma, Washington; to acquire Pacific Continental Corporation and thereby indirectly acquire Pacific Continental Bank, both of Eugene, Oregon.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 16, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05567 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 17, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Clayton HC, Inc., Knoxville, Tennessee; to acquire approximately 19.6 percent of FB Financial Corporation, and thereby acquire shares of FirstBank, both of Nashville, Tennessee, in connection with the sale by Clayton HC of 100 percent of Clayton Bank and Trust, Knoxville, Tennessee, and American City Bank of Tullahoma, Tullahoma, Tennessee, to FirstBank.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 17, 2017. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05683 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.) (HOLA), Regulation LL (12 CFR part 238), and Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a savings and loan holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a savings association and nonbanking companies owned by the savings and loan holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 14, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Heritage NOLA Bancorp, Inc.; to become a savings and loan holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the outstanding shares of Heritage Bank of St. Tammany, both of Covington, Louisiana, in connection with the mutual-to-stock conversion of Heritage Bank of St. Tammany.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 16, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05566 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Docket 2016-0053; Sequence 41; OMB Control No. 9000-0138] Submission for OMB Review; Contract Financing AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension to a previously approved information collection requirement concerning contract financing. A notice was published in the Federal Register on October 12, 2016. No comments were received.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before April 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number 9000-0138. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0138, Contract Financing”. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0138, Contract Financing” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Sosa/IC 9000-0138.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0138, in all correspondence related to this collection. Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Camara Francis, Procurement Analyst, Acquisition Policy Division, at 202-501-1448 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Purpose

    The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) of 1994, Public Law 103-355, provided authorities that streamlined the acquisition process and minimize burdensome Government-unique requirements. Sections 2001 and 2051 of FASA substantially changed the statutory authorities for Government financing of contracts. Sections 2001(f) and 2051(e) provide specific authority for Government financing of purchases of commercial items; here, contract financing is permitted with certain limitations. Likewise, sections 2001(b) and 2051(b) substantially revised the authority for Government financing of purchases of non-commercial items, by permitting contract financing on the basis of certain classes of measures of performance.

    To implement these changes, DOD, NASA, and GSA amended the FAR by revising Subparts 32.0, 32.1, and 32.5; by adding new Subparts 32.2 and 32.10; and by adding new clauses to 52.232.

    The coverage enables the Government to provide financing to assist in the performance of contracts for commercial items and provide financing for non-commercial items based on contractor performance.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours per request for commercial financing and 2 hours per request for performance-based financing, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

    The annual reporting burden for commercial financing is estimated as follows:

    Respondents: 1,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 5.

    Total Responses: 5,000.

    Hours per Response: 2.

    Total Burden Hours: 10,000.

    The annual reporting burden for performance-based financing is estimated as follows:

    Respondents: 500.

    Responses per Respondent: 12.

    Total Responses: