Federal Register Vol. 82, No.82,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 82 (May 1, 2017)

Page Range20241-20431
FR Document

82_FR_82
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 20429 - Review of Designations Under the Antiquities ActPDF
82 FR 20427 - Enforcing Statutory Prohibitions on Federal Control of EducationPDF
82 FR 20377 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
82 FR 20338 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
82 FR 20285 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Possession and Trip Limit Implementation for the Common Pool FisheryPDF
82 FR 20322 - Federal Need Analysis Methodology for the 2018-19 Award Year-Federal Pell Grant, Federal Perkins Loan, Federal Work-Study, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan, Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant and TEACH Grant ProgramsPDF
82 FR 20320 - Applications for New Awards; Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Program (CSP)-Grants to State Entities; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 20353 - Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes; Tribal Management Grant ProgramPDF
82 FR 20394 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 20363 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Generic Clearance for Surveys of Customers and Partners of the Office of Extramural Research of the National Institutes of HealthPDF
82 FR 20310 - Trichloroethylene; Regulation of Vapor Degreasing Under TSCA Section 6(a); Methylene Chloride and N-Methylpyrrolidone; Regulation of Certain Uses Under TSCA Section 6(a); Reopening of Comment PeriodsPDF
82 FR 20411 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB ReviewPDF
82 FR 20338 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding CompaniesPDF
82 FR 20338 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
82 FR 20313 - Public Quarterly Meeting of the Board of DirectorsPDF
82 FR 20399 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 20403 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 20398 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 20402 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 20408 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 20404 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 20409 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 20401 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 20318 - Advisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate AssessmentPDF
82 FR 20410 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB ReviewPDF
82 FR 20411 - Release of Waybill DataPDF
82 FR 20367 - Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 20413 - Supplemental Type Certificates SA401SW, SE325SW, SE419SW (Original Product Type Certificate Numbers A1CE, 2A13, 1A15, 1A10, 2A3, 273, E5CE, 3E1, E246, and E267)PDF
82 FR 20412 - Public Notice for Waiver of Aeronautical Land-Use AssurancePDF
82 FR 20412 - Airport Privatization Pilot Program: Preliminary Application for St. Louis Lambert International Airport, St. Louis, MOPDF
82 FR 20287 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Greenland Turbot in the Aleutian Islands Subarea of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management AreaPDF
82 FR 20256 - Revocation of Class E Airspace and Establishment of Class E Airspace; Ruston, LAPDF
82 FR 20290 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace, Hawthorne, NVPDF
82 FR 20372 - Secretary's Indian Water Rights Office; Proposed New Information Collection: OMB Control Number 1094-ONEW, Indian Water Rights Settlements: Economic AnalysisPDF
82 FR 20397 - New Postal ProductsPDF
82 FR 20328 - Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings for the Golden Pass Products LLC Application To Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement CountriesPDF
82 FR 20332 - Proposed Agency Information Collection ExtensionPDF
82 FR 20333 - Agency Information Collection ExtensionPDF
82 FR 20422 - Joint Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development and Clinical Science Research and Development Services Scientific Merit Review Board Amended; Notice of MeetingsPDF
82 FR 20345 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 20321 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; 2016-17 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B: 16/17) Main StudyPDF
82 FR 20331 - Certification Notice-247; Notice of Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use ActPDF
82 FR 20332 - Application To Export Electric Energy; RBC Energy Services LPPDF
82 FR 20396 - Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2PDF
82 FR 20313 - National Wildlife Services Advisory Committee; Notice of Solicitation for MembershipPDF
82 FR 20318 - Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
82 FR 20314 - Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) ReviewsPDF
82 FR 20315 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative ReviewPDF
82 FR 20313 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Advance Notification of Sunset ReviewsPDF
82 FR 20413 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; DiabetesPDF
82 FR 20415 - Commercial Driver's License (CDL): Application for Exemption; U.S. Custom Harvesters, Inc. (USCHI)PDF
82 FR 20311 - State Inspection Programs for Passenger-Carrier Vehicles; WithdrawalPDF
82 FR 20327 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
82 FR 20371 - Federal Housing Administration (FHA): Indefinite Deferral of Implementation of the Small Building Risk Sharing InitiativePDF
82 FR 20284 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reinstatement of Removal of Federal Protections for Gray Wolves in WyomingPDF
82 FR 20375 - Earned Import Allowance Program: Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Program for Certain Apparel From the Dominican Republic, Eighth Annual ReviewPDF
82 FR 20377 - Certain LTE Wireless Communication Devices and Components Thereof Institution of InvestigationPDF
82 FR 20411 - Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy; Notice of Charter RenewalPDF
82 FR 20420 - 2017 Data Collection Under the Terrorism Risk Insurance ProgramPDF
82 FR 20335 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
82 FR 20365 - Current List of HHS-Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities Which Meet Minimum Standards To Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal AgenciesPDF
82 FR 20337 - Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
82 FR 20336 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
82 FR 20338 - Appraisal Subcommittee Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 20288 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
82 FR 20343 - Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
82 FR 20341 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
82 FR 20362 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 20364 - Establishment of the Interdepartmental Serious Mental Illness Coordinating Committee (ISMICC)PDF
82 FR 20405 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Delay the Implementation of Simultaneous Complex Order AuctionsPDF
82 FR 20399 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Bylaws and Certificate of IncorporationPDF
82 FR 20409 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Bylaws and Certificate of IncorporationPDF
82 FR 20404 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Extension of Review Period of Advance Notice To Implement the Capped Contingency Liquidity Facility in the Government Securities Division RulebookPDF
82 FR 20396 - Proposed Submission of Information Collection for OMB Review; Comment Request; Annual Reporting (Form 5500 Series)PDF
82 FR 20384 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Integrated Photonics Institute for Manufacturing Innovation Operating Under the Name of the American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated PhotonicsPDF
82 FR 20383 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Cooperative Research Group on Hedge IVPDF
82 FR 20247 - Special Conditions: Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Model GVII-G500 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery InstallationsPDF
82 FR 20241 - Special Conditions: Gulfstream Aerospace LP, Model Gulfstream G150 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery InstallationsPDF
82 FR 20244 - Special Conditions: Bombardier Aerospace Inc., Model DHC-8-400 Series Airplanes; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery InstallationsPDF
82 FR 20253 - Special Conditions: Bombardier Aerospace Inc., Model BD-700-1A11 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery InstallationsPDF
82 FR 20250 - Special Conditions: Bombardier Aerospace Inc., Model BD-500-1A10 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery InstallationsPDF
82 FR 20384 - Proposed Exemption From Certain Prohibited Transaction RestrictionsPDF
82 FR 20388 - OSHA Training Institute (OTI) Education Center; Notice of Competition and Request for ApplicationsPDF
82 FR 20418 - Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Request for Public InputPDF
82 FR 20417 - Petition for Waiver of CompliancePDF
82 FR 20418 - Petition for Waiver of CompliancePDF
82 FR 20416 - Petition for Waiver of CompliancePDF
82 FR 20257 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hutchinson River, New York, NYPDF
82 FR 20377 - Certain Dental Ceramics, Products Therefore, and Methods of Making the Same; Notice of Correction Concerning Institution of Investigation; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 20371 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Entry of Articles for ExhibitionPDF
82 FR 20369 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Temporary Scientific or Educational PurposesPDF
82 FR 20370 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity Through Partnership Encouragement Act of 2006PDF
82 FR 20368 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Transportation Entry and Manifest of Goods Subject to CBP Inspection and PermitPDF
82 FR 20340 - Submission for OMB Review; Prospective Subcontractor Requests for BondsPDF
82 FR 20339 - Information Collection; Environmentally Sound ProductsPDF
82 FR 20340 - Information Collection; Request for Authorization of Additional Classification and Rate, Standard Form 1444PDF
82 FR 20346 - Notice To Propose the Re-Designation of the Service Delivery Area for the Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation, Formerly Known as Smith River RancheriaPDF
82 FR 20295 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District and Imperial County Air Pollution Control DistrictPDF
82 FR 20294 - Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Repeal of NOXPDF
82 FR 20310 - Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; State of Delaware, District of Columbia, and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, City of Philadelphia; Control of Emissions From Existing Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator UnitsPDF
82 FR 20276 - Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; State of Delaware, District of Columbia, and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, City of Philadelphia; Control of Emissions From Existing Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator UnitsPDF
82 FR 20292 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Requirements for Continuous Emission MonitoringPDF
82 FR 20274 - Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Repeal of NOXPDF
82 FR 20293 - Air Plan Approval; ME; Emission Statement ReportingPDF
82 FR 20257 - Air Plan Approval; ME; Emission Statement ReportingPDF
82 FR 20262 - Air Plan Approval; CT; Approval of Single Source OrdersPDF
82 FR 20260 - Air Plan Approval; TN: Non-Interference Demonstration for Federal Low-Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement in Middle TennesseePDF
82 FR 20267 - Approval of Arizona Air Plan Revisions, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and Pinal County Air Quality Control DistrictPDF
82 FR 20294 - Air Plan Approval; CT; Approval of Single Source OrdersPDF
82 FR 20297 - Air Plan Approval and Designation of Areas; KY; Redesignation of the Kentucky Portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to AttainmentPDF
82 FR 20270 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; Revision of Regulations for Sulfur Content of Fuel OilPDF
82 FR 20279 - Tioxazafen; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
82 FR 20373 - High Pressure Steel Cylinders from China; Institution of Five-Year ReviewsPDF
82 FR 20381 - Foundry Coke From China; Institution of a Five-Year ReviewPDF
82 FR 20378 - Tin- and Chromium-Coated Steel Sheet From Japan; Institution of a Five-Year ReviewPDF
82 FR 20319 - Availability of Seats for National Marine Sanctuary Advisory CouncilsPDF

Issue

82 82 Monday, May 1, 2017 Contents African African Development Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Board of Directors, 20313 2017-08768 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Requests for Nominations: National Wildlife Services Advisory Committee, 20313 2017-08733 Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Changes under National Cooperative Research and Production Act: Cooperative Research Group on Hedge IV, 20383 2017-08693 Integrated Photonics Institute for Manufacturing Innovation Operating under the Name of the American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics, 20384 2017-08694 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20341-20344 2017-08705 2017-08706 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20345-20346 2017-08740 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Hutchinson River, New York, NY, 20257 2017-08680 NOTICES Meetings: Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee, 20367-20368 2017-08755 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Environmentally Sound Products, 20339-20340 2017-08671 Prospective Subcontractor Requests for Bonds, 20340 2017-08672 Request for Authorization of Additional Classification and Rate, 20340-20341 2017-08670 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 2016-17 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study; Main Study, 20321-20322 2017-08739 Applications for New Awards: Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Program--Grants to State Entities; Correction, 20320-20321 2017-08776 Federal Need Analysis Methodology: 2018-19 Award Year--Federal Pell Grant, Federal Perkins Loan, etc., 20322-20327 2017-08779 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 20327-20328 2017-08722 Employee Benefits Employee Benefits Security Administration NOTICES Proposed Exemptions: Certain Prohibited Transaction Restrictions, 20384-20388 2017-08687 Energy Department Energy Department See

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office

See

Energy Information Administration

NOTICES Applications to Export Electric Energy: RBC Energy Services LP, 20332 2017-08735 Filings: Self-Certification of Coal Capability under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act, 20331-20332 2017-08737 Records of Decisions: Floodplain Statement of Findings for the Golden Pass Products LLC Application to Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement Countries, 20328-20331 2017-08744
Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20332-20333 2017-08743 Energy Information Energy Information Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20333-20335 2017-08742 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Arizona; Department of Environmental Quality and Pinal County Air Quality Control District, 20267-20270 2017-08645 Connecticut; Approval of Single Source Orders, 20262-20267 2017-08647 Delaware, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania; City of Philadelphia; Control of Emissions from Existing Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator Units, 20276-20278 2017-08657 District of Columbia; Revision of Regulations for Sulfur Content of Fuel Oil, 20270-20273 2017-08642 Maine; Emission Statement Reporting, 20257-20260 2017-08648 Rhode Island; Repeal of NOX Budget Trading Program, 20274-20276 2017-08655 Tennessee; Non-interference Demonstration for Federal Low-Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement in Middle Tennessee, 20260-20262 2017-08646 Pesticide Tolerances: Tioxazafen, 20279-20284 2017-08538 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California, Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District and Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, 20295-20296 2017-08666 Connecticut; Approval of Single Source Orders, 20294-20295 2017-08644 Delaware, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania; City of Philadelphia; Control of Emissions from Existing Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator Units, 20310 2017-08658 Kentucky; Redesignation of the Kentucky Portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment, 20297-20310 2017-08643 Maine; Emission Statement Reporting, 20293 2017-08654 Maryland; Requirements for Continuous Emission Monitoring, 20292-20293 2017-08656 Rhode Island; Repeal of NOX Budget Trading Program, 20294 2017-08660 Regulation of Certain Uses under Toxic Substances Control Act: Trichloroethylene; Vapor Degreasing; Methylene Chloride and N-Methylpyrrolidone, 20310-20311 2017-08772 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Revocation and Establishment of Class E Airspace: Ruston, LA, 20256-20257 2017-08749 Special Conditions: Bombardier Aerospace Inc., Model BD-500-1A10 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations, 20250-20253 2017-08688 Bombardier Aerospace Inc., Model BD-700-1A11 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations, 20253-20256 2017-08689 Bombardier Aerospace Inc., Model DHC-8-400 Series Airplanes; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations, 20244-20247 2017-08690 Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Model GVII-G500 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations, 20247-20250 2017-08692 Gulfstream Aerospace LP, Model Gulfstream G150 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations, 20241-20244 2017-08691 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: The Boeing Company Airplanes, 20288-20290 2017-08708 Establishment of Class E Airspace: Hawthorne, NV, 20290-20292 2017-08748 NOTICES Airport Privatization Pilot Program: Preliminary Application for St. Louis Lambert International Airport, St. Louis, MO, 20412-20413 2017-08751 Supplemental Type Certificates, 20413 2017-08753 Waivers of Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance: Flying Cloud Airport, Minneapolis, MN, 20412 2017-08752 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20335-20337 2017-08710 2017-08711 2017-08713 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 20338 2017-08811 Federal Financial Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council NOTICES Meetings: Appraisal Subcommittee, 20338 2017-08709 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES State Inspection Programs for Passenger-Carrier Vehicles; Withdrawal, 20311-20312 2017-08724 NOTICES Commercial Driver's Licenses; Exemption Applications: U.S. Custom Harvesters, Inc., 20415-20416 2017-08725 Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Diabetes, 20413-20415 2017-08726 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Petitions for Waivers of Compliance: Ellis and Eastern Co., 20418 2017-08682 Hummelstown Railroad Co., 20417-20418 2017-08683 Sacramento Regional Transit District, 20416-20417 2017-08681 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 20338-20339 2017-08769 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies, 20338 2017-08770 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Endangered and Threatened Species: Reinstatement of Removal of Federal Protections for Gray Wolves in Wyoming, 20284-20285 2017-08720 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Environmentally Sound Products, 20339-20340 2017-08671 Prospective Subcontractor Requests for Bonds, 20340 2017-08672 Request for Authorization of Additional Classification and Rate, 20340-20341 2017-08670 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Indian Health Service

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Federal Housing Administration: Indefinite Deferral of Implementation of the Small Building Risk Sharing Initiative, 20371-20372 2017-08721 Indian Health Indian Health Service NOTICES Applications: Tribal Management Grant Program, 20353-20362 2017-08775 Proposed Re-designations of Service Delivery Areas: Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation (Smith River Rancheria), 20346-20353 2017-08669 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Indian Water Rights Settlements: Economic Analysis, 20372-20373 2017-08747
International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Advance Notification of Sunset Reviews, 20313-20314 2017-08729 Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China, 20318 2017-08732 Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews, 20314-20315 2017-08731 Opportunity to Request Administrative Reviews, 20315-20318 2017-08730 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Dental Ceramics, Products Therefore, and Methods of Making the Same; Correction, 20377 2017-08679 Certain LTE Wireless Communication Devices and Components Thereof, 20377-20378 2017-08718 Earned Import Allowance Program: Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Program for Certain Apparel from the Dominican Republic, Eighth Annual Review, 20375-20377 2017-08719 Foundry Coke from China; Institution of a Five-Year Review, 20381-20383 2017-08508 High Pressure Steel Cylinders from China; Institution of Five-Year Reviews, 20373-20375 2017-08509 Tin- and Chromium-Coated Steel Sheet from Japan; Institution of a Five-Year Review, 20378-20381 2017-08507 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 20377 2017-08886 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

Labor Department Labor Department See

Employee Benefits Security Administration

See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Requests for Comments: Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, 20418-20420 2017-08685 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Environmentally Sound Products, 20339-20340 2017-08671 Prospective Subcontractor Requests for Bonds, 20340 2017-08672 Request for Authorization of Additional Classification and Rate, 20340-20341 2017-08670 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Records Schedules; Availability, 20394-20396 2017-08774 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Generic Clearance for Surveys of Customers and Partners, 20363-20364 2017-08773 Meetings: National Cancer Institute, 20362-20363 2017-08704 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Greenland Turbot in the Aleutian Islands Subarea of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, 20287 2017-08750 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Possession and Trip Limit Implementation for the Common Pool Fishery, 20285-20287 2017-08809 NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate Assessment, 20318-20319 2017-08758 Seats for National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Councils; Availability, 20319-20320 2017-06711 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES License Applications; Amendments: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Withdrawal, 20396 2017-08734 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Requests for Applications: OSHA Training Institute Education Center, 20388-20394 2017-08686 Pension Benefit Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Annual Reporting, 20396-20397 2017-08695 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 20397-20398 2017-08745 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents EXECUTIVE ORDERS Antiquities Act of 1906; Review of Monument Designations (EO 13792), 20429-20431 2017-08908 Education, Statutory Prohibitions on Federal Control; Enforcement Efforts (EO 13791), 20425-20428 2017-08905 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20398-20399, 20401-20404, 20408-20409 2017-08760 2017-08761 2017-08762 2017-08763 2017-08764 2017-08765 2017-08766 2017-08767 2017-08759 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: C2 Options Exchange, Inc., 20409-20410 2017-08699 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 20399-20401 2017-08700 Fixed Income Clearing Corp., 20404-20405 2017-08698 Nasdaq ISE, LLC, 20405-20408 2017-08702 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20410-20411 2017-08757 2017-08771 State Department State Department NOTICES Charter Renewals: Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy, 20411 2017-08717 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities: List of Facilities that Meet Minimum Standards to Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies, 20365-20367 2017-08712 Committee Establishment: Interdepartmental Serious Mental Illness Coordinating Committee, 20364-20365 2017-08703 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Release of Waybill Data, 20411-20412 2017-08756 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

Maritime Administration

Treasury Treasury Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 2017 Data Collection under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, 20420-20422 2017-08716 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Entry of Articles for Exhibition, 20371 2017-08678 Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act, 20370 2017-08675 Temporary Scientific or Educational Purposes, 20369-20370 2017-08677 Transportation Entry and Manifest of Goods Subject to CBP Inspection and Permit, 20368-20369 2017-08674 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Joint Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development and Clinical Science Research and Development Services Scientific Merit Review Board, 20422-20423 2017-08741 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Presidential Documents, 20425-20431 2017-08908 2017-08905 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 82 Monday, May 1, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0363; Special Conditions No. 25-661-SC] Special Conditions: Gulfstream Aerospace LP, Model Gulfstream G150 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comment.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the Gulfstream Aerospace LP (GALP) Model Gulfstream G150 airplane, as modified by Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream). Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Gulfstream Aerospace LP on May 1, 2017. We must receive your comments by June 15, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0363 using any of the following methods:

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

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

Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nazih Khaouly, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2432; facsimile 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Future Requests for Installation of Non-Rechargeable Lithium Batteries

The FAA anticipates that non-rechargeable lithium batteries will be installed in most makes and models of transport category airplanes. We intend to require special conditions for certification projects involving non-rechargeable lithium battery installations to address certain safety issues until we can revise the airworthiness requirements. Applying special conditions to these installations across the range of transport category airplanes will ensure regulatory consistency.

Typically, the FAA issues special conditions after receiving an application for type certificate approval of a novel or unusual design feature. However, the FAA has found that the presence of non-rechargeable lithium batteries in certification projects is not always immediately identifiable, since the battery itself may not be the focus of the project. Meanwhile, the inclusion of these batteries has become virtually ubiquitous on in-production transport category airplanes, which shows that there will be a need for these special conditions. Also, delaying the issuance of special conditions until after each design application is received could lead to costly certification delays. Therefore the FAA finds it necessary to issue special conditions applicable to these battery installations on particular makes and models of aircraft.

On April 22, 2016, the FAA published special conditions no. 25-612-SC in the Federal Register (81 FR 23573) applicable to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation for the GVI airplane. Those were the first special conditions the FAA issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. We explained in that document our decision to make those special conditions effective one year after publication in the Federal Register, which is April 22, 2017. In those special conditions, the FAA stated its intention to apply non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions to design changes on other makes and models applied for after this same date.

Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 requires the FAA to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions when modifying airworthiness regulations that affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. In consideration of this requirement and the overall impact on safety, the FAA does not intend to require non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions for design changes that only replace a 121.5 megahertz (MHz) emergency locator transmitter (ELT) with a 406 MHz ELT that meets Technical Standard Order C126b, or later revision, on transport airplanes operating only in Alaska. This will support our efforts of encouraging operators in Alaska to upgrade to a 406 MHz ELT. These ELTs provide significantly improved accuracy for lifesaving services to locate an accident site in Alaskan terrain. The FAA considers that the safety benefits from upgrading to a 406 MHz ELT for Alaskan operations will outweigh the battery fire risk.

Comments Invited

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

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

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

Background

Gulfstream periodically applies to amend its supplemental type certificate that installs an executive passenger cabin interior, which includes non-rechargeable lithium batteries, in the GALP Model Gulfstream G150 airplane. The GALP Model Gulfstream G150, approved under type certificate no. A16NM, is a twin engine, transport category airplane with a passenger seating capacity of 9 and a maximum takeoff weight of 26,100 pounds.

The FAA is issuing these special conditions for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the GALP Model Gulfstream G150 airplane, as modified by Gulfstream. The current battery requirements in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 are inadequate for addressing an airplane with non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Gulfstream must show that the change and areas affected by the change on the GALP Model Gulfstream G150 airplane meet the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. Earlier amended regulations may not precede those listed in type certificate no. A16NM or, for amended supplemental type certificate projects, those listed in the supplemental type certificate. In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections that are not relevant to these special conditions.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the GALP Model Gulfstream G150 airplane, as modified by Gulfstream, because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

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

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the GALP Model Gulfstream G150 airplane must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

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

Novel or Unusual Design Feature

The novel or unusual design feature is the installation of non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

For the purpose of these special conditions, we refer to a battery and battery system as a battery. A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging.

Discussion

The FAA derived the current regulations governing installation of batteries in transport category airplanes from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 4b.625(d) as part of the recodification of CAR 4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. This recodification basically reworded the CAR 4b battery requirements, which are currently in § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4). Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are novel and unusual with respect to the state of technology considered when these requirements were codified. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery packs introduces failure modes that require unique design considerations, such as provisions for thermal management.

Recent events involving rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA to initiate a broad evaluation of these energy storage technologies. In January 2013, two independent events involving rechargeable lithium-ion batteries revealed unanticipated failure modes. A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) letter to the FAA, dated May 22, 2014, which is available at http://www.ntsb.gov, filename A-14-032-036.pdf, describes these events.

On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium battery in an emergency locator transmitter installation demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. The United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch Bulletin S5/2013 describes this event.

Some known uses of rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries on airplanes include:

• Flight deck and avionics systems such as displays, global positioning systems, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, underwater locator beacons, navigation computers, integrated avionics computers, satellite network and communication systems, communication management units, and remote-monitor electronic line-replaceable units;

• Cabin safety, entertainment, and communications equipment, including emergency locator transmitters, life rafts, escape slides, seatbelt air bags, cabin management systems, Ethernet switches, routers and media servers, wireless systems, internet and in-flight entertainment systems, satellite televisions, remotes, and handsets;

• Systems in cargo areas including door controls, sensors, video surveillance equipment, and security systems.

Some known potential hazards and failure modes associated with non-rechargeable lithium batteries are:

Internal failures: In general, these batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal runaway) than their nickel-cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion.

Fast or imbalanced discharging: Fast discharging or an imbalanced discharge of one cell of a multi-cell battery may create an overheating condition that results in an uncontrollable venting condition, which in turn leads to a thermal event or an explosion.

Flammability: Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries, lithium batteries use higher energy and current in an electrochemical system that can be configured to maximize energy storage of lithium. They also use liquid electrolytes that can be extremely flammable. The electrolyte, as well as the electrodes, can serve as a source of fuel for an external fire if the battery casing is breached.

Special condition no. 1 of these special conditions requires that each individual cell within a non-rechargeable lithium battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Special condition no. 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Special condition no. 2 requires the battery be designed to prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.

Special conditions nos. 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the non-rechargeable lithium battery and its cells are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrollable failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control of the battery designer. Therefore, other special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.

Special conditions 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory.

Special condition no. 4 makes it clear that the flammable fluid fire protection requirements of § 25.863 apply to non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane systems. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries contain an electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.

Special condition no. 5 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

While special condition no. 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, special condition no. 6 addresses heat. Special condition no. 6 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery installation can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The means of meeting special conditions nos. 5 and 6 may be the same, but the requirements are independent and address different hazards.

These special conditions apply to all non-rechargeable lithium battery installations in lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments. Those regulations remain in effect for other battery installations.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Applicability

These special conditions are applicable to the GALP Model Gulfstream G150 airplane, as modified by Gulfstream. Should Gulfstream apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on type certificate no. A16NM to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

These special conditions are only applicable to design changes applied for after the effective date.

These special conditions are not applicable to changes to previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations where the only change is either cosmetic or to relocate the installation to improve the safety of the airplane and occupants. Previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations, as used in this paragraph, are those installations approved for certification projects applied for on or before the effective date of these special conditions. A cosmetic change is a change in appearance only, and does not change any function or safety characteristic of the battery installation. These special conditions are also not applicable to unchanged, previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations that are affected by a change in a manner that improves the safety of its installation. The FAA determined that these exclusions are in the public interest because the need to meet all of the special conditions might otherwise deter these design changes that improve safety.

Conclusion

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

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and record keeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

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

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the GALP Model Gulfstream G150 airplane modified by Gulfstream.

Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations

In lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments, each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must:

1. Be designed to maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and explosion.

2. Be designed to prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure.

3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or as a result of its failure, that may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.

4. Meet the requirements of § 25.863.

5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.

7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flightcrew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.

8. Have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is required for safe operation of the airplane.

Note:

A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging. For the purpose of these special conditions, a “battery” and “battery system” are referred to as a battery.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 24, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-08691 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0362; Special Conditions No. 25-660-SC] Special Conditions: Bombardier Aerospace Inc., Model DHC-8-400 Series Airplanes; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comment.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the Bombardier Aerospace Inc. (Bombardier) Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Bombardier on May 1, 2017. We must receive your comments by June 15, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0362 using any of the following methods:

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

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

Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nazih Khaouly, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2432; facsimile 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Future Requests for Installation of Non-Rechargeable Lithium Batteries

The FAA anticipates that non-rechargeable lithium batteries will be installed in most makes and models of transport category airplanes. We intend to require special conditions for certification projects involving non-rechargeable lithium battery installations to address certain safety issues until we can revise the airworthiness requirements. Applying special conditions to these installations across the range of transport category airplanes will ensure regulatory consistency.

Typically, the FAA issues special conditions after receiving an application for type certificate approval of a novel or unusual design feature. However, the FAA has found that the presence of non-rechargeable lithium batteries in certification projects is not always immediately identifiable, since the battery itself may not be the focus of the project. Meanwhile, the inclusion of these batteries has become virtually ubiquitous on in-production transport category airplanes, which shows that there will be a need for these special conditions. Also, delaying the issuance of special conditions until after each design application is received could lead to costly certification delays. Therefore the FAA finds it necessary to issue special conditions applicable to these battery installations on particular makes and models of aircraft.

On April 22, 2016, the FAA published special conditions no. 25-612-SC in the Federal Register (81 FR 23573) applicable to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation for the GVI airplane. Those were the first special conditions the FAA issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. We explained in that document our decision to make those special conditions effective one year after publication in the Federal Register, which is April 22, 2017. In those special conditions, the FAA stated its intention to apply non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions to design changes on other makes and models applied for after this same date.

Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 requires the FAA to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions when modifying airworthiness regulations that affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. In consideration of this requirement and the overall impact on safety, the FAA does not intend to require non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions for design changes that only replace a 121.5 megahertz (MHz) emergency locator transmitter (ELT) with a 406 MHz ELT that meets Technical Standard Order C126b, or later revision, on transport airplanes operating only in Alaska. This will support our efforts of encouraging operators in Alaska to upgrade to a 406 MHz ELT. These ELTs provide significantly improved accuracy for lifesaving services to locate an accident site in Alaskan terrain. The FAA considers that the safety benefits from upgrading to a 406 MHz ELT for Alaskan operations will outweigh the battery fire risk.

Comments Invited

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

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

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

Background

Bombardier holds type certificate no. A13NM, which provides the certification basis for the DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The DHC-8-400 series airplanes are twin engine, transport category airplanes with a passenger seating capacity of 86 and a maximum takeoff weight of 61,700 to 65,200 pounds, depending on the specific design.

The FAA is issuing these special conditions for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The current battery requirements in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 are inadequate for addressing an airplane with non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Bombardier must show that the DHC-8-400 series airplanes meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. A13NM or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections that are not relevant to these special conditions.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the DHC-8-400 series airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

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

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the DHC-8-400 series airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

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

Novel or Unusual Design Feature

The novel or unusual design feature is the installation of non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

For the purpose of these special conditions, we refer to a battery and battery system as a battery. A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging.

Discussion

The FAA derived the current regulations governing installation of batteries in transport category airplanes from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 4b.625(d) as part of the recodification of CAR 4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. This recodification basically reworded the CAR 4b battery requirements, which are currently in § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4). Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are novel and unusual with respect to the state of technology considered when these requirements were codified. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery packs introduces failure modes that require unique design considerations, such as provisions for thermal management.

Recent events involving rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA to initiate a broad evaluation of these energy storage technologies. In January 2013, two independent events involving rechargeable lithium-ion batteries revealed unanticipated failure modes. A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) letter to the FAA, dated May 22, 2014, which is available at http://www.ntsb.gov, filename A-14-032-036.pdf, describes these events.

On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium battery in an emergency locator transmitter installation demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. The United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch Bulletin S5/2013 describes this event.

Some known uses of rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries on airplanes include:

• Flight deck and avionics systems such as displays, global positioning systems, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, underwater locator beacons, navigation computers, integrated avionics computers, satellite network and communication systems, communication management units, and remote-monitor electronic line-replaceable units;

• Cabin safety, entertainment, and communications equipment, including emergency locator transmitters, life rafts, escape slides, seatbelt air bags, cabin management systems, Ethernet switches, routers and media servers, wireless systems, internet and in-flight entertainment systems, satellite televisions, remotes, and handsets;

• Systems in cargo areas including door controls, sensors, video surveillance equipment, and security systems.

Some known potential hazards and failure modes associated with non-rechargeable lithium batteries are:

Internal failures: In general, these batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal runaway) than their nickel-cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion.

Fast or imbalanced discharging: Fast discharging or an imbalanced discharge of one cell of a multi-cell battery may create an overheating condition that results in an uncontrollable venting condition, which in turn leads to a thermal event or an explosion.

Flammability: Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries, lithium batteries use higher energy and current in an electrochemical system that can be configured to maximize energy storage of lithium. They also use liquid electrolytes that can be extremely flammable. The electrolyte, as well as the electrodes, can serve as a source of fuel for an external fire if the battery casing is breached.

Special condition no. 1 of these special conditions requires that each individual cell within a non-rechargeable lithium battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Special condition no. 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Special condition no. 2 requires the battery be designed to prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.

Special conditions nos. 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the non-rechargeable lithium battery and its cells are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrollable failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control of the battery designer. Therefore, other special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.

Special conditions 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory.

Special condition no. 4 makes it clear that the flammable fluid fire protection requirements of § 25.863 apply to non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane systems. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries contain an electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.

Special condition no. 5 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

While special condition no. 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, special condition no. 6 addresses heat. Special condition no. 6 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery installation can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The means of meeting special conditions nos. 5 and 6 may be the same, but the requirements are independent and address different hazards.

These special conditions apply to all non-rechargeable lithium battery installations in lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments. Those regulations remain in effect for other battery installations.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Applicability

These special conditions are applicable to the DHC-8-400 series airplanes. Should Bombardier apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

These special conditions are only applicable to design changes applied for after the effective date.

These special conditions are not applicable to changes to previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations where the only change is either cosmetic or to relocate the installation to improve the safety of the airplane and occupants. Previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations, as used in this paragraph, are those installations approved for certification projects applied for on or before the effective date of these special conditions. A cosmetic change is a change in appearance only, and does not change any function or safety characteristic of the battery installation. These special conditions are also not applicable to unchanged, previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations that are affected by a change in a manner that improves the safety of its installation. The FAA determined that these exclusions are in the public interest because the need to meet all of the special conditions might otherwise deter these design changes that improve safety.

Conclusion

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

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and record keeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

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

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes.

Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations

In lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments, each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must:

1. Be designed to maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and explosion.

2. Be designed to prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure.

3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or as a result of its failure, that may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.

4. Meet the requirements of § 25.863.

5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.

7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flightcrew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.

8. Have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is required for safe operation of the airplane.

Note:

A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging. For the purpose of these special conditions, a “battery” and “battery system” are referred to as a battery.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 24, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-08690 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0366; Special Conditions No. 25-662-SC] Special Conditions: Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Model GVII-G500 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comment.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream) Model GVII-G500 airplane. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation on May 1, 2017. We must receive your comments by June 15, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0366 using any of the following methods:

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

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

Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nazih Khaouly, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2432; facsimile 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Future Requests for Installation of Non-Rechargeable Lithium Batteries

The FAA anticipates that non-rechargeable lithium batteries will be installed in most makes and models of transport category airplanes. We intend to require special conditions for certification projects involving non-rechargeable lithium battery installations to address certain safety issues until we can revise the airworthiness requirements. Applying special conditions to these installations across the range of transport category airplanes will ensure regulatory consistency.

Typically, the FAA issues special conditions after receiving an application for type certificate approval of a novel or unusual design feature. However, the FAA has found that the presence of non-rechargeable lithium batteries in certification projects is not always immediately identifiable, since the battery itself may not be the focus of the project. Meanwhile, the inclusion of these batteries has become virtually ubiquitous on in-production transport category airplanes, which shows that there will be a need for these special conditions. Also, delaying the issuance of special conditions until after each design application is received could lead to costly certification delays. Therefore the FAA finds it necessary to issue special conditions applicable to these battery installations on particular makes and models of aircraft.

On April 22, 2016, the FAA published special conditions no. 25-612-SC in the Federal Register (81 FR 23573) applicable to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation for the GVI airplane. Those were the first special conditions the FAA issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. We explained in that document our decision to make those special conditions effective one year after publication in the Federal Register, which is April 22, 2017. In those special conditions, the FAA stated its intention to apply non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions to design changes on other makes and models applied for after this same date.

Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 requires the FAA to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions when modifying airworthiness regulations that affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. In consideration of this requirement and the overall impact on safety, the FAA does not intend to require non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions for design changes that only replace a 121.5 megahertz (MHz) emergency locator transmitter (ELT) with a 406 MHz ELT that meets Technical Standard Order C126b, or later revision, on transport airplanes operating only in Alaska. This will support our efforts of encouraging operators in Alaska to upgrade to a 406 MHz ELT. These ELTs provide significantly improved accuracy for lifesaving services to locate an accident site in Alaskan terrain. The FAA considers that the safety benefits from upgrading to a 406 MHz ELT for Alaskan operations will outweigh the battery fire risk.

Comments Invited

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

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

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

Background

On March 29, 2012, Gulfstream applied for a type certificate for a new Model GVII-G500 airplane. The GVII-G500 is a twin engine, transport category airplane with a passenger seating capacity of 19 and a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 76,850 pounds.

The FAA is issuing these special conditions for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the GVII-G500 airplane. The current battery requirements in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 are inadequate for addressing an airplane with non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Gulfstream must show that the GVII-G500 airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-137.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the GVII-G500 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

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

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model GVII-G500 airplane must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

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

Novel or Unusual Design Feature

The novel or unusual design feature is the installation of non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

For the purpose of these special conditions, we refer to a battery and battery system as a battery. A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging.

Discussion

The FAA derived the current regulations governing installation of batteries in transport category airplanes from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 4b.625(d) as part of the recodification of CAR 4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. This recodification basically reworded the CAR 4b battery requirements, which are currently in § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4). Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are novel and unusual with respect to the state of technology considered when these requirements were codified. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery packs introduces failure modes that require unique design considerations, such as provisions for thermal management.

Recent events involving rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA to initiate a broad evaluation of these energy storage technologies. In January 2013, two independent events involving rechargeable lithium-ion batteries revealed unanticipated failure modes. A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) letter to the FAA, dated May 22, 2014, which is available at http://www.ntsb.gov, filename A-14-032-036.pdf, describes these events.

On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium battery in an emergency locator transmitter installation demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. The United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch Bulletin S5/2013 describes this event.

Some known uses of rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries on airplanes include:

• Flight deck and avionics systems such as displays, global positioning systems, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, underwater locator beacons, navigation computers, integrated avionics computers, satellite network and communication systems, communication management units, and remote-monitor electronic line-replaceable units;

• Cabin safety, entertainment, and communications equipment, including emergency locator transmitters, life rafts, escape slides, seatbelt air bags, cabin management systems, Ethernet switches, routers and media servers, wireless systems, internet and in-flight entertainment systems, satellite televisions, remotes, and handsets;

• Systems in cargo areas including door controls, sensors, video surveillance equipment, and security systems.

Some known potential hazards and failure modes associated with non-rechargeable lithium batteries are:

Internal failures: In general, these batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal runaway) than their nickel-cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion.

Fast or imbalanced discharging: Fast discharging or an imbalanced discharge of one cell of a multi-cell battery may create an overheating condition that results in an uncontrollable venting condition, which in turn leads to a thermal event or an explosion.

Flammability: Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries, lithium batteries use higher energy and current in an electrochemical system that can be configured to maximize energy storage of lithium. They also use liquid electrolytes that can be extremely flammable. The electrolyte, as well as the electrodes, can serve as a source of fuel for an external fire if the battery casing is breached.

Special condition no. 1 of these special conditions requires that each individual cell within a non-rechargeable lithium battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Special condition no. 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Special condition no. 2 requires the battery be designed to prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.

Special conditions nos. 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the non-rechargeable lithium battery and its cells are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrollable failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control of the battery designer. Therefore, other special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.

Special conditions 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory.

Special condition no. 4 makes it clear that the flammable fluid fire protection requirements of § 25.863 apply to non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane systems. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries contain an electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.

Special condition no. 5 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

While special condition no. 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, special condition no. 6 addresses heat. Special condition no. 6 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery installation can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The means of meeting special conditions nos. 5 and 6 may be the same, but the requirements are independent and address different hazards.

These special conditions apply to all non-rechargeable lithium battery installations in lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123. Sections 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 remain in effect for other battery installations.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Applicability

These special conditions are applicable to the GVII-G500 airplane. Should Gulfstream apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

These special conditions are only applicable to design changes applied for after the effective date.

These special conditions are not applicable to changes to previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations where the only change is either cosmetic or to relocate the installation to improve the safety of the airplane and occupants. Previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations, as used in this paragraph, are those installations approved for certification projects applied for on or before the effective date of these special conditions. A cosmetic change is a change in appearance only, and does not change any function or safety characteristic of the battery installation. These special conditions are also not applicable to unchanged, previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations that are affected by a change in a manner that improves the safety of its installation. The FAA determined that these exclusions are in the public interest because the need to meet all of the special conditions might otherwise deter these design changes that improve safety.

Conclusion

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

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and record keeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

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

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplane.

Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations

In lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123, each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must:

1. Be designed to maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and explosion.

2. Be designed to prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure.

3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or as a result of its failure, that may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.

4. Meet the requirements of § 25.863.

5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.

7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flightcrew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.

8. Have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is required for safe operation of the airplane.

Note:

A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging. For the purpose of these special conditions, a “battery” and “battery system” are referred to as a battery.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 24, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-08692 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0359; Special Conditions No. 25-657-SC] Special Conditions: Bombardier Aerospace Inc., Model BD-500-1A10 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comment.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the Bombardier Aerospace Inc. (Bombardier) Model BD-500-1A10 airplane. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Bombardier on May 1, 2017. We must receive your comments by June 15, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0359 using any of the following methods:

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

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

Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nazih Khaouly, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2432; facsimile 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Future Requests for Installation of Non-Rechargeable Lithium Batteries

The FAA anticipates that non-rechargeable lithium batteries will be installed in most makes and models of transport category airplanes. We intend to require special conditions for certification projects involving non-rechargeable lithium battery installations to address certain safety issues until we can revise the airworthiness requirements. Applying special conditions to these installations across the range of transport category airplanes will ensure regulatory consistency.

Typically, the FAA issues special conditions after receiving an application for type certificate approval of a novel or unusual design feature. However, the FAA has found that the presence of non-rechargeable lithium batteries in certification projects is not always immediately identifiable, since the battery itself may not be the focus of the project. Meanwhile, the inclusion of these batteries has become virtually ubiquitous on in-production transport category airplanes, which shows that there will be a need for these special conditions. Also, delaying the issuance of special conditions until after each design application is received could lead to costly certification delays. Therefore the FAA finds it necessary to issue special conditions applicable to these battery installations on particular makes and models of aircraft.

On April 22, 2016, the FAA published special conditions no. 25-612-SC in the Federal Register (81 FR 23573) applicable to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation for the GVI airplane. Those were the first special conditions the FAA issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. We explained in that document our decision to make those special conditions effective one year after publication in the Federal Register, which is April 22, 2017. In those special conditions, the FAA stated its intention to apply non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions to design changes on other makes and models applied for after this same date.

Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 requires the FAA to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions when modifying airworthiness regulations that affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. In consideration of this requirement and the overall impact on safety, the FAA does not intend to require non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions for design changes that only replace a 121.5 megahertz (MHz) emergency locator transmitter (ELT) with a 406 MHz ELT that meets Technical Standard Order C126b, or later revision, on transport airplanes operating only in Alaska. This will support our efforts of encouraging operators in Alaska to upgrade to a 406 MHz ELT. These ELTs provide significantly improved accuracy for lifesaving services to locate an accident site in Alaskan terrain. The FAA considers that the safety benefits from upgrading to a 406 MHz ELT for Alaskan operations will outweigh the battery fire risk.

Comments Invited

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

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

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

Background

Bombardier holds type certificate no. T00008NY, which provides the certification basis for the BD-500-1A10 airplane. The BD-500-1A10 is a twin engine, transport category airplane with a passenger seating capacity of 127 and a maximum takeoff weight of 134,000 pounds.

The FAA is issuing these special conditions for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the BD-500-1A10 airplane. The current battery requirements in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 are inadequate for addressing an airplane with non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Bombardier must show that the BD-500-1A10 airplane meets the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. T00008NY or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections that are not relevant to these special conditions.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the BD-500-1A10 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

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

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the BD-500-1A10 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

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

Novel or Unusual Design Feature

The novel or unusual design feature is the installation of non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

For the purpose of these special conditions, we refer to a battery and battery system as a battery. A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging.

Discussion

The FAA derived the current regulations governing installation of batteries in transport category airplanes from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 4b.625(d) as part of the recodification of CAR 4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. This recodification basically reworded the CAR 4b battery requirements, which are currently in § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4). Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are novel and unusual with respect to the state of technology considered when these requirements were codified. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery packs introduces failure modes that require unique design considerations, such as provisions for thermal management.

Recent events involving rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA to initiate a broad evaluation of these energy storage technologies. In January 2013, two independent events involving rechargeable lithium-ion batteries revealed unanticipated failure modes. A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) letter to the FAA, dated May 22, 2014, which is available at http://www.ntsb.gov, filename A-14-032-036.pdf, describes these events.

On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium battery in an emergency locator transmitter installation demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. The United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch Bulletin S5/2013 describes this event.

Some known uses of rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries on airplanes include:

• Flight deck and avionics systems such as displays, global positioning systems, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, underwater locator beacons, navigation computers, integrated avionics computers, satellite network and communication systems, communication management units, and remote-monitor electronic line-replaceable units;

• Cabin safety, entertainment, and communications equipment, including emergency locator transmitters, life rafts, escape slides, seatbelt air bags, cabin management systems, Ethernet switches, routers and media servers, wireless systems, internet and in-flight entertainment systems, satellite televisions, remotes, and handsets;

• Systems in cargo areas including door controls, sensors, video surveillance equipment, and security systems.

Some known potential hazards and failure modes associated with non-rechargeable lithium batteries are:

Internal failures: In general, these batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal runaway) than their nickel-cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion.

Fast or imbalanced discharging: Fast discharging or an imbalanced discharge of one cell of a multi-cell battery may create an overheating condition that results in an uncontrollable venting condition, which in turn leads to a thermal event or an explosion.

Flammability: Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries, lithium batteries use higher energy and current in an electrochemical system that can be configured to maximize energy storage of lithium. They also use liquid electrolytes that can be extremely flammable. The electrolyte, as well as the electrodes, can serve as a source of fuel for an external fire if the battery casing is breached.

Special condition no. 1 of these special conditions requires that each individual cell within a non-rechargeable lithium battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Special condition no. 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Special condition no. 2 requires the battery be designed to prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.

Special conditions nos. 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the non-rechargeable lithium battery and its cells are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrollable failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control of the battery designer. Therefore, other special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.

Special conditions 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory.

Special condition no. 4 makes it clear that the flammable fluid fire protection requirements of § 25.863 apply to non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane systems. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries contain an electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.

Special condition no. 5 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

While special condition no. 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, special condition no. 6 addresses heat. Special condition no. 6 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery installation can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The means of meeting special conditions nos. 5 and 6 may be the same, but the requirements are independent and address different hazards.

These special conditions apply to all non-rechargeable lithium battery installations in lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments. Those regulations remain in effect for other battery installations.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Applicability

These special conditions are applicable to the BD-500-1A10 airplane. Should Bombardier apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

These special conditions are only applicable to design changes applied for after the effective date.

These special conditions are not applicable to changes to previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations where the only change is either cosmetic or to relocate the installation to improve the safety of the airplane and occupants. Previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations, as used in this paragraph, are those installations approved for certification projects applied for on or before the effective date of these special conditions. A cosmetic change is a change in appearance only, and does not change any function or safety characteristic of the battery installation. These special conditions are also not applicable to unchanged, previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations that are affected by a change in a manner that improves the safety of its installation. The FAA determined that these exclusions are in the public interest because the need to meet all of the special conditions might otherwise deter these design changes that improve safety.

Conclusion

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

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and record keeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

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

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Bombardier Model BD-500-1A10 airplane.

Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations

In lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments, each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must:

1. Be designed to maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and explosion.

2. Be designed to prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure.

3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or as a result of its failure, that may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.

4. Meet the requirements of § 25.863.

5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.

7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flightcrew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.

8. Have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is required for safe operation of the airplane.

Note:

A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging. For the purpose of these special conditions, a “battery” and “battery system” are referred to as a battery.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 24, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-08688 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0360; Special Conditions No. 25-658-SC] Special Conditions: Bombardier Aerospace Inc., Model BD-700-1A11 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comment.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the Bombardier Aerospace Inc. (Bombardier) Model BD-700-1A11 airplane. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Bombardier on May 1, 2017. We must receive your comments by June 15, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0360 using any of the following methods:

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

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

Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nazih Khaouly, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2432; facsimile 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Future Requests for Installation of Non-Rechargeable Lithium Batteries

The FAA anticipates that non-rechargeable lithium batteries will be installed in most makes and models of transport category airplanes. We intend to require special conditions for certification projects involving non-rechargeable lithium battery installations to address certain safety issues until we can revise the airworthiness requirements. Applying special conditions to these installations across the range of transport category airplanes will ensure regulatory consistency.

Typically, the FAA issues special conditions after receiving an application for type certificate approval of a novel or unusual design feature. However, the FAA has found that the presence of non-rechargeable lithium batteries in certification projects is not always immediately identifiable, since the battery itself may not be the focus of the project. Meanwhile, the inclusion of these batteries has become virtually ubiquitous on in-production transport category airplanes, which shows that there will be a need for these special conditions. Also, delaying the issuance of special conditions until after each design application is received could lead to costly certification delays. Therefore the FAA finds it necessary to issue special conditions applicable to these battery installations on particular makes and models of aircraft.

On April 22, 2016, the FAA published special conditions no. 25-612-SC in the Federal Register (81 FR 23573) applicable to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation for the GVI airplane. Those were the first special conditions the FAA issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. We explained in that document our decision to make those special conditions effective one year after publication in the Federal Register, which is April 22, 2017. In those special conditions, the FAA stated its intention to apply non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions to design changes on other makes and models applied for after this same date.

Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 requires the FAA to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions when modifying airworthiness regulations that affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. In consideration of this requirement and the overall impact on safety, the FAA does not intend to require non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions for design changes that only replace a 121.5 megahertz (MHz) emergency locator transmitter (ELT) with a 406 MHz ELT that meets Technical Standard Order C126b, or later revision, on transport airplanes operating only in Alaska. This will support our efforts of encouraging operators in Alaska to upgrade to a 406 MHz ELT. These ELTs provide significantly improved accuracy for lifesaving services to locate an accident site in Alaskan terrain. The FAA considers that the safety benefits from upgrading to a 406 MHz ELT for Alaskan operations will outweigh the battery fire risk.

Comments Invited

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

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

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

Background

Bombardier holds type certificate no. T00003NY, which provides the certification basis for the BD-700-1A11 airplane. The BD-700-1A11 is a twin engine, transport category airplane with a passenger seating capacity of 19 and a maximum takeoff weight of 87,700 to 92,500 pounds, depending on the specific design.

The FAA is issuing these special conditions for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the BD-700-1A11 airplane. The current battery requirements in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 are inadequate for addressing an airplane with non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Bombardier must show that the BD-700-1A11 airplane meets the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. T00003NY or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections that are not relevant to these special conditions.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the BD-700-1A11 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

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

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the BD-700-1A11 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

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

Novel or Unusual Design Feature

The novel or unusual design feature is the installation of non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

For the purpose of these special conditions, we refer to a battery and battery system as a battery. A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging.

Discussion

The FAA derived the current regulations governing installation of batteries in transport category airplanes from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 4b.625(d) as part of the recodification of CAR 4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. This recodification basically reworded the CAR 4b battery requirements, which are currently in § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4). Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are novel and unusual with respect to the state of technology considered when these requirements were codified. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery packs introduces failure modes that require unique design considerations, such as provisions for thermal management.

Recent events involving rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA to initiate a broad evaluation of these energy storage technologies. In January 2013, two independent events involving rechargeable lithium-ion batteries revealed unanticipated failure modes. A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) letter to the FAA, dated May 22, 2014, which is available at http://www.ntsb.gov, filename A-14-032-036.pdf, describes these events.

On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium battery in an emergency locator transmitter installation demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. The United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch Bulletin S5/2013 describes this event.

Some known uses of rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries on airplanes include:

• Flight deck and avionics systems such as displays, global positioning systems, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, underwater locator beacons, navigation computers, integrated avionics computers, satellite network and communication systems, communication management units, and remote-monitor electronic line-replaceable units;

• Cabin safety, entertainment, and communications equipment, including emergency locator transmitters, life rafts, escape slides, seatbelt air bags, cabin management systems, Ethernet switches, routers and media servers, wireless systems, internet and in-flight entertainment systems, satellite televisions, remotes, and handsets;

• Systems in cargo areas including door controls, sensors, video surveillance equipment, and security systems.

Some known potential hazards and failure modes associated with non-rechargeable lithium batteries are:

Internal failures: In general, these batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal runaway) than their nickel-cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion.

Fast or imbalanced discharging: Fast discharging or an imbalanced discharge of one cell of a multi-cell battery may create an overheating condition that results in an uncontrollable venting condition, which in turn leads to a thermal event or an explosion.

Flammability: Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries, lithium batteries use higher energy and current in an electrochemical system that can be configured to maximize energy storage of lithium. They also use liquid electrolytes that can be extremely flammable. The electrolyte, as well as the electrodes, can serve as a source of fuel for an external fire if the battery casing is breached.

Special condition no. 1 of these special conditions requires that each individual cell within a non-rechargeable lithium battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Special condition no. 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Special condition no. 2 requires the battery be designed to prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.

Special conditions nos. 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the non-rechargeable lithium battery and its cells are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrollable failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control of the battery designer. Therefore, other special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.

Special conditions 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory.

Special condition no. 4 makes it clear that the flammable fluid fire protection requirements of § 25.863 apply to non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane systems. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries contain an electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.

Special condition no. 5 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

While special condition no. 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, special condition no. 6 addresses heat. Special condition no. 6 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery installation can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The means of meeting special conditions nos. 5 and 6 may be the same, but the requirements are independent and address different hazards.

These special conditions apply to all non-rechargeable lithium battery installations in lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments. Those regulations remain in effect for other battery installations.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Applicability

These special conditions are applicable to the BD-700-1A11 airplane. Should Bombardier apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

These special conditions are only applicable to design changes applied for after the effective date.

These special conditions are not applicable to changes to previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations where the only change is either cosmetic or to relocate the installation to improve the safety of the airplane and occupants. Previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations, as used in this paragraph, are those installations approved for certification projects applied for on or before the effective date of these special conditions. A cosmetic change is a change in appearance only, and does not change any function or safety characteristic of the battery installation. These special conditions are also not applicable to unchanged, previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations that are affected by a change in a manner that improves the safety of its installation. The FAA determined that these exclusions are in the public interest because the need to meet all of the special conditions might otherwise deter these design changes that improve safety.

Conclusion

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

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and record keeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

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

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Bombardier Model BD-700-1A11 airplane.

Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations

In lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments, each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must:

1. Be designed to maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and explosion.

2. Be designed to prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure.

3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or as a result of its failure, that may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.

4. Meet the requirements of § 25.863.

5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.

7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flightcrew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.

8. Have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is required for safe operation of the airplane.

Note:

A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging. For the purpose of these special conditions, a “battery” and “battery system” are referred to as a battery.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 24, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-08689 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9151; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-15] Revocation of Class E Airspace and Establishment of Class E Airspace; Ruston, LA AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action removes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ruston Municipal Airport, Ruston, LA, as the airport has closed and controlled airspace is no longer required, and establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at the new Ruston Regional Airport, Ruston, LA. This final rule is necessary to ensure the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the new airport.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, August 17, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface in the airspace near Ruston, LA, to accommodate IFR procedures at the new Ruston Regional Airport.

History

On October 12, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register (81 FR 70372) Docket No. FAA-2016-9151, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ruston Municipal Airport, Ruston, LA. The FAA also proposed to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5 mile radius of the new Ruston Regional Airport, Ruston, LA. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment was received stating, “This would open up airspace because there would not be controlled airspace as the airport has shut down.” While this comment is factually correct, the new airport and associated airspace has been established approximately 2.5 NM from the location of the closed airport so the change in the airspace footprint is minimal.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 removes Class E airspace at Ruston Municipal Airport, Ruston, LA, as the airport has closed; therefore, controlled airspace is no longer needed. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the new Ruston Regional Airport, Ruston, LA is established for the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the new airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASW LA E5 Ruston, LA [Removed] ASW LA E5 Ruston, LA [New] Ruston Regional Airport, LA (Lat. 32°30′53″ N., long. 92°35′18″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the airport.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 24, 2017. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-08749 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0231] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hutchinson River, New York, NY 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 Hutchinson River Parkway Bridge across the Hutchinson River, mile 0.9 at New York, New York. This deviation is necessary to complete application of protective coating on the bridge as well as maintenance of operating machinery.

DATES:

This deviation is effective without actual notice from May 1, 2017 through 12:01 a.m. on September 29, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 12:01 a.m. on April 3, 2017 until May 1, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0231 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 James M. Moore, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 212-514-4334, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The New York City Department of Transportation, the owner of the bridge, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate application of protective coating to the bridge as well as maintenance of operating machinery. The Hutchinson River Parkway Bridge, across the Hutchinson River, mile 0.9 at New York, New York has a vertical clearance of 30 feet at mean high water and 38 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.793(b).

Under this temporary deviation, between April 3, 2017 and September 29, 2017 the draw of the Hutchinson River Parkway Bridge will be closed to navigation for a period not to exceed 7 days; the draw will then open for vessels in accordance with established operating regulations for a period not to exceed another 7 days, after which the cycle will repeat.

Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies. There is no alternate route for vessels to pass.

The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local 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: April 25, 2017. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-08680 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0024; A-1-FRL-9961-42-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; ME; Emission Statement Reporting AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maine. The revision updates Maine's emissions reporting requirements for certain stationary sources that emit criteria pollutants. The intended effect of this action is to approve the revision into the Maine SIP. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES:

This direct final rule is effective June 30, 2017, unless EPA receives adverse comments by May 31, 2017. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0024 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David L. Mackintosh, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. 617-918-1584, fax 617-918-0668, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. What action is EPA taking? II. What is the background for this action? III. What is included in the submittal? IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Submittal V. Final Action VI. Incorporation by Reference VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What action is EPA taking?

EPA is approving a SIP revision submitted by the State of Maine on November 26, 2008, concerning updates to emission statement requirements for certain stationary sources that emit criteria pollutants. The Maine requirements, set out in Chapter 137 Emission Statements, were revised to be consistent with EPA's Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) at 40 CFR part 51, subpart A.

II. What is the background for this action?

Sections 182(a)(3)(B) and 184(b)(2) of the CAA require that states develop and submit, as SIP revisions, rules which establish annual reporting requirements from certain stationary sources. EPA proposed updates to AERR on January 3, 2006 (71 FR 69) and then finalized the rule on December 17, 2008 (73 FR 76539). On November 26, 2008, Maine submitted a formal revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP), which consists of updates to Maine's Chapter 137 Emission Statements rule. On January 23, 2017, Maine withdrew from the submittal certain sections of Chapter 137. EPA last approved Maine's Chapter 137 Emission Statements on November 21, 2007 (72 FR 65462).

III. What is included in the submittal?

Maine's November 26, 2008 SIP submittal includes Chapter 137 Emission Statements, effective in Maine on November 8, 2008, less the portions Maine withdrew from the submittal on January 23, 2017. The withdrawn sections no longer pending before EPA address non-criteria pollutant (i.e., greenhouse gas and hazardous air pollutant (HAP)) reporting requirements. Specifically, the following sections of Chapter 137 were withdrawn from the submittal: Sections 1(C), (E), and (F); Definitions 2(A) through (F) and (I); Sections 3(B) and (C); the last sentence of Section 4(D)(5), and all of Appendices A and B.

IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Submittal

Maine's Chapter 137 Emission Statements has been revised to incorporate changes to be consistent with the AERR. The revised rule adds a definition for the term “Process Unit,” which is defined as “any combination of equipment or operation and material or fuel which emits pollutants.” The revised rule also includes an earlier emissions statement filing deadline. The deadline which was previously September 1 of the year following the inventory, was changed to July 1, 2009 for the 2008 inventory and then later changed to May 15 of the year following the inventory year beginning with inventory year 2009. The revisions also specify additional information to be submitted in the inventory statements:

1. Technical contact name, telephone number and email;

2. Latitude and longitude method accuracy description code used to define the accuracy of the geographic data;

3. Emissions control status indicating whether reported emissions are controlled or uncontrolled;

4. Unit type code indicating the type of emissions unit (e.g., boiler, turbine, etc.);

5. Unit operating status code indicating the operating status of the emissions unit (e.g. operating, permanently shut down, etc.);

6. Unit operating status date indicating the year in which the unit status is applicable; and

7. Emission release point type indicating the physical configuration of the release point (e.g., stack, fugitive, etc.).

Maine's revised Chapter 137 includes additional reporting requirements and requires information to be submitted earlier than the SIP-approved version of the regulation and is consistent with the AERR. Thus, the revised Chapter 137 Emission Statements satisfies the anti-back sliding requirements in Section 110(l) of the CAA and we are approving Maine's revised rule into the Maine SIP. V. Final Action

EPA is approving, and incorporating into the Maine SIP, revised Chapter 137 Emission Statements, with the exception of portions of Chapter 137 that were withdrawn from Maine's submittal: Sections 1(C), (E), and (F); Definitions 2(A) through (F) and (I); Sections 3(B) and (C); the last sentence of Section 4(D)(5); and Appendix A and B.

The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment 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 SIP revision should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective June 30, 2017 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by May 31, 2017.

If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on June 30, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

V. Incorporation by Reference

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the State of Maine regulation described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov, and/or at the EPA Region 1 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 Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 30, 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: March 16, 2017. Deborah A. Szaro, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

Part 52 of 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 U—Maine 2. In § 52.1020(c), the table is amended by revising the entry for “Chapter 137” to read as follows:
§ 52.1020 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

EPA-Approved Maine Regulations State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date
  • EPA approval date and
  • citation 1
  • Explanations
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter 137 Emission Statements 11/08/2008 05/01/2017 [Insert Federal Register citation] The entire chapter is approved with the exception of HAP and greenhouse gas reporting requirements which were withdrawn from the State's SIP revision: Sections 1(C), (E), and (F); Definitions 2(A) through (F) and (I); Sections 3(B) and (C); the last sentence of Section 4(D)(5); and Appendix A and B. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08648 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0615; FRL-9961-48-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; TN: Non-Interference Demonstration for Federal Low-Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement in Middle Tennessee AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the State of Tennessee's November 21, 2016, revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), in support of the State's request that EPA change the federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) requirements for Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson Counties (hereinafter referred to as the “Middle Tennessee Area” or “Area”). Tennessee's November 21, 2016, SIP submittal revises its maintenance plan for the Middle Tennessee Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) and demonstrates that relaxing the federal RVP requirements in this Area would not interfere with the Area's ability to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). Specifically, Tennessee's SIP revision concludes that relaxing the federal RVP requirement from 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) to 9.0 psi for gasoline sold between June 1 and September 15 of each year in the Area would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or with any other CAA requirement. EPA has determined that Tennessee's November 21, 2016, SIP revision is consistent with the applicable provisions of the CAA.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective May 1, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0615. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 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. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    D. Brad Akers, 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. Mr. Akers can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9089 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. What is the background for this final action?

    On November 21, 2016, Tennessee submitted a SIP revision consisting of a revision to its 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Middle Tennessee Area and the technical noninterference demonstration supporting the State's request to change the federal RVP requirements from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi in the Area. In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) published on February 24, 2017 (82 FR 11517), EPA proposed to approve the State's noninterference demonstration and the updates to updated emissions inventory and projections associated with the mobile source modeling used in the State's noninterference demonstration related to RVP. The details of Tennessee's submittal and the rationale for EPA's actions are explained in the NPR. EPA did not receive any adverse comments on the proposed action.

    II. Final Action

    EPA is approving Tennessee's November 21, 2016, SIP revision consisting of a revision to its 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Middle Tennessee Area and the technical noninterference demonstration supporting the State's request to change the federal RVP requirements from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi in the Area. Specifically, EPA is finalizing updated emissions inventory and projections associated with the mobile source modeling used in the State's noninterference demonstration related to RVP. EPA has determined that the change in the RVP requirements for Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson Counties will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

    EPA has determined that Tennessee's November 21, 2016, RVP-related SIP revision is consistent with the applicable provisions of the CAA for the reasons provided in the NPR. Through this action, EPA is not removing the federal 7.8 psi RVP requirement for Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson Counties. Any such action would occur in a separate rulemaking.

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds that there is good cause for this action to become effective immediately upon publication. This is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary because today's action approves a noninterference demonstration that will serve as the basis of a subsequent action to relieve the Area from certain CAA requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The immediate effective date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction, and section 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule. The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. This rule, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, this rule will serve as a basis for a subsequent action to relieve the Area from certain CAA requirements. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for this action to become effective on the date of publication of this action.

    III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submittal 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, October 7, 1999);

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

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

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

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

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications 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 June 30, 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. 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements and Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 31, 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 RR—Tennessee 2. Section 52.2220(e) is amended by adding a new entry for “1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan update for the Middle Tennessee Area and RVP standard” at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.2220 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved Tennessee Non-Regulatory Provisions Name of non-regulatory
  • SIP provision
  • Applicable geographic
  • or nonattainment area
  • State effective date EPA approval date Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan update for the Middle Tennessee Area and RVP standard Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson Counties 11/21/2016 5/1/2017, [Insert Federal Register citation]
    [FR Doc. 2017-08646 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0648; A-1-FRL-9958-37-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; CT; Approval of Single Source Orders AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Connecticut. The revisions establish reasonably available control technology (RACT) for two facilities that emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the state. Additionally, we are also approving Connecticut's request to withdraw seven previously-approved single source orders from the SIP. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

    DATES:

    This direct final rule will be effective June 30, 2017, unless EPA receives adverse comments by May 31, 2017. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0648 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email Anne Arnold at: [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bob McConnell, Environmental Engineer, Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109-3912; (617) 918-1046; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

    I. Background and Purpose II. Description and Evaluation of VOC RACT Order Submittals 1. Order for Mallace Industries 2. Order for Hamilton Sundstrand III. Description and Evaluation of VOC RACT Order Withdrawal Requests 1. Withdrawal Request for Pfizer Global Manufacturing 2. Withdrawal Request for Coats North America 3. Withdrawal Request for Uniroyal Chemical Company 4. Withdrawal Request for Watson Laboratories 5. Withdrawal Request for Pratt & Whitney Aircraft 6. Withdrawal Request for Dow Chemical 7. Withdrawal Request for Sikorsky Aircraft IV. Final Action V. Incorporation by Reference VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background and Purpose

    The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), as well as moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas, to implement RACT for major sources of volatile organic compounds. Connecticut is in the OTR and the state is currently designated nonattainment and classified as moderate for the 2008 ozone standard. See 40 CFR 81.307.

    The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) submitted to EPA two single source orders establishing RACT for sources of VOCs for incorporation into the Connecticut State Implementation Plan (SIP), and also submitted requests to withdraw from the SIP seven previously-approved orders. The two orders submitted for approval are Consent Order 8001, issued to Mallace Industries, located in Clinton, Connecticut, submitted to EPA on January 13, 2006, and Consent Order 8029, issued to Hamilton Sundstrand, located in Windsor Locks, Connecticut, submitted to EPA on November 15, 2011. The seven withdrawal requests are for the following previously-approved Consent Orders: Order 8021 issued to Pfizer Global Manufacturing; Order 8032 issued to Heminway and Bartlett Company (which was subsequently renamed Coats North America); Order 8009 issued to Uniroyal Chemical Company; Order 8200 issued to Watson Laboratories; Order 8014 issued to Pratt & Whitney Aircraft; Order 8011 issued to the Dow Chemical Company; and Order 8010 issued to Sikorsky Aircraft.

    A description of these submittals and our evaluation of them appears below in Section II of this document.

    II. Description and Evaluation of VOC RACT Order Submittals 1. Order for Mallace Industries

    Consent Order 8001 was issued to Frismar, Incorporated, located in Clinton, Connecticut, on October 19, 1987, pursuant to section 22a-174-20(cc) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA),1 which at the time was the state's alternative emission reduction mechanism for sources that could not otherwise meet prescribed RACT measures. Connecticut submitted the order to EPA as a SIP revision request, and EPA approved the order on November 28, 1989. See 54 FR 48885. Subsequently, ownership of the facility changed to Mallace Industries, and on September 13, 2005, Connecticut issued Consent Order 8258 to Mallace to maintain the appropriate, enforceable operating conditions contained within Order 8001, and to reflect the new ownership and current operating conditions. Consent Order 8258 contains a lower annual cap for one of the two paper coating machines at the facility, lowering its annual emissions cap from 34.0 tons to 15.9 tons. With this restriction, the source's total emissions will be below the 50 tons per year major source RACT applicability threshold. The order contains daily, monthly, and annual recordkeeping requirements, and the facility is required to submit a report to the state annually that includes a summary of the monthly VOC emissions for the facility. Connecticut held a public hearing on Consent Order 8258 on January 6, 2006, and by letter dated January 13, 2006, submitted the order to EPA as a SIP revision request. Since Consent Order 8258 has a lower cap on emissions than the previously SIP-approved order for this facility, the anti-back sliding requirements of Section 110(l) of the CAA have been met. Therefore, we are approving the order into the Connecticut SIP.

    1 This regulation has been approved into the Connecticut SIP. See 47 FR 24452; June 7, 1982.

    2. Order for Hamilton Sundstrand

    Consent Order 8029 was issued to Hamilton Standard, located in Windsor Locks, Connecticut, on December 22, 1989, pursuant to RCSA section 22a-174-20(ee).2 Connecticut submitted the order to EPA as a SIP revision request, which EPA approved on March 12, 1990. See 55 FR 9121. Subsequently, the facility determined that potential VOC emissions from test rigs were also subject to VOC RACT. Since the original order did not cover this equipment, Connecticut issued an amended order, Consent Order 8029A, to supersede the original order. Consent Order 8029A maintains the appropriate, enforceable operating conditions contained within Order 8029, and contains additional VOC limits for calibration fluids used in the facility's test rigs. Connecticut held a public hearing on Consent Order 8029A on August 24, 2011, and by letter dated November 15, 2011, submitted the order to EPA as a SIP revision request. Since the order contains additional emission reduction requirements beyond the previously SIP-approved order for this facility, the anti-back sliding requirements of Section 110(l) of the CAA have been met. Therefore, we are approving the order into the Connecticut SIP.

    2 This regulation has been approved into the Connecticut SIP. See 49 FR 41026; October 19, 1984.

    In addition, the CAA section 193 General Savings Clause applies to the above two orders since they were approved into the Connecticut SIP prior to the CAA amendments of 1990. Section 193 of the CAA prohibits any control measure in effect in a nonattainment area prior to the enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990 to be modified after enactment, unless such modification yields equivalent or greater emission reductions. Our review of the updated orders issued to Mallace Industries and Hamilton Sundstrand indicates that they meet this requirement.

    III. Description and Evaluation of VOC RACT Order Withdrawal Requests 1. Withdrawal Request for Pfizer Global Manufacturing

    In 1988, Connecticut issued Consent Order 8021 to Pfizer Incorporated, located in Groton, Connecticut, to establish VOC RACT requirements pursuant to RCSA section 22a-174-20(ee). The state submitted this order to EPA as a SIP revision request, and EPA approved it into the Connecticut SIP on November 30, 1989. See 54 FR 49284. During an inspection conducted on September 3, 2002, Connecticut confirmed that the manufacturing operations covered by Order 8021 had been permanently discontinued. Furthermore, within an April 23, 2003 letter to Connecticut, Pfizer notified the agency that it no longer intended to manufacture any of the products subject to Order 8021, making the order obsolete. By letter dated July 1, 2004, Connecticut requested that Order 8021 be withdrawn from the SIP. The state held a public hearing on this SIP withdrawal request on January 15, 2004, and we are approving the request and removing the order from the Connecticut SIP. For facilities such as this, as well as those described in sections III.2, III.3, and III.4 below, where operations have been permanently discontinued (i.e., equipment has been removed) and this fact has been confirmed by inspection, the CAA section 110(l) anti-back sliding requirements and the CAA section 193 General Savings Clause requirements have been met as there are no longer any emissions from these operations.

    2. Withdrawal Request for Coats North America

    Connecticut issued Consent Order 8032 to the Heminway and Bartlett Company, located in Watertown, Connecticut, in 1989. The order was issued to establish VOC RACT requirements pursuant to RCSA section 22a-174-20(ee), and an amended order was issued to update the ownership and operating conditions at the facility in 2004. Subsequent to the issuance of the amended order, the facility shut down, which Connecticut confirmed by an inspection conducted on May 13, 2005. Accordingly, Connecticut submitted a SIP revision request on January 13, 2006, asking that the order, which EPA approved into the Connecticut SIP on March 12, 1990 (see 55 FR 9442), be removed from the Connecticut SIP. The state held a public hearing on this SIP withdrawal request on January 6, 2006, and we are approving the request and removing the order from the Connecticut SIP.

    3. Withdrawal Request for Uniroyal Chemical Company

    Connecticut issued Consent Order 8009 to the Uniroyal Chemical Company, located in Naugatuck, Connecticut, in 1989. The order was issued to establish VOC RACT requirements pursuant to RCSA section 22a-174-20(ee). Connecticut submitted Order 8009 to EPA as a SIP revision request, which EPA approved on December 22, 1989. See 54 FR 52798. Subsequent to the issuance of the order, the facility shut down, which Connecticut confirmed by an inspection conducted on August 26, 2004. Accordingly, Connecticut submitted a SIP revision request on January 13, 2006, asking that the order be removed from the Connecticut SIP. The state held a public hearing on this SIP withdrawal request on January 6, 2006, and we are approving the request and removing the order from the Connecticut SIP.

    4. Withdrawal Request for Watson Laboratories

    Connecticut issued Consent Order 8200 to Watson Laboratories, located in Danbury, Connecticut, in 2002. The order was issued to establish VOC RACT requirements pursuant to RCSA section 22a-174-32(e)(6).3 Connecticut submitted Order 8200 to EPA as a SIP revision request, and EPA approved the Order on October 24, 2005. See 70 FR 61384. Subsequent to the issuance of the order, the facility shut down, which Connecticut confirmed by an inspection conducted on September 13, 2005. Accordingly, Connecticut submitted a SIP revision request on January 13, 2006, asking that the order be removed from the Connecticut SIP. The state held a public hearing on this SIP withdrawal request on January 6, 2006, and we are approving the request and removing the order from the Connecticut SIP.

    3 This regulation has been approved into the Connecticut SIP. See 65 FR 62620; October 19, 2000.

    5. Withdrawal Request for Pratt & Whitney Aircraft

    Connecticut issued Consent Order 8014 to Pratt & Whitney Aircraft located in East Hartford, Connecticut, in 1989. The order was issued to establish VOC RACT requirements pursuant to RCSA section 22a-174-20(ee). Connecticut submitted the order to EPA as a SIP revision request, and EPA approved the Order on May 30, 1989. See 54 FR 22890. Subsequent to the issuance of the order, Connecticut adopted regulations limiting VOC emissions from the equipment and activity covered by Order 8014, and the facility ceased operation of most activity covered by the order. Specifically, the degreasers covered by Order 8014 have all been removed from the facility. Additionally, in 2010, Connecticut adopted section 22a-174-20(ii) defining RACT for hand wiping operations. These requirements were approved by EPA on June 9, 2014 (see 79 FR 32873) and are at least as stringent as those within Order 8014. Accordingly, Connecticut submitted a SIP revision request on July 15, 2016, asking that Order 8014 be removed from the Connecticut SIP. The state offered a notice of opportunity for public hearing on this SIP withdrawal request on March 18, 2016. Since the newer SIP-approved regulatory requirements are at least as stringent as the previously SIP-approved order, the CAA section 110(l) anti-back sliding requirements and the CAA section 193 General Savings Clause requirements have been met. Therefore, we are approving the state's request and removing the Order 8014 from the Connecticut SIP.

    6. Withdrawal Request for Dow Chemical

    Connecticut issued Consent Order 8011 to the Dow Chemical Company located in Gales Ferry, Connecticut, in 1988. The order was issued to establish VOC RACT requirements pursuant to RCSA section 22a-174-20(ee). Connecticut submitted Order 8011 to EPA as a SIP revision request, and EPA approved the Order on March 8, 1989. See 54 FR 9781. Subsequent to the issuance of the order, Dow shut down portions of its manufacturing operation, and transferred other portions of its manufacturing operations to Trinseo, LLC, and Americas Styrenics, LLC. Connecticut confirmed by an inspection conducted on August 1, 2011, that portions of the manufacturing operations covered by Order 8011 had been dismantled. Additionally, a Connecticut “Order Closure” dated May 4, 2016, indicates that Dow no longer owns or operates equipment covered by Order 8011, and that the VOC emitting equipment remaining at the facility operated by the entities mentioned above are subject to similar regulatory limits which, in most cases, were transferred to the new owners. Accordingly, Connecticut submitted a SIP revision request on July 15, 2016, asking that the Order 8011 be removed from the Connecticut SIP. The state provided public notice and an opportunity to comment on its intent to revise the SIP. Since the VOC emitting equipment subject to the Order 8011 has either been removed from the facility or is covered by other regulatory requirements that are at least as stringent as that required by Order 8011, the CAA Section 110(l) anti-back sliding requirements and the CAA section 193 General Savings Clause requirements have been met. Therefore, we are approving Connecticut's request, and removing the order from the Connecticut SIP.

    7. Withdrawal Request for Sikorsky Aircraft

    Connecticut issued Consent Order 8010 to Sikorsky Aircraft located in Stratford, Connecticut, in 1988. The order was issued to establish VOC RACT requirements pursuant to RCSA section 22a-174-20(ee). Subsequently, in 1995, Connecticut added Addendum A to the order to set coating limits for the facility. Addendum B was also added to the order, providing emission reduction credits as a result of degreaser shutdowns. Connecticut submitted Order 8010 and both addenda to EPA as a SIP revision request, which EPA approved on February 9, 1998. See 63 FR 6484.

    Subsequent to the issuance of the order and addenda, Connecticut issued Order 8246 to Sikorsky on October 31, 2003, to reflect updated operating conditions and regulations applicable to the facility. Order 8246 required Sikorsky to limit VOC emissions to the emission limits specified within 22a-174-20(s), with the exception of the limits for the coating of the exterior surface of assembled aircraft, as the facility could not meet that limit. Therefore, Order 8246 provided a method of compliance for the facility's use of exterior aircraft coatings through the generation and use of VOC emission reduction credits to offset excess emissions.

    Subsequent to the issuance of Order 8246, Connecticut adopted amendments to 22a-174-20(s). EPA approved the amendments to RCSA 22a-174-20(s) into the Connecticut SIP on June 9, 2014. See 79 FR 32873. The amendments incorporated VOC content limits for coatings from EPA's aerospace National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) (see 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG), and EPA's aerospace control techniques guideline (see EPA-453/R-97-004, December 1997). By letter dated January 30, 2014, Sikorsky documented that all coatings used at the facility meet the requirements of the amended version of 22a-174-20(s). Since the facility demonstrated that it can meet the limits within 22a-174-20(s), compliance via the generation and use of VOC emission reduction credits is no longer necessary.

    On May 4, 2016, Connecticut closed out the order because it had become obsolete, primarily due to the state's adoption of amendments to RCSA 22a-174-20(s). Connecticut submitted a withdrawal request to EPA for Order 8010 on July 15, 2016, asking that it be removed from the Connecticut SIP. The state offered a notice of opportunity for public hearing on this SIP withdrawal request on March 18, 2016. Since the current SIP requirements are at least as stringent as those in Order 8010, the CAA Section 110(l) anti-back sliding requirements and the CAA section 193 General Savings Clause requirements have been met. Therefore, we are approving Connecticut's request, and removing the order from the Connecticut SIP.

    In addition, although Connecticut had previously submitted Order 8246 for Sikorsky to EPA as a SIP revision request, this request was later withdrawn by letter dated July 21, 2016, prior to EPA taking action on it.

    IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving, and incorporating into the Connecticut SIP, single source orders that establish VOC RACT requirements for Mallace Industries and Hamilton Sundstrand. EPA is also removing from the Connecticut SIP previously approved orders for Pfizer Global Manufacturing, Coats North America, Uniroyal Chemical Company, Watson Laboratories, Pratt and Whitney Aircraft, Dow Chemical, and Sikorsky Aircraft.

    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment 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 SIP revision should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective June 30, 2017 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by May 31, 2017.

    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on June 30, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rulemaking, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is incorporating by reference VOC RACT orders for Mallace Industries and Hamilton Sunstrand, as previously discussed in section II in this rulemaking. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through http://www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 1 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 Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    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. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 30, 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, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 27, 2016. Deborah A. Szaro, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

    Part 52 of 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 H—Connecticut 2. Section 52.370 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(48)(i)(C), (c)(51)(i)(D), (c)(52)(i)(D), (c)(53)(i)(C), (c)(55)(i)(B), (c)(60)(i)(C), (c)(96)(i)(E), and (c)(115) to read as follows:
    § 52.370 Identification of plan

    (c) * * *

    (48) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (C) State Order No. 8011, which was approved in paragraph (c)(48)(i)(B), is removed without replacement; see paragraph (c)(115)(i)(C).

    (51) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (D) State Order No. 8014, which was approved in paragraph (c)(51)(i)(B), is removed without replacement; see paragraph (c)(115)(i)(D).

    (52) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (D) State Order No. 8021, which was approved in paragraph (c)(52)(i)(B), and appendices C and D to State Order No. 8021, which were approved in paragraph (c)(52)(C), are removed without replacement; see paragraph (c)(115)(i)(E).

    (53) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (C) State Order No. 8009, which was approved in paragraph (c)(53)(i)(B), is removed without replacement; see paragraph (c)(115)(i)(F).

    (55) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (C) State Order No. 8032, which was approved in paragraph (c)(55)(i)(B), is removed without replacement; see paragraph (c)(115)(i)(G).

    (60) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (C) State Order No. 8010, which was approved in paragraph (c)(60)(i)(B), is removed without replacement; see paragraph (c)(115)(i)(H).

    (96) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (E) State Order No. 8200, which was approved in paragraph (c)(96)(i)(C), is removed without replacement; see paragraph (c)(115)(i)(I).

    (115) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection on July 1, 2004, January 13, 2006, November 15, 2011, and July 15, 2016.

    (i) Incorporation by reference.

    (A) State of Connecticut vs. Mallace Industries Corporation, Consent Order No. 8258, issued as a final order on September 13, 2005.

    (B) State of Connecticut vs. Hamilton Sundstrand, a United Technologies Company, Order No. 8029A, issued as a final order on September 3, 2009.

    (C) State Order No. 8011, and attached Compliance Timetable and Appendix A (allowable limits by product classification) for Dow Chemical, U.S.A. in Gales Ferry, Connecticut, issued as State Order No. 8011, effective on October 27, 1988, and approved in paragraph (c)(48(i)(B) is removed without replacement.

    (D) State Order No. 8014, and attached Compliance Timetable for Pratt & Whitney Division of United Technologies Corporation in East Hartford, Connecticut, issued as State Order No. 8014, effective on March 22, 1989, and approved in paragraph (c)(51)(i)(B) is removed without replacement.

    (E) State Order No. 8021, and attached Compliance Timetable, and Appendix A (allowable limits on small, uncontrolled vents and allowable outlet gas temperatures for surface condensers) for Pfizer, Incorporated in Groton, Connecticut, issued as State Order No. 8021, effective on December 2, 1988, and approved in paragraph (c)(52)(i)B) is removed without replacement.

    (F) State Order No. 8009, and attached Compliance Timetable, Appendix A, Appendix B, and Appendix C for Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc. in Naugatuck, Connecticut, issued as State Order No. 8009, effective on September 5, 1989, and approved in paragraph (c)(53)(i)(B), is removed without replacement.

    (G) State Order No. 8032, and attached Compliance Timetable for the Heminway & Bartlett Manufacturing Company in Watertown, Connecticut, issued as State Order No. 8032, effective on November 29, 1989, and approved in paragraph (c)(55)(i)(B), is removed without replacement.

    (H) State Order No. 8010, for Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, effective on January 29, 1990, as well as Addendum A and Addendum B to Order No. 8010, effective on February 7, 1996 and September 29, 1995, respectively, issued as State Order No. 8010, and two addenda, define and impose RACT on certain VOC emissions at Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation in Stratford, Connecticut, and approved in paragraph (c)(60)(i)(B) is removed without replacement.

    (I) State Order No. 8200, issued by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection to Watson Laboratories, Inc., effective October 3, 2002, and approved in paragraph (c)(96)(i)(C) is removed without replacement.

    (ii) Additional materials. [Reserved]

    3. In § 52.385, Table 52.385 is amended by adding two entries for existing state citation 22a-174-32 to read as follows:
    § 52.385 EPA-approved Connecticut regulations. Table 52.385—EPA-Approved Regulations Connecticut state citation Title/subject Dates Date adopted by State Date approved by EPA Federal Register citation Section 52.370 Comments/description *         *         *         *         *         *         * 22a-174-32 Reasonably available control technology for volatile organic compounds 9/13/05 5/1/17 [Insert Federal Register citation] (c)(115) VOC RACT for Mallace Industries 22a-174-32 Reasonably available control technology for volatile organic compounds 9/3/09 5/1/17 [Insert Federal Register citation] (c)(115) VOC RACT for Hamilton Sundstrand *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-08647 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0702; FRL-9961-36-Region 9] Approval of Arizona Air Plan Revisions, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and Pinal County Air Quality Control District AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions include a state statute and certain state rules that govern air pollution sources under the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and the Pinal County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD). These revisions concern emissions of particulate matter (PM) from construction sites, agricultural activity and other fugitive dust sources. We are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

    DATES:

    These rules will be effective on May 31, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0702. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly-available docket materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3848, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    On January 9, 2017, 82 FR 2305, the EPA proposed to approve the following rules into the Arizona SIP:

    Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted Submitted PCAQCD Chapter 4—Article 1 Fugitive Dust 10/28/15 12/21/15 PCAQCD Chapter 4—Article 3 Construction Sites—Fugitive Dust 10/28/15 12/21/15 Arizona revised statutes (ARS) Statute # Statute title Effective date Submitted ARS § 49-424 Duties of Department 4/18/14 12/21/15 Arizona administrative code (AAC) rule number AAC # AAC title Amended/effective date Submitted AAC R18-2-210 Attainment, Nonattainment, and Unclassifiable Area Designations 07/02/15 12/21/15 AAC R18-2-610 Definitions for R18-2-610.01, R18-2-610.02, and R18-2-610.03 07/02/15 12/21/15 AAC R18-2-610.03 Agricultural PM General Permit for Crop Operations; Pinal County PM Nonattainment Area 07/02/15 12/21/15 AAC R18-2-612 Definitions for R18-2-612.01 07/02/15 12/21/15 AAC R18-2-612.01 Agricultural PM General Permit for Irrigation Districts; PM Nonattainment Areas Designated After June 1, 2009 07/02/15 12/21/15 AAC Appendix 2 Test Methods and Protocols 07/02/15 12/21/15

    We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rules and our evaluation.

    II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. We received no comments during this period.

    III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving these rules into the Arizona SIP.

    EPA notes that R18-2-610.03, Section F, and R18-2-612.01, Section E, allow commercial farmers and irrigation districts to develop BMPs different than those in the July 2, 2015 version of the rules and to submit alternatives “that are proven effective through on-farm demonstration trials” to the AgBMP Committee. These provisions also state that alternative BMPs “shall not become effective unless submitted as described in A.R.S. § 49-457(L),” and ARS § 49-457(L) in turn provides that approved alternative BMPs must be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.1 EPA understands these provisions to establish the point at which alternative BMPs may take effect as a matter of state law. For alternative BMPs to take effect as a matter of federal law, the State of Arizona must submit them to EPA as a revision to the SIP, and EPA must complete a notice and comment rulemaking process approving them as part of the SIP.2

    1 ARS 49-457(L) provides: “The [Ag BMP] committee may periodically reexamine, evaluate and modify best management practices. Any approved modifications shall be submitted to the United States environmental protection agency (sic) as a revision to the applicable implementation plan.”

    2See 42 U.S.C. 7410(i); see also, Safe Air for Everyone v. United States EPA, 488 F.3d 1088, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[A] SIP, once approved by EPA, has `the force and effect of federal law.' In accord with this general proposition, a state may not unilaterally alter the legal commitments of its SIP once EPA approves the plan.” (Internal citations omitted)).

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Arizona statute and rules, and PCAPCD rules, described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.3 The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

    3 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997)

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 30, 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. 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 29, 2017. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    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 D—Arizona 2. In § 52.120: a. In table 2 of paragraph (c): i. Revise the entry for “R18-2-210”. ii. Add a second entry for “R18-2-610” and add entries for “R18-2-610.03”, “R18-2-612”, and “R18-2-612.01” in numerical order. iii. Revise the first entry for “Appendix 2”. b. In table 9 of paragraph (c): i. Add entries for “4-1-010”, “4-1-015”, “4-1-020”, “4-1-030”, “4-1-040”, “4-1-045”, “4-1-050”, “4-1-060”, “4-3-160”, “4-3-170”, “4-3-180”, and “4-3-190” in numerical order. c. In table 3 of paragraph (e), revise the entry “49-424”.

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 52.120 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    Table 2—EPA-Approved Arizona Regulations State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation Article 2 (Ambient Air Quality Standards; Area Designations; Classifications) *         *         *         *         *         *         * R18-2-210 Attainment, Nonattainment, and Unclassifiable Area Designations July 2, 2015 May 1, 2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] Submitted on December 21, 2015. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Article 6 (Emissions from Existing and New Nonpoint Sources) *         *         *         *         *         *         * R18-2-610 Definitions for R18-2-610.01, R18-2-610.02, and R18-2-610.03 July 2, 2015 May 1, 2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] Submitted on December 21, 2015. R18-2-610.03 Agricultural PM General Permit for Crop Operations; Pinal County PM Nonattainment Area July 2, 2015 May 1, 2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] Submitted on December 21, 2015. *         *         *         *         *         *         * R18-2-612 Definitions for R18-2-612.01 July 2, 2015 May 1, 2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] Submitted on December 21, 2015. R18-2-612.01 Agricultural PM General Permit for Irrigation Districts; PM Nonattainment Areas Designated After June 1, 2009 July 2, 2015 May 1, 2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] Submitted on December 21, 2015. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Appendices to Title 18 (Environmental Quality), Chapter 2 (Department of Environmental Quality Air Pollution Control) *         *         *         *         *         *         * Appendix 2 Test Methods and Protocols July 2, 2015 May 1, 2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] Submitted on December 21, 2015. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Table 9—EPA-Approved Pinal County Air Pollution Control Regulations County citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation Chapter 4. Emissions from Existing and New Non-Point Sources 4-1-010 General Applicability January 1, 2016 May 1, 2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] Submitted on December 21, 2015 as “Chapter 4, Article 1”. 4-1-015 Exemptions January 1, 2016 May 1, 2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] Submitted on December 21, 2015 as “Chapter 4, Article 1”. 4-1-020 Definitions January 1, 2016 May 1, 2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] Submitted on December 21, 2015 as “Chapter 4, Article 1”. 4-1-030 Standards January 1, 2016 May 1, 2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] Submitted on December 21, 2015 as “Chapter 4, Article 1”. 4-1-040 Recordkeeping January 1, 2016 May 1, 2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] Submitted on December 21, 2015 as “Chapter 4, Article 1”. 4-1-045 Reporting Requirements January 1, 2016 May 1, 2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] Submitted on December 21, 2015 as “Chapter 4, Article 1”. 4-1-050 Records Retention January 1, 2016 May 1, 2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] Submitted on December 21, 2015 as “Chapter 4, Article 1”. 4-1-060 Violations January 1, 2016 May 1, 2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] Submitted on December 21, 2015 as “Chapter 4, Article 1”. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 4-3-160 General Provisions—West Pinal PM10 Nonattainment Area January 1, 2016 May 1, 2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] Submitted on December 21, 2015 as “Chapter 4, Article 3”. 4-3-170 Definitions January 1, 2016 May 1, 2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] Submitted on December 21, 2015 as “Chapter 4, Article 3”. 4-3-180 Dust Generating Operations Standards, Application, Permit and Recordkeeping Requirements January 1, 2016 May 1, 2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] Submitted on December 21, 2015 as “Chapter 4, Article 3”. 4-3-190 Violations January 1, 2016 May 1, 2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] Submitted on December 21, 2015 as “Chapter 4, Article 3”. *         *         *         *         *         *         *

    (e) * * *

    Table 3—EPA-Approved Arizona Statutes—Non-Regulatory State citation Title/subject State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation Article 2 (State Air Pollution Control) *         *         *         *         *         *         * 49-424 Duties of Department April 18, 2014 May 1, 2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] Submitted on December 21, 2015. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-08645 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0199; FRL-9961-31-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; Revision of Regulations for Sulfur Content of Fuel Oil AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve revisions to the District of Columbia (the District) state implementation plan (SIP). The revision pertains to the update of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR) to lower the sulfur content of fuel oil. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on May 31, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0199. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sara Calcinore, (215) 814-2043, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On October 11, 2016 (81 FR 70064 and 81 FR 70020), EPA simultaneously published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) and a direct final rule (DFR) for the District. EPA received a comment on the rulemaking and attempted to withdraw the DFR prior to the effective date of December 12, 2016. However, EPA inadvertently did not withdraw the DFR prior to that date and the rule prematurely became effective on December 12, 2016, revising the District's SIP to include DCMR Chapters 1, 5, and 8 of Title 20 on that date. In the NPR, EPA had proposed to approve the SIP revision, which would add the revised versions of DCMR Chapters 1, 5, and 8 of Title 20 to the District's SIP. These revisions to the DCMR reduce the allowable sulfur content of fuel oils that are combusted in oil-burning combustion units in the District. On January 20, 2016, the District, through the District of Columbia Department of Energy and Environment, submitted the aforementioned regulations for inclusion into the District's SIP. The revisions to the DCMR reduce the sulfur content of fuel oil that can be combusted within the District and prohibit the combustion of certain higher sulfur content fuel oil regardless of where the fuel is refined. EPA is responding to the comment submitted on the proposed revision to the District's SIP, is approving the low sulfur fuel oil regulations for inclusion in the District's SIP, and is amending the effective date of the regulations' inclusion in the SIP to correct our failure to withdraw the DFR (after EPA received adverse public comments) prior to the December 12, 2016 effective date of the DFR.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA's Analysis

    The combustion of fuel oil containing sulfur leads to direct emissions of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and also sulfur dioxide (SO2)—a pollutant which is a precursor to secondary formation of PM2.5 pollution. In addition, SO2 emissions oxidize in the atmosphere to form sulfates, which are one of the largest contributors to the formation of regional haze, which impairs visibility in the atmosphere by the scattering and absorption of sunlight by fine particles. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see. The District asserts its regulations limiting sulfur content in fuel oil used by certain fuel combustion sources and the prohibition of combustion of high sulfur content fuel oil within the District will decrease SO2 emissions and therefore strengthen the District's SIP. The reduction in SO2 emissions helps the District to maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for SO2 and PM2.5. Additional SO2 emission reductions and subsequent reductions in sulfates from District sources combusting lower sulfur fuel will assist the District in achieving further reasonable progress towards reducing regional haze. Under section 169A of the CAA, it is a national goal to remedy and prevent regional haze in any Class I areas.1 Section 169A requires states which contain Class I areas and states from which emissions may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas to submit SIP revisions to make reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal (regional haze SIPs). The District's regional haze program to address visibility impairment requirements in Class I areas was fully approved into the District's SIP by EPA on February 2, 2012. See 77 FR 5191.2 The District has submitted revised regulations for SIP approval to implement its low sulfur fuel oil program.

    1 Class I areas include national parks, wilderness areas, or other areas of national importance that have visibility protection requirements.

    2 The District's regional haze SIP addressing the planning period from 2008 to 2018 is consistent with EPA's requirements in 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309. The SIP addressed contribution to visibility impairment related to emissions of PM2.5 and its precursors, and included measures to address emissions that would interfere with reasonable progress goals of neighboring states set to protect Class I areas. During the development of the first round of regional haze SIPs, the regional planning organization for the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states, Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU), established a strategy for these states to meet the requirements of reasonable progress goals by implementing certain measures, including pursuing a low sulfur fuel oil strategy to reduce sulfur content in fuels by 2018.

    These revisions to DCMR Chapters 1, 5, and 8 of Title 20 require that the sulfur content of Number 2 (No. 2) fuel oil be no greater than 500 parts per million (ppm); the sulfur content of Number 4 (No. 4) fuel oil be no greater than 2,500 ppm; and prohibit the use of Number 5 (No. 5) and heavier fuel oils in the District. Additionally, beginning July 1, 2018, the sulfur content of No. 2 fuel oil can be no greater than 15 ppm. Any fuel oil stored by the ultimate consumer in the District prior to the applicable compliance date may be used after the applicable compliance date. The revisions also include changes to reporting and recordkeeping requirements related to the use and storage of the aforementioned fuel oils. Definitions for terminology which relate to reporting and recordkeeping requirements were added.

    The updates to Chapter 1 include amendments to the definitions of “American Standards of Testing Materials (ASTM)” and “distillate oil.” The revision to Chapter 5 includes updates to the sampling and testing practices for fuel oils. The amended Chapter 5 regulations require the use of various ASTM methods for the sampling of petroleum; an ASTM standard for the determination of fuel oil grade; and various ASTM methods for the determination of sulfur content in fuel oil. Chapter 8 includes the revised sulfur content for No. 2 and No. 4 fuel oils and prohibits combustion of No. 5 and heavier fuel oils in the District. Chapter 8 also includes the aforementioned compliance provision and definitions related to reporting and recordkeeping requirements.3

    3 Chapter 8 also includes provisions allowing waiver of fuel oil limits when EPA has granted fuel waivers. Chapter 8 also addresses fuel oil sulfur limits when a person, owner, or operator of a stationary source employs equipment or a process to reduce sulfur emissions from burning fuel oil.

    As discussed in the DFR and NPR, EPA finds the District's low sulfur fuel regulations will improve visibility while also helping the District to maintain the NAAQS for SO2 and PM2.5 by reducing sulfur oxide emissions and PM2.5 emissions through reduction of sulfur in fuel oils combusted in the District. EPA finds that these regulations strengthen the District's SIP. EPA notes that existing provisions and the adoption of a low sulfur fuel oil program in the District will lead to SO2 emission reductions and provide additional SO2 and PM2.5 emission reductions from the District to achieve further reasonable progress towards reducing regional haze in nearby Class I areas, which may be impacted by emissions from the District.

    III. Public Comments and EPA's Responses

    EPA received comments from the Export Inspection Council of India within the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as “commenter”) on November 10, 2016.

    Comment Summary: The commenter noted that the District is of the view that the lower sulfur fuel oil regulation will decrease SO2 emissions from certain fuel combustion sources which results in the strengthening of the District's SIP and which will help the District maintain the SO2 NAAQS. The commenter asked whether this SIP revision is based on any scientific studies or justifications on the low sulfur content of fuel oil. The commenter also asked whether the rule implementing the lower sulfur content of fuel oil has any significance to meeting any “multilateral obligation.” Finally, the commenter inquired whether the proposed SIP revision applies to only domestically produced fuel oil or also applies to fuel oil exported to the United States.

    Response: In response to the commenter's inquiry whether this regulation applies to fuel oil imported into the District, as well as to fuel oil produced within the District, EPA notes that the District's regulation applies to all fuel oil to be combusted within the District and limits the sulfur content of fuel oil combusted within the District regardless of where the fuel oil is refined. Thus, EPA responds to the commenter that the District's regulation limits the sulfur content of all fuel oil combusted within the District, whether the fuel oil is domestically produced or imported from sources outside the District or outside the United States. See title 20 of DCMR chapter 8 section 801.

    As the commenter notes, the District's regulation lowering the sulfur content of fuel oil combusted within the District will reduce SO2 emissions within the District and aid the District in attaining and maintaining the SO2 NAAQS as EPA noted in the NPR. The District's regulation to reduce the sulfur content in fuel oil is also a response by the District to address regional needs to reduce SO2, the primary pollutant in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast United States responsible for visibility impairment or regional haze. To address CAA requirements for regional haze, the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states agreed to pursue common efforts to reduce SO2 and visibility impairment. One effort to which these states agreed was the reduction of sulfur content in fuel oil. A contribution assessment for these states was prepared for the first round of regional haze SIPs due in 2007 entitled Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States. 4 The assessment provided an analysis of pollutant contributions to the formation of regional haze as well as pollutant apportionment among states in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions of the United States. The assessment found that SO2 accounts for 20 percent of the haziest days in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast region. These states developed a coordinated course of action to address the SO2 emissions contributing to regional haze in the eastern United States and asked states in this area to adopt regulations to lower the sulfur content of fuel oil. To meet this coordinated course of action and to also reduce SO2 emissions in general to aid in attaining and maintaining the SO2 NAAQS, the District adopted the low sulfur fuel oil regulations, which are the subject of this SIP revision. Other than this “contribution assessment,” which aided states in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions to address regional haze, EPA is not aware of any other scientific studies or justifications on low sulfur content of fuel oil on which the District's regulation for sulfur content in fuel oil is based.

    4 This document can be found at: http://www.nescaum.org/documents/contributions-to-regional-haze-in-the-northeast-and-mid-atlantic--united-states/.

    Finally, regarding whether the District's regulation has any significance to meeting any multilateral obligation, EPA is unaware to what the commenter refers by “multilateral obligation” as the commenter has not defined this phrase. Assuming arguendo that the commenter meant to ask whether this low sulfur fuel regulation from the District addresses any obligations of the District or of the United States to “international communities” via treaties or other international law obligations, EPA is not aware of any “multilateral obligations” to which this regulation is intended to apply. The District's January 20, 2016 submission only states that its submitted regulation which lowers the sulfur content of fuel combusted within the District was intended to reduce SO2 emissions within the District and aid the District in attaining and maintaining the SO2 NAAQS. The District's January 20, 2016 SIP revision submittal did not address whether the District's regulation addressed any multilateral obligation nor is EPA aware of any multilateral obligation which this regulation is intended to address.

    IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving revisions to the DCMR Chapters 1, 5, and 8 of Title 20 for inclusion in the District's SIP because the revisions meet the requirements of the CAA in section 110 and strengthen the District's SIP. The revisions to the DCMR Chapters include limits on sulfur content in fuels to be combusted within the District and a prohibition on combustion of high sulfur content fuels which will reduce SO2 emissions in the District. EPA is also amending the effective date of the inclusion of these revisions to the District's SIP because the revisions were added to the SIP prematurely on December 12, 2016 when EPA failed to withdraw its DFR after receiving a comment on our approval of the District's low sulfur fuel regulations. This rule which responds to the comment received finalizes our approval and corrects the premature effective date for inclusion of the revised low sulfur fuel regulations in the District's SIP.

    V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the DCMR Chapters 1, 5, and 8 of Title 20. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully Federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update of the SIP compilation.5 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

    5 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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).

    C. 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 June 30, 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.

    This action approving the revisions to the District of Columbia's regulations to lower the sulfur content of fuel oil 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: March 21, 2017.

    Cecil Rodrigues, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    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 J—District of Columbia 2. In § 52.470, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entries for “Section 199”, “Sections 502.1 through 502.15”, “Section 801”, and “Section 899” to read as follows:
    § 52.470 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Regulations and Statutes in the District of Columbia SIP State citation Title/subject State
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA approval date Additional explanation
    District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR), Title 20—Environment Chapter 1 General *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 199 Definitions and Abbreviations 08/16/15 05/01/17 [Insert Federal Register citation] Added two new definitions. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter 5 Source Monitoring and Testing *         *         *         *         *         *         * Sections 502.1 through 502.15 Sampling, Tests, and Measurements 08/16/15 05/01/17 [Insert Federal Register citation] Updates to sampling and testing practices for fuel oils. Exceptions: Paragraphs 502.11, 502.12 and 502.14 are not part of the SIP. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter 8 Asbestos, Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxides Section 801 Sulfur Content of Fuel Oils 08/16/15 05/01/17 [Insert Federal Register citation] Updates to the sulfur content of No. 2 and No.4 fuel oils and the prohibition of the use of No. 5 fuel oil. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 899 Definitions and Abbreviations 08/16/15 05/01/17 [Insert Federal Register citation] Addition of new definitions that relate to the handling and storage of fuel oil. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-08642 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0092; FRL-9961-57-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Repeal of NOX Budget Trading Program AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Rhode Island. This revision removes Air Pollution Control (APC) Regulation 41, entitled “NOX Budget Trading Program” (Rhode Island NBP) from the Rhode Island SIP. The Rhode Island NBP was a market-based cap and trade program, which was created to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) from power plants and other large combustion sources in response to EPA's 1998 NOX SIP Call. By 2009, EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) had effectively replaced NOX Budget Trading Programs in eastern states. CAIR has since been replaced by the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which was first implemented on January 1, 2015. Rhode Island was not covered by CAIR or CSAPR. The State's NBP was repealed under state law effective July 29, 2014. The five sources meeting the Rhode Island NBP applicability criteria have Title V permits, which contain SIP-derived NOX emissions limits, that limit their NOX emissions below the maximum emissions (936 tons) that were allowed under the Rhode Island NBP and, therefore, the requirements of the NOX SIP Call are satisfied by the emissions limits contained in those sources' permits. This renders Regulation 41 unnecessary. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

    DATES:

    This direct final rule will be effective June 30, 2017, unless EPA receives adverse comments by May 31, 2017. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0092 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1684, fax number (617) 918-0684, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

    I. Background and Purpose II. EPA's Evaluation of Rhode Island's SIP Revision III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background and Purpose

    On October 6, 2014, Rhode Island submitted a formal revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision consists of a request to remove from its SIP Air Pollution Control (APC) Regulation 41, entitled “NOX Budget Trading Program” (Rhode Island NBP). The regulation is no longer needed as the subject facilities' Title V permits, which contain SIP-derived NOX emissions limits, collectively contain maximum allowable emission limitations (682 tons) that are significantly lower than the 936-ton limit in the EPA-approved Rhode Island NBP. In addition, any new sources that would be constructed are subject to the state's new source review program, which has been approved by EPA into the Rhode Island SIP (64 FR 67500; December 2, 1999).

    Rhode Island's NBP was a market-based cap and trade program, which was created to reduce emissions of NOX from power plants and other large combustion sources in response to EPA's NOX SIP Call (63 FR 57356; October 27, 1998). The NOX SIP call originally required 22 States, including Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia to meet statewide NOX emission budgets during each ozone season (May 1 to October 1) beginning in 2003. In February 1999, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Connecticut signed a memorandum of understanding agreeing to distribute the Electric Generating Unit (EGU) portions of the three states' budgets amongst themselves. Therefore, Rhode Island's SIP submittal for its Regulation 41 “NOX Budget Trading Program” (Rhode Island NBP) to meet NOX SIP Call requirements was approved at the same time as those from Massachusetts and Connecticut (65 FR 81743; December 27, 2000).

    Sources covered by the Rhode Island NBP include sources with a nameplate capacity greater than 15 megawatts electric (MWe) or with a maximum design heat input greater than 250 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr). The five sources meeting the NBP applicability criteria are Ocean State Power, Pawtucket Power Associates, Dominion Energy Manchester Street, Inc., Tiverton Power Inc., and Entergy Rhode Island State Energy, L.P. The EPA-approved Rhode Island NBP set the total NOX emission budget for all applicable sources for each control period (i.e., the May through October ozone season) at 936 tons.

    In May 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 25162; May 12, 2005), which covered 27 eastern states and the District of Columbia. CAIR used a cap and trade program to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOX emissions from power plants and other large combustion sources to meet the 1997 annual and 24-hour fine particle (PM2.5) and 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). By 2009, CAIR had replaced NBPs for CAIR states. CAIR was subsequently replaced by the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48208; August 8, 2011). CSAPR implementation began on January 1, 2015. EPA revised the CSAPR ozone-season NOX program by issuing an update to CSAPR for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, known as the CSAPR Update (81 FR 74504; October 26, 2016). The CSAPR Update will largely replace the original CSAPR ozone-season NOX program on May 1, 2017. Rhode Island was not covered by CAIR, CSAPR, or the CSAPR Update. However, neither CAIR nor CSAPR preempted or replaced the underlying requirements of the NOX SIP Call and, therefore, Rhode Island remains subject to those requirements.

    In order for Rhode Island to be able to remove its NBP from the SIP, the state has demonstrated that its total NOX emission limitation under its NBP (936 tons during each ozone-season control period) would be retained. As noted earlier, all of the sources meeting the Rhode Island NBP applicability criteria have Title V permits, which contain SIP-derived NOX emissions limits, that collectively limit their allowable NOX emissions to amounts below 936 tons, and these sources also remain subject to adequate monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    On April 7, 2014, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) proposed to repeal APC Regulation No. 41 “NOX Budget Trading Program” and offered the public an opportunity to schedule a public hearing on or before May 8, 2014. No requests for a public hearing were requested, and repeal of this regulation under state law became effective on July 29, 2014. On October 6, 2014, RI DEM submitted a SIP revision to EPA to remove APC Regulation No. 41 from the Rhode Island SIP.

    II. EPA's Evaluation of Rhode Island's SIP Revision

    EPA has reviewed the Title V permits, and NOX emissions limits contained therein, for the five sources that meet the Rhode Island NBP applicability criteria: Ocean State Power, Pawtucket Power Associates, Dominion Energy Manchester Street, Inc., Tiverton Power Inc., and Entergy Rhode Island State Energy, L.P. These permits, which include emissions limits, and a technical support document (TSD) supporting EPA's evaluation are available in the docket for today's action.

    The maximum allowable NOX emissions from the five Rhode Island sources during any ozone-season control period under the Title V permits were calculated using the following conservative assumptions: (1) All units are operating at maximum capacity; and (2) all units are operating at all times throughout the ozone season. As detailed in the TSD, the maximum allowable NOX emissions were calculated to be 682 tons, well below the 936 tons allowed under the Rhode Island NBP. These calculated emissions were also compared to these sources' actual emissions during 2016, the most recent year for which emissions data is available from EPA's Clean Air Markets at https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/. A spreadsheet showing this data is included in the docket for today's action. Actual 2016 ozone-season NOX emissions for the five sources were 221 tons, significantly below both the 682 tons allowed under the Title V permits and the 936 tons allowed under the Rhode Island NBP. Therefore, the state has been meeting, and will continue to meet, the requirements of the NOX SIP Call.

    Furthermore, as Rhode Island is meeting the requirements of the NOX SIP call through the implementation of the facilities' permitted NOX emissions limits, removing APC Regulation No. 41 from the Rhode Island SIP will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment of the NAAQS, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable Clean Air Act requirement; i.e., the SIP revision meets the Clean Air Act's section 110(l) anti-backsliding requirements. In addition, any new sources that would be constructed would be subject to the state's new source review program which has been approved by EPA into the Rhode Island SIP (64 FR 67500; December 2, 1999). Accordingly, EPA is approving the removal of APC Regulation No. 41 from the Rhode Island SIP.

    III. Final Action

    EPA is approving Rhode Island's request, submitted to EPA on October 6, 2014, to remove from the Rhode Island SIP APC Regulation No. 41 “NOX Budget Trading Program.”

    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment 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 SIP revision should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective June 30, 2017 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by May 31, 2017.

    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on June 30, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 30, 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: March 23, 2017. Deborah A. Szaro, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

    Part 52 of 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 OO—Rhode Island
    § 52.2070 [Amended]
    2. In § 52.2070, in the table in paragraph (c), remove the entry “Air Pollution Control Regulation 41”.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08655 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0081; FRL-9961-23-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; State of Delaware, District of Columbia, and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, City of Philadelphia; Control of Emissions From Existing Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator Units AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to notify the public that it has received negative declarations relating to commercial and industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) units within the State of Delaware, the District of Columbia, and the City of Philadelphia in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These negative declarations certify that CISWI units subject to the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) do not exist within the jurisdictional boundaries of the State of Delaware, the District of Columbia, and the City of Philadelphia in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. EPA is accepting the negative declarations in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on June 30, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by May 31, 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-R03-OAR-2016-0081 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Cate Opila, (215) 814-2041, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA require submittal of state plans to control certain pollutants (designated pollutants) at existing solid waste combustor facilities (designated facilities) whenever standards of performance have been established by EPA under section 111(b) for new sources of the same source category and the EPA has established emission guidelines for such existing sources. When designated facilities are located in a state, the state must then develop and submit a plan for the control of the designated pollutant. Subpart B of 40 CFR part 60 establishes procedures to be followed and requirements to be met in the development and submission of state plans for controlling designated pollutants from designated facilities under sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA. Also, Subpart A of 40 CFR part 62 provides the procedural framework for the submission of these plans.

    If a state fails to submit a satisfactory plan, the CAA provides the EPA the authority to prescribe a plan for regulating the designated pollutants at the designated facilities. The EPA prescribed plan, also known as a federal plan, is often delegated to states with designated facilities but no EPA approved state-specific plan. If no such designated facilities exist within a state's jurisdiction, a state may submit to the EPA a letter of certification to that effect (referred to as a negative declaration) in lieu of a state plan to satisfy the state's obligation. 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06. A negative declaration exempts the state from the requirement to submit a CAA section 111(d)/section 129 plan for that designated pollutant and source category. 40 CFR 60.23(b).

    II. Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators

    On December 1, 2000 (60 FR 75338), the EPA promulgated new source performance standards for new CISWI units, 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC, and emission guidelines for existing CISWI units, 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD. After a series of legal challenges, amendments, and reconsiderations, the EPA promulgated the Reconsideration and Final Amendments for CISWI units on February 7, 2013 (78 FR 9112) (providing final standards for new and existing sources). A CISWI unit is any distinct operating unit of any commercial or industrial facility that combusts, or has combusted in the preceding six months, any solid waste, as that term is defined in 40 CFR part 241, Solid Wastes Used as Fuels or Ingredients in Combustion Units. 40 CFR 60.2875. A state plan must address all existing CISWI units that commenced construction on or before June 4, 2010, or for which modification or reconstruction was commenced on or before August 7, 2013, with limited exceptions as provided in 40 CFR 60.2555. See 40 CFR 60.2550.

    As discussed previously, if there are no designated facilities in the state, the state may submit a negative declaration in lieu of a state plan. The EPA will provide public notice of receipt of a state's negative declaration with respect to CISWI. See 40 CFR 60.2530. If any subsequently identified existing CISWI unit is found in a state that had submitted a negative declaration, the Federal plan implementing the emission guidelines for subpart DDDD would automatically apply to that CISWI unit until a state plan is approved. See 40 CFR 60.2530.

    III. State Submittals and EPA Analysis

    The State of Delaware, through the Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control (DNREC), the District of Columbia District through the Department of Energy & Environment (DDOEE), and the City of Philadelphia through the Department of Public Health, Air Management Services in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia AMS) have determined that there are no CISWI units subject to CAA 111(d)/129 requirements in their respective jurisdictional boundaries. Accordingly, each state and local agency has submitted to EPA a negative declaration letter certifying this fact. DNREC submitted a negative declaration letter to EPA on January 7, 2014. DDOEE submitted a negative declaration letter to EPA on November 8, 2013. Philadelphia AMS submitted a negative declaration letter to EPA on March 4, 2015. A typographical error in the letter was noted and clarified by Philadelphia AMS in an email on February 4, 2016. These negative declaration letters and a copy of the February 4, 2016 email are in the docket for this action and are available online at https://www.regulations.gov. A description of the states' submittals and EPA's rationale for the approval is also set forth in a technical support document for this action. Supporting documentation, including the technical support document, for this action is available in the docket for this rulemaking and available online at https://www.regulations.gov.

    IV. Final Action

    In this direct final action, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 62 to reflect the receipt of negative declaration letters from the noted state and local agencies. EPA accepts these negative declarations as meeting the requirements in paragraph 40 CFR 60.23(b). Amendments are being made to 40 CFR part 62, subparts I (Delaware), J (District of Columbia), and NN (Pennsylvania). With respect to subpart NN, this action is only applicable to the City of Philadelphia air pollution control agency's jurisdiction; it does not include the remaining geographical areas in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. EPA is providing notice of receipt of these negative declarations.

    After publication of this Federal Register action, if a designated facility (i.e., existing CISWI unit) is later found within any of the three noted jurisdictions, then the overlooked facility will become subject to the requirements of the federal plan for CISWI units for that designated facility, including the compliance schedule, when promulgated by EPA. See 40 CFR 60.2530. The federal plan would no longer apply if EPA subsequently receives and approves a section 111(d)/129 plan from the jurisdiction with the overlooked CISWI facility.

    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the action if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on June 30, 2017 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by May 31, 2017. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely notifies the public of EPA receipt of negative declarations from air pollution control agencies without any existing CISWI units within their jurisdictional boundaries. This action imposes no requirements. Accordingly, EPA certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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). This action also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves the negative declarations for existing CISWI units from DNREC, DDOEE and Philadelphia AMS. The action does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. This action 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).

    With regard to negative declarations for designated facilities received by EPA from states, EPA's role is to notify the public of the receipt of such negative declarations and revise 40 CFR part 62 accordingly. This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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).

    C. 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 June 30, 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 action. This action approving negative declarations for existing CISWI units from DNREC, DDOEE and Philadelphia AMS may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 21, 2017. Cecil Rodrigues, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows:

    PART 62—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS FOR DESIGNATED FACILITIES AND POLLUTANTS 1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart I—Delaware 2. Revise § 62.1985 to read as follows:
    § 62.1985 Identification of plan—negative declaration.

    (a) Letter from the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control submitted November 16, 2001, certifying that there are no existing commercial/industrial solid waste incineration units within the State of Delaware that are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD.

    (b) Letter from the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control submitted January 7, 2014, certifying that there are no existing commercial/industrial solid waste incineration units within the State of Delaware that are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD.

    Subpart J—District of Columbia 3. Revise § 62.2155 to read as follows:
    § 62.2155 Identification of plan—negative declaration.

    (a) Letter from the District of Columbia Department of Health, Environmental Health Administration, submitted November 27, 2001, certifying that there are no existing commercial/industrial solid waste incineration units within the District of Columbia that are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD.

    (b) Letter from the District of Columbia, District Department of Energy & Environment, submitted November 8, 2013, certifying that there are no existing commercial/industrial solid waste incineration units within the District of Columbia that are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD.

    Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 4. Revise § 62.9670 to read as follows:
    § 62.9670 Identification of plan—negative declaration.

    (a) Letter from the City of Philadelphia, Department of Public Health, submitted February 9, 2001, certifying that there are no existing commercial/industrial solid waste incineration units within the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania that are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD.

    (b) Letter from the City of Philadelphia, Department of Public Health, submitted March 4, 2015, as amended February 4, 2016, certifying that there are no existing commercial/industrial solid waste incineration units within the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania that are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD.

    [FR Doc. 2017-08657 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0215; FRL-9955-97] Tioxazafen; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of tioxazafen in or on corn, field, forage; corn, field, grain; corn, field, stover; cotton, gin byproducts; cotton, undelinted seed; soybean, forage; soybean, hay; soybean, meal; soybean, seed. Monsanto Company requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective May 1, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before June 30, 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-2015-0215, 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. To access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select “Test Methods and Guidelines.”

    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-2015-0215 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 June 30, 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-2015-0215, 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 May 20, 2015 (80 FR 28925) (FRL-9927-39), 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 4F8339) by Monsanto Company, 1300 I Street NW., Suite 450 East, Washington, DC 20005. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the nematicide tioxazafen, in or on cattle, fat at 0.01 parts per million (ppm); cattle, meat at 0.01 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; corn, field, forage at 0.01 ppm; corn, field, grain at 0.01 ppm; corn, field, stover at 0.02 ppm; cotton, gin byproducts at 0.02 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.01 ppm; goat, fat at 0.01 ppm; goat, meat at 0.01 ppm; goat, meat byproducts at 0.01ppm; horse, fat at 0.01 ppm; horse, meat at 0.01 ppm; horse, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; milk at 0.01 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.01 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.01 ppm; sheep, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; soybean, forage at 0.15 ppm; soybean, hay at 0.30 ppm; soybean, meal at 0.05 ppm; and soybean, seed at 0.04 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Monsanto Company, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. One comment was received in response to the notice of filing. The Agency's response to that comment is contained in Unit IV.C.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is establishing tolerance levels for corn, field, forage; corn, field, grain; and cotton, undelinted seed that differ from what the petitioner requested. In addition, the Agency determined tolerances were not necessary on cattle, fat; cattle, meat; cattle, meat byproducts; goat, fat; goat, meat; goat, meat byproducts; horse, fat; horse, meat; horse, meat byproducts, milk; sheep, fat; sheep, meat; and sheep, meat byproducts because of no expectation of residues. 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 tioxazafen including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with tioxazafen 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.

    Tioxazafen has low acute toxicity by the oral, dermal and inhalation routes of exposure. It is a mild eye irritant, nonirritating to the skin, and is not a dermal sensitizer.

    The adrenal gland in male and female rats was the primary target organ in subchronic and chronic oral toxicity studies. These effects were also observed in the dermal and inhalation (28- and 90-day) toxicity studies. In male rats, adrenal effects included increased adrenal weights and adrenal vacuolation. Although female rats exhibited decreased rather than increased adrenal weights, there were no corresponding histological effects in adrenals of females in the 2-generation reproductive study or the chronic toxicity study to indicate adversity of the finding. The available studies suggest that the male rat may be more sensitive than females to the adrenal effects of tioxazafen.

    Evidence of neurotoxicity (i.e., decreased locomotor activity) was observed in the acute neurotoxicity study in the rat. Decreased hindlimb splay observed in the rat subchronic neurotoxicity study was not considered adverse, and there was no evidence of neurotoxicity in the rest of the database and no corroborating neuropathology.

    Tioxazafen did not result in developmental effects in either rats or rabbits, and therefore, there is no quantitative or qualitative susceptibility. In rats, the only maternal effects were decreased adrenal weights, and decreased food consumption. No histology was performed on the adrenal to assess potential functional effects. There were no maternal effects in the rabbit of toxicological significance. No offspring toxicity was noted up to 60 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) (highest dose tested (HDT)) in the 2-generation reproductive toxicity study.

    In an immunotoxicity rat study, decreased serum IgM response (not statistically significant) was noted at the high dose and decreasing median values exhibited a clear dose-response. These findings provide an indication of perturbation/dis-regulation of the immunologic response.

    Long-term dietary exposure to high doses of tioxazafen was associated with the development of malignant thoracic hibernomas in female rats, hepatocellular tumors in male and female mice, and hemangiosarcomas in male mice. Based on the observation of tumors in 2 species and both sexes without an adequate mode of action, EPA classified tioxazafen as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans” with a linear cancer slope factor (Q1*) of 9.63 × 10 3 (mg/kg/day) 1. Tioxazafen is not considered to be a mutagen.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by tioxazafen 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, “Tioxazafen. Human Health Risk Assessment for the First Food Uses on Corn, Cotton, and Soybean Seeds” (K. Rickard, 10/06/2016) in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0215.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological Point of Departures (PODs) 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 the NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified. Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

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

    Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Tioxazafen for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment Exposure/scenario Point of departure
  • and
  • uncertainty/Safety
  • factors
  • RfD, PAD, LOC for
  • risk assessment
  • Study and toxicological effects
    Acute dietary (General population including infants and children) LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10
  • UFH = 10
  • FQPA SF/UFL = 10x
  • Acute RfD = 0.25 mg/kg/day
  • aPAD = 0.25 mg/kg/day
  • Acute neurotoxicity—Rat LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day based on decreased total motor and ambulatory activity counts (observed at time of peak).
    Chronic dietary (All populations) Parental NOAEL = 5.0 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Chronic RfD = 0.05 mg/kg/day
  • cPAD = 0.05 mg/kg/day
  • Two-Generation Reproductive—Rat LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day based on adrenal effects (increased weight and vacuolation of the adrenal gland) in males.
    Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) Classification: “Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” based on female mouse liver combined adenoma and/or carcinoma tumor rates. A linear low dose extrapolation model for risk assessment will be used with a unit risk, Q1* = 9.63 × 10 3 (mg/kg/day) 1 for female mouse liver combined adenoma and/or carcinoma tumor rates. FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). UFL = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL.
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to tioxazafen, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances in 40 CFR 180. EPA assessed dietary exposures from tioxazafen 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.

    Such effects were identified for tioxazafen. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA conducted an unrefined acute dietary assessment using tolerance-level residues, 100 PCT assumptions, and default processing factors.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA conducted an unrefined chronic dietary assessment, using tolerance-level residues, 100 PCT assumptions, and default processing factors.

    iii. Cancer. EPA determines whether quantitative cancer exposure and risk assessments are appropriate for a food-use pesticide based on the weight of the evidence from cancer studies and other relevant data. If quantitative cancer risk assessment is appropriate, cancer risk may be quantified using a linear or nonlinear approach. If sufficient information on the carcinogenic mode of action is available, a threshold or nonlinear approach is used and a cancer RfD is calculated based on an earlier noncancer key event. If carcinogenic mode of action data are not available, or if the mode of action data determines a mutagenic mode of action, a default linear cancer slope factor approach is utilized. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that tioxazafen should be classified as “Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” and a linear approach has been used to quantify cancer risk. Unrefined cancer dietary assessments were conducted using tolerance-level residues, 100 PCT assumptions, and default processing factors.

    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for tioxazafen. Tolerance level residues and/or 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for tioxazafen in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of tioxazafen. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

    Based on the Pesticide in Water Calculator (PWC v1.52) consisting of a graphical user interface shell integrating PRZM v.5.02 and VVWMv.1.02.1, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of tioxazafen for acute exposures are estimated to be 4.89 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.0756 ppb for ground water. For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments the EDWCs are estimated to be 0.61 ppb for surface water and there was no breakthrough for ground water. Chronic exposures for cancer assessments are estimated to be 0.38 ppb for surface water and there was no breakthrough for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 4.89 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 0.61 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For cancer dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 0.38 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).

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

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

    EPA has not found tioxazafen to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and tioxazafen does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that tioxazafen 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 Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. No evidence of quantitative or qualitative increased susceptibility, as compared to adults, was observed in fetuses as a result of in utero exposure in developmental toxicity studies in rats or rabbits, or in offspring as a result of potential in utero or postnatal exposure in a reproduction study in rats.

    3. Conclusion. EPA is retaining the 10X FQPA SF for acute exposure scenarios to account for extrapolation to a NOAEL from a LOAEL. For other exposure durations and routes, 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 based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicology database for tioxazafen is complete.

    ii. Tioxazafen did not result in developmental effects in either rats or rabbits, therefore, there is no evidence of increased qualitative or quantitative susceptibility in the developing fetus. No offspring toxicity was noted up to 60 mg/kg/day (highest dose tested) in the 2-generation reproductive toxicity study.

    iii. There is low concern for neurotoxicity. In the acute neurotoxicity study in the rat, decreased locomotor activity was noted and decreased hind limb splay was observed in the rat subchronic neurotoxicity study at week 3 evaluations; however, this effect was not considered adverse since there was no dose response relationship, the response was variable, nonpersistent, and not observed in the 90-day subchronic rat oral toxicity study, and no additional neurotoxicity data are required.

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

    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. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to tioxazafen will occupy <1% of the aPAD for all infants <1-year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to tioxazafen from food and water will utilize <1% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for tioxazafen.

    3. Short-term risk. Because there are no residential exposures to tioxazafen, a short-term aggregate risk assessment was not conducted.

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Because there are no residential exposures to tioxazafen, an intermediate-term aggregate risk assessment was not conducted.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Using a linear low-dose extrapolation model (Q1*) was used to estimate cancer risk, with a Q1* = 9.63 × 10−3 (mg/kg/day)−1, the Agency estimates cancer risk to Adults 20-49 years old to be 5 × 10−7. EPA generally considers cancer risks (expressed as the probability of an increased cancer case) in the range of 1 in 1 million (or 1 × 10−6) or less to be negligible.

    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 tioxazafen residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate analytical methods are available to enforce the proposed tolerances for tioxazafen and benzamidine in plant commodities. The proposed plant enforcement method, Method 115G8064A, employs a single extraction and determinative step for both analytes. This method was successfully validated by an independent laboratory.

    Adequate enforcement methodology (electrospray ionization liquid chromatography with mass spectrometric detection (ESI LC-MS/MS) in positive ion mode) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.

    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 an MRL for tioxazafen.

    C. Response to Comments

    EPA received one comment on the Notice of Filing objecting, without any supporting information, to the establishment of these tioxazafen tolerances for concerns about the toxicity of chemicals generally. The Agency understands the commenter's concerns and recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should be banned from use on agricultural crops. The existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the FFDCA, however, states that tolerances may be set when persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety stand imposed by that statute. EPA has evaluated the available data, assessed the effects of this chemical on human health, and determined that aggregate exposure to it will be safe. The commenter has not provided any information to support altering that safety finding.

    D. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    Some of the petitioned-for tolerance levels in the Notice of Filing differ from those currently being set by the Agency. Specifically, the Agency has determined that no livestock tolerances are needed as there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues in those commodities. Further, for corn and cotton raw agricultural commodities, the appropriate tolerance level needs to be the sum of the level of quantification of tioxazafen and benzamidine (0.02 ppm) rather than 0.01 ppm.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of tioxazafen, in or on corn, field, forage at 0.02 ppm; corn, field, grain at 0.02 ppm; corn, field, stover at 0.02 ppm; cotton, gin byproducts at 0.02 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.02 ppm; soybean, forage at 0.15 ppm; Soybean, hay at 0.30 ppm; soybean, meal at 0.05 ppm and soybean, seed at 0.04 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: April 10, 2017. Richard P. Keigwin, Jr., Acting Director, 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. Add § 180.692 to subpart C to read as follows:
    § 180.692 Tioxazafen; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of tioxazafen, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring the combined residues of tioxazafen [3-phenyl-5-(2-thienyl)-1,2,4-oxadiazole] and benzamidine, expressed as tioxazafen in or on the commodity.

    Commodity Parts
  • per million
  • Corn, field, forage 0.02 Corn, field, grain 0.02 Corn, field, stover 0.02 Cotton, gin by-products 0.02 Cotton, undelinted seed 0.02 Soybean, forage 0.15 Soybean, hay 0.30 Soybean, meal 0.05 Soybean, seed 0.04

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]

    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]

    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]

    [FR Doc. 2017-08538 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2017-0025; FXES11130900000 167 FF09E42000] RIN 1018-BC04 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reinstatement of Removal of Federal Protections for Gray Wolves in Wyoming AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are issuing this final rule to comply with a court order that reinstates the removal of Federal protections for the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in Wyoming under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Pursuant to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit order dated March 3, 2017, and mandate dated April 25, 2017, this rule again removes gray wolves in Wyoming from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

    DATES:

    This action is effective May 1, 2017. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit order dated March 3, 2017, and mandate dated April 25, 2017, removing Federal protections for the gray wolf in Wyoming had legal effect immediately upon filing of the mandate.

    ADDRESSES:

    This final rule is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2017-0025. It will also be available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Regional Office, Ecological Services Division, 134 Union Blvd., Lakewood, CO 80228; telephone (303) 236-7400. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on wolves in Wyoming, contact Tyler Abbott, Wyoming Field Office Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5353 Yellowstone Rd., Suite 308A, Cheyenne, WY 82009; telephone (307) 772-2374. Individuals who are hearing impaired or speech impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8337 for TTY assistance.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List), which is authorized by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), is located in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations in part 17 (50 CFR 17.11(h)). On September 10, 2012, we published a final rule to remove the gray wolf in Wyoming from the List and remove this population's status as a nonessential experimental population under the ESA (77 FR 55530; “2012 final rule”). Additional background information on the gray wolf in Wyoming and on this decision, including previous Federal actions, can be found in our 2012 final rule at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2011-0039, or at https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grayWolf.php.

    Various groups filed lawsuits challenging our 2012 final rule. On September 23, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia vacated and set aside our 2012 final rule (Defenders of Wildlife v. Jewell, 68 F. Supp. 3d 193 (D.D.C. 2014)) and reinstated our April 2, 2009 (74 FR 15123), final rule that protected gray wolves in Wyoming as a nonessential experimental population under the ESA. On December 1, 2014, the United States appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Pending the appeal, and consistent with the District Court's September 23, 2014, order, we published a final rule reinstating the April 2, 2009, final rule protecting the gray wolf in Wyoming (80 FR 9218, February 20, 2015).

    On March 3, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in a unanimous opinion, reversed the ruling of the U.S. District Court Defenders of Wildlife v. Zinke, No. 14-5300 (D.C. Cir. March 3, 2017). On April 25, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued its mandate consistent with its March 3, 2017, opinion reversing the U.S. District Court's vacatur of our 2012 final rule for gray wolves in Wyoming. The issuance of the mandate makes the delisting go into effect. To the extent that a regulatory change is required to effectuate the delisting, we are doing so now. Therefore, this rule amends the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by removing gray wolves in Wyoming.

    Administrative Procedure

    This rulemaking is necessary to comply with the March 3, 2017, court order and April 25, 2017, mandate. Therefore, under these circumstances, the Director has determined, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are impractical and unnecessary. The Director has further determined, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), that the court order and mandate constitute good cause to make this rule effective upon publication.

    Effects of the Rule

    Per the March 3, 2017, court order and April 25, 2017, mandate, the protections of the ESA are removed for gray wolves in Wyoming. Additionally, the regulations under section 10(j) of the ESA at 50 CFR 17.84(i) and (n) designating Wyoming as a nonessential experimental population area are also removed.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

    Regulation Promulgation

    To comply with the court order and mandate discussed above, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the CFR, as set forth below:

    PART 17—ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.

    § 17.11 [Amended]
    2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the entry for “Wolf, gray [Northern Rocky Mountain DPS]” under MAMMALS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
    § 17.84 [Amended]
    3. Amend § 17.84 by removing and reserving paragraphs (i) and (n). Dated: March 28, 2017. James K. Kurth, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08720 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 150105004-5355-01] RIN 0648-XF377 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Possession and Trip Limit Implementation for the Common Pool Fishery AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; possession and trip limit implementation.

    SUMMARY:

    This action sets the initial possession and trip limits for Northeast multispecies common pool vessels for the 2017 fishing year. The regulations authorize the Regional Administrator to implement trip limits for common pool vessels in order to prevent exceeding the pertinent common pool quotas. This action is intended to optimize the harvest of Northeast regulated multispecies.

    DATES:

    The possession and trip limit implementation is effective at 0001 hours on May 1, 2017, through April 30, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Spencer Talmage, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9232.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The regulations at § 648.86(o) authorize the Regional Administrator (RA) to implement possession and trip limits for common pool vessels in order to prevent the overharvest of common pool quotas. Effective May 1, 2017, this action sets the initial possession and trip limits for the 2017 fishing year, as summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below. These possession and trip limits were developed after considering any changes to the common pool quota, preliminary 2017 sector rosters, and 2016 catch rates. These adjustments are intended to facilitate optimized harvest of the common pool quotas and prevent early trimester closures.

    The initial 2017 possession and trip limits are the same as the initial 2016 limits, with the exception of four stocks (Georges Bank (GB) cod, Gulf of Maine (GOM) haddock, Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) yellowtail flounder, and witch flounder). The initial possession and trip limit for GB cod outside the Eastern U.S./Canada area and witch flounder are reduced relative to initial 2016 possession and trip limits to prevent early stock area closures in Trimester 1 as occurred in 2016. For GOM haddock and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, the initial 2017 limits are higher than the initial 2016 limits to allow additional opportunities given that quota utilization was low for these stocks in 2016.

    For Handgear A and Handgear B vessels, possession and trip limits for GB and GOM cod are tied to the possession and trip limits for groundfish days-at-sea (DAS) vessels. The default cod trip limit is 300 lb (136 kg) for Handgear A vessels and 75 lb (34 kg) for Handgear B vessels. If the GOM or GB cod landing limit for vessels fishing on a groundfish DAS drops below 300 lb (136 kg), then the respective Handgear A cod trip limit must be reduced to the same limit. Similarly, the Handgear B trip limit must be adjusted proportionally (rounded up to the nearest 25 lb (11 kg)) to the DAS limit. This action sets the trip limit of GOM cod to 25 lb (11 kg) per DAS, up to 100 lb (45 kg) per trip for vessels fishing on a groundfish DAS, which is 97 percent lower than the default limit specified in the regulations for these vessels (800 lb (363 kg) per DAS). As a result, the Handgear A and Handgear B trip limit for GOM cod is 25 lb (11 kg) per trip. This action sets the possession and trip limit of GB cod at 250 lb (136 kg) per DAS, up to 500 lb (227 kg) per trip for vessels fishing on a groundfish DAS outside the Eastern U.S./Canada Area. As a result, the Handgear A trip limit for GB cod is also set at 250 lb (136 kg) per trip, and the Handgear B trip limit is 25 lb (11 kg) per trip.

    Weekly quota monitoring reports for the common pool fishery can be found on our Web site at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ro/fso/MultiMonReports.htm. We will continue to monitor common pool catch through vessel trip reports, dealer-reported landings, vessel monitoring system catch reports, and other available information and, if necessary, we will make additional adjustments to common pool management measures.

    Table 1—Initial 2016 and Initial 2017 Common Pool Possession and Trip Limits Stock 2016 Trip limit 2017 Trip limit GB Cod (outside Eastern U.S./Canada Area) 500 lb (227 kg) per DAS, up to 2,500 lb per (1,134 kg) per trip 250 lb (113 kg) per DAS, up to 500 lb per (227 kg) per trip. GB Cod (inside Eastern U.S./Canada Area) 100 lb (45 kg) per DAS, up to 500 lb (227 kg) per trip 100 lb (45 kg) per DAS, up to 500 lb (227 kg) per trip. GOM Cod 25 lb (11 kg) per DAS, up to 100 lb (45 kg) per trip 25 lb (11 kg) per DAS, up to 100 lb (45 kg) per trip. GB Haddock 100,000 lb (45,359 kg) per trip 100,000 lb (45,359 kg) per trip. GOM Haddock 200 lb (91 kg) per DAS up to 600 lb (272 kg) per trip 500 lb (227 kg) per DAS up to 1,000 lb (454 kg) per trip. GB Yellowtail Flounder 100 lb (45 kg) per trip 100 lb (45 kg) per trip. SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder 250 lb (113 kg) per DAS, up to 500 lb (227 kg) per trip 500 lb (227 kg) per DAS, up to 1,000 lb (454 kg) per trip. Cape Cod (CC)/GOM Yellowtail Flounder 750 lb (340 kg) per DAS up to 1,500 lb (680 kg) per trip 750 lb (340 kg) per DAS up to 1,500 lb (680 kg) per trip. American plaice 1,000 lb (454 kg) per trip 1,000 lb (454 kg) per trip. Witch Flounder 250 lb (113 kg) per trip 150 lb (68 kg) per trip. GB Winter Flounder 250 lb (113 kg) per trip 250 lb (113 kg) per trip. GOM Winter Flounder 2,000 lb (907 kg) per trip 2,000 lb (907 kg) per trip. SNE/MA Winter Flounder 2,000 lb (907 kg) per DAS, up to 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) per trip 2,000 lb (907 kg) per DAS, up to 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) per trip. Redfish Unlimited Unlimited. White hake 1,500 lb (680 kg) per trip 1,500 lb (680 kg) per trip. Pollock Unlimited Unlimited. Atlantic Halibut 1 fish per trip 1 fish per trip. Windowpane Flounder
  • Ocean Pout
  • Atlantic Wolffish
  • Possession Prohibited Possession Prohibited.
    Table 2—Initial 2016 and Initial 2017 Fishing Year Cod Trip Limits for Handgear A, Handgear B, and Small Vessel Category Permits Permit Initial 2016 trip limit Initial 2017 trip limit Handgear A GOM Cod 25 lb (11 kg) per trip 25 lb (11 kg) per trip. Handgear A GB Cod 300 lb (136 kg) per trip 250 lb (113 kg) per trip. Handgear B GOM Cod 25 lb (11 kg) per trip 25 lb (11 kg) per trip. Handgear B GB Cod 25 lb (11 kg) per trip 25 lb (11 kg) per trip. Small Vessel Category 300 lb of cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder combined; additionally, vessels are limited to the common pool DAS limit for all stocks. 300 lb of cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder combined; additionally, vessels are limited to the common pool DAS limit for all stocks.

    As a reminder, Table 3 includes the common pool trimester Total Allowable Catches (TACs) for fishing year 2017. These trimester TACs are based on preliminary sector rosters. However, individual permit holders have until the end of the 2016 fishing year (April 30, 2017) to drop out of a sector and fish in the common pool fishery for the 2017 fishing year. Therefore, it is possible that the sector and common pool catch limits, including the trimester TACs, may change due to changes in sector rosters. If changes to sector rosters occur, updated catch limits and/or possession and trip limits will be announced as soon as possible in the 2017 fishing year to reflect the final sector rosters as of May 1, 2017. The regulations also require that any overages of the common pool quota be deducted from the respective quota in the following fishing year. If final fishing year 2016 catch information indicates the common pool exceeded its quota for any stock, we would reduce the common pool quota, as required, in a future action.

    Additionally, we are working to publish a proposed rule for Framework Adjustment 56. If approved, Framework 56 would substantively increase the 2017 catch limit for witch flounder. In the Framework 56 proposed rule, we intend to propose a change to the common pool trip limit for witch flounder consistent with the recommended quota increase.

    Table 3—Common Pool Trimester Total Allowable Catches for Fishing Year 2017 [mt, live weight] Stock Percentage of quota Trimester 1 Trimester 2 Trimester 3 2017 Trimester 1 Trimester 2 Trimester 3 GB Cod 25 37 38 2.9 4.4 4.5 GOM Cod 27 36 37 2.7 3.6 3.7 GB Haddock 27 33 40 84.3 103.0 124.8 GOM Haddock 27 26 47 10.0 9.6 17.3 GB Yellowtail Flounder 19 30 52 0.8 1.3 2.2 SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder 21 37 42 7.2 12.7 14.4 CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder 35 35 30 5.5 5.5 4.7 American Plaice 24 36 40 5.2 7.8 8.7 Witch Flounder 27 31 42 2.3 2.7 3.6 GB Winter Flounder 8 24 69 0.4 1.2 3.3 GOM Winter Flounder 37 38 25 12.6 12.9 8.5 Redfish 25 31 44 14.3 17.7 25.1 White Hake 38 31 31 9.8 8.0 8.0 Pollock 28 35 37 32.5 40.6 42.9 Classification

    This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment and the 30-day delayed effectiveness period because it would be contrary to the public interest. The regulations at § 648.86(o) authorize the RA to adjust the Northeast multispecies possession and trip limits for common pool vessels in order to prevent the overharvest or underharvest of the pertinent common pool quotas. This action sets the initial common pool possession and trip limits on May 1, 2017, for the 2017 fishing year. The possession and trip limits implemented through this action help to ensure that the Northeast multispecies common pool fishery may achieve the optimum yield (OY) for the relevant stocks, while controlling catch to help prevent inseason closures or quota overages. Delay of this action would leave the common pool fishery with no possession or trip limits to control catch and would likely lead to early closure of a trimester and quota overages. Any overage of catch must be deducted from the Trimester 3 quota, which could substantially disrupt the trimester structure and intent to distribute the fishery across the entire fishing year. An overage reduction in Trimester 3 would further reduce fishing opportunities for common pool vessels and likely result in early closure of Trimester 3.

    This would undermine management objectives of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan and cause unnecessary negative economic impacts to the common pool fishery.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: April 26, 2017. Karen H. Abrams, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08809 Filed 4-27-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 161020985-7181-02] RIN 0648-XF389 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Greenland Turbot in the Aleutian Islands Subarea of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Greenland turbot in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2017 Greenland turbot initial total allowable catch (ITAC) in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI.

    DATES:

    Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), May 1, 2017, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

    The 2017 Greenland turbot ITAC in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI is 106 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017). The Regional Administrator has determined that the 2017 ITAC for Greenland turbot in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI is necessary to account for the incidental catch of this species in other anticipated groundfish fisheries for the 2017 fishing year. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator establishes the directed fishing allowance for Greenland turbot in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI as zero mt. Consequently, in accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Greenland turbot in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI.

    After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

    Classification

    This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the directed fishing closure of Greenland turbot in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as April 25, 2017.

    The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

    This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: April 26, 2017. Karen H. Abrams, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08750 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 82 Monday, May 1, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0330; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-016-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracking in the skin lap splice at the lower fastener row, and repair if necessary. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the lower skin at the skin lap splice lower fastener row is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 15, 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110 SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.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. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1365, dated January 23, 2017, is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0330.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0330; 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 (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Guo, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5357; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0330; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-016-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://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

    Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane. This condition is known as WFD. It is associated with general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.

    The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.

    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.

    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.

    We received a report indicating that, during window belt replacements, cracking was found in the lower skin at the stringer S-14 lap splice lower row between station (STA) 360 and STA 540, and between STA 727 and STA 908, on a Model 737-300 airplane. An additional 51 airplanes were inspected and 22 crack indications were reported on airplanes with 42,358 to 48,188 total flight cycles and 53,490 to 58,796 total flight hours. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the lower skin which, if not detected, could link up, resulting in reduced structural integrity of the airplane and consequent uncontrolled decompression of the airplane.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1365, dated January 23, 2017. The service information describes procedures for eddy current inspections for cracking at the skin lap splice in the lower fastener row, and repair if necessary. 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.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.” For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0330.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1365, dated January 23, 2017, specifies to contact the manufacturer for certain instructions, but this proposed AD would require using repair methods, modification deviations, and alteration deviations in one of the following ways:

    • In accordance with a method that we approve; or

    • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 126 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspection 84 work-hours × $85 per hour = $7,140 per inspection cycle $0 $7,140 per inspection cycle $899,640 per inspection cycle.

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions 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 adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2017-0330; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-016-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 15, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, -500 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1365, dated January 23, 2017.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53; Fuselage.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that the lower skin at the skin lap splice lower fastener row is subject to widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the lower skin, which, if not detected, could link up, resulting in reduced structural integrity of the airplane and consequent uncontrolled decompression of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repetitive Inspections

    Except as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1365, dated January 23, 2017: Do external eddy current inspections at stringer S-14 on the left and right sides of the airplane (S-14L and S-14R) for any crack in the skin lap splice at the lower fastener row, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1365, dated January 23, 2017. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1365, dated January 23, 2017.

    (h) Repair

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1365, dated January 23, 2017, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair as specified in this paragraph.

    (i) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1365, dated January 23, 2017, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) The Condition column of Table 1 and Table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1365, dated January 23, 2017, refers to total flight cycles “at the original issue date of this service bulletin.” This AD, however, applies to the airplanes with the specified total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact James Guo, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5357; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 24, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08708 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0297; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-4] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace, Hawthorne, NV AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hawthorne Industrial Airport, Hawthorne, NV, to support the development of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations under standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport, for the safety of aircraft and management of airspace within the National Airspace System.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 15, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0297; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-4, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the earth at Hawthorne Industrial Airport, Hawthorne, NV.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0297/Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-4”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 3.6-mile radius of Hawthorne Industrial Airport, Hawthorne, NV, and within 2 miles either side of a curved line extending southeast to approximately 15 miles east of the airport. This airspace is necessary to support IFR operations in standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AWP NV E5 Hawthorne, NV [New] Hawthorne Industrial Airport, NV (Lat. 38°32′42″ N., long. 118°37′57″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within 3.6 miles of the Hawthorne Industrial Airport and within 2 miles each side of a line extending from lat. 38°32′25″ N., long. 118°37′26″ W.; to lat. 38°28′43″ N., long. 118°27′48″ W.; to lat. 38°28′49″ N., long. 118°24′19″ W.; to lat. 38°32′06″ N., long. 118°18′07″ W.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on April 21, 2017. Sam S.L. Shrimpton, Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08748 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0047; FRL-9961-49-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Requirements for Continuous Emission Monitoring AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland. This revision pertains to removing a discontinued Technical Memorandum 90-01 (TM 90-01) from Maryland's SIP, which is now superseded by a new continuous emission monitoring (CEM) regulation. Maryland previously used TM 90-01 to govern the CEM requirements for fuel burning equipment. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before May 31, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0047 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In May 2010, the State of Maryland through the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) discontinued the use of TM 90-01 “Continuous Emission Monitoring Policies and Procedures” and codified these requirements for CEMs in Maryland regulation COMAR 26.11.01.11 “Continuous Emission Monitoring Requirements.” MDE had been in the process of establishing unique requirements for CEMs, separate from the requirements for continuous opacity monitors (COMs), and broke out the requirements into separate COMAR regulations. On November 7, 2016 (81 FR 78048), EPA approved these separate regulations into Maryland's SIP.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Evaluation

    On July 1, 2016, MDE submitted a SIP revision to remove discontinued TM 90-01 from Maryland's SIP because TM 90-01 had been superseded by COMAR 26.11.01.11. EPA previously approved TM 90-01 into Maryland's SIP on February 28, 1996. See 61 FR 7418. MDE also submitted a revised version of COMAR 26.11.10.06 “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Iron and Steel Production Installations” for inclusion in the Maryland SIP which removed a reference to TM 90-01 in section C(3)(b) of COMAR 26.11.10.06 and added a reference to COMAR 26.11.01.11 in COMAR 26.11.10.06.

    On November 7, 2016 (81 FR 78048), EPA approved COMAR 26.11.01.11 into the Maryland SIP. This newly SIP approved regulation establishes general requirements, quality assurance provisions, and monitoring and compliance requirements for the installation of CEMs for each of the applicable source categories. TM 90-01 previously had addressed quality assurance provisions for CEMs and had also established levels of enforcement actions for Maryland for visible emissions exceedances based on a source's operating time during a calendar quarter, and allowed exceedances to occur without follow up enforcement for up to 10 percent of a source's operating time in addition to an existing 6-minute exclusion. Maryland's CEM quality assurance requirements are now in COMAR 26.11.01.11 which is in the Maryland SIP. The removal of TM 90-01, which contained enforcement exclusions related to the number of violations and data availability from CEMs and COMs, strengthens enforcement of Maryland's visible emissions standards. COMAR 26.11.01.11 does not contain any exclusions for the operation of CEMs.

    Therefore, EPA is removing a moot memorandum from the SIP which has already been replaced by a regulatory requirement and thus this removal will not interfere with any CAA requirement, with any national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), or with any reasonable further progress and the removal meets requirements in section 110(l) of the CAA. Due to the removal of TM 90-01, MDE has also removed a reference to TM 90-01 in COMAR 26.11.10.06 in section C(3)(b) and added a reference to COMAR 26.11.01.11 which EPA finds appropriate. This amendment to COMAR 26.11.10.06 will also be reflected in the SIP.

    III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the July 1, 2016 Maryland SIP revision submittal, which seeks removal of discontinued TM 90-01 from the Maryland SIP in accordance with section 110 of the CAA. The CEM requirements for quality assurance, monitoring and other technical requirements under discontinued TM 90-01 have been superseded and codified under COMAR 26.11.01.11. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this proposed rulemaking, 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, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference COMAR 26.11.01.11 in the amendment to COMAR 26.11.10.06C(3)(b), as previously discussed in section II in this rulemaking. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through http://www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    In addition, this proposed rulemaking to remove discontinued TM 90-01 from Maryland's SIP and include revised COMAR 26.11.10.06 in the SIP does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not 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, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: April 3, 2017. Cecil Rodrigues, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08656 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0024; A-1-FRL-9961-41-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; ME; Emission Statement Reporting AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maine. The revision updates Maine's emissions reporting requirements for certain stationary sources that emit criteria pollutants. The intended effect of this action is to approve the revision into the Maine SIP. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before May 31, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0024 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David L. Mackintosh, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. 617-918-1584, fax 617-918-0668, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal 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 action rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: March 16, 2017. Deborah A. Szaro, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08654 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0092; FRL-9961-56-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Repeal of NOX Budget Trading Program AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Rhode Island. This revision removes Air Pollution Control (APC) Regulation 41, entitled “NOX Budget Trading Program” (Rhode Island NBP) from the Rhode Island SIP. The Rhode Island NBP was a market-based cap and trade program, which was created to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) from power plants and other large combustion sources in response to EPA's 1998 NOX SIP Call. By 2009, EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) had effectively replaced NOX Budget Trading Programs in eastern states. CAIR has since been replaced by the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which was first implemented on January 1, 2015. Rhode Island was not covered by CAIR or CSAPR. The State's NBP was repealed under state law effective July 29, 2014. The five sources meeting the NBP applicability criteria have Title V permits, which contain SIP-derived NOX emissions limits, that limit their NOX emissions below the maximum emissions (936 tons) that were allowed under the Rhode Island NBP and, therefore, the requirements of the NOX SIP Call are satisfied by the emissions limits contained in those sources' permits. This renders Regulation 41 unnecessary. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before May 31, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0092 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal 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 action rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: March 23, 2017. Deborah A. Szaro, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08660 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0648; A-1-FRL-9958-36-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; CT; Approval of Single Source Orders AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Connecticut. The revisions establish reasonably available control technology (RACT) for two facilities that emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the state. Additionally, we are also proposing to approve Connecticut's request to withdraw seven previously-approved single source orders from the SIP.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before May 31, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0648 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Anne Arnold at: [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bob McConnell, Environmental Engineer, Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3912; (617) 918-1046; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal 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 action rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: December 27, 2016. Deborah A. Szaro, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08644 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0096; FRL-9961-55-Region 9] Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District and Imperial County Air Pollution Control District AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD) and Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions were submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in response to EPA's May 22, 2015 finding of substantial inadequacy and SIP call for certain provisions in the SIP related to affirmative defenses applicable to excess emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) events. EPA is proposing approval of the SIP revisions because the Agency has determined that they are in accordance with the requirements for SIP provisions under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

    DATES:

    Any comments must arrive by May 31, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0096 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief at [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4125, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. What action is the EPA proposing today? II. What is the background for the EPA's proposed action? III. Why is the EPA proposing this action? IV. Proposed Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What action is the EPA proposing today?

    The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the California SIP. The revisions will remove from the EKAPCD and ICAPCD portions of the California SIP provisions related to affirmative defenses that sources could assert in the event of enforcement actions for violations of SIP requirements during SSM events. Removal of the affirmative defense provisions from the SIP will make the EKAPCD and ICAPCD portions of the SIP consistent with CAA requirements with respect to this issue. EKAPCD and ICAPCD are retaining the affirmative defenses solely for state law purposes, outside of the EPA approved SIP. Removal of the affirmative defenses from the SIP is also consistent with the EPA policy for exclusion of “state law only” provisions from SIPs, and will serve to minimize any potential confusion about the inapplicability of the affirmative defense provisions in federal court enforcement actions. Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates on which each rule was rescinded by the EKAPCD or ICAPCD and submitted by CARB in response to EPA's final action entitled “State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's 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,” 80 FR 33839 (June 12, 2015), hereafter referred to as the “SSM SIP Action.”

    Table 1—Submitted Rules Local agency Rule # Rule title Rescinded Submitted EKAPCD 111 Equipment Breakdown 11/10/16 12/06/16 ICAPCD 111 Equipment Breakdown 09/22/15 03/28/16

    On January 12, 2017, the EPA determined that the submittal for EKAPCD Rule 111 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, and on September 28, 2016, the submittal for ICAPCD Rule 111 was deemed complete by operation of law under 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. The completeness criteria must be met before formal EPA review of the submittals for approvability in accordance with applicable CAA requirements.

    II. What is the background for the EPA's proposed action?

    On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), the EPA published the final SSM SIP Action finding that certain SIP provisions in 36 states were substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and called on those states to submit SIP revisions to address those inadequacies. 80 FR 33839. As required by the CAA, the EPA established a reasonable deadline (not to exceed 18 months) by which the affected states must submit such SIP revisions. In accordance with the SSM SIP Action, states were required to submit corrective revisions to their SIPs by November 22, 2016. The EPA's reasoning, legal authority, and responsibility under the CAA for issuing the SIP call to California can be found in the SSM SIP Action.

    In the SSM SIP Action, the EPA determined that EKAPCD Rule 111 and ICAPCD Rule 111 include elements of an affirmative defense for excess emissions during malfunctions. Specifically, EKAPCD Rule 111 and ICAPCD Rule 111 contain affirmative defense provisions that preclude enforcement for excess emissions that would otherwise constitute a violation of the applicable SIP emission limitations. The EPA concluded that EKAPCD Rule 111 and ICAPCD Rule 111 operate to alter or affect the jurisdiction of federal courts in the event of an enforcement action, contrary to the enforcement structure of the CAA in section 113 and section 304. See 80 FR 33972 (June 12, 2015).

    On March 28, 2016 and December 6, 2016, ICAPCD and EKAPCD, respectively, made submittals in response to the SSM SIP Action. As noted above, the EPA found these submittals complete on September 28, 2016 and January 12, 2017, respectively. In the submittals, EKAPCD and ICAPCD requested that EPA revise the California SIP by removing EKAPCD Rule 111 and ICAPCD Rule 111 in their entirety from the California SIP. This approach is consistent with the EPA's interpretation of CAA requirements for SIP provisions.

    III. Why is the EPA proposing this action?

    In the SSM SIP Action, the EPA made a finding of substantial inadequacy and issued a SIP call with respect to EKAPCD Rule 111 and ICAPCD Rule 111 pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5). In response, CARB submitted SIP revisions requesting the EPA to remove EKAPCD Rule 111 and ICAPCD Rule 111 from the California SIP in their entirety. Affirmative defense provisions like these are inconsistent with CAA requirements and removal of these provisions would strengthen the SIP. This action, if finalized, would remove the affirmative defense provisions from the EKAPCD and ICAPCD portions of the EPA-approved SIP for California. The EPA is proposing to find that these revisions are consistent with CAA requirements and that they adequately address the specific SIP deficiencies that the EPA identified in the SSM SIP Action with respect to the EKAPCD and ICAPCD portions of the California SIP.

    IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the California SIP revisions removing EKAPCD Rule 111 and ICAPCD Rule 111 from the EKAPCD and ICAPCD portions of the California SIP. The EPA is proposing approval of the SIP revisions because the Agency has determined that they are in accordance with the requirements for SIP provisions under the CAA. The EPA is not reopening the SSM SIP Action in this action and is taking comment only on whether this SIP revision is consistent with CAA requirements and whether it addresses the “substantial inadequacy” of the specific California SIP provisions identified in the SSM SIP Action.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve SIP submissions that comply with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state requests 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);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 29, 2017. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08666 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0601; FRL-9961-32-Region 4] Air Plan Approval and Designation of Areas; KY; Redesignation of the Kentucky Portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On August 26, 2016, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, Division for Air Quality (DAQ), submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the Kentucky portion of the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the “Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area” or “Area”) to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and to approve the portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan and base year emissions inventory for the Area. EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth's base year emissions inventory for the Kentucky portion of the Area; to approve the Commonwealth's plan for maintaining attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Area, including motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) for the years 2020 and 2030 for the Kentucky portion of the Area; and to redesignate the Kentucky portion of the Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Through separate actions, EPA has approved the redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Ohio portion of the Area and has proposed to approve the redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Indiana portion of the Area.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 31, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0601 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:

    Richard Wong, 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. Richard Wong may be reached by phone at (404) 562-8726 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to take? II. What is the background for EPA's proposed actions? III. What are the criteria for redesignation? IV. Why is EPA proposing these actions? V. What is EPA's analysis of the redesignation request and August 26, 2016, SIP submission? VI. What is EPA's analysis of Kentucky's proposed NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Kentucky portion of the area? VII. What is the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the proposed NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Kentucky portion of the area? VIII. What is the effect of EPA's proposed actions? IX. Proposed actions X. Statutory and executive order reviews I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to take the following three separate, but related, actions: (1) To approve the base year emissions inventory for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Kentucky portion of the Area and incorporate it into the Kentucky SIP; (2) to approve Kentucky's plan for maintaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (maintenance plan), including the associated MVEBs for the Kentucky portion of the Area, and incorporate it into the SIP; and (3) to redesignate the Kentucky portion of the Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area is composed of portions of Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties in Kentucky; Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton, and Warren Counties in Ohio; and a portion of Dearborn County in Indiana. These proposed actions are summarized below and described in greater detail throughout this notice of proposed rulemaking.

    Based on the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment designation for the Area, Kentucky was required to develop a nonattainment SIP revision addressing certain CAA requirements. Among other things, the Commonwealth was required to submit a SIP revision addressing base year emissions inventory requirements pursuant to CAA section 182(a)(1) for its portion of the Area. EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's 2011 base year inventory as satisfying section 182(a)(1).

    EPA is also proposing to approve Kentucky's maintenance plan for its portion of the Area as meeting the requirements of section 175A (such approval being one of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed to keep the Area in attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2030. The maintenance plan includes 2020 and 2030 MVEBs for NOx and VOC for the Kentucky portion of the Area for transportation conformity purposes. EPA is proposing to approve these MVEBs and incorporate them into the Kentucky SIP.

    EPA also proposes to determine that the Kentucky portion of the Area has met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Accordingly, in this action, EPA is proposing to approve a request to change the legal designation of the portions of Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties within the Kentucky portion of the Area, as found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

    EPA is also notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy process for the MVEBs for the Kentucky portion of the Area. The Adequacy comment period began on December 6, 2016, with EPA's posting of the availability of Kentucky's submissions on EPA's Adequacy Web site (https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/state-implementation-plans-sip-submissions-currently-under-epa#cincinnati-hamilton-(KY)). The Adequacy comment period for these MVEBs closed on January 5, 2017. No comments, adverse or otherwise, were received during the Adequacy comment period. Please see section VII of this proposed rulemaking for further explanation of this process and for more details on the MVEBs.

    In summary, today's notice of proposed rulemaking is in response to Kentucky's August 26, 2016, redesignation request and associated SIP submission that address the specific issues summarized above and the necessary elements described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for redesignation of the Kentucky portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.1

    1 While Kentucky's transmittal letter is dated August 5, 2016, the submission was not officially provided to EPA for action until August 26, 2016.

    II. What is the background for EPA's proposed actions?

    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised both the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) to provide increased protection of public health and the environment. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). The 2008 ozone NAAQS retains the same general form and averaging time as the 0.08 ppm NAAQS set in 1997, but is set at a more protective level. Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 50, 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. See 40 CFR 50.15.

    Effective July 20, 2012, EPA designated any area that was violating the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent years (2008-2010) of air monitoring data as a nonattainment area. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). The Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area was designated as a marginal ozone nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 81.318. Areas that were designated as marginal nonattainment areas were required to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS no later than July 20, 2015, based on 2012-2014 monitoring data. On May 4, 2016 (81 FR 26697), EPA published its determination that the Area had attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the attainment deadline.

    III. What are the criteria for redesignation?

    The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation providing that: (1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and (5) the state containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the CAA.

    On April 16, 1992, EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following documents:

    1. “Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,” Memorandum from Bill Laxton, Director, Technical Support Division, June 18, 1990;

    2. “Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;

    3. “Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,” Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;

    4. “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the “Calcagni Memorandum”);

    5. “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;

    6. “Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;

    7. “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After November 15, 1992,” Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993;

    8. “Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993;

    9. “Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,” Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the “Nichols Memorandum”); and

    10. “Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995.

    IV. Why is EPA proposing these actions?

    On August 26, 2016, Kentucky requested that EPA redesignate the Kentucky portion of the Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and approve the associated SIP revision submitted on the same date containing the base year inventory and the maintenance plan for the Kentucky portion of the Area. As mentioned above, on May 4, 2016 (81 FR 26697), EPA determined that the entire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the attainment date based on 2012-2014 data. On December 16, 2016 (81 FR 91035), in redesignating the Ohio portion of the Area to attainment, EPA determined that the entire Area continued to attain the standard based on 2013-2015 data.2 EPA's evaluation indicates that the Kentucky portion of the Area meets the requirements for redesignation as set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E), including the maintenance plan requirements under section 175A of the CAA. Also, based on Kentucky's August 26, 2016, submittal, EPA is proposing to determine that the base year emissions inventory, included in Kentucky's August 26, 2016, submittal, meets the requirements under CAA section 182(a)(1). Approval of the base year emissions inventory is a prerequisite to redesignating an ozone nonattainment area to attainment. As a result of these proposed findings, EPA is proposing to take the actions summarized in section I of this notice.

    2 EPA has also proposed to redesignate the Indiana portion of the Area. See 81 FR 95081 (December 27, 2016).

    V. What is EPA's analysis of the redesignation request and August 26, 2016, SIP submission?

    As stated above, in accordance with the CAA, EPA proposes to: (1) Approve the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS base year emissions inventory for the Kentucky portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area and incorporate it into the SIP; (2) approve Kentucky's 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan, including the associated MVEBs, and incorporate it into the Kentucky SIP; and (3) redesignate the Kentucky portion of the Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The five redesignation criteria provided under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are discussed in greater detail for the Kentucky portion of the Area in section V.B, below.

    A. Emissions Inventory

    Section 182(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in each ozone nonattainment area. The section 182(a)(1) base year emissions inventory is defined in the SIP Requirements Rule 3 as “a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from sources of NOx and VOC emitted within the boundaries of the nonattainment area as required by CAA section 182(a)(1).” See 40 CFR 51.1100(bb). The inventory year must be selected consistent with the baseline year for an RFP plan as required by 40 CFR 51.1110(b),4 and the inventory must include actual ozone season day emissions as defined in 40 CFR 51.1100(cc) 5 and contain data elements consistent with the detail required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. See 40 CFR 51.1115(a), (c), (e). In addition, the point source emissions included in the inventory must be reported according to the point source emissions thresholds of the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) in 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. See 40 CFR 51.1115(d).

    3 On March 6, 2015, EPA finalized a rule entitled “Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements” (SIP Requirements Rule) that 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. See 80 FR 12264.

    4 40 CFR 51.1110(b) states that “at the time of designation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS the baseline emissions inventory shall be the emissions inventory for the most recent calendar year for which a complete triennial inventory is required to be submitted to EPA under the provisions of subpart A of this part. States may use an alternative baseline emissions inventory provided the state demonstrates why it is appropriate to use the alternative baseline year, and provided that the year selected is between the years 2008 to 2012.”

    5 “Ozone season day emissions” is defined as “an average day's emissions for a typical ozone season work weekday. The state shall select, subject to EPA approval, the particular month(s) in the ozone season and the day(s) in the work week to be represented, considering the conditions assumed in the development of RFP plans and/or emissions budgets for transportation conformity.” See 40 CFR 51.1100(cc).

    Kentucky selected 2011 as the base year for the CAA section 182(a)(1) emissions inventory which is the year corresponding with the first triennial inventory under 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. The emissions inventory is based on data developed and submitted by DAQ to EPA's 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), and it contains data elements consistent with the detail required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A.6

    6 Data downloaded from the EPA EIS from the 2011 NEI was subjected to quality assurance procedures described under quality assurance details under 2011 NEI Version 1 Documentation located at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html#inventorydoc. The quality assurance and quality control procedures and measures associated with this data are outlined in the State's EPA-approved Emission Inventory Quality Assurance Project Plan.

    Kentucky's emissions inventory for its portion of the Area provides 2011 anthropogenic emissions data for NOX and VOC for the following general source categories: point (Electric Generating Units and Non-Electric Generating Units and aircraft emissions),7 area, non-road mobile, on-road mobile. All emissions information provided is based on the partial county boundaries, through the applicable census tracts, that comprise the Kentucky portion of the Area. Table 1, below, provides a summary of the emissions inventory.

    7 The emissions inventories in Kentucky's submission identify aircraft emissions as a standalone category and refer to these emissions as “air emissions” for consistency with the inventories provided by Indiana and Ohio for their respective portions of the Area. Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) provided aircraft emissions data for Kentucky, and Kentucky included these emissions in Boone County where the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport is located. EPA has included these emissions within the point source category per the AERR.

    Table 1—2011 Point, Area, Non-Road Mobile, and On-Road Mobile Sources Emissions for the Kentucky Portion of the Area [tons per typical summer day (tsd)] County * Point ** NOX VOC Area NOX VOC Non-road mobile NOX VOC On-road mobile NOX VOC Boone County 9.23 2.15 0.43 2.66 1.06 1.49 6.90 3.30 Campbell County 0.17 0.22 0.49 1.29 0.38 0.40 4.30 2.05 Kenton County 0.01 0.51 1.02 2.51 0.77 0.62 6.53 3.12 * Nonattainment portion of each county. ** Includes aircraft emissions.

    NOX and VOC emissions were calculated for a typical summer July day, taking into account the seasonal adjustment factor for summer operations. More detail on the inventory emissions for individual sources categories is provided below and in Appendix C-1 to Kentucky's August 26, 2016, SIP submittal.

    Point sources are large, stationary, identifiable sources of emissions that release pollutants into the atmosphere. The inventory contains actual point source emissions data for facilities located within the nonattainment boundary for the Kentucky portion of the Area based on the Kentucky Emissions Inventory database.8

    8 As discussed above, EPA has included aircraft emissions within the point source category per the AERR.

    Area sources are small emission stationary sources which, due to their large number, collectively have significant emissions (e.g., dry cleaners, service stations). Emissions for these sources were estimated by multiplying an emission factor by such indicators of collective emissions activity as production, number of employees, or population. Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) provided area source emissions data for each county data for in the entire Area. Data was obtained from the Ozone NAAQS Emissions Modeling Platform (2011 v6.1).

    On-road mobile sources include vehicles used on roads for transportation of passengers or freight. Kentucky developed its on-road emissions inventory using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model with input data from the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments (OKI).9 County level on-road modeling was conducted using county-specific vehicle population and other local data. Kentucky developed its inventory according to the current EPA emissions inventory guidance for on-road mobile sources using MOVES version 2014.

    9 Kentucky used MOVES2014 technical guidance: Using MOVES to Prepare Emission Inventories in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity, EPA-420-b-15-007 (January 2015).

    Non-road mobile sources include vehicles, engines, and equipment used for construction, agriculture, recreation, and other purposes that do not use roadways (e.g., lawn mowers, construction equipment, and railroad locomotives). IDEM provided non-road mobile source emissions data for each county in the Area. Data was obtained from the Ozone NAAQS Emissions Modeling Platform (2011 v6.1).

    For the reasons discussed above, EPA proposes to determine that Kentucky's emissions inventory meets the requirements under CAA section 182(a)(1) and the SIP Requirements Rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Approval of Kentucky's redesignation request is contingent upon EPA's final approval of the base year emissions inventory for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

    B. Redesignation Request and Maintenance Demonstration

    In accordance with the CAA, EPA proposes to approve the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan, including the associated MVEBs, and incorporate it into the Kentucky SIP and to redesignate the Kentucky portion of the Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The five redesignation criteria provided under the CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are discussed in greater detail for the Area in the following paragraphs in this section.

    Criteria (1)—The Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS. See CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS if it meets the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.15 and Appendix I of part 50, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data. To attain this NAAQS, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm. Based on the data handling and reporting convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the NAAQS are attained if the design value is 0.075 ppm or below. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors generally should have remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment.

    On May 4, 2016 (81 FR 26697), EPA determined that the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the attainment date. In that action, EPA reviewed complete, quality-assured, and certified monitoring data from monitoring stations in the Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 2012 through 2014 and determined that the design values for each monitor in the Area are less than the standard of 0.075 ppm for that time period. Further, on December 16, 2016, in association with the redesignation of the Ohio portion of the Area, EPA determined that the Area continued to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on complete, quality-assured, and certified monitoring data from 2013 through 2015. See 81 FR 91035. The fourth-highest 8-hour ozone values at each monitor for 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and the 3-year averages of these values (i.e., design values), are summarized in Table 2, below. The 3-year design value for 2013-2015 for the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area is 0.071 ppm,10 which meets the NAAQS.

    10 The design value for an area is the highest 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration recorded at any monitor in the area.

    Table 2—Monitoring Data and Design Value Concentrations for the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area [ppm] Location Site ID 4th Highest 8-hour ozone value
  • (ppm)
  • 2012 2013 2014 2015 3-Year design values
  • (ppm)
  • 2012-2014 3-Year design values
  • (ppm)
  • 2013-2015
    Boone, KY 21-015-0003 0.074 0.059 0.062 0.062 0.065 0.061 Campbell, KY 21-037-3002 0.084 0.072 0.071 0.071 0.075 0.071 Butler, OH 39-017-0004 0.083 0.068 0.070 0.070 0.073 0.069 Butler, OH 39-017-0018 0.084 0.068 0.069 0.070 0.073 0.069 Butler, OH 39-017-9991 0.085 0.069 0.069 0.068 0.074 0.068 Clermont, OH 39-025-0022 0.091 0.066 0.068 0.070 0.075 0.068 Clinton, OH 39-027-1002 0.086 0.064 0.070 0.070 0.073 0.068 Hamilton, OH 39-061-0006 0.087 0.069 0.070 0.072 0.075 0.070 Hamilton, OH 39-061-0010 0.083 0.064 0.073 0.070 0.073 0.069 Hamilton, OH 39-061-0040 0.082 0.069 0.069 0.071 0.073 0.069 Warren, OH 39-165-0007 0.080 0.067 0.071 0.071 0.072 0.069

    For this proposed action, EPA has reviewed 2016 preliminary monitoring data for the Area and proposes to find that the preliminary data does not indicate a violation of the NAAQS.11 EPA will not take final action to approve the redesignation if the 3-year design value exceeds the NAAQS prior to EPA finalizing the redesignation. As discussed in more detail below, the Commonwealth of Kentucky has committed to continue monitoring in the Kentucky portion of the Area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.

    11 This data is available at EPA's air data Web site: http://aqsdr1.epa.gov/aqsweb/aqstmp/airdata/download_files.html#Daily.

    Criteria (2)—Kentucky has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) for the Kentucky portion of the Area; and Criteria (5)—Kentucky has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA.

    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the state has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and that the state has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) for the area (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). EPA proposes to find that Kentucky has met all applicable SIP requirements for the Kentucky portion of the Area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements) for purposes of redesignation. Additionally, EPA proposes to find that, if EPA approves the base year emissions inventory, the Kentucky SIP satisfies the criterion that it meets applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation under part D of title I of the CAA in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and the SIP is fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these proposed determinations, EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable to the Area and, if applicable, that they are fully approved under section 110(k). SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to requirements that were applicable prior to submittal of the complete redesignation request.

    a. The Kentucky Portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA

    General SIP requirements. General SIP elements and requirements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing; provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)) and provisions for the implementation of part D requirements (NSR permit programs); provisions for air pollution modeling; and provisions for public and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule development.

    Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address the interstate transport of air pollutants. The section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, EPA does not believe that the CAA's interstate transport requirements should be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.

    In addition, EPA believes that other section 110(a)(2) elements that are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The area will still be subject to these requirements after the area is redesignated. The section 110(a)(2) and part D requirements which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability (i.e., for redesignations) of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 2008); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio, redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001).

    Title I, Part D, applicable SIP requirements. Section 172(c) of the CAA sets forth the general nonattainment plan requirements for nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of part D, which includes section 182 of the CAA, establishes specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas depending on the area's nonattainment classification. In marginal ozone nonattainment area such as the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area, the specific requirements of section 182(a) apply in lieu of the demonstration of attainment and contingency measures required by section 172(c). See 42 U.S.C. 7511a(a). The 182(a) elements and the remaining 172(c) elements that apply to the Area are addressed below. A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in sections 172(c) and 182 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498).

    Section 172(c) Requirements. Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. This requirement is superseded by the inventory requirement in section 182(a)(1) discussed below.

    Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources in a nonattainment area, and section 172(c)(5) requires permits for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources in the area. EPA has determined that, since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation, areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in the Nichols Memorandum. See also rulemakings for the Illinois portion of the St. Louis Area (77 FR 34819, 34826, June 12, 2012); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 53669, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31831, 31834-31837, June 21, 1996); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12459, 12467-12468, March 7, 1995). Kentucky has demonstrated that the Area will be able to maintain the standard without part D NSR in effect; therefore, EPA concludes that the Commonwealth need not have a fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the redesignation request. Kentucky's PSD program will become effective in the Area upon redesignation to attainment.

    Section 182(a) Requirements. Section 182(a)(1) requires states to submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from sources of NOX and VOC emitted within the boundaries of the ozone nonattainment area. Kentucky provided a base year emissions inventory for its portion of the Area to EPA in the August 26, 2016, SIP submission to address the section 182(a)(1) requirements for the Kentucky portion of the Area. As discussed in Section V.A above, EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's 2011 base year emissions inventory in today's proposed action. Kentucky's section 182(a)(1) inventory must be approved before EPA can take final action to approve the Commonwealth's redesignation request for the Kentucky portion of the Area.

    Under section 182(a)(2)(A), states with ozone nonattainment areas that were designated prior to the enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments were required to submit, within six months of classification, all rules and corrections to existing VOC RACT rules that were required under section 172(b)(3) of the CAA (and related guidance) prior to the 1990 CAA amendments. The Area is not subject to the section 182(a)(2) RACT “fix up” because the Area was designated as nonattainment after the enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments. Furthermore, the Commonwealth complied with this requirement under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 59 FR 32343 (June 23, 1994) and 60 FR 31087 (June 13, 1995).

    Section 182(a)(2)(B) requires each state with a marginal ozone nonattainment area that implemented, or was required to implement, an inspection and maintenance (I/M) program prior to the 1990 CAA amendments to submit a SIP revision providing for an I/M program no less stringent than that required prior to the 1990 amendments or already in the SIP at the time of the amendments, whichever is more stringent. The Kentucky portion of the Area is not subject to the section 182(a)(2)(B) requirement because it was designated as nonattainment after the enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments and did not have an I/M program in place prior to those amendments.

    Regarding the permitting and offset requirements of section 182(a)(2)(C) and section 182(a)(4), EPA has determined that areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR, because PSD requirements will apply after redesignation. As discussed above, Kentucky has a PSD program and has demonstrated that the Area will be able to maintain the standard without part D NSR in effect. Therefore, EPA concludes that the Commonwealth need not have a fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the redesignation request.

    Section 182(a)(3) requires states to submit periodic inventories and emissions statements. Section 182(a)(3)(A) requires states to submit a periodic inventory every three years. As discussed below in the section of this notice titled Criteria (4)(e), Verification of Continued Attainment, the Commonwealth will continue to update its emissions inventory at least once every three years. Under section 182(a)(3)(B), each state with an ozone nonattainment area must submit a SIP revision requiring emissions statements to be submitted to the state by sources within that nonattainment area. Kentucky provided a SIP revision to EPA on November 18, 2015, addressing the section 182(a)(3)(B) emissions statements requirement, and on January 28, 2016 (81 FR 4896), EPA published a final rule approving this SIP revision.

    Section 176 Conformity Requirements. Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that federally-supported or funded projects conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects that are developed, funded, or approved under title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as well as to all other federally supported or funded projects (general conformity). State transportation conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement, and enforceability that EPA promulgated pursuant to its authority under the CAA.

    EPA interprets the conformity SIP requirements 12 as not applying for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request under section 107(d) because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation and federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding this interpretation); see also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (redesignation of Tampa, Florida). Nonetheless, Kentucky has an approved conformity SIP for the Kentucky portion of the Area. See 76 FR 20780 (April 21, 2010). Thus, EPA proposes that the Kentucky portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area has satisfied all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA.

    12 CAA section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain federal criteria and procedures for determining transportation conformity. Transportation conformity SIPs are different from the MVEBs that are established in control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans.

    b. The Kentucky Portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA

    EPA has fully approved the Commonwealth's SIP for the Kentucky portion of the Area under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation with the exception of the 182(a)(1) emissions inventory. In today's proposed action, EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth's emissions inventory for the Kentucky portion of the Area and incorporate it into the Kentucky SIP.

    EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request (see Calcagni Memorandum at p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall, 265 F.3d 426) plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action (see 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein). Kentucky has adopted and submitted, and EPA has approved at various times, provisions addressing various SIP elements applicable for the ozone NAAQS (78 FR 14681, March 7, 2013, and 79 FR 65143, November 3, 2014).

    As discussed above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements that are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked to an area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. With the exception of the section 182(a)(1) emissions inventory requirement, which is addressed in this proposal, EPA has approved all part D requirements applicable for purposes of this proposed redesignation.

    Criteria (3)—The air quality improvement in the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and applicable federal air pollution control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions.

    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, applicable federal air pollution control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable reductions. See CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii). EPA has preliminarily determined that Kentucky has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from federal measures and is not the result of unusually favorable weather conditions.

    An analysis performed by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) supports the Commonwealth's conclusion that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions and not favorable meteorology.13 A classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was conducted with 2000 through 2014 data from three ozone monitoring sites in the Area. The goal of the analysis was to determine the meteorological and air quality conditions associated with ozone episodes, and construct trends for the days identified as sharing similar meteorological conditions. Regression trees were developed for the three monitors to classify each summer day by its ozone concentration and associated meteorological conditions. By grouping days with similar meteorology, the influence of meteorological variability on the underlying trend in ozone concentrations is partially removed and the remaining trend is presumed to be due to trends in precursor emissions or other non-meteorological influences. The CART analysis showed the resulting trends in ozone concentrations declining over the period examined, supporting the conclusion that the improvement in air quality was not due to unusually favorable meteorology.

    13 Ohio included the LADCO analysis as part of its redesignation request and associated SIP revision for the Ohio portion of the Area. These materials are available at Docket No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0269.

    In addition, EPA evaluated temperatures and precipitation during the 2012-2015 ozone seasons for comparison to long-term climatological normals. Table 3, below, provides temperature and precipitation data for the Area for the 2012-2015 period. This data was obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). Specifically, Table 3 provides overall average and average maximum ozone season temperatures and total ozone season precipitation; deviation from the mean 1948-2000 base period ozone season temperature and precipitation (termed the “anomaly”); and the rank of each year from the 69-year (1948-2016) period. A rank of 69 is given to the hottest or wettest year.

    Table 3—Cincinnati, Ohio Temperature and Precipitation Ozone Season (May-September) Data Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average May-September Temperature [°F] 73.0 71.1 70.6 71.4 Anomaly from the long-term average [70.3 °F] 2.7 0.8 0.3 1.1 Rank [since 1948, scale of 1-69] 1=coolest 69=warmest 65 47 35 52 Average maximum May-September temperature [°F] 84.5 80.7 80.6 81.6 Anomaly from the long-term average maximum [81 °F] 3.5 −0.3 −0.4 0.6 Rank [since 1948, scale of 1-69] 1=coolest 69=warmest 67 29 28 42 Precipitation [inches] 15.61 24.04 19.05 18.64 Anomaly from the long-term average [18.27 inches] −2.66 5.77 0.78 0.37 Rank [since 1948, scale of 1-69] 1=driest 69=wettest 17 63 42 38

    The data in Table 3 indicates that the 2012 ozone season had maximum daily temperatures well above normal while 2013-2015 had maximum daily temperatures near normal (within a degree of normal). Average maximum temperatures during the 2012 ozone season were the third warmest from the period of record (1948-2016). Overall average ozone season temperatures during the 2012-2015 period ranged from 0.3 to 2.7 degrees above normal. Total precipitation during the 2012 ozone season was below normal, the 2013 ozone season had above normal precipitation, and the 2014 and 2015 ozone seasons had near normal precipitation (within an inch of normal). Therefore, the 2012-2015 period does not appear to have been abnormally conducive to reduced ozone formation and further supports the conclusion that the improvement in air quality was not due to unusually favorable meteorology.

    Federal measures enacted in recent years have resulted in permanent emission reductions in the Area. The federal measures that have been implemented include the following:

    Tier 2 Vehicle and Fuel Standards. On February 10, 2000 (65 FR 6698), EPA promulgated Tier 2 motor vehicle emission standards and gasoline sulfur control requirements.14 These emission control requirements result in lower VOC and NOX emissions from new cars and light duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles. With respect to fuels, this rule required refiners and importers of gasoline to meet lower standards for sulfur in gasoline, which were phased in between 2004 and 2006. By 2006, refiners were required to meet a 30 ppm average sulfur level, with a maximum cap of 80 ppm. This reduction in fuel sulfur content ensures the effectiveness of low emission-control technologies. The Tier 2 tailpipe standards established in this rule were phased in for new vehicles between 2004 and 2009. EPA estimates that, when fully implemented, this rule will cut NOX and VOC emissions from light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks by approximately 76 and 28 percent, respectively. NOX and VOC reductions from medium-duty passenger vehicles included as part of the Tier 2 vehicle program are estimated to be approximately 37,000 and 9,500 tons per year, respectively, when fully implemented. In addition, EPA estimates that beginning in 2007, a reduction of 30,000 tons per year of NOX will result from the benefits of sulfur control on heavy-duty gasoline vehicles. Some of these emission reductions occurred by the attainment years and additional emission reductions will occur throughout the maintenance period, as older vehicles are replaced with newer, compliant model years.

    14 Kentucky also identified Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emissions and Fuel Standards a federal measure. EPA issued this rule in April 28, 2014 (79 FR 23414), which applies to light duty passenger cars and trucks. EPA promulgated this rule to reduce air pollution from new passenger cars and trucks beginning in 2017. While the reductions did not aid the Area in attaining the standard, emissions reductions from these standards will occur during the maintenance period.

    Non-Road Diesel Rule. On June 29, 2004 (69 FR 38958), EPA issued a rule adopting emissions standards for non-road diesel engines and sulfur reductions in non-road diesel fuel. This rule applies to diesel engines used primarily in construction, agricultural, and industrial applications. The rule is being phased in between 2008 through 2015, and when fully implemented, will reduce emissions of NOX, VOC, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide from these engines. It is estimated that compliance with this rule will cut NOX emissions from non-road diesel engines by up to 90 percent nationwide.

    Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rules. In July 2000,15 EPA issued a rule for on-highway heavy-duty diesel engines that includes standards limiting the sulfur content of diesel fuel. Emissions standards for NOX, VOC and PM were phased in between model years 2007 and 2010. In addition, the rule reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 15 parts per million by 2007, leading to additional reductions in combustion NOX and VOC emissions. EPA has estimated future year emission reductions due to implementation of this rule. Nationally, EPA estimated that 2015 NOX and VOC emissions will decrease by 1,260,000 tons and 54,000 tons, respectively, and that 2030 NOX and VOC emissions will decrease by 2,570,000 tons and 115,000 tons, respectively.

    15See 66 FR 5002 for further discussion.

    Non-road Spark-Ignition Engines and Recreational Engines Standards. On November 8, 2002 (67 FR 68242), EPA adopted emission standards for large spark-ignition engines such as those used in forklifts and airport ground-service equipment; recreational vehicles such as off-highway motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, and snowmobiles; and recreational marine diesel engines. These emission standards were phased in from model year 2004 through 2012. When all of the non-road spark-ignition and recreational engine standards are fully implemented, an overall 72 percent reduction in hydrocarbons, 80 percent reduction in NOX, and 56 percent reduction in carbon monoxide emissions are expected by 2020. These controls reduce ambient concentrations of ozone, carbon monoxide, and fine particulate matter.

    National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. On March 3, 2010 (75 FR 9648), EPA issued a rule to reduce hazardous air pollutants from existing diesel powered stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines, also known as compression ignition engines. Amendments to this rule were finalized on January 14, 2013 (78 FR 6674). EPA estimated that when this rule is fully implemented in 2013, NOX and VOC emissions from these engines will be reduced by approximately 9,600 and 36,000 tons per year, respectively.

    Category 3 Marine Diesel Engine Standards. On April 30, 2010 (75 FR 22896), EPA issued emission standards for marine compression-ignition engines at or above 30 liters per cylinder. Tier 2 emission standards apply beginning in 2011, and are expected to result in a 15 to 25 percent reduction in NOX emissions from these engines. Final Tier 3 emission standards apply beginning in 2016 and are expected to result in approximately an 80 percent reduction in NOX from these engines.

    Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)/Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce SO2 and NOX emissions in 28 eastern states, including Kentucky, that contributed to downwind nonattainment and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). In 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur in North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008) to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR. On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR and thus to address the interstate transport of emissions contributing to nonattainment and interfering with maintenance of the two air quality standards covered by CAIR as well as the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO2 and NOX emissions from electric generating units (EGUs) in 28 states in the Eastern United States.

    Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR, and on August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded CSAPR to EPA. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The United States Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's decision on April 29, 2014, and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the high court's ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects, but invalidated without vacating some of the Phase 2 SO2 and ozone-season NOX CSAPR budgets as to a number of states.16 EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). This litigation ultimately delayed implementation of CSAPR for three years, from January 1, 2012, when CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs were originally scheduled to replace the CAIR cap-and-trade programs, to January 1, 2015. Thus, the rule's Phase 2 budgets were originally promulgated to begin on January 1, 2014, and are now scheduled to begin on January 1, 2017.

    16 The court's decision did not affect Kentucky's CSAPR budgets.

    On September 17, 2016, EPA finalized an update to the CSAPR ozone season program. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The update addresses summertime transport of ozone pollution in the eastern United States that crosses state lines to help downwind states and communities meet and maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and addresses the remanded Phase 2 ozone season NOX budgets. The update withdraws these remanded NOX budgets, sets new Phase 2 CSAPR ozone season NOX emissions budgets for eight of the eleven states with remanded budgets, and removes the other three states from the CSAPR ozone season NOX trading program.17

    17See 81 FR 74504 for further discussion.

    While the reduction in NOX emissions from the implementation of CSAPR will result in lower concentrations of transported ozone entering the Area throughout the maintenance period, EPA is proposing to approve the redesignation of the Kentucky portion of the Area without relying on those measures within Kentucky as having led to attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS or contributing to maintenance of that standard. The improvement in ozone air quality in the Area from 2011 (a year when the design value for the area was above the NAAQS) to 2014 (a year when the design value was below the NAAQS) is not due to CSAPR emissions reductions because, as noted above, CSAPR did not go into effect until January 1, 2015, after the Area was already attaining the standard. As a general matter, because CSAPR is CAIR's replacement, emissions reductions associated with CAIR will for most areas be made permanent and enforceable through implementation of CSAPR. In addition, EPA has preliminarily determined that the vast majority of reductions in emissions in the Kentucky portion of the Area from 2011-2014 were due to permanent and enforceable reductions in mobile source VOC and NOX emissions. EPA found that mobile source emissions reductions account for 100 percent of the total NOX reductions and 92 percent of the VOC reductions within the Kentucky portion of the Area over this time period. NOX and VOC emissions in the Kentucky portion of the Area are projected to continue their downward trend throughout the maintenance period, driven primarily by mobile source measures. From 2014 to 2030, Kentucky projected that mobile source measures will account for 95 percent of the NOX emissions reductions and 85 percent of the VOC reductions in the Kentucky portion of the Area based on EPA-approved mobile source modeling.

    EPA proposes to find that the improvements in air quality in the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area are due to real, permanent and enforceable reductions in NOX and VOC emissions. This preliminary determination is supported by the evaluation of emissions reductions in the Area between 2011 and 2014 discussed above.

    Criteria (4)—The Kentucky portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA.

    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Kentucky portion of the Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, Kentucky submitted a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after the effective date of redesignation to attainment. EPA has made the preliminary determination that this maintenance plan meets the requirements for approval under section 175A of the CAA.

    a. What is required in a maintenance plan?

    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10 years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 2008 8-hour ozone violations. The Calcagni Memorandum provides further guidance on the content of a maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan should address five requirements: The attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. As discussed more fully below, EPA has preliminarily determined that Kentucky's maintenance plan includes all the necessary components and is thus proposing to approve it as a revision to the Kentucky SIP.

    b. Attainment Emissions Inventory

    As discussed above, EPA has determined that the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on quality-assured monitoring data for the 3-year period from 2012-2014 and is continuing to attain the standard based on 2013-2015 data. See 81 FR 26697 (May 4, 2016); 81 FR 91035 (December 16, 2016). Kentucky selected 2014 as the attainment year (i.e., attainment emissions inventory year) for developing a comprehensive emissions inventory for NOX and VOC, for which projected emissions could be developed for 2017, 2020, 2025, and 2030. The attainment inventory identifies a level of emissions in the Area that is sufficient to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Kentucky began development of the attainment inventory by first generating a baseline emissions inventory for the Commonwealth's portion of the Area.18 The projected summer day emission inventories have been estimated using projected rates of growth in population, traffic, economic activity, and other parameters. In addition to comparing the final year of the plan (2030) to the attainment year (2014), Kentucky compared interim years to the attainment year to demonstrate that these years are also expected to show continued maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.

    18 Kentucky used the 2011 inventory described above in Section V.A. as its baseline emissions inventory.

    The emissions inventory is composed of four major types of sources: Point, area, on-road mobile, and non-road mobile.19 Complete descriptions of how the inventories were developed are located in Appendix C through Appendix E of the August 26, 2016 submittal, which can be found in the docket for this action. Point source emissions are tabulated from data collected by direct on-site measurements of emissions or from mass balance calculations utilizing approved emission factors. For each projected year's inventory, point sources are adjusted by growth factors based on Standard Industrial Classification codes generated using growth patterns obtained from County Business Patterns. For title V sources, the actual 2011 emissions were used.

    19 As discussed in Section V.A., the emissions inventories in Kentucky's submission identify aircraft emissions as a standalone category and refer to these emissions as “air emissions” for consistency with the inventories provided by Indiana and Ohio for their respective portions of the Area. EPA has included these emissions within the point source category per the AERR.

    For area sources, emissions are estimated by multiplying an emission factor by some known indicator of collective activity such as production, number of employees, or population. For each projected year's inventory, area source emissions are changed by population growth, projected production growth, or estimated employment growth.

    Non-road mobile sources include vehicles, engines, and equipment used for construction, agriculture, recreation, and other purposes that do not use roadways (e.g., lawn mowers, construction equipment, and railroad locomotives). IDEM provided non-road mobile source emissions data for each county in the Area. Data was obtained from the Ozone NAAQS Emissions Modeling Platform (2011 v6.1).

    For on-road mobile sources, EPA's MOVES2014 mobile model was run to generate emissions. The MOVES2014 model includes the road class vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as an input file and can directly output the estimated emissions. For each projected year's inventory, the on-road mobile sources emissions are calculated by running the MOVES mobile model for the future year with the projected VMT to generate emissions that take into consideration expected federal tailpipe standards, fleet turnover, and new fuels.

    The 2014 NOX and VOC emissions for the Kentucky portion of the Area, as well as the emissions for other years, were developed consistent with EPA guidance and are summarized in Tables 4 and 5 of the following subsection discussing the maintenance demonstration. See Appendix C through Appendix E of the August 26, 2016, submission for more detailed information on the emissions inventory.

    c. Maintenance Demonstration

    The maintenance plan associated with the redesignation request includes a maintenance demonstration that:

    (i) Shows compliance with and maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by providing information to support the demonstration that current and future emissions of NOX and VOC remain at or below 2014 emissions levels.

    (ii) Uses 2014 as the attainment year and includes future emissions inventory projections for 2017, 2020, 2025, and 2030.

    (iii) Identifies an “out year” at least 10 years after the time necessary for EPA to review and approve the maintenance plan. Per 40 CFR part 93, NOX and VOC MVEBs were established for the last year (2030) of the maintenance plan (see section VI below). Kentucky, in consultation with the interagency partners,20 has elected to also establish an interim MVEB for the year 2020.

    20 Interagency partners consist of the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, EPA, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration.

    (iv) Provides projected emissions inventories for the Kentucky portion of the Area, as shown in Tables 4 and 5, below.

    Table 4—Projected Average Summer Day NOX Emissions (tsd) for the Kentucky Portion of the Area Sector 2014 2017 2020 2025 2030 Point 9.62 9.97 10.33 9.61 8.98 Area 1.94 1.94 1.94 1.95 1.95 Non-road 1.84 1.47 1.26 1.03 0.8 On-road 14.04 10.13 6.19 4.45 2.69 Total 27.44 23.51 19.72 17.04 14.42 Table 5—Projected Average Summer Day VOC Emissions (tsd) for the Kentucky Portion of the Area Sector 2014 2017 2020 2025 2030 Point 2.88 2.89 2.89 2.69 2.47 Area 6.25 6.04 5.94 5.87 5.80 Non-road 2.19 1.88 1.75 1.69 1.64 On-road 6.50 5.03 3.54 2.77 1.98 Total 17.82 15.84 14.12 13.02 11.89

    Tables 4 and 5 summarize the 2014 and future projected emissions of NOX and VOC from the Kentucky portion of the Area. In situations where local emissions are the primary contributor to nonattainment, such as the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area, if the future projected emissions in the nonattainment area remain at or below the baseline emissions in the nonattainment area, then the ambient air quality standard should not be exceeded in the future. Kentucky has projected emissions as described previously and determined that emissions in the Kentucky portion of the Area will remain below those in the attainment year inventory for the duration of the maintenance plan.

    As discussed in section VI of this proposed rulemaking, a safety margin is the difference between the attainment level of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the Area met the NAAQS. Kentucky selected 2014 as the attainment emissions inventory year for the Kentucky portion of the Area. Kentucky calculated safety margins in its submittal for years 2020 and 2030.

    The Commonwealth has decided to allocate 15 percent of the available safety margin to the 2020 and 2030 MVEBs to allow for unanticipated growth in VMT, changes and uncertainty in vehicle mix assumptions, etc., that will influence the emission estimations. The MVEBs and safety margins are discussed further in Section VI of this proposed rulemaking.

    d. Monitoring Network

    There are eleven monitors measuring ozone in the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area, of which two are located in the Kentucky portion of the Area. In its maintenance plan, Kentucky has committed to continue operation of the monitors in the Kentucky portion of the Area in compliance with 40 CFR part 58 and has thus addressed the requirement for monitoring. EPA approved Kentucky's monitoring plan on October 25, 2016.

    e. Verification of Continued Attainment

    The Commonwealth of Kentucky, through DAQ, has the legal authority to enforce and implement the maintenance plan for the Kentucky portion of the Area. This includes the authority to adopt, implement, and enforce any subsequent emissions control contingency measures determined to be necessary to correct future ozone attainment problems. The Commonwealth has committed to track the progress of the maintenance plan by updating its emissions inventory at least once every three years and reviewing the updated emissions inventories for the Area using the latest emissions factors, models, and methodologies.

    Under the AERR, DAQ is required to develop a comprehensive, annual, statewide emissions inventory every three years that is due twelve to eighteen months after the completion of the inventory year. The AERR inventory years match the base year and final year of the inventory for the maintenance plan, and are within one or two years of the interim inventory years of the maintenance plan. DAQ commits to compare the AERR inventories to the 2011 base year and 2030 projected maintenance year inventories to assess emissions trends, as necessary, and to assure continued compliance with the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Area.

    f. Contingency Measures in the Maintenance Plan.

    Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a time limit for action by the state. A state should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that a state will implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance with section 175A(d).

    As required by section 175A of the CAA, Kentucky has adopted a contingency plan to address possible future 8-hour ozone air quality problems. In the event that a measured value of the fourth highest maximum is 0.079 ppm or greater in any portion of the Area in a single ozone season, or if periodic emissions inventory updates reveal excessive or unanticipated growth greater than ten percent in ozone precursor emissions in the Area, the Commonwealth will conduct a study to determine whether the ozone value indicates a trend toward higher ozone values or whether the trend, if any, is likely to continue, and if so, the control measures necessary to reverse the trend. Implementation of necessary controls will take place as expeditiously as practicable and no later than 12 months from the conclusion of the most recent ozone season.

    In the event that a two-year average of the fourth highest maximum values at a monitor in the Area is 0.076 ppm or greater and is not due to exceptional event, malfunction, or noncompliance with a permit condition or rule requirement, Kentucky, along with the metropolitan planning organization or regional council of governments, will determine additional control measures needed to assure future attainment of the ozone NAAQS. Measures that can be implemented in a short time will be selected in order to be in place within 18 months from the close of the ozone season.

    In the event of a monitored violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Area, Kentucky commits to adopt one or more of the following contingency measures to re-attain the standard: 21

    21 If the Commonwealth adopts a voluntary emission reduction measure as a contingency measure necessary to attain or maintain the NAAQS, EPA will evaluate approvability in accordance with relevant Agency guidance regarding the incorporation of voluntary measures into SIPs. See, e.g., Memorandum from Richard D. Wilson, Acting Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators re: Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction Programs in State Implementation Plans (SIPs) (October 24, 1997); EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a State Implementation Plan (SIP)(September 2004).

    • Implementation of a program to require additional emissions reductions on stationary sources;

    • Implementation of fuel programs, including incentives for alternative fuels;

    • Restriction of certain roads or lanes to, or construction of such roads or lanes for use by, passenger buses or high-occupancy vehicles;

    • Trip-reduction ordinances;

    • Employer-based transportation management plans, including incentives;

    • Programs to limit or restrict vehicle use in downtown areas, or other areas of emissions concentration, particularly during periods of peak use;

    • Programs for new construction and major reconstructions of paths or tracks for use by pedestrians or by non-motorized vehicles when economically feasible and in the public interest.

    Kentucky may implement other contingency measures if new control programs should be developed and deemed more advantageous for the Area. Prior to the implementation of any contingency measure not listed, the Commonwealth will solicit input from all interested and affected parties in the Area. Kentucky will adopt and implement contingency measures as quickly as possible, and no later than 18 months after the monitored violation. The Commonwealth will not implement a contingency measure without approval from EPA.

    EPA preliminarily concludes that the maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components of a maintenance plan: The attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. Therefore, EPA proposes that the maintenance plan SIP revision submitted by Kentucky for the Commonwealth's portion of the Area meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA and is approvable.

    VI. What is EPA's analysis of Kentucky's proposed NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Kentucky portion of the area?

    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans, programs, and projects, such as the construction of new highways, must “conform” to (i.e., be consistent with) the part of the state's air quality plan that addresses pollution from cars and trucks. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or any interim milestones. If a transportation plan does not conform, most new projects that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP. The regional emissions analysis is one, but not the only, requirement for implementing transportation conformity. Transportation conformity is a requirement for nonattainment and maintenance areas. Maintenance areas are areas that were previously nonattainment for a particular NAAQS but have since been redesignated to attainment with an approved maintenance plan for that NAAQS.

    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans for nonattainment areas. These control strategy SIPs (including RFP and attainment demonstration requirements) and maintenance plans create MVEBs (or in this case sub-area MVEBs) for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB must be established for the last year of the maintenance plan. A state may adopt MVEBs for other years as well. The MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions in the maintenance demonstration that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions. See 40 CFR 93.101. The MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system. The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, Transportation Conformity Rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to establish the MVEB in the SIP and how to revise the MVEB. Under 40 CFR 93.101, the term safety margin is the difference between the attainment level (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The safety margin can be allocated to the transportation sector; however, the total emissions must remain below the attainment level. The NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs and allocation from the safety margin were developed in consultation with the transportation partners and were added to account for uncertainties in population growth, changes in model vehicle miles traveled, and new emission factor models.

    As part of the interagency consultation process on setting MVEBs, DAQ held discussions with interagency partners to determine what years to set MVEBs for the Kentucky portion of the Area. As noted above, a maintenance plan must establish MVEBs for the last year of the maintenance plan (in this case, 2030). See 40 CFR 93.118.

    Kentucky chose to allocate 15 percent of the available safety margin to the NOX and VOC MVEBs for years 2020 and 2030.22 See Table 6. As discussed above, Kentucky has selected 2014 as the base year. The projected on-road emissions of NOX and VOC for 2020 and 2030 are shown in Tables 7 and 8 for the Kentucky portion of the Area. Table 9 provides the NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2020 and 2030.

    22 See pp. 22-34 of Kentucky's submittal for further information regarding the safety margin allocation.

    Table 6—Fifteen Percent Safety Margin Allocation for the Kentucky Portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area [tsd] 2020 Safety margin 2020 Safety margin
  • allocation
  • 2030
  • Safety margin
  • 2030
  • Safety margin allocation
  • NOX 7.72 1.16 13.02 1.95 VOC 3.77 0.56 6.00 0.89
    Table 7—On-Road NOX Emissions (tsd) for the Kentucky Portion of the Area County 2014 2017 2020 2025 2030 Boone 5.46 3.94 2.41 1.73 1.05 Campbell 3.41 2.46 1.50 1.08 0.65 Kenton 5.17 3.73 2.28 1.64 0.99 Total 14.04 10.13 6.19 4.45 2.69 Table 8—On-Road VOC Emissions (tsd) for the Kentucky Portion of the Area County 2014 2017 2020 2025 2030 Boone 2.53 1.96 1.38 1.08 0.77 Campbell 1.58 1.22 0.86 0.67 0.48 Kenton 2.39 1.85 1.30 1.02 0.73 Total 6.05 5.03 3.54 2.77 1.98 Table 9—MVEBs for the Kentucky Portion of the Area [tsd] 2020 NOX VOC 2030 NOX VOC Projected On-Road Emissions 6.19 3.54 2.69 1.98 Portion of the Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB 1.16 0.56 1.95 0.89 Conformity MVEB 7.35 4.10 4.64 2.87

    Through this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the MVEBs for NOX and VOC for 2020 and 2030 for the Kentucky portion of the Area because EPA has preliminarily determined that the Area maintains the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS with the emissions at the levels of the budgets. If the MVEBs for the Kentucky portion of the Area are approved or found adequate (whichever is completed first), they must be used for future conformity determinations.

    VII. What is the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the proposed NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Kentucky portion of the area?

    When reviewing submitted “control strategy” SIPs or maintenance plans containing MVEBs, EPA may affirmatively find the MVEB contained therein adequate for use in determining transportation conformity. Once EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB must be used by state and federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation projects conform to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA.

    EPA's substantive criteria for determining adequacy of a MVEB are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The process for determining adequacy consists of three basic steps: Public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment period, and EPA's adequacy determination. This process for determining the adequacy of submitted MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes was initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999, guidance, “Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.” EPA adopted regulations to codify the adequacy process in the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the “New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments—Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change,” on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). Additional information on the adequacy process for transportation conformity purposes is available in the proposed rule entitled, “Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Changes,” 68 FR 38974, 38984 (June 30, 2003).

    As discussed earlier, Kentucky's maintenance plan includes NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Kentucky portion of the Area for an interim year (2020) and the last year of the maintenance plan (2030). EPA is reviewing the NOX and VOC MVEBs through the adequacy process described in Section I.

    EPA intends to make its determination on the adequacy of the 2020 and 2030 MVEBs for the Kentucky portion of the Area for transportation conformity purposes in the near future by completing the adequacy process that was started on December 6, 2016. If EPA finds the 2020 and 2030 MVEBs adequate or approves them, the new MVEBs for NOX and VOC must be used for future transportation conformity determinations. For required regional emissions analysis years that involve 2020 through 2029, the 2020 MVEBs would then be used, and for years 2030 and beyond, the applicable budgets would be the new 2030 MVEBs established in the maintenance plan.

    VIII. What is the effect of EPA's proposed actions?

    EPA's proposed actions establish the basis upon which EPA may take final action on the issues being proposed for approval today. Approval of Kentucky's redesignation request would change the legal designation of the portions of Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties that are within the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area, as found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Approval of Kentucky's associated SIP revision would also incorporate a plan for maintaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Area through 2030 and a section 182(a)(1) base year emissions inventory for the Area into the Kentucky SIP. The maintenance plan establishes NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2020 and 2030 for the Kentucky portion of the Area and includes contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and procedures for evaluation of potential violations.

    IX. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to: (1) Approve Kentucky's 2011 base year emissions inventory for the Kentucky portion of the Area as meeting the requirements of 182(a)(1) and incorporate this inventory into the SIP; (2) approve the maintenance plan for the Kentucky portion of the Area, including the NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2030, and incorporate it into the Kentucky SIP; and (3) approve Kentucky's redesignation request for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Area. Further, as part of this proposed action, EPA is describing the status of its adequacy determination for the NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2020 and 2030 in accordance with 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). If EPA finds the 2020 and 2030 MVEBs adequate or approves them the transportation partners will need to demonstrate conformity to the new NOX and VOC MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e)(3) within 24 months from the effective date of EPA's adequacy determination for the MVEBs or the publication date for the final rule for this action, whichever is earlier.

    If finalized, approval of the redesignation request would change the official designation of the portions of Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties that are within the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area, as found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

    X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, 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, these proposed actions merely propose to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For this reason, these proposed actions:

    • Are not significant regulatory actions 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);

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

    • are 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.);

    • do 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);

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

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

    • are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • are 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

    • will not have disproportionate human health or environmental effects 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.

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

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

    40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 29, 2017. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08643 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0081; FRL-9961-22-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; State of Delaware, District of Columbia, and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, City of Philadelphia; Control of Emissions From Existing Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator Units AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to notify the public that it has received negative declarations for commercial and industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) units within the State of Delaware, the District of Columbia, and the City of Philadelphia in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These negative declarations certify that CISWI units subject to the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) do not exist within the jurisdictional boundaries of the State of Delaware, the District of Columbia, and the City of Philadelphia in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. EPA is accepting the negative declarations in accordance with the requirements of the CAA. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is accepting the negative declarations as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received in writing by May 31, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0081 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, 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. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Cate Opila, (215) 814-2041, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    For further information regarding the negative declarations for CISWI units within the State of Delaware, the District of Columbia, and the City of Philadelphia in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication and in the technical support documentation for this rulemaking. Supporting documentation, including the technical support document, for this action is available in the docket for this rulemaking and available online at www.regulations.gov.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units.

    Dated: March 21, 2017. Cecil Rodrigues, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08658 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 751 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0387; EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0231; FRL-9961-66] RIN 2070-AK11 and RIN 2070-AK07 Trichloroethylene; Regulation of Vapor Degreasing Under TSCA Section 6(a); Methylene Chloride and N-Methylpyrrolidone; Regulation of Certain Uses Under TSCA Section 6(a); Reopening of Comment Periods AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice; Reopening of comment periods.

    SUMMARY:

    In the Federal Register of January 19, 2017, EPA issued two proposed rules under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The first action proposed to prohibit the manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in commerce of trichloroethylene (TCE) for use in vapor degreasing; to prohibit the use of TCE in vapor degreasing; to require manufacturers (including importers), processors, and distributors, except for retailers, of TCE for any use to provide downstream notification of these prohibitions throughout the supply chain; and to require limited recordkeeping. The second action proposed to prohibit the manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in commerce of methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) for consumer and most types of commercial paint and coating removal; to prohibit the use of methylene chloride and NMP in these commercial uses; to require manufacturers (including importers), processors, and distributors, except for retailers, of methylene chloride and NMP for any use to provide downstream notification of these prohibitions throughout the supply chain; and to require recordkeeping. This document reopens and extends the comment periods for each proposed rule for an additional 30 days. Commenters requested additional time to submit written comments for the proposed rules.

    DATES:

    Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0387 and by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0231 must be received on or before May 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register documents of January 19, 2017, (82 FR 7432) (FRL-9950-08) or (82 FR 7464) (FRL-9958-57).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Cindy Wheeler, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 202-566-0484; email address: [email protected] or Ana Corado, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 202-564-0140; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document reopens public comment periods established in the two proposed rules issued in the Federal Register of January 19, 2017 (82 FR 7432) (FRL-9950-08) and (82 FR 7464) (FRL-9958-57). In the first action, EPA proposed a rule under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to prohibit the manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in commerce of trichloroethylene (TCE) for use in vapor degreasing; to prohibit the use of TCE in vapor degreasing; to require manufacturers (including importers), processors, and distributors, except for retailers, of TCE for any use to provide downstream notification of these prohibitions throughout the supply chain; and to require limited recordkeeping. In the second notice, EPA proposed a rule under section 6 of TSCA to prohibit the manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in commerce of methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) for consumer and most types of commercial paint and coating removal; to prohibit the use of methylene chloride and NMP in these commercial uses; to require manufacturers (including importers), processors, and distributors, except for retailers, of methylene chloride and NMP for any use to provide downstream notification of these prohibitions throughout the supply chain; and to require recordkeeping. EPA is hereby reopening the comment periods for 30 days, to May 19, 2017.

    Even though EPA received requests for a lengthier extension of the comment periods, the Agency has concluded that a 30-day reopening of the comment period is sufficient. EPA has already provided for a substantial comment period, now totaling 90 days, for each of the two proposals. EPA has already extended the original 60-day comment period for the proposed rule in TCE in vapor degreasing for 30 days, from March 20, 2017, to April 19, 2017 (82 FR 10732, February 15, 2017). This notice provides the second extension of the comment period for that proposed rule. EPA proposed the rule on methylene chloride and NMP in paint and coating removal with a 90-day comment period, ending on April 19, 2017. Additionally, much of the technical bases for the proposals has been available to the public since the risk assessments for methylene chloride and TCE were published in 2014 and the risk assessment for NMP was published in 2015, and the commenters' expressed need for further extension was general in nature (e.g., the complexity and importance of the subject matter, and prospective commenters' desire to continue conferring and reviewing the technical basis for EPA's proposal). The Agency, therefore, is extending the comment period at its own discretion, in the interest of receiving comprehensive public comment for the benefit of the current rules.

    To submit comments, or access a docket, please follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register documents of January 19, 2017, (82 FR 7432) (FRL-9950-08) or (82 FR 7464) (FRL-9958-57). If you have questions, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 751

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Export notification, Hazardous substances, Import certification, Methylene Chloride, N-Methylpyrrolidone, Trichloroethylene, Recordkeeping.

    Dated: April 18, 2017. Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Acting Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08772 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 350 [Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0470] RIN 2126-AB84 State Inspection Programs for Passenger-Carrier Vehicles; Withdrawal AGENCY:

    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    FMCSA withdraws its April 27, 2016, advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning the establishment of requirements for States to implement annual inspection programs for commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) designed or used to transport passengers (passenger-carrying CMVs). FMCSA sought information from all interested parties that would enable the Agency to assess the risks associated with improperly maintained or inspected passenger-carrying CMVs. The ANPRM also sought public comments concerning the effectiveness of the current FMCSA annual inspection standards, and data on the potential costs and benefits of a Federal requirement for each State to implement a mandatory inspection program. FMCSA inquired about how the Agency might incentivize States to adopt such programs. After reviewing all the public comments, and in consideration of the comments provided by individuals attending the three public listening sessions held in 2015, FMCSA has determined there is not enough data and information available to support moving forward with a rulemaking action.

    DATES:

    The ANPRM “State Inspection Programs for Passenger-Carrier Vehicles,” published on April 27, 2016 (81 FR 24769), is withdrawn as of May 1, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Loretta Bitner, Chief, Commercial Passenger Carrier Safety Division at 202-385-2428, or via email at [email protected], Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background/Topics Addressed During the Comment Period

    In accordance with § 32710 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 815), FMCSA published an ANPRM in the Federal Register on April 27, 2016 (81 FR 24769). The Agency sought information from industry and other stakeholders on the maintenance and inspection of passenger-carrying CMVs that would help FMCSA decide whether to propose a rule that mandates States to impose an annual inspection process.

    FMCSA requested information from commercial passenger carriers and other stakeholders in order to consider proposing a rule that would require the States to establish annual inspection programs for passenger-carrying CMVs. The requested information was necessary to assist FMCSA in quantifying the economic benefits and costs of potentially moving forward with establishing an inspection program and in assessing risks associated with improperly maintained or inspected passenger-carrying CMVs. The ANPRM also was intended to provide information on the effectiveness of existing Federal inspection requirements in mitigating risks and ensuring safe and proper operations.1 In the effort to gather relevant data, FMCSA posed a series of questions addressing the following matters:

    1 Subsequent to publication of the ANPRM, FMCSA issued a rule that eliminated the option of relying on roadside inspections as satisfying the periodic inspection requirement. See 81 FR 47722 (July 22, 2016).

    • Existing State Mandatory Vehicle Inspection Programs for Passenger-Carrying CMVs.

    • Measuring Effectiveness of Inspection Programs.

    • Inspection Facilities and Locations.

    • Costs.

    • Uniformity of Mandatory Vehicle Inspections Programs.

    • Current Federal Standards.

    • Federal Authority.

    Discussion of Comments

    The Agency received 22 public comments, with 10 commenters expressing general opposition to the mandatory State inspection requirement discussed in the ANPRM. Seven commenters supported the establishment of such a requirement; four commenters neither supported nor opposed a possible requirement, and one commenter's issue was out-of-scope. Many commenters indicated that the existing standards for annual inspections prescribed in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) or their own programs were sufficient. Commenters also indicated that current standards are effective at mitigating risk when properly enforced. Several commenters made their support contingent on factors such as uniformity in inspection standards, standardization of inspector training, a self-inspection option, and required reciprocity, whereby States would be required to recognize inspections conducted outside their States.

    Several commenters, including State agencies in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Texas, addressed questions aimed at measuring the effectiveness of inspection programs. However, none of these commenters was able to determine whether the establishment of an inspection program reduced the number of safety violations detected. Michigan's Department of Motor Vehicles indicated it improved its inspection process by educating carriers on the required State inspection criteria in 2013; it has since observed a 10% increase in vehicles passing their initial safety inspection.

    Few commenters addressed how FMCSA might incentivize the States to establish mandatory inspection programs. The South Carolina Transport Police noted that a mandate would be a strain on its resources. The Michigan Department of Transportation noted that a program should be subsidized with Federal funding. A representative from Pennsylvania suggested providing additional Federal highway funding to those States with well-defined programs.

    FMCSA Decision

    FMCSA withdraws the April 2016 ANPRM because the Agency is not aware of data or information that supports the development of a notice of proposed rulemaking to require the States to establish mandatory annual inspection programs for passenger-carrying vehicles.

    The Agency held a series public listening sessions 2 concerning this subject prior to publication of the ANPRM. Those sessions provided interested parties with the opportunity to share their views on the merits of requiring State inspections of passenger CMVs. Transcripts of the sessions are available in the public docket noted above. Stakeholders' remarks and comments proved valuable in developing the questions posed in the ANPRM, but the information they provided was not sufficient to support moving beyond the ANPRM. The Agency received a broad range of comments identifying issues FMCSA would need to consider in a rulemaking, such as the costs of mandatory inspection programs, the value of a nation-wide uniform inspection standard, and the need for national training of inspectors to eliminate inconsistencies in how inspection standards are applied. Both industry and the enforcement community expressed concerns about the cost of an inspection program. Stakeholders' estimates of costs for program administration and individual inspections varied significantly.

    2 The listening sessions were conducted at the American Bus Association Marketplace in St. Louis, Missouri on January 13, 2015, a United Motor Coach Association meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana on January 18, 2015, and a Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance workshop in Jacksonville, Florida on April 14, 2015.

    The Agency does not foresee the availability of Federal funding to incentivize the States to adopt such programs under its existing grant programs.

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87 on: April 25, 2017. Daphne Y. Jefferson, Deputy Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08724 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
    82 82 Monday, May 1, 2017 Notices AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION Public Quarterly Meeting of the Board of Directors AGENCY:

    United States African Development Foundation.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The US African Development Foundation (USADF) will hold its quarterly meeting of the Board of Directors to discuss the agency's programs and administration.

    DATES:

    The meeting date is Tuesday, May 9, 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting location is USADF, 1400 I St. NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marie-Cecile Groelsema, 202-233-8883.

    Authority:

    Public Law 96-533 (22 U.S.C. 290h).

    Dated: April 26, 2017. June B. Brown, Interim General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08768 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6117-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2016-0059] National Wildlife Services Advisory Committee; Notice of Solicitation for Membership AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of solicitation for membership.

    SUMMARY:

    We are giving notice that the Secretary of Agriculture is soliciting nominations for the National Wildlife Services Advisory Committee.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to nominations received on or before June 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Nomination packages may be sent by postal mail or commercial delivery to The Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, Attn: Secretary's National Wildlife Services Advisory Committee. Nomination packages may also be emailed to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Carrie Joyce, Designated Federal Officer, WS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 87, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-3999.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The National Wildlife Services Advisory Committee (the Committee) advises the Secretary of Agriculture on policies, program issues, and research needed to conduct the Wildlife Services program. The Committee also serves as a public forum enabling those affected by the Wildlife Services program to have a voice in the program's policies. The Committee Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall be elected by the Committee from among its members.

    We are soliciting nominations from interested organizations and individuals. An organization may nominate individuals from within or outside of its membership; alternatively, an individual may nominate herself or himself. Nomination packages should include a nomination form along with a cover letter or resume that documents the nominee's experience. Nomination forms are available on the Internet at https://www.ocio.usda.gov/document/ad-755 or may be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    The Secretary will select members to obtain the broadest possible representation on the Committee, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. II) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Regulation 1041-1. Equal opportunity practices, in line with the USDA policies, will be followed in all appointments to the Committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the Committee have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Department, membership should include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.

    Done in Washington, DC, on April 25, 2017. Michael C. Gregoire, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08733 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Advance Notification of Sunset Reviews AGENCY:

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

    Background

    Every five years, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) and the International Trade Commission automatically initiate and conduct a review to determine whether revocation of a countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 of the Act would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury.

    Upcoming Sunset Reviews for June 2017

    The following Sunset Reviews are scheduled for initiation in June 2017 and will appear in that month's Notice of Initiation of Five-Year Sunset Reviews (“Sunset Reviews”).

    Department contact Antidumping Duty Proceedings: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Brazil (A-351-809) (4th Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith (202) 482-5255. Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from India (A-533-502) (4th Review) Robert James (202) 482-0649. Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fitting from Italy (A-475-828) (3rd Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith (202) 482-5255. Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fitting from Malaysia (A-557-809) (3rd Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith (202) 482-5255. Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Mexico (A-201-80) (4th Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith (202) 482-5255. Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fitting from the Philippines (A-565-801) (3rd Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith (202) 482-5255. Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Republic of Korea (A-580-809) (4th Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith (202) 482-5255. Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Taiwan (A-583-814) (4th Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith (202) 482-5255. Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tubes from Taiwan (A-583-008) (4th Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith (202) 482-5255. Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tubes from Thailand (A-549-502) (4th Review) Robert James (202) 482-0649. Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tubes from Turkey (A-489-501) (4th Review) Robert James (202) 482-0649. Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tubes from Turkey (C-489-502) (4th Review) Robert James (202) 482-0649. Suspended Investigations: No Sunset Review of suspended investigations is scheduled for initiation in June 2017.

    The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. The Notice of Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews provides further information regarding what is required of all parties to participate in Sunset Reviews.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the Department will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact the Department in writing within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.

    Please note that if the Department receives a Notice of Intent to Participate from a member of the domestic industry within 15 days of the date of initiation, the review will continue. Thereafter, any interested party wishing to participate in the Sunset Review must provide substantive comments in response to the notice of initiation no later than 30 days after the date of initiation.

    This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

    Dated: April 24, 2017. Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08729 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is automatically initiating the five-year reviews (“Sunset Reviews”) of the antidumping and countervailing duty (“AD/CVD”) order(s) listed below. The International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) is publishing concurrently with this notice its notice of Institution of Five-Year Review which covers the same order(s).

    DATES:

    Effective May 1, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Department official identified in the Initiation of Review section below at AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. For information from the Commission contact Mary Messer, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission at (202) 205-3193.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its Procedures for Conducting Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews is set forth in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

    Initiation of Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating Sunset Reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty order(s):

    DOC case No. ITC case No. Country Product Department contact A-588-854 731-TA-860 Japan Tin Mill Products (3rd Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith (202) 482-5255. A-570-862 731-TA-891 PRC Foundry Coke (3rd Review) Matthew Renkey (202) 482-2312. A-570-977 731-TA-1188 PRC High Pressure Steel Cylinders (1st Review) Matthew Renkey (202) 482-2312. C-570-978 701-TA-480 PRC High Pressure Steel Cylinders (1st Review) Robert James (202) 482-0649. Filing Information

    As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Department's regulations, the Department's schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on the Department's Web site at the following address: “http://enforcement.trade.gov/sunset/.” All submissions in these Sunset Reviews must be filed in accordance with the Department's regulations regarding format, translation, and service of documents. These rules, including electronic filing requirements via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”), can be found at 19 CFR 351.303.1

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

    This notice serves as a reminder that any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.2 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives in these segments.3 The formats for the revised certifications are provided at the end of the Final Rule. The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the revised certification requirements.

    2See section 782(b) of the Act.

    3See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (“Final Rule”) (amending 19 CFR 351.303(g)).

    On April 10, 2013, the Department modified two regulations related to AD/CVD proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301).4 Parties are advised to review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in these segments. To the extent that other regulations govern the submission of factual information in a segment (such as 19 CFR 351.218), these time limits will continue to be applied. Parties are also advised to review the final rule concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in AD/CVD proceedings, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1309frn/2013-22853.txt, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.5

    4See Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013).

    5See Extension of Time Limits, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013).

    Letters of Appearance and Administrative Protective Orders

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), the Department will maintain and make available a public service list for these proceedings. Parties wishing to participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.

    Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (“APO”) to file an APO application immediately following publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The Department's regulations on submission of proprietary information and eligibility to receive access to business proprietary information under APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304-306.

    Information Required From Interested Parties

    Domestic interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation by filing a notice of intent to participate. The required contents of the notice of intent to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with the Department's regulations, if we do not receive a notice of intent to participate from at least one domestic interested party by the 15-day deadline, the Department will automatically revoke the order without further review.6

    6See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii).

    If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, the Department's regulations provide that all parties wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must file complete substantive responses not later than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The required contents of a substantive response, on an order-specific basis, are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note that certain information requirements differ for respondent and domestic parties. Also, note that the Department's information requirements are distinct from the Commission's information requirements. Consult the Department's regulations for information regarding the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews. Consult the Department's regulations at 19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms and for other general information concerning antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings at the Department.

    This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).

    Dated: April 24, 2017. Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08731 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review AGENCY:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.

    Background

    Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.

    All deadlines for the submission of comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting date.

    Respondent Selection

    In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Therefore, we encourage all parties interested in commenting on respondent selection to submit their APO applications on the date of publication of the initiation notice, or as soon thereafter as possible. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record of the review.

    In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:

    In general, the Department finds that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, the Department will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of a review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this antidumping proceeding (i.e., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to a review, if the Department determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, the Department will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, the Department will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete a Quantity and Value Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of a proceeding where the Department considered collapsing that entity, complete quantity and value data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

    Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that requests a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that, with regard to reviews requested on the basis of anniversary months on or after May 2017, the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    The Department is providing this notice on its Web site, as well as in its “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” notices, so that interested parties will be aware of the manner in which the Department intends to exercise its discretion in the future.

    Opportunity to Request a Review: Not later than the last day of May 2017,1 interested parties may request administrative review of the following orders, findings, or suspended investigations, with anniversary dates in May for the following periods:

    1 Or the next business day, if the deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday or any other day when the Department is closed.

    Period of review Antidumping Duty Proceedings: BELGIUM: Stainless Steel Plate in Coil A-423-808 5/1/16-4/30/17 BRAZIL: Iron Construction Castings A-351-503 5/1/16-4/30/17 CANADA: Citric Acid and Citrate Salt A-122-853 5/1/16-4/30/17 CANADA: Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin A-122-855 10/15/15-4/30/17 INDIA: Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin A-533-861 10/15/15-4/30/17 INDIA: Silicomanganese A-533-823 5/1/16-4/30/17 INDIA: Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube A-533-502 5/1/16-4/30/17 INDONESIA: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags A-560-822 5/1/16-4/30/17 JAPAN: Diffusion-Annealed Nickel-Plated Flat-Rolled Steel Products A-588-869 5/1/16-4/30/17 JAPAN: Gray Portland Cement and Cement Clinker A-588-815 5/1/16-4/30/17 KAZAKHSTAN: Silicomanganese A-834-807 5/1/16-4/30/17 OMAN: Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin A-523-810 10/15/15-4/30/17 REPUBLIC OF KOREA: Polyester Staple Fiber A-580-839 5/1/16-4/30/17 SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags A-552-806 5/1/16-4/30/17 SOUTH AFRICA: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils A-791-805 5/1/16-4/30/17 TAIWAN: Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes A-583-008 5/1/16-4/30/17 TAIWAN: Polyester Staple Fiber A-583-833 5/1/16-4/30/17 TAIWAN: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags A-583-843 5/1/16-4/30/17 TAIWAN: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils A-583-830 5/1/16-4/30/17 TAIWAN: Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents A-583-848 5/1/16-4/30/17 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Aluminum Extrusions A-570-967 5/1/16-4/30/17 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe A-570-935 5/1/16-4/30/17 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Citric Acid and Citrate Salt A-570-937 5/1/16-4/30/17 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Iron Construction Castings A-570-502 5/1/16-4/30/17 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Oil Country Tubular Goods A-570-943 5/1/16-4/30/17 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin A-570-024 10/15/15-4/30/17 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Pure Magnesium A-570-832 5/1/16-4/30/17 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents A-570-972 5/1/16-4/30/17 TURKEY: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes A-489-501 5/1/16-4/30/17 TURKEY: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube A-489-815 5/1/16-4/30/17 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: Steel Nails A-520-804 5/1/16-4/30/17 VENEZUELA: Silicomanganese A-307-820 5/1/16-4/30/17 Countervailing Duty Proceedings: BRAZIL: Iron Construction Castings C-351-504 1/1/16-12/31/16 INDIA: Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin C-533-862 8/14/15-12/31/16 SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags C-552-805 1/1/16-12/31/16 SOUTH AFRICA: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils C-791-806 1/1/16-12/31/16 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Aluminum Extrusions C-570-968 1/1/16-12/31/16 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Citric Acid and Citrate Salt C-570-938 1/1/16-12/31/16 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin C-570-025 8/14/15-12/31/16 Suspension Agreements: None

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review. In addition, a domestic interested party or an interested party described in section 771(9)(B) of the Act must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which was produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover.

    Note that, for any party the Department was unable to locate in prior segments, the Department will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for the Secretary to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii).

    As explained in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), and Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011), the Department clarified its practice with respect to the collection of final antidumping duties on imports of merchandise where intermediate firms are involved. The public should be aware of this clarification in determining whether to request an administrative review of merchandise subject to antidumping findings and orders.2

    2See also the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at http://trade.gov/enforcement/.

    The Department no longer considers the non-market economy (NME) entity as an exporter conditionally subject to an antidumping duty administrative reviews.3 Accordingly, the NME entity will not be under review unless the Department specifically receives a request for, or self-initiates, a review of the NME entity.4 In administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders on merchandise from NME countries where a review of the NME entity has not been initiated, but where an individual exporter for which a review was initiated does not qualify for a separate rate, the Department will issue a final decision indicating that the company in question is part of the NME entity. However, in that situation, because no review of the NME entity was conducted, the NME entity's entries were not subject to the review and the rate for the NME entity is not subject to change as a result of that review (although the rate for the individual exporter may change as a function of the finding that the exporter is part of the NME entity). Following initiation of an antidumping administrative review when there is no review requested of the NME entity, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries for all exporters not named in the initiation notice, including those that were suspended at the NME entity rate.

    3See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013).

    4 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), parties should specify that they are requesting a review of entries from exporters comprising the entity, and to the extent possible, include the names of such exporters in their request.

    All requests must be filed electronically in Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”) on Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS Web site at http://access.trade.gov. 5 Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(l)(i), a copy of each request must be served on the petitioner and each exporter or producer specified in the request.

    5See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of “Initiation of Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation” for requests received by the last day of May 2017. If the Department does not receive, by the last day of May 2017, a request for review of entries covered by an order, finding, or suspended investigation listed in this notice and for the period identified above, the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping or countervailing duties on those entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or bond for) estimated antidumping or countervailing duties required on those entries at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption and to continue to collect the cash deposit previously ordered.

    For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the period of review.

    This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

    Dated: April 25, 2017. Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08730 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-835] Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    As a result of this sunset review, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (“AD”) order on furfuryl alcohol from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the dumping margins identified in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective May 1, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Keith Haynes, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5139.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On January 3, 2017, the Department published the notice of initiation of the fourth sunset review of the Order, 1 pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).2 On January 21, 2017, Penn A Kem, LLC (“PennAKem”), a domestic interested party (formerly known as Penn Specialty Chemicals, Inc. and Great Lakes Chemical, the former a petitioner in the underlying investigation), timely notified the Department of its intent to participate within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). On February 1, 2017, the Department received a complete substantive response from PennAKem within the 30-day period specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).3 The Department received no substantive responses from respondent interested parties. Based on the notice of intent to participate and adequate response filed by PennAKem, and the lack of response from any respondent interested party, the Department conducted an expedited sunset review of the Order, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2).

    1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China (PRC), 60 FR 32302 (June 21, 1995) (“Order”).

    2See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews, 82 FR 84 (January 3, 2017) (“Notice of Initiation”).

    3See Submission from PennAKem to the Department, “Fourth Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China; Domestic Interested Party Substantive Response to the Notice of Initiation” (“Substantive Response”), dated February 1, 2017.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order is furfuryl alcohol (C4H3OCH2OH). Furfuryl alcohol is a primary alcohol, and is colorless or pale yellow in appearance. It is used in the manufacture of resins and as a wetting agent and solvent for coating resins, nitrocellulose, cellulose acetate, and other soluble dyes. The product subject to this order is classifiable under subheading 2932.13.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review is provided in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.4 The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins of dumping likely to prevail if the Order were revoked. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    4See the Department's memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Final Results of the Sunset Review

    Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the antidumping duty order on furfuryl alcohol from the PRC would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail would be weighted-average margins up to 50.43 percent.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 25, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08732 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Advisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate Assessment AGENCY:

    Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Advisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate assessment. The members will discuss issues outlined in the section on Matters to be considered.

    DATES:

    The meeting is scheduled for May 15, 2017 from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. These times and the agenda topics described below are subject to change. Please refer to the Advisory Committee's Web site: http://sncaadvisorycommittee.noaa.gov/Meetings.aspx.

    ADDRESSES:

    Conference call. Public access is available at: NOAA, SSMC 3 Room 10817, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD. Members of the public may participate virtually by registering at: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/8089294344504416514.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Cynthia Decker, Designated Federal Officer, SSMC3, Room 11230, 1315 East-West Hwy., Silver Spring, MD 20910; Email: [email protected]; or visit the Advisory Committee Web site http://sncaadvisorycommittee.noaa.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Advisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate Assessment was established by a Decision Memorandum, dated August 20, 2015. The Committee's mission is to provide advice on sustained National Climate Assessment activities and products to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere (Under Secretary), who will forward the advice to the Director of the Office of Science Technology Policy (OSTP). The Committee will advise on the engagement of stakeholders and on sustained assessment activities and the quadrennial National Climate Assessment (NCA4) report.

    Status: The meeting will be open to public participation with a 15-minute public comment period from 5:30-5:45 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The Advisory 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 minutes. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled public comment periods, written comments can be submitted in lieu of oral comments. Written comments should be received in the Designated Federal Officer's office by May 10 to provide sufficient time for Advisory Committee review. Written comments received by the Designated Federal Officer after May 10, will be distributed to the Advisory Committee, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date.

    Special Accommodations: These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for special accommodations may be directed no later than 12 p.m. on May 10.

    Registration: Individuals and groups who wish to attend the public meeting are requested to pre-register by May 10.

    Individuals or groups may register, submit written statements, and request to make oral comments, and/or request special accommodations by either of the following methods:

    • Send an email message to [email protected] Please Include `May 2017 Teleconference' on the subject line; or

    • Send paper statements to Dr. Cynthia Decker, Designated Federal Officer, SSMC3, Room 11230, 1315 East-West Hwy, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    Matters To Be Considered: The meeting will include discussions on the committee's proposed focus areas for addressing NOAA's request, on behalf of the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, to “develop a set of recommendations for a Sustained Assessment process by Spring 2018. Meeting materials, including work products will be made available on the Advisory Committee's Web site: http://sncaadvisorycommittee.noaa.gov/Meetings.aspx.

    Dated: April 26, 2017. Paul Johnson, Acting Deputy Chief Financial Officer/CAO, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08758 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-KD-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Availability of Seats for National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Councils AGENCY:

    Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for applications.

    SUMMARY:

    ONMS is seeking applications for vacant seats for seven of its 13 national marine sanctuary advisory councils and Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve Advisory Council (advisory councils). Vacant seats, including positions (i.e., primary and alternate), for each of the advisory councils are listed in this notice under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Applicants are chosen based upon their particular expertise and experience in relation to the seat for which they are applying; community and professional affiliations; views regarding the protection and management of marine or Great Lakes resources; and possibly the length of residence in the area affected by the sanctuary. Applicants chosen as members or alternates should expect to serve two or three-year terms, pursuant to the charter of the specific national marine sanctuary advisory council or Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve Advisory Council.

    DATES:

    Applications are due before or by Wednesday, May 31, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Application kits are specific to each advisory council. As such, application kits must be obtained from and returned to the council-specific addresses noted below.

    • Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Aubrie Fowler, NOAA Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, University of California, Santa Barbara, Ocean Science Education Building 514, MC 6155, Santa Barbara, CA 93106; 805-893-6425; email [email protected]; or download applications from http://channelislands.noaa.gov/sac/council_news.html.

    • Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Chris Hines, NOAA Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary, 10 Ocean Science Circle, Savannah, GA 31411; 912-598-2397; email [email protected]; or download applications from http://graysreef.noaa.gov/management/sac/council_news.html.

    • Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Shannon Ruseborn, NOAA Inouye Regional Center, NOS/ONMS/HIHWNMS/Shannon Ruseborn, 1845 Wasp Boulevard, Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818; 808-725-5905; email [email protected]; or download applications from http://hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov/council/council_app_accepting.html.

    Monitor National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: William Sassorossi, Monitor National Marine Sanctuary, 100 Museum Drive, Newport News, VA 23606; 757-591-7329; email [email protected]; or download applications from http://monitor.noaa.gov/advisory/news.html.

    • Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Nichole Rodriguez, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, 99 Pacific Street, Building 455A, Monterey, CA 93940; 831-647-4206; email [email protected]; or download applications from http://montereybay.noaa.gov/.

    • National Marine Sanctuary of American Samoa Advisory Council: Joseph Paulin, National Marine Sanctuary of American Samoa, Tauese P.F. Sunia Ocean Center, P.O. Box 4318, Pago Pago, AS 96799; 684-633-6400 extension 226; email [email protected]; or download applications from http://americansamoa.noaa.gov.

    • Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve Advisory Council: Nicole Evans, NOAA Inouye Regional Center, NOS/ONMS/PMNM/Nicole Evans, 1845 Wasp Boulevard, Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818; 808-725-5818; email [email protected]; or download applications from http://www.papahanaumokuakea.gov/new-about/council/apply/.

    • Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Elizabeth Stokes, Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, 175 Edward Foster Road, Scituate, MA 02066; 781-545-8026 extension 6004; email [email protected]; or download applications from http://stellwagen.noaa.gov/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information on a particular national marine sanctuary advisory council, please contact the individual identified in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    ONMS serves as the trustee for a network of underwater parks encompassing more than 600,000 square miles of marine and Great Lakes waters from Washington state to the Florida Keys, and from Lake Huron to American Samoa. The network includes a system of 13 national marine sanctuaries and Papahānaumokuākea and Rose Atoll marine national monuments. National marine sanctuaries protect our nation's most vital coastal and marine natural and cultural resources, and through active research, management, and public engagement, sustain healthy environments that are the foundation for thriving communities and stable economies. One of the many ways ONMS ensures public participation in the designation and management of national marine sanctuaries is through the formation of advisory councils. National marine sanctuary advisory councils are community-based advisory groups established to provide advice and recommendations to the superintendents of national marine sanctuaries on issues including management, science, service, and stewardship; and to serve as liaisons between their constituents in the community and the sanctuary. Additional information on ONMS and its advisory councils can be found at http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov. Materials related to the purpose, policies, and operational requirements for advisory councils can be found in the charter for a particular advisory council (http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/ac/council_charters.html) and the National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council Implementation Handbook (http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/ac/acref.html).

    The following is a list of the vacant seats, including positions (i.e., primary or alternate), for each of the advisory councils currently seeking applications for primary members and alternates:

    Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary: Business (Primary); Business (Alternate); Commercial Fishing (Primary); Commercial Fishing (Alternate); Conservation (Alternate); Non-consumptive Recreation (Primary); Non-consumptive Recreation (Alternate); Public-at-Large (Primary); Public-at-Large (Primary); Research (Primary); Research (Alternate). Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary: K-12 Education (Primary); Living Resources Research (Primary).

    Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary: Business/Commerce (Primary); Business/Commerce (Alternate); Conservation (Alternate); Lāna`i Island (Alternate); Maui Island (Alternate); Moloka`i Island (Primary); Moloka`i Island (Alternate); Native Hawaiian (Primary); O`ahu Island (Alternate); Ocean Recreation (Alternate); Tourism (Primary). Monitor National Marine Sanctuary: Recreational/Commercial Fishing (Primary); Youth (Primary).

    Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Agriculture (Alternate); Conservation (Alternate); Education (Alternate).

    National Marine Sanctuary of American Samoa: Ocean Recreation/Ocean-centered Ecotourism (Primary); Swains Island (Primary).

    Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve Advisory Council: Research (Alternate).

    Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: At-Large (Primary); At-Large (Alternate); Business Industry (Primary); Conservation (Primary); Education (Alternate); Youth (Primary); Youth (Alternate).

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.

    (Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program) Dated: March 23, 2017. John Armor, Director, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-06711 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Program (CSP)—Grants to State Entities; Correction Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.282A. AGENCY:

    Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 25, 2017, we published in the Federal Register (82 FR 19030) a notice of correction for a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2017 for the CSP Grants to State Entities program. This notice corrects the CFDA number in the notice of correction.

    DATES:

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: May 18, 2017.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: July 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathryn Meeley, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W257, Washington, DC 20202-5970. Telephone: (202) 453-6818, or by email: [email protected]

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On April 25, 2017, we published in the Federal Register (82 FR 19030) a notice of correction for a notice inviting applications for new awards for FY 2017 for the CSP Grants to State Entities program. This notice corrects the CFDA number in the notice of correction.

    All other requirements and conditions stated in the notice inviting applications, as amended by the notice of correction, remain the same.

    Correction

    In FR Doc. No. 2017-08362, in the Federal Register of April 25, 2017 (82 FR 19030), on page 19030, in the left column, under the heading “Action”, after the phrase “Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number:”, we correct the CFDA number to read “84.282A”.

    Program Authority: Title IV, Part C of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (20 U.S.C. 7221-7221j).

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: April 26, 2017. Margo Anderson, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Innovation and Improvement.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08776 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No. ED-2017-ICCD-0058] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; 2016-17 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B: 16/17) Main Study AGENCY:

    Department of Education (ED), National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 31, 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-0058. 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 224-82, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact NCES Information Collections at [email protected]

    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: 2016-17 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B: 16/17) Main Study.

    OMB Control Number: 1850-0926.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 22,481.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 9,812.

    Abstract: This request is for the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to conduct the 2016/17 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:16/17). The B&B studies of the education, work, financial, and personal experiences of individuals who have completed a bachelor's degree at a given point in time are a series of longitudinal studies. Every 8 years, students are identified as bachelor's degree recipients through the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS). B&B:16/17 is the first follow-up of a panel of baccalaureate degree recipients identified in the 2015-16 NPSAS, and part of the fourth cohort (B&B:16) of the B&B series. B&B cohorts prior to B&B:16 were approved under OMB# 1850-0729. The B&B:16 cohort is submitted and reviewed under OMB# 1850-0926. The primary purposes of the B&B studies are to describe the post-baccalaureate paths of new college graduates, with a focus on their experiences in the labor market and post-baccalaureate education, and their education-related debt. B&B also focuses on the continuing education paths of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduates, as well as the experiences of those who have begun careers in education of students through the 12th grade. Since graduating from college in 2014-15 for the field test, and 2015-16 for the full-scale study, members of this B&B:16 cohort will begin moving into and out of the workforce, enrolling in additional undergraduate and graduate education, forming families, and repaying undergraduate education-related debt. Documenting these choices and pathways, along with individual, institutional, and employment characteristics that may be related to those choices, provides critical information on the costs and benefits of a bachelor's degree in today's workforce. B&B studies include both traditional-age and non-traditional-age college graduates, whose education options and choices often diverge considerably, and allow study of the paths taken by these different graduates. B&B:16/17 main study data collection is scheduled to take place from July 2017 through March 2018.

    Dated: April 26, 2017. Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08739 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Federal Need Analysis Methodology for the 2018-19 Award Year—Federal Pell Grant, Federal Perkins Loan, Federal Work-Study, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan, Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant and TEACH Grant Programs AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.063; 84.038; 84.033; 84.007; 84.268; 84.408; 84.379. SUMMARY:

    The Secretary announces the annual updates to the tables used in the statutory Federal Need Analysis Methodology that determines a student's expected family contribution (EFC) for award year (AY) 2018-19 for these student financial aid programs. The intent of this notice is to alert the financial aid community and the broader public to these required annual updates used in the determination of student aid eligibility.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marya Dennis, U.S. Department of Education, Room 63G2, Union Center Plaza, 830 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20202-5454. Telephone: (202) 377-3385.

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Part F of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), specifies the criteria, data elements, calculations, and tables the Department of Education (Department) uses in the Federal Need Analysis Methodology to determine the EFC.

    Section 478 of the HEA requires the Secretary to annually update the following four tables for price inflation—the Income Protection Allowance (IPA), the Adjusted Net Worth (NW) of a Business or Farm, the Education Savings and Asset Protection Allowance, and the Assessment Schedules and Rates. The updates are based, in general, upon increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

    For AY 2018-19, the Secretary is charged with updating the IPA for parents of dependent students, adjusted NW of a business or farm, the education savings and asset protection allowance, and the assessment schedules and rates to account for inflation that took place between December 2016 and December 2017. However, because the Secretary must publish these tables before December 2017, the increases in the tables must be based on a percentage equal to the estimated percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for 2017. The Secretary must also account for any under- or over-estimation of inflation for the preceding year.

    In developing the table values for the 2017-18 AY, the Secretary's assumed 2.1 percent increase in the CPI-U for the period December 2015 through December 2016 was the actual inflation for this time period. The Secretary estimates that the increase in the CPI-U for the period December 2016 through December 2017 will be 2.3 percent.

    Additionally, section 601 of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 (CCRAA, Pub. L. 110-84) amended sections 475 through 478 of the HEA affecting the IPA tables for the 2009-10 through 2012-13 AYs and required the Department to use a percentage of the estimated CPI to update the table in subsequent years. These changes to the IPA impact dependent students, as well as independent students with dependents other than a spouse and independent students without dependents other than a spouse. This notice includes the new 2018-19 AY values for the IPA tables, which reflect the CCRAA amendments. The updated tables are in sections 1 (Income Protection Allowance), 2 (Adjusted Net Worth of a Business or Farm), and 4 (Assessment Schedules and Rates) of this notice.

    As provided for in section 478(d) of the HEA, the Secretary must also revise the education savings and asset protection allowances for each AY. The Education Savings and Asset Protection Allowance table for AY 2018-19 has been updated in section 3 of this notice.

    Section 478(h) of the HEA also requires the Secretary to increase the amount specified for the employment expense allowance, adjusted for inflation. This calculation is based on increases in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' marginal costs budget for a two-worker family compared to a one-worker family. The items covered by this calculation are: Food away from home, apparel, transportation, and household furnishings and operations. The Employment Expense Allowance table for AY 2018-19 has been updated in section 5 of this notice.

    The HEA requires the following annual updates:

    1. Income Protection Allowance. This allowance is the amount of living expenses associated with the maintenance of an individual or family that may be offset against the family's income. The allowance varies by family size. The IPA for the dependent student is $6,570. The IPAs for parents of dependent students for AY 2018-19 are as follows:

    Parents of Dependent Students Family size Number in college 1 2 3 4 5 2 $18,320 $15,180 3 22,810 19,690 $16,560 4 28,170 25,040 21,920 $18,790 5 33,240 30,100 26,990 23,850 $20,740 6 38,880 35,740 32,630 29,490 26,380

    For each additional family member add $4,390. For each additional college student subtract $3,120.

    The IPAs for independent students with dependents other than a spouse for AY 2018-19 are as follows:

    Independent Students With Dependents Other Than a Spouse Family size Number in college 1 2 3 4 5 2 $25,870 $21,450 3 32,210 27,810 $23,390 4 39,780 35,370 30,960 $26,530 5 46,940 42,500 38,100 33,690 $29,290 6 54,890 50,480 46,080 41,640 37,250

    For each additional family member add $6,200. For each additional college student subtract $4,400.

    The IPAs for single independent students and independent students without dependents other than a spouse for AY 2018-19 are as follows:

    Marital
  • status
  • Number in
  • college
  • IPA
    Single 1 $10,220 Married 2 10,220 Married 1 16,380

    2. Adjusted Net Worth of a Business or Farm. A portion of the full NW (assets less debts) of a business or farm is excluded from the calculation of an EFC because (1) the income produced from these assets is already assessed in another part of the formula; and (2) the formula protects a portion of the value of the assets.

    The portion of these assets included in the contribution calculation is computed according to the following schedule. This schedule is used for parents of dependent students, independent students without dependents other than a spouse, and independent students with dependents other than a spouse.

    If the NW of a business or farm is Then the adjusted NW is Less than $1 $0. $1 to $130,000 $0 + 40% of NW. $130,001 to $390,000 $52,000 + 50% of NW over $130,000. $390,001 to $655,000 $182,000 + 60% of NW over $390,000. $655,001 or more $341,000 + 100% of NW over $655,000.

    3. Education Savings and Asset Protection Allowance. This allowance protects a portion of NW (assets less debts) from being considered available for postsecondary educational expenses. There are three asset protection allowance tables: One for parents of dependent students, one for independent students without dependents other than a spouse, and one for independent students with dependents other than a spouse.

    Parents of Dependent Students If the age of the older parent is And they are Married Single Then the education savings and asset protection allowance is 25 or less 0 0 26 1,200 700 27 2,400 1,400 28 3,500 2,200 29 4,700 2,900 30 5,900 3,600 31 7,100 4,300 32 8,300 5,000 33 9,400 5,800 34 10,600 6,500 35 11,800 7,200 36 13,000 7,900 37 14,200 8,600 38 15,300 9,400 39 16,500 10,100 40 17,700 10,800 41 18,100 11,000 42 18,500 11,300 43 18,900 11,500 44 19,300 11,800 45 19,800 12,000 46 20,300 12,300 47 20,700 12,600 48 21,300 12,900 49 21,800 13,200 50 22,300 13,500 51 22,900 13,800 52 23,500 14,100 53 24,100 14,400 54 24,800 14,800 55 25,400 15,200 56 26,100 15,500 57 26,800 15,900 58 27,600 16,300 59 28,300 16,700 60 29,100 17,100 61 30,000 17,600 62 30,800 18,000 63 31,700 18,500 64 32,600 19,000 65 or older 33,600 19,500 Independent Students With Dependents Other Than a Spouse If the age of the student is And they are Married Single Then the education savings and asset protection allowance is 25 or less 0 0 26 1,200 700 27 2,400 1,400 28 3,500 2,200 29 4,700 2,900 30 5,900 3,600 31 7,100 4,300 32 8,300 5,000 33 9,400 5,800 34 10,600 6,500 35 11,800 7,200 36 13,000 7,900 37 14,200 8,600 38 15,300 9,400 39 16,500 10,100 40 17,700 10,800 41 18,100 11,000 42 18,500 11,300 43 18,900 11,500 44 19,300 11,800 45 19,800 12,000 46 20,300 12,300 47 20,700 12,600 48 21,300 12,900 49 21,800 13,200 50 22,300 13,500 51 22,900 13,800 52 23,500 14,100 53 24,100 14,400 54 24,800 14,800 55 25,400 15,200 56 26,100 15,500 57 26,800 15,900 58 27,600 16,300 59 28,300 16,700 60 29,100 17,100 61 30,000 17,600 62 30,800 18,000 63 31,700 18,500 64 32,600 19,000 65 or older 33,600 19,500 Independent Students Without Dependents Other Than a Spouse If the age of the student is And they are Married Single Then the education savings and asset protection allowance is 25 or less 0 0 26 1,200 700 27 2,400 1,400 28 3,500 2,200 29 4,700 2,900 30 5,900 3,600 31 7,100 4,300 32 8,300 5,000 33 9,400 5,800 34 10,600 6,500 35 11,800 7,200 36 13,000 7,900 37 14,200 8,600 38 15,300 9,400 39 16,500 10,100 40 17,700 10,800 41 18,100 11,000 42 18,500 11,300 43 18,900 11,500 44 19,300 11,800 45 19,800 12,000 46 20,300 12,300 47 20,700 12,600 48 21,300 12,900 49 21,800 13,200 50 22,300 13,500 51 22,900 13,800 52 23,500 14,100 53 24,100 14,400 54 24,800 14,800 55 25,400 15,200 56 26,100 15,500 57 26,800 15,900 58 27,600 16,300 59 28,300 16,700 60 29,100 17,100 61 30,000 17,600 62 30,800 18,000 63 31,700 18,500 64 32,600 19,000 65 or older 33,600 19,500

    4. Assessment Schedules and Rates. Two schedules that are subject to updates—one for parents of dependent students and one for independent students with dependents other than a spouse—are used to determine the EFC from family financial resources toward educational expenses. For dependent students, the EFC is derived from an assessment of the parents' adjusted available income (AAI). For independent students with dependents other than a spouse, the EFC is derived from an assessment of the family's AAI. The AAI represents a measure of a family's financial strength, which considers both income and assets.

    The parents' contribution for a dependent student is computed according to the following schedule:

    If AAI is Then the contribution is Less than −$3,409 −$750. ($3,409) to $16,400 22% of AAI. $16,401 to $20,500 $3,608 + 25% of AAI over $16,400. $20,501 to $24,700 $4,633 + 29% of AAI over $20,500. $24,701 to $28,900 $5,851 + 34% of AAI over $24,700. $28,901 to $33,100 $7,279 + 40% of AAI over $28,900. $33,101 or more $8,959 + 47% of AAI over $33,100.

    The contribution for an independent student with dependents other than a spouse is computed according to the following schedule:

    If AAI is Then the contribution is Less than −$3,409 −$750. ($3,409) to $16,400 22% of AAI. $16,401 to $20,500 $3,608 + 25% of AAI over $16,400. $20,501 to $24,700 $4,633 + 29% of AAI over $20,500. $24,701 to $28,900 $5,851 + 34% of AAI over $24,700. $28,901 to $33,100 $7,279 + 40% of AAI over $28,900. $33,101 or more $8,959 + 47% of AAI over $33,100.

    5. Employment Expense Allowance. This allowance for employment-related expenses—which is used for the parents of dependent students and for married independent students—recognizes additional expenses incurred by working spouses and single-parent households. The allowance is based on the marginal differences in costs for a two-worker family compared to a one-worker family. The items covered by these additional expenses are: Food away from home, apparel, transportation, and household furnishings and operations.

    The employment expense allowance for parents of dependent students, married independent students without dependents other than a spouse, and independent students with dependents other than a spouse is the lesser of $4,000 or 35 percent of earned income.

    6. Allowance for State and Other Taxes. The allowance for State and other taxes protects a portion of parents' and students' incomes from being considered available for postsecondary educational expenses. There are four categories for State and other taxes, one each for parents of dependent students, independent students with dependents other than a spouse, dependent students, and independent students without dependents other than a spouse. Section 478(g) of the HEA directs the Secretary to update the tables for State and other taxes after reviewing the Statistics of Income file data maintained by the Internal Revenue Service.

    Percent of Income Paid in State Taxes, by Status of Having Dependents Other Than a Spouse, Income Level, and State State Parents of dependents and
  • independents with dependents
  • other than a spouse
  • Percent of total income Under $15,000 $15,000 & Up Dependents
  • and independents
  • without
  • dependents
  • other than a spouse
  • All
    Alabama 3 2 2 Alaska 2 1 0 Arizona 3 2 2 Arkansas 4 3 3 California 8 7 6 Colorado 4 3 3 Connecticut 8 7 5 Delaware 4 3 3 District of Columbia 7 6 6 Florida 3 2 1 Georgia 5 4 3 Hawaii 5 4 4 Idaho 4 3 3 Illinois 6 5 3 Indiana 4 3 3 Iowa 5 4 3 Kansas 4 3 2 Kentucky 5 4 3 Louisiana 3 2 2 Maine 6 5 3 Maryland 8 7 5 Massachusetts 6 5 4 Michigan 4 3 2 Minnesota 6 5 4 Mississippi 3 2 2 Missouri 4 3 3 Montana 4 3 3 Nebraska 5 4 3 Nevada 2 1 1 New Hampshire 4 3 1 New Jersey 9 8 4 New Mexico 3 2 2 New York 9 8 6 North Carolina 5 4 3 North Dakota 2 1 1 Ohio 5 4 3 Oklahoma 3 2 2 Oregon 7 6 5 Pennsylvania 5 4 3 Rhode Island 6 5 3 South Carolina 4 3 3 South Dakota 2 1 1 Tennessee 2 1 1 Texas 3 2 1 Utah 5 4 3 Vermont 6 5 3 Virginia 6 5 4 Washington 3 2 1 West Virginia 3 2 2 Wisconsin 6 5 4 Wyoming 2 1 1 Other 2 1 1

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in this notice.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1087rr.

    Dated: April 26, 2017. James W. Runcie, Chief Operating Officer Federal Student Aid.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08779 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket ID ED-2017-OCFO-0013] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Rescindment of System of Records Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Education (Department) rescinds from its existing inventory of systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act the system of records notice entitled “Files and Lists of Potential and Current Consultants, Grant Application Reviewers, Peer Reviewers, and Site Visitors” (18-03-04).

    DATES:

    Submit your comments on this rescinded system of records notice on or before May 31, 2017.

    This rescinded system of records will become effective May 1, 2017, unless it needs to be changed as a result of public comment.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under the “help” tab.

    Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver your comments about this rescinded system of records, address them to: Jennifer Sheriff-Parker, Executive Officer, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20202.

    Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly available.

    Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Sheriff-Parker, Executive Officer, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202)245-8440.

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or a text telephone, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department rescinds one system of records notice from its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act) (5 U.S.C. 552a). The rescission is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act, which requires submission of a report on a new or altered system of records.

    The following Privacy Act system of records notice is being rescinded because the records contained in this system of records notice are now maintained under the G5 System, which is currently covered by the System of Records Notice entitled “Education's Central Automated Processing System (EDCAPS)” (18-04-04) 80 FR 80331, 80336-80339 (Dec. 24, 2015):

    1. Files and Lists of Potential and Current Consultants, Grant Application Reviewers, Peer Reviewers, and Site Visitors (18-03-04), last published in the Federal Register in full at 64 FR 30106, 30118-30119 (June 4, 1999) and subsequently revised at 64 FR 72406 (Dec. 27, 1999).

    Thus, the records that were previously covered by this system of records notice will now be covered by the system of records notice for Education's Central Automated Processing System.

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: April 25, 2017. Timothy Soltis, Deputy Chief Financial Officer.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Delegated the Duties of the Chief Financial Officer, rescinds the following system of records:

    SYSTEM NUMBER:

    (18-03-04)

    SYSTEM NAME:

    Files and Lists of Potential and Current Consultants, Grant Application Reviewers, Peer Reviewers, and Site Visitors.

    HISTORY:

    The system of records notice entitled “Files and Lists of Potential and Current Consultants, Grant Application Reviewers, Peer Reviewers, and Site Visitors” was last published in its entirety in the Federal Register at 64 FR 30106 on June 4, 1999, and subsequently corrected in the Federal Register at 64 FR 72406 (Dec. 27, 1999).

    [FR Doc. 2017-08722 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings for the Golden Pass Products LLC Application To Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement Countries AGENCY:

    Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Record of Decision.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Fossil Energy (FE) announces its decision in Golden Pass Products LLC (GPP), FE Docket No. 12-156-LNG, to issue DOE/FE Order No. 3978 (Order No. 3978), granting long-term, multi-contract authorization for GPP to engage in the export of domestically produced liquefied natural gas (LNG). GPP seeks authorization to export the LNG by vessel from its proposed export project (GPP Export Project) to be constructed contiguous to and interconnected with the existing Golden Pass LNG Terminal (Terminal), a LNG import terminal owned and operated by Golden Pass LNG Terminal LLC (GPLNG). GPP is seeking to export this LNG by vessel to any country with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement (FTA) requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas, and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy (non-FTA countries). Order No. 3978 is issued under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and 10 CFR part 590 of DOE's regulations.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EIS and this Record of Decision (ROD) are available on DOE's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Web site at: https://www.energy.gov/nepa/downloads/eis-0501-final-environmental-impact-statement. Order No. 3978 is available on DOE/FE's Web site at: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/gasregulation/authorizations/2012_applications/Golden_Pass_Products%2C_LLC_12-156-LNG.html. For additional information about the docket in these proceedings, contact Larine Moore, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, Office of Fossil Energy, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To obtain additional information about the EIS or the ROD, contact Kyle W. Moorman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, Office of Fossil Energy, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-5600, or Edward Le Duc, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Environment, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    DOE prepared this ROD and Floodplain Statement of Findings pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 4321, et seq.), and in compliance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing regulations for NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 1500 through 1508), DOE's implementing procedures for NEPA (10 CFR part 1021), and DOE's “Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements” (10 CFR part 1022).

    Background

    GPP, a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas, proposes to construct liquefaction and export facilities (GPP Export Project) at the existing Golden Pass LNG Terminal located near Sabine Pass, Texas. The GPP Export Project will connect to the U.S. natural gas pipeline and transmission system through the proposed expansion of an existing natural gas pipeline (Pipeline Expansion Project) owned by GPP's affiliate, Golden Pass Pipeline LLC (GPPL)).

    On October 26, 2012, GPP filed an application (Application) with DOE/FE seeking authorization to export domestically produced LNG in a volume equivalent to 740 Bcf/yr of natural gas to non-FTA countries. GPP stated this volume is equal to 15.6 million metric tons per annum (mtpa) of LNG based on a conversion factor of 47.256 Bcf per million metric tons. DOE/FE, however, uses a different conversion factor for U.S.-produced LNG (51.75 Bcf per million metric tons), resulting in an increased export volume.1 Accordingly, DOE/FE is authorizing GPP to export LNG from the GPP Export Project at the Golden Pass LNG Terminal in a volume equivalent to approximately 808 Bcf/yr of natural gas.

    1 In the Application (1 n.3), GPP used a conversion factor of 47.256 Bcf per million metric tons of dry natural gas. DOE uses a conversion factor of 51.75 Bcf per million metric tons of dry natural gas to represent typical domestic natural gas quality, which converts the requested export volume to 808 Bcf/yr.

    In 2012, DOE/FE granted GPP's separate authorization to export LNG to FTA countries in a volume equivalent to 740 Bcf/yr of natural gas (2.02 Bcf/d) for a 25-year term.2 The authorized FTA export volume is not additive to the export volume authorized in this proceeding.

    2Golden Pass Products LLC, DOE/FE Order No. 3147, FE Docket No 12-88-LNG, Order Granting Long-Term, Multi-Contract Authorization To Export Liquefied Natural Gas by Vessel from the Golden Pass LNG Terminal to Free Trade Agreement Nations (Sept. 27, 2012).

    Additionally, on July 7, 2014, GPP and GPPL filed their respective applications with FERC under sections 3 and 7(c) of the NGA for the siting, construction, and operation of the GPP Export Project and Pipeline Expansion Project. On December 21, 2016, FERC issued an order granting GPP its requested section 3 authorization and GPPL its requested certificate of public convenience and necessity under section 7(c).3

    3Golden Pass Products LLC, Order Granting Authorizations Under Sections 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act, 157 FERC ¶ 61,222 (Dec. 21, 2016) [hereinafter FERC Order].

    Project Description

    The GPP Export Project will be constructed contiguous to and interconnected with the existing Golden Pass LNG Terminal. GPP intends to construct and operate the export facilities to maximize use of the existing import terminal facilities, with the intent of preserving full import capability of those existing facilities while also creating the proposed new export capability. By locating the GPP Export Project on this existing industrial footprint, GPP states that environmental and community effects will be minimized.

    The GPP Export Project primarily will consist of feed gas treatment facilities; three liquefaction trains (each with a liquefaction capacity of 5.2 mtpa of LNG, for a total liquefaction capacity of 15.6 mtpa); a flare system to support the liquefaction trains; a truck loading and unloading facility; refrigerant and condensate storage; safety and control systems; and a supply dock and alternate marine delivery facilities at the Terminal.

    GPPL's Pipeline Expansion Project will require new pipeline and associated pipeline facilities in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, and in Jefferson and Orange Counties, Texas, to supply natural gas to the liquefaction facility from existing natural gas transmission pipelines. This Pipeline Expansion Project primarily will include the construction of 2.6 miles of a 24-inch-diameter pipeline loop on the existing GPPL pipeline; three new compressor stations and associated above ground facilities; and modifications to existing interconnections and metering facilities with five natural gas pipeline systems.

    EIS Process

    FERC was the lead federal agency and initiated the NEPA process by publishing a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for the GPP Export Project and Pipeline Expansion Project in FERC Docket No. PF13-14-000 on September 19, 2013. FERC conducted a single environmental review process that addressed both of these projects, and DOE participated as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS. FERC issued the draft EIS on March 25, 2016, and published in the Federal Register a notice of availability (NOA) for the draft EIS on April 1, 2016 (81 FR 18852). FERC issued the final EIS 4 on July 29, 2016, and published a NOA for the final EIS on August 5, 2016 (81 FR 51880). The final EIS addresses comments received on the draft EIS. The final EIS also addresses geology; soils; water resources; wetlands; vegetation; wildlife and fisheries; special status species; land use, recreation, and visual resources; socioeconomics; cultural resources; air quality and noise; reliability and safety; cumulative impacts; and alternatives.

    4 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Golden Pass LNG Export Project, Docket Nos. CP14-517-000 and CP14-518-000, FERC/EIS-0264F (July 2016).

    The final EIS recommended that FERC subject any approval of the GPP Export Project and Pipeline Expansion Project to 85 conditions to reduce the environmental impacts that would otherwise result from the Projects' construction and operation. Subsequently, the FERC Order authorized GPP and GPPL to site, construct, and operate their respective Projects subject to 83 environmental conditions (or mitigation measures) contained in the Appendix of the Order. Although FERC Staff had recommended 85 mitigation measures in the final EIS, FERC determined that GPP had met two of the requirements, and therefore omitted these two environmental mitigation measures from the Order. On that basis, FERC adopted 83 environmental mitigation measures as conditions to GPP's and GPPL's authorizations granted in the Order.5

    5 On February 1, 2017, FERC issued an errata to the FERC Order, in which it corrected its reference to certain environmental conditions in the text of the Order. Golden Pass Products, LLC, et al., Errata Notice, 158 FERC ¶ 61,106 (Feb. 1, 2017).

    In accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3, after an independent review of FERC's final EIS, DOE/FE adopted FERC's final EIS (DOE/EIS-0501). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published a notice of the adoption on January 27, 2017 (82 FR 8613).

    Addendum to Environmental Review Documents Concerning Exports of Natural Gas From the United States (Addendum)

    On June 4, 2014, DOE/FE published the Draft Addendum to Environmental Review Documents Concerning Exports of Natural Gas from the United States (Draft Addendum) for public comment (79 FR 32,258). The purpose of this review was to provide additional information to the public concerning the potential environmental impacts of unconventional natural gas exploration and production activities, including hydraulic fracturing. Although not required by NEPA, DOE/FE prepared the Draft Addendum in an effort to be responsive to the public and to provide the best information available on a subject that had been raised by commenters in this and other LNG export proceedings.

    The 45-day comment period on the Draft Addendum closed on July 21, 2014. DOE/FE received 40,745 comments in 18 separate submissions, and considered those comments in issuing the final Addendum on August 15, 2014. DOE provided a summary of the comments received and responses to substantive comments in Appendix B of the Addendum. DOE/FE has incorporated the Draft Addendum, comments, and Addendum into the record in this proceeding.

    Alternatives

    The EIS assessed alternatives that could achieve the GPP Export Project's and Pipeline Expansion Project's objectives. The range of alternatives analyzed included the No-Action alternative, system alternatives, alternative terminal expansion sites, alternative supply dock sites, alternative terminal configurations and power sources, alternative pipeline routes, alternative pipeline expansion aboveground facility sites, alternative sites for pipe storage and contractor yards, and alternative compressor station design. Alternatives were evaluated and compared to the GPP Export Project and Pipeline Expansion Project to determine if the alternatives were environmentally preferable.

    In analyzing the No-Action Alternative, the EIS reviewed the effects and actions that could result if the proposed GPP Export Project and Pipeline Expansion Project were not constructed. The EIS determined that this alternative could result in the use or expansion of other existing or proposed LNG export projects and associated interstate natural gas pipeline systems, or in the construction of new infrastructure to meet the objectives of the GPP Export Project and Pipeline Expansion Project. Any expansion of the existing or construction of the proposed systems/facilities would result in specific environmental impacts that could be less than, similar to, or greater than those associated with the GPP Export Project and Pipeline Expansion Project depending on a variety of circumstances.

    The EIS evaluated system alternatives that included an evaluation of the terminal expansion as well as the pipeline system. For the LNG export terminal, the EIS evaluated five existing LNG import terminals with approved, proposed, or planned status and 18 stand-alone LNG terminals that are approved, proposed, or planned along the Gulf Coast of the U.S. In order to be a viable alternative, it would have to meet the GPP Export Project's purpose and need of the terminal expansion, be technically feasible, and offer a significant environmental advantage over the proposed terminal expansion. Based on an evaluation of the alternatives, the EIS determined that each of the potential alternatives were not reasonable or lacked significant environmental advantage over GPP Export Project's design.

    To serve as a viable pipeline system alternative to the Pipeline Expansion Project, the alternative would need to (1) transport all or part of the volume of the natural gas required for liquefaction at the terminal expansion; and (2) cause significantly less impact on the environment than the proposed pipeline expansion. Additionally, the natural gas provided by the system alternative must connect to the existing GPPL pipeline or directly to the terminal expansion. The EIS determined that no single pipeline in proximity to the existing Golden Pass LNG Terminal could supply the required natural gas supply delivery pressure. Any potential pipeline alternatives would require construction of a new lateral extension to the terminal expansion or an entirely new pipeline system to connect to supply. The impacts of constructing the alternatives would result in substantially greater impacts than those of the proposed pipeline expansion.

    The EIS evaluated several terminal expansion site alternatives. The EIS analyzed the feasibility of constructing the terminal expansion based on the use of the existing infrastructure such as the LNG storage tanks, LNG carrier berths, or other associated facilities. The EIS considered that the construction and operation of alternative or new facilities would substantially increase the environmental impacts of the GPP Export Project compared to the proposed use of the existing infrastructure.

    For the supply dock site alternatives, the EIS considered the following three sites in comparison to the proposed site: (1) Use of the existing import terminal ship slip; (2) improvements and use of an existing marine dock (Broussard Dock); and (3) improvements and use of an existing tug berth. Each of the three alternatives required either more construction in surrounding wetlands or required removing existing equipment to allow for re-construction of necessary facilities. Based on this analysis, the EIS concluded that the proposed supply dock was the environmentally preferred alternative.

    For the alternative terminal configurations and power sources, the EIS was limited due to siting requirements in terminal configurations and analyzed two power source alternatives. Due to the regulatory siting requirements regarding thermal exclusion and vapor dispersion zones, the EIS was unable to determine an alternative configuration that still met these requirements. In terms of alternative power sources to the proposed gas-fired steam turbines generators on the liquefaction trains, the EIS considered the following: (1) Power produced by onsite steam generation plant; and (2) electrical power generated offsite. For both alternatives, higher carbon dioxide emissions and decreases in energy efficiency made the proposed power source the preferred option.

    For the alternative pipeline routes, the EIS did not identify any environmental concerns that would require the need to identify and evaluate alternative pipeline routes to minimize environmental impacts. The proposed route would limit the environmental impacts and is the preferred alternative.

    The EIS evaluated alternative sites for the proposed three compressor stations and associated aboveground facilities for the pipeline expansion. To assess alternative compressor station sites, the EIS considered the following seven factors: (1) Compression requirements; (2) distance from the nearest Noise Sensitive Areas; (3) use of upland areas to minimize impacts on wetlands; (4) impacts on cultural resources or eligible historic properties; (5) presence of known contamination due to industrial activities; (6) presence of natural visual screening; and (7) accessibility. For each of the three proposed compressor stations and their proposed sites, the EIS determined the alternative either offered no significant environmental advantage or would have a more substantial impact on wetlands compared to the proposed site.

    Regarding the associated aboveground facilities for the pipeline expansion, the proposed aboveground facilities were all within the existing GPPL pipeline right-of-way. As a result, the EIS did not identify any environmental concerns that indicated the need to evaluate alternative sites.

    For alternative sites for pipe storage and contractor yard, the EIS considered one alternative to the proposed site. The alternative site consisted of land with varying commercial/industrial and agricultural uses. If the alternative site was selected, the agricultural use would be displaced. The proposed site, in comparison, is already previously distributed industrial-use land used for the construction of the existing GPPL pipeline. As a result, the alternative site did not offer a significant environmental advantage over the proposed site.

    Finally, the EIS included an alternative compressor station design. Instead of the proposed gas-fired compressors, the alternative design evaluated the use of electric-powered compressors. When comparing the two designs, the EIS focused on the issue of additional infrastructure needed to power the electric-power compressor stations. Use of electricity would require each station to install varying lengths of distribution lines to the compressor stations and a substation and/or switch station to meet power requirements. Additionally, the electrical power could come from existing electrical generation plants with varying fuel uses. However, overall emissions reductions resulting from the use of electric-powered versus gas-powered compressor stations will vary depending on the fuel used. As a result, the EIS concluded the alternative did not offer a significant environmental advantage over the proposed compressor station design.

    Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    When compared against the other action alternatives assessed in the EIS, as discussed above, the proposed GPP Export Project and Pipeline Expansion Project are the environmentally preferred alternatives. While the No-Action Alternative would avoid the environmental impacts identified in the EIS, adoption of this alternative would not meet the GPP Export Project and Pipeline Expansion Project objectives.

    Decision

    DOE has decided to issue Order No. 3978 authorizing GPP to export domestically produced LNG by vessel from the GPP Export Project located near Sabine Pass, Jefferson County, Texas to non-FTA countries, in a volume up to the equivalent to 808 Bcf/yr of natural gas for a term of 20 years to commence on the earlier of the date of first commercial export or seven years from the date that the Order is issued.

    Concurrently with this Record of Decision, DOE is issuing Order No. 3978, in which it finds that the requested authorization has not been shown to be inconsistent with the public interest, and that the Application should be granted subject to compliance with the terms and conditions set forth in the Order, including the 83 environmental conditions recommended in the EIS and adopted in the FERC Order at Appendix A. Additionally, this authorization is conditioned on GPP's compliance with any other mitigation measures imposed by other federal or state agencies.

    Basis of Decision

    DOE's decision is based upon the analysis of potential environmental impacts presented in the EIS, and DOE's determination in Order No. 3978 that the opponents of GPP's Application have failed to overcome the statutory presumption that the proposed export authorization is not inconsistent with the public interest. Although not required by NEPA, DOE/FE also considered the Addendum, which summarizes available information on potential upstream impacts associated with unconventional natural gas activities, such as hydraulic fracturing.

    Mitigation

    As a condition of its decision to issue Order No. 3978 authorizing GPP to export LNG to non-FTA countries, DOE is imposing requirements that will avoid or minimize the environmental impacts of the GPP Export Project. These conditions include the 83 environmental conditions recommended in the EIS and adopted in the FERC Order at Appendix A. Mitigation measures beyond those included in Order No. 3978 that are enforceable by other Federal and state agencies are additional conditions of Order No. 3978. With these conditions, DOE/FE has determined that all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the GPP Export Project have been adopted.

    Floodplain Statement of Findings

    DOE prepared this Floodplain Statement of Findings in accordance with DOE's regulations, entitled “Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements” (10 CFR part 1022). The required floodplain assessment was conducted during development and preparation of the EIS (see Section 4.1.4.1 of the EIS). The EIS determined that the proposed Golden Pass LNG export terminal site is within the 100-year floodplain, as are some portions of the pipeline expansion facilities and one compressor station. While the placement of these facilities within floodplains would be unavoidable, DOE has determined that the current design for the GPP Export Project minimizes floodplain impacts to the extent practicable.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 25, 2017. Douglas W. Hollett, Assistant Secretary (Acting), Office of Fossil Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08744 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Certification Notice—247; Notice of Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act AGENCY:

    Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of filing.

    SUMMARY:

    On March 31, 2017, PSEG Power, LLC, as owner and operator of a new baseload electric generating powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to § 201(d) of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended, and DOE regulations. The FUA and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of coal capability self-certification filings are available for public inspection, upon request, in the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code OE-20, Room 8G-024, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher Lawrence at (202) 586-5260.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title II of FUA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), provides that no new base load electric powerplant may be constructed or operated without the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel as a primary energy source. Pursuant to the FUA, in order to meet the requirement of coal capability, the owner or operator of such a facility proposing to use natural gas or petroleum as its primary energy source shall certify to the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) prior to construction, or prior to operation as a base load electric powerplant, that such powerplant has the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel. Such certification establishes compliance with FUA section 201(a) as of the date it is filed with the Secretary. 42 U.S.C. 8311.

    The following owner of a proposed new baseload electric generating powerplant has filed a self-certification of coal-capability with DOE pursuant to FUA section 201(d) and in accordance with DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61:

    Owner: PSEG Power, LLC Capacity: 540 megawatts (MW) Plant Location: PSEG Fossil Sewaren Generating Station, Sewaren, NJ In-Service Date: April 2018 Issued in Washington, DC, on April 11, 2017. Brian Mills, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08737 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [OE Docket No. EA-328-B] Application To Export Electric Energy; RBC Energy Services LP AGENCY:

    Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    SUMMARY:

    RBC Energy Services LP (Applicant or RBC Energy) has applied to renew its authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act.

    DATES:

    Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before May 31, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed to: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to [email protected], or by facsimile to 202-586-8008.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

    On September 28, 2012, DOE issued Order No. EA-328-A to RBC Energy, which authorized the Applicant to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities. That authority expires on September 26, 2017. On March 24, 2017, RBC Energy filed an application with DOE for renewal of the export authority contained in Order No. EA-328 for an additional five-year term.

    In its application, RBC Energy states that it does not own or operate any electric generation or transmission facilities, and it does not have a franchised service area. The electric energy that RBC Energy proposes to export to Canada would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by RBC Energy have previously been authorized by Presidential Permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.

    Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five copies of such comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be sent to the address provided above on or before the date listed above.

    Comments and other filings concerning RBC Energy's application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-328-B. An additional copy is to be provided directly to both Chantal Marchese, Royal Bank of Canada, 200 Bay Street, 30th Floor, North Tower, Toronto, Ontario Canada M5J 2J5 and Marcus Chun, RBC Capital Markets, 200 Bay Street, 9th Floor, South Tower, Toronto, Ontario Canada M5J 2J2.

    A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

    Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at http://energy.gov/node/11845, or by emailing Angela Troy at [email protected]

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 11, 2017. Brian Mills, Senior Planning Advisor, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08735 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Proposed Agency Information Collection Extension AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for three years with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the EERE Environmental Questionnaire (OMB No. 1910-5175). Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DOE, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of DOE's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this proposed information collection extension must be received on or before June 30, 2017. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in ADDRESSES as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be sent to Lisa Jorgensen at: U.S. Department of Energy, 15013 Denver West Parkway, Golden, CO 80401, by fax at (720-356-1790), or by email at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the EERE Environmental Questionnaire should be directed to Lisa Jorgensen at [email protected] The EERE Environmental Questionnaire also is available for viewing in the Golden Field Office Public Reading Room at: www.energy.gov/node/2299401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This information collection request contains:

    (1) OMB No. 1910-5175;

    (2) Information Collection Request Title: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Environmental Questionnaire;

    (3) Type of Request: Extension, with changes;

    (4) Purpose: The DOE's EERE provides federal funding through federal assistance programs to businesses, industries, universities, and other groups for renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development and demonstration projects. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requires that an environmental analysis be completed for all major federal actions significantly affecting the environment including projects entirely or partly financed by federal agencies. To effectively perform environmental analyses for these projects, the DOE's EERE needs to collect project-specific information from federal financial assistance awardees. DOE's EERE has developed its Environmental Questionnaire to obtain the required information and ensure that its decision-making processes are consistent with NEPA as it relates to renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development and demonstration projects. Minor changes have been made to the Environmental Questionnaire that help to clarify certain questions, but do not change the meaning of the questions being asked.

    (5) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 300;

    (6) Average Hours per Response: 1; and

    (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 300

    (8) There is no cost associated with reporting and recordkeeping.

    Statutory Authority:

    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

    Issued in Golden, CO, on April 20, 2017. Robin L. Sweeney, Director, Environmental Oversight Office, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08743 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Energy Information Administration Agency Information Collection Extension AGENCY:

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Agency information collection activities: Information collection extension; notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The EIA, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend with changes for three years with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the surveys in the Natural Gas Data Collection Program Package under OMB Control No. 1905-0175. This program provides information on the supply and disposition of natural gas within the United States.

    The surveys covered by this information collection request include:

    Form EIA-176, Annual Report of Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition EIA-191, Monthly Underground Gas Storage Report EIA-757, Natural Gas Processing Plant Survey EIA-857, Monthly Report of Natural Gas Purchases and Deliveries to Consumers EIA-910, Monthly Natural Gas Marketer Survey EIA-912, Weekly Underground Natural Gas Storage Report

    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 of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before June 30, 2017. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in ADDRESSES as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments to Michael Kopalek, Natural Gas Downstream Team, Office of Petroleum and Biofuel Statistics, U.S. Energy Information Administration. To ensure receipt of the comments by the due date, submission by email ([email protected]) is recommended. The mailing address is Michael Kopalek, U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., EI-25, Washington, DC 20585. Telephone 202-586-4001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the any forms and instructions should be directed to Mr. Kopalek at the address listed above. Also, the draft forms and instructions are available on the EIA Web site at http://www.eia.gov/survey/notice/ngdownstreamforms2015.cfm.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This information collection request contains:

    (1) OMB Control Number 1902-0175;

    (2) Information Collection Request Title: Natural Gas Data Collection Program;

    (3) Type of Request: Renewal, with changes;

    (4) Purpose: The Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-275, 15 U.S.C. 761 et seq.) and the DOE Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91, 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) require EIA to carry out a centralized, comprehensive, and unified energy information program. This program collects, evaluates, assembles, analyzes, and disseminates information on energy resource reserves, production, demand, technology, and related economic statistics. This information is used to assess the adequacy of energy resources to meet both near- and long-term domestic demands.

    EIA, as part of its effort to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), provides the general public and other Federal agencies with opportunities to comment on the collection of energy information conducted by or in conjunction with EIA. Comments help EIA prepare information collection requests that maximize the utility of the information collected and assess the impact of collection requirements on the public.

    The natural gas surveys included in the Natural Gas Data Collection Program Package collect information on natural gas underground storage, supply, processing, transmission, distribution, consumption by sector, and consumer prices. This information is used to support public policy analyses of the natural gas industry and estimates generated from data collected on these surveys. The statistics generated from these surveys are posted to the EIA Web site (http://www.eia.gov) and in various EIA products, including the Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report (WNGSR), Natural Gas Monthly (NGM), Natural Gas Annual (NGA), Monthly Energy Review (MER), Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), and Annual Energy Review (AER). Respondents to EIA natural gas surveys include underground storage operators, processors, transporters, marketers, and distributors. Each form included as part of this package is discussed in detail below.

    Please refer to the proposed forms and instructions for more information about the purpose, who must report, when to report, where to submit, the elements to be reported, detailed instructions, provisions for confidentiality, and uses (including possible nonstatistical uses) of the information. For instructions on obtaining materials, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    EIA requests a three-year extension of collection authority for each of the above-referenced surveys with proposed changes to Forms EIA-176, EIA-910, EIA-912 and minor changes to improve clarity in the instructions to Forms EIA-191, 757, and 857.

    (4a) Proposed Changes to Information Collection:

    Form EIA-176, Annual Report of Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition

    Form EIA-176 collects data on natural, synthetic, and other supplemental gas supplies, disposition, and certain revenues by state. The proposed changes include:

    a. Add a question in Part 3(B) asking respondents if they have an alternative-fueled vehicle fleet, and if so, what kind and how many vehicles comprise the fleet. This information will improve survey frame coverage and data accuracy reported on Form EIA-886, Annual Survey of Alternative Fueled Vehicles;

    b. Add a new section Part 3(E) to add a question for local distribution companies to provide all five-digit zip codes in their distribution territory where they deliver natural gas for end-use consumption. This information enables EIA to estimate the approximate service territory for a local distribution company. This information will allow EIA analysts and data customers to understand service territories associated with natural gas distributors. EIA has received inquiries for this information in the past;

    c. Add a question in Part 3 (F) asking respondents for the names and zip codes of any aboveground liquefied (LNG) natural gas storage facilities that are owned by, operated by, or provide services to a survey respondent. EIA proposes to collect this information to facilitate collection of LNG data by providing a list of operators and their locations;

    d. Discontinue collecting costs associated with purchase gas received within the service area. In the past, EIA spent substantial resources to validate this information. EIA has the capability to estimate values for this activity using monthly data. EIA proposes to delete this data element to reduce respondent reporting burden; and

    e. Move Part 6 Line 12.4 (from the drop down menu selection) sub-item 9096, “Other Natural gas consumed in your operations: Vaporization/LNG Fuel,” to make it a standalone line item as new Line 12.4, called “Vaporization/Liquefaction/LNG Fuel.” The collection of “Other Natural Gas” consumed in operations that was previously listed on Line 12.4 will be shown as a new Line 12.6 in Part 6 with the three other drop down choices (Utilities Use, Other, and Other Expenses) available to the user. In the past, many respondents have missed reporting this data element. The proposed change is designed to improve the coverage and accuracy of respondents reporting this information and will assist EIA in its modeling and analysis.

    f. Add a question in Part 6 Line 12.5, “Vehicle fuel used in company fleet” to collect information on vehicle fuel for company vehicles. Based on cognitive testing of the EIA-176 form, respondents were reporting natural gas vehicle fuel for their own company fleet as company use. This affects the accuracy of the vehicle fuel volumes and prices reported in Part 6 Items 10.5 and 11.5. Company use volumes do not have associated revenue and should not be included in 10.5 and 11.5. Adding this question will give respondents an explicit place to report company-owned vehicle fuel volumes and improve the accuracy of vehicle fuel prices based on Part 6 Items 10.5 and 11.5.

    Form EIA-191, Monthly Underground Gas Storage Report

    Form EIA-191 collects data on the operations of all active underground storage facilities. EIA is proposing to make the following changes to Form EIA-191:

    a. Remove “Other” as a response option under “type of facility” question in Part 3 of the survey form. Respondents have not utilized this category for classifying their facilities. This open ended facility category does not provide the intended utility for EIA so EIA proposes to delete it to reduce reporting burden.

    Form EIA-757, Natural Gas Processing Plant Survey

    Form EIA-757 collects information on the capacity, status, and operations of natural gas processing plants, and monitors constraints of natural gas processing plants during periods of supply disruption in areas affected by an emergency, such as a hurricane. Schedule A of the EIA-757 is used to collect data every three years. Schedule A collects information on baseline operating and capacity information from all respondents. Schedule A was used to collect information in 2015 and the next planned collection for Schedule A is 2018. Schedule B is activated as needed and collects data from a sample of respondents in affected areas as needed. Schedule B was last activated in 2012 when Hurricane Isaac damaged energy supply infrastructure along the Gulf Coast. A sample of approximately 20 plants reported in 2012 during that energy disruption. EIA is proposing to continue the collection of the same data elements on Form EIA-757 Schedules A and B in their present form with one minor protocol change:

    a. Collect EIA-757 Schedule A data for new natural gas processing plants that opened and began operations between the current three-year data collection cycles. This minor protocol change allows EIA to maintain a current frame at all times rather than updating the survey frame every three years when a new data collection cycle begins.

    Form EIA-857, Monthly Report of Natural Gas Purchases and Deliveries to Consumers

    Form EIA-857 collects data on the quantity and cost of natural gas delivered to distribution systems and the quantity and revenue of natural gas delivered to end-use consumers by market sector, on a monthly basis by state. EIA is not proposing any substantive changes to Form EIA-857.

    Form EIA-910, Monthly Natural Gas Marketer, and Form EIA-912 Weekly Underground Natural Gas Storage Report

    Form EIA-910 collects information on natural gas sales from marketers in selected states that have active customer choice programs. EIA is requesting information on the volume and revenue for natural gas commodity sales and any receipts for distribution charges and taxes associated with the sale of natural gas.

    Form EIA-912 collects information on weekly inventories of natural gas in underground storage facilities.

    EIA proposes a permanent change in the confidentiality pledge to respondents to Forms EIA-910 and EIA-912. EIA revised its confidentiality pledge to Forms EIA-910 and EIA-912 survey respondents under the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 (note)) (CIPSEA) in an emergency Federal Register notice published on January 12, 2017 in 82 FR 3764. These revisions were necessary because of requirements from the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-11, Division N, Title II, Subtitle B, Sec. 223). This law permits and requires the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide Federal civilian agencies' information technology systems with cybersecurity protection for their Internet traffic. Federal statistics provide key information that the Nation uses to measure its performance and make informed choices about budgets, energy, employment, health, investments, taxes, and a host of other significant topics. Strong and trusted confidentiality and exclusively statistical use pledges under the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act (CIPSEA) and similar statistical confidentiality pledges are effective and necessary in honoring the trust that businesses, individuals, and institutions, by their responses, place in statistical agencies. EIA proposed to make this change permanent in a separate Federal Register notice released on March 1, 2017 in 82 FR 12217 for all EIA surveys protected under CIPSEA. In this notice EIA proposes to permanently revise the confidentiality pledge to Form EIA-910 and EIA-912 respondents as follows:

    The information you provide on Form EIA-xxx will be used for statistical purposes only and is confidential by law. In accordance with the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 and other applicable Federal laws, your responses will not be disclosed in identifiable form without your consent. Per the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015, Federal information systems are protected from malicious activities through cybersecurity screening of transmitted data. Every EIA employee, as well as every agent, is subject to a jail term, a fine, or both if he or she makes public ANY identifiable information you reported.

    EIA is not proposing any other substantive changes to Form EIA-910.

    EIA proposes one additional change to Form EIA-912. EIA proposes to include an additional geographic data element for working gas collection and publication in the Lower 48 states:

    a. Divide the “South Central” reporting region into “South Central Salt” and “South Central Nonsalt.” Currently EIA categorizes storage operators as either Salt facilities or Nonsalt facilities and allocates their volumes entirely to that region. This proposed change would require respondents to allocate volumes in their reported data between Salt facilities and Nonsalt facilities; this would improve the accuracy of EIA's published estimates on underground storage. For example, under the current methodology, volumes reported by a respondent with majority salt storage would be allocated entirely to the “South Central Salt” region, even if nearly half of their volumes were stored in nonsalt facilities. Currently, operators with more than 15 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of storage capacity in the South Central region report volumes separately between Salt facilities or Nonsalt facilities. This proposed change will require all operators in the reporting sample to report the same way.

    Request for Comments: EIA invites comments on the extension of this information collection package and the proposed changes discussed above to the corresponding survey forms and instructions.

    (5) Estimated Total Number of Survey Respondents: 3,340.

    EIA-176 consists of 2,050 respondents.

    EIA-191 consists of 145 respondents.

    EIA-757 consists of 600 respondents.

    EIA-857 consists of 330 respondents.

    EIA-910 consists of 100 respondents.

    EIA- 912 consists of 95 respondents.

    (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 14,183.

    (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 50,564.

    (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: The information is maintained in the normal course of business. The cost of the burden hours is estimated to be $3,724,554 (50,564 burden hours times $73.66 per hour). Other than the cost of burden hours, EIA estimates that there are no additional costs for generating, maintaining and providing the information.

    Statutory Authority:

    Section 13(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-275, codified as 15 U.S.C. 772(b) and the DOE Organization Act of 1977, P.L. 95-91, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 18, 2017. Nanda Srinivasan, Director, Office of Survey Development and Statistical Integration, U. S. Energy Information Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08742 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0737] 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 June 30, 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:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections.

    Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0737.

    Title: Disclosure Requirements for Information Services Provided Under a Presubscription or Comparable Arrangement.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,000 respondents; 1,000 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 4.5 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Annual and on occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure.

    Obligation to Respond: Voluntary.

    Total Annual Burden: 4,500 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: None.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: An assurance of confidentiality is not offered because this information collection does not require the collection of personally identifiable information (PII) from individuals.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: Section 64.1501(b) of the Commission's rules defines a presubscription or comparable arrangement as a contractual agreement in which an information service provider makes specified disclosures to consumers when offering “presubscribed” information services.

    The disclosures are intended to ensure that consumers receive information regarding the terms and conditions associated with these services before they enter into contracts to subscribe to them.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08713 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0627] 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 June 30, 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 Number: 3060-0627.

    Title: FCC Form 302-AM, Application for AM Broadcast Station License.

    Form Number: FCC Form 302-AM.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not for profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 380 respondents and 380 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 4-20 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

    Total Annual Burden: 2,800 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $5,684,350.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority is contained in Sections 154(i), 303 and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Privacy Impact Assessment(s): No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: Licenses and permittees of AM broadcast stations are required to file FCC Form 302-AM to obtain a new or modified station license, and/or to notify the Commission of certain changes in the licensed facilities of these stations. Additionally, when changes are made to an AM station that alter the resistance of the antenna system, a licensee must initiate a determination of the operating power by the direct method. The results of this are reported to the Commission using the FCC 302-AM.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08710 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0501 and 3060-0896] Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (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 June 30, 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 Number: 3060-0501.

    Title: Section 73.1942 Candidates Rates; Section 76.206 Candidate Rates; Section 76.1611 Political Cable Rates and Classes of Time.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 17,561 respondents; 403,610 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hours to 20 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; On occasion reporting requirement; Semi-annual requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i) and 315 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 927,269 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: 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: Section 315 of the Communications Act directs broadcast stations and cable operators to charge political candidates the “lowest unit charge of the station” for the same class and amount of time for the same period, during the 45 days preceding a primary or runoff election and the 60 days preceding a general or special election.

    47 CFR 73.1942 requires broadcast licensees and 47 CFR 76.206 requires cable television systems to disclose any station practices offered to commercial advertisers that enhance the value of advertising spots and different classes of time (immediately preemptible, preemptible with notice, fixed, fire sale, and make good). These rule sections also require licensees and cable TV systems to calculate the lowest unit charge. Broadcast stations and cable systems are also required to review their advertising records throughout the election period to determine whether compliance with these rule sections require that candidates receive rebates or credits.

    47 CFR 76.1611 requires cable systems to disclose to candidates information about rates, terms, conditions and all value-enhancing discount privileges offered to commercial advertisers.

    OMB Approval Number: 3060-0896.

    Title: Broadcast Auction Form Exhibits.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other-for profit entities, not-for-profit institutions, State, local or tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,000 respondents and 5,350 responses.

    Estimated Hours per Response: 0.5 hours-2 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Annual Hour Burden: 6,663 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $12,332,500.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Privacy Impact Assessment(s): No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: The Commission's rules require that broadcast auction participants submit exhibits disclosing ownership, bidding agreements, bidding credit eligibility and engineering data. These data are used by Commission staff to ensure that applicants are qualified to participate in Commission auctions and to ensure that license winners are entitled to receive the new entrant bidding credit, if applicable. Exhibits regarding joint bidding agreements are designed to prevent collusion. Submission of engineering exhibits for non-table services enables the Commission to determine which applications are mutually exclusive.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Offer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08711 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    DATE AND TIME:

    Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

    STATUS:

    This meeting will be open to the public.

    FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT—82 FR 18907.

    CHANGE IN THE MEETING:

    The April 27, 2017 meeting was canceled.

    PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08811 Filed 4-27-17; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EXAMINATION COUNCIL [Docket No. AS17-04] Appraisal Subcommittee Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    Description: In accordance with Section 1104(b) of Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, as amended, notice is hereby given that the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) will meet in open session for its regular meeting:

    Location: Federal Reserve Board—International Square location, 1850 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006.

    Date: May 10, 2017.

    Time: 10:00 a.m.

    Status: Open.

    Reports Chairman Executive Director Delegated State Compliance Reviews Financial Report Action and Discussion Items February 10, 2017 Open Session Minutes 2016 ASC Annual Report How To Attend and Observe an ASC Meeting

    If you plan to attend the ASC Meeting in person, we ask that you send an email to [email protected] You may register until close of business four business days before the meeting date. You will be contacted by the Federal Reserve Law Enforcement Unit on security requirements. You will also be asked to provide a valid government-issued ID before being admitted to the Meeting. The meeting space is intended to accommodate public attendees. However, if the space will not accommodate all requests, the ASC may refuse attendance on that reasonable basis. The use of any video or audio tape recording device, photographing device, or any other electronic or mechanical device designed for similar purposes is prohibited at ASC meetings.

    Dated: April 24, 2017. James R. Park, Executive Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08709 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6700-01-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 May 26, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (William Spaniel, Senior Vice President), 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-1521. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Wallkill Valley Bancorp MHC, Wallkill, New York; to become a federal mutual holding company and Wallkill Valley Bancorp, Inc., Wallkill, New York; to become a savings and loan holding company, by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Wallkill Valley Federal Savings and Loan Association, Wallkill, NY.

    2. Wallkill Valley Bancorp MHC and Wallkill Valley Bancorp, Inc., both of Wallkill, New York; to acquire 100 percent of Hometown Bancorp MHC and Hometown Bancorp, Inc., both of Walden, New York, and thereby indirectly acquire 100 percent of Hometown Bank of the Hudson Valley, Walden, New York.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 26, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08770 Filed 4-28-17; 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 May 30, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Prabal Chakrabarti, Senior Vice President) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2204. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Kennebunk Savings Bancorp, MHC and Kennebunk Savings Bancorp, Inc., both of Kennebunk, Maine; to become a bank holding company and a mid-tier stock bank holding company, by acquiring 100 percent of the outstanding shares of Kennebunk Savings Bank, Kennebunk, Maine.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 26, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08769 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0134; Docket 2017-0053; Sequence 4] Information Collection; Environmentally Sound Products 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 of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning environmentally sound products.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before June 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0134, Environmentally Sound Products, 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 9000-0134. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0134, Environmentally Sound Products”. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0134, Environmentally Sound Products” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Jo Ann Sosa/IC 9000-0134, Environmentally Sound Products.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0134, Environmentally Sound Products, 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:

    Mr. Charles Gray, Procurement Analyst, Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, GSA, 703-795-6328 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose

    OMB clearance 9000-0134 supports the information collection requirement contained in 52.223-9, Estimate of Percentage of Recovered Material Content for EPA-designated Items. Section 6002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Public Law 94-580, (42 U.S.C. 6962), requires Federal agencies to develop affirmative procurement programs to ensure that items composed of recovered materials will be purchased to the maximum extent practicable. An agency's affirmative procurement program must include: (1) A recovered materials preference program and an agency promotion program for the preference program; (2) a program for requiring estimates of the total percentage of recovered materials used in the performance of a contract, certification of minimum recovered material content used, and where appropriate and reasonable, verification procedures for estimates and certifications; and (3) annual review and monitoring of the effectiveness of an agency's affirmative procurement program.

    For items the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated as produced or that can be produced from recovered material, agencies are required to track the percentaage of recovered material content used during contract performance. This requirement applies whenever an acquisition sets forth minimum percentages of recovered materials; when the price of the item exceeds $10,000; or when the aggregate amount paid for the item or functionally equivalent items in the preceding fiscal year was $10,000 or more.

    Pursuant to FAR clause 52.223-9, when the contract requires the delivery of or use of an EPA-designated item, contractors shall report the estimated percentage of total recovered material content delivered or used, at contract completion. The clause is included in solicitations and contracts exceeding $150,000, except for acquisitions of commercially-available, off-the-shelf (COTS) items.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 1,047.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.5.

    Annual Responses: 1,571.

    Hours per Response: .50.

    Total Burden Hours: 785.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not for profit institutions.

    Frequency: Annual.

    C. Public Comments

    Public Comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technilogical collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755.

    Please cite OMB control No. 9000-0134, Environmentally Sound Products, in all correspondence.

    Dated: April 25, 2017. Lorin S. Curit, Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08671 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0135; Docket 2016-0053; Sequence 40] Submission for OMB Review; Prospective Subcontractor Requests for Bonds AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    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 of a previously approved information collection concerning subcontractor requests for bonds. A notice was published in the Federal Register on December 21, 2016. No comments were received.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before May 31, 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 9000-0135. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0135, Prospective Subcontractor Requests for Bond.” Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0135, Prospective Subcontractor Requests for Bond” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405-0001. ATTN: Ms. Sosa/IC 9000-0135.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0135, 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. Cecelia L. Davis, Procurement Analyst, Acquisition Policy Division, at 202-219-0202 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose

    Part 28 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) contains guidance related to insuring against damages under Federal contracts (e.g., bonds, bid guarantees, etc.). Part 52 contains the corresponding provisions and clauses. These collectively implement the statutory requirement for Federal contractors to report payment bonds under construction contracts subject to 40 U.S.C. chapter 31, subchapter III, Bonds.

    This information collection is mandated by Section 806 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Pub. L. 102-190), as amended by Section 2091 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-335). The clause at 52.228-12, Prospective Subcontractor Requests for Bonds, implements Section 806(a)(3) of Public Law 102-190, as amended, which states that, upon the request of a prospective subcontractor or supplier offering to furnish labor or material under a construction contract for which a payment bond has been furnished pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 31, the contractor shall promptly provide a copy of such payment bond to the requestor.

    Given that payment bonds, in conjunction with performance bonds, are used to secure the contractor's obligations, thereby assuring that payments are made to subcontractors and vendors under the contract, the requester will use information on payment bonds to determine whether to engage in business with that prime contractor.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Number of respondents: 4,444.

    Responses per respondent: 2.5.

    Total annual responses: 11,110.

    Hours per response: .34.

    Total burden hours: 3,777.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Affected public: Construction prime contractors.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control Number 9000-0135, Prospective Subcontractor Requests for Bonds, in all correspondence.

    Dated: April 25, 2017. Lorin S. Curit, Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08672 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0089; Docket No. 2017-0053; Sequence 3] Information Collection; Request for Authorization of Additional Classification and Rate, Standard Form 1444 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 of 1995, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning Request for Authorization of Additional Classification and Rate, Standard Form (SF) 1444.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before June 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0089 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 9000-0089. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0089, Request for Authorization of Additional Classification and Rate, SF 1444.” Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0089, Request for Authorization of Additional Classification and Rate, SF 1444” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Sosa/IC 9000-0089.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0089, 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. Zenaida Delgado, Procurement Analyst, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, 202-969-7207 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Purpose

    Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 22.406 prescribes labor standards for federally financed and assisted construction contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA), as well as labor standards for non-construction contracts subject to the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (CWHSSA).

    The recordkeeping requirements in this regulation, FAR 22.406, reflect the requirements cleared under OMB control numbers 1235-0023, 1235-0008, and 1235-0018 for 29 CFR 5.5(a)(1)(i), 5.5(c), and 5.15 (records to be kept by employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)). The regulation at 29 CFR 516 reflects the basic recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the laws administered by the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division.

    FAR 22.406-3, implements the recordkeeping and information collection requirements prescribed in 29 CFR 5.5(a)(1)(ii) cleared under OMB control number 1235-0023 (also prescribed at 48 CFR 22.406 under OMB control number 9000-0089), by providing SF 1444, Request for Authorization of Additional Classification and Rate, for the contractor and the Government to enter the recordkeeping and information collection data required by 29 CFR 5.5(a)(1)(ii) prior to transmitting the data to the Department of Labor.

    This SF 1444 places no further burden on the contractor or the Government other than the information collection burdens already cleared by OMB for 29 CFR 5.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Number of Respondents: 3,831.

    Responses per Respondent: 2.

    Total Annual Responses: 7,662.

    Review time per response: 5.

    Total Burden Hours: 3831.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requester may obtain a copy of the justification from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0089, Request for Authorization of Additional Classification and Rate, SF 1444, in all correspondence.

    Dated: April 25, 2017. Lorin S. Curit, Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08670 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-17-17AW] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice should be directed to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    Assessment of Targeted Training and Technical Assistance (TTA) Efforts on the Implementation of Comprehensive Cancer Control—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) has been a primary funder for state and community-based cancer control interventions since its inception in the late 1990s. In addition, CDC's Office on Smoking and Health (OSH) also has worked to build state health department infrastructure and capacity to conduct coordinated comprehensive tobacco prevention and control activities which contribute to cancer health outcomes through the provision of funding to state health departments and local partners through the Nation State Based Tobacco Control Program (NSTB).

    In striving to build capacity and maximize the impact of CDC's funded programs, CDC has focused on developing and implementing innovative programs to enhance the training and technical assistance (TTA) delivered to NCCCP and NSBT grantee programs. CDC funds 10 organizations under two cooperative agreements: The Consortium of National Networks to Impact Populations Experiencing Tobacco-Related and Cancer Health Disparities (DP13-1314), and National Support to Enhance Implementation of Comprehensive Cancer Control Activities (DP13-1315). Under these cooperative agreements, DP13-1314 and DP13-1315 awardees provide TTA to state NCCCP and NSBT grantees to support local implementation of high-impact public health strategies. Using two different TTA models, DP13-1314 and DP13-1315 aim to impact both short- and long-term outcomes on the awardee, NCCCP program, and population levels.

    CDC proposes to conduct an assessment of the DP13-1314 and DP13-1315 cooperative agreements to: (1) Increase CDC's understanding of the TTA provided to NCCCP and NSTB grantees across both cooperative agreements, (2) help identify the extent to which core elements of the TTA were administered, and (3) determine the elements of TTA across both cooperative agreements that show promise for improving NCCCP and NSTB capacity. There are no other data collection efforts currently underway to assess implementation of the two TTA models or their perceived effectiveness.

    This information collection request will involve three complementary data collection efforts: (1) Case studies of DP13-1314 and DP13-1315 awardees (consisting of interviews with DP13-1314 and DP13-1315 program managers/directors, evaluators, and partners); (2) a cross-sectional web-based survey administered to NCCCP and NSBT program directors, coalition members, and partners; and (3) in-depth interviews with selected NCCCP and NSBT program directors, staff, coalition members, and partners who received a high volume of TTA from one or more of the DP13-1314 and DP13-1315 awardees. The case studies will be used to explore how DP13-1314 and DP13-1315 awardees are implementing their respective cooperative agreements and administering TTA to NCCCP and NSBT grantees; the factors that affect the implementation of specific TTA components; and the extent to which each cooperative agreement was able to achieve planned short-term outcomes. The Web-based survey will inform CDC's understanding of the reach of DP13-1314 and DP13-1315 TTA efforts; elicit information from NCCCP and/or NSBT programs and coalitions about the TTA received, including type, dosage, frequency and format; and assess the perceptions of the effectiveness of the TTA provided in building capacity to achieve intended outcomes. The in-depth interviews with “high-volume” TTA users will facilitate an in-depth exploration of the type and quality of TTA activities received; perceived quality of TTA and its contributions to NCCCP and NSBT grantee program implementation, and achievement of CDC priorities and goals.

    CDC will use findings from the assessment to inform development of future TTA efforts that utilize the core elements across the two models to more effectively and efficiently support NCCCP's partner organizations.

    OMB approval is requested for 2 years. Participation is voluntary and respondents will not receive incentives for participation. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 231.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • DP13-1314 and DP13-1315 Awardee Organizations Worksheet for Identifying Case Study Interviewees 5 1 1 DP13-1314 Program Directors/Managers Case Study Interview Guide for DP13-1314 Program Directors/Managers 4 1 1.5 Case Study Follow-Up Interview Guide for DP13-1314 Program Directors/Managers 4 1 1 DP13-1315 Directors/Managers Case Study Interview Guide for DP1-1315 Program Directors/Managers 1 1 1.5 Case Study Follow-Up Interview Guide for DP1-1315 Program Directors/Managers 1 1 1 DP13-1314 Evaluators Case Study Interview Guide for DP1-1314 Evaluators 4 1 1 DP13-1315 Evaluators Case Study Interview Guide for DP1-1315 Evaluators 1 1 1 DP13-1314 Partners Case Study Interview Guide for DP1-1314 Partners 8 1 1 DP13-1315 Partners Case Study Interview Guide for DP1-1315 Partners 2 1 1 NCCCP and NSBT Program Directors, Staff, Coalition Members, and Partners Web-based survey 780 1 15/60 NCCCP and NSBT Program Directors, Staff, Coalition Members, and Partners In-Depth Interview Guide 5 1 0.5
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08705 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-17-17ADR; Docket No. CDC-2017-0042] Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the Study to Explore Early Development, Teen Follow-Up Study (SEED Teen).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0042 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 6501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of the information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of the information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. 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 of the proposed 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 of information 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. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    Study to Explore Early Development, Teen Follow-Up Study (SEED Teen)—New—National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by impairments in social interaction and communication and stereotyped behaviors and interests. The U.S. prevalence of ASD is estimated at 1% to 2%. In addition to the profound, lifelong impacts on individuals' functioning given the core deficits in social-communication abilities, a high proportion of children with ASD also have one or more other developmental impairments such as intellectual disability or attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder and children with ASDs have higher than expected prevalences of health conditions such as obesity, asthma and respiratory disorders, eczema and skin allergies, migraine headaches, and gastrointestinal symptoms and disorders.

    Historically, young children have been the focus of ASD research: Diagnosis and symptom detection at young ages, prenatal or early-life risk factors, and the effect of early intervention programs. Meanwhile, the number of children diagnosed with ASD each year has steadily increased and, as children age, the prevalence of adults diagnosed with ASD will likewise increase for several decades. Despite this ongoing demographic shift —which some have called “the autism tsunami”—there has been relatively little research on ASD in adolescence and adulthood.

    While there is research showing that the majority of ASD diagnoses made in early childhood are retained in adolescence with mostly stable in symptom severity, there are major gaps in our understanding of the health, functioning, and experiences of adolescents with ASD and other developmental disabilities. Many of these topics are especially relevant to public health: Adolescents and adults with ASD have been shown to have frequent health problems, high healthcare utilization and specialized service needs, high caregiving burden, require substantial supports to perform daily activities, are likely to be bullied, or isolated from society, and are likely to have food allergies or put on restrictive diets of questionable benefit. Many of these problems emerge after early childhood, and more studies are needed to estimate the frequency, severity, and predictive factors for these important outcomes in diverse cohorts of individuals with autism and other developmental conditions.

    SEED Teen is a follow-up study of children who participated in the first phase of the SEED case-control study (SEED 1) in 2007-2011 when they were 2 to 5 years of age. SEED includes one of the largest cohorts of children assembled with ASD. Children will be identified from four SEED sites in Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Three groups of children will be included: Children with ASD, children with other developmental (non-ASD) conditions (DD comparison group), and children from the general population who were initially sampled from birth records (POP comparison group).

    The children and parents previously enrolled in SEED 1 represent a unique opportunity to better understand the long-term trajectory of children identified as having ASD at early ages. Mothers or other primary caregivers who participated in SEED 1 will be re-contacted when their child is 13-17 years of age and asked to complete two self-administered questionnaires (SEED Teen Health and Development Survey and the Social Responsiveness Scale) about their child's health, development, education, and current functioning. Information from this study will allow researchers to assess the long-term health and functioning of children with ASD and other developmental disabilities, family impacts associated with ASD and other DDs, and service needs and use associated with having and ASD and other DDs, particularly during the teen years.

    We estimate that 1,410 SEED families are potentially eligible to participate in SEED Teen. Reading the letter and other materials in the invitation mailing will take approximately five minutes. We estimate that a minimum of 60% of parents/caregivers sent the invitation mailing or will be successfully contacted and participate in the invitation call (approximately 15 minutes). We estimate that 80% of the families who participate in the invitation call will meet the eligibility criteria for SEED Teen and 70% of those will enroll in SEED Teen. We assume all enrolled families will complete the follow-up call to confirm data collection packet receipt (approximately 10 minutes) and will review the materials in the data collection packet. Finally, we estimate that 90% of enrolled parents/caregivers will complete two self-administered questionnaires (SEED Teen Health and Development Survey and the Social Responsiveness Scale) and two supplemental consent forms. The two questionnaires will take approximately 60 minutes to complete, plus an additional 5 minutes to read and sign the informed consent. Therefore, we estimate the total burden hours are 911. There are no costs to participants other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total
  • burden
  • hours
  • Eligible families who were enrolled in SEED 1 Invitation Packet 1,410 1 5/60 118 Eligible families who were enrolled in SEED 1 Invitation Call Script 846 1 15/60 212 Families who agreed to participate in SEED Teen Follow-up Call Checklist 474 1 10/60 79 Families who agreed to participate in SEED Teen Data Collection Packet 474 1 5/60 40 Families who agreed to participate in SEED Teen SEED Teen Health and Development Survey 427 1 40/60 284 Families who agreed to participate in SEED Teen Social Responsiveness Scale 427 1 20/60 142 Families who agreed to participate in SEED Teen Supplemental Consent Forms 427 1 5/60 36 Total 911
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08706 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request Proposed Projects

    Title: Procedural Justice Informed Alternatives to Contempt (PJAC).

    OMB No.: 0970—NEW.

    Description

    The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) within the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is proposing data collection activity as part of the Procedural Justice Informed Alternatives to Contempt Demonstration (PJAC). In September 2016, OCSE issued grants to six child support agencies to provide alternative approaches to the contempt process with the goal of increasing parents' compliance with child support orders by building trust and confidence in the child support agency and its processes. PJAC is a five-year project (the first year of which is dedicated to planning) that will allow grantees to learn whether incorporating principles of procedural justice into child support business practices increases reliable child support payments. In addition to increasing reliable payments, the PJAC intervention aims to reduce arrears, minimize the need for continued enforcement actions and sanctions, and reduce the inefficient use of contempt proceedings.

    The PJAC evaluation will yield information about the efficacy of applying procedural justice principles via a set of alternative services to the current contempt process. It will generate extensive knowledge regarding how PJAC programs operate, the effects the programs have, and whether their benefits exceed their costs. The information gathered will be critical to informing future policy decisions related to contempt.

    The PJAC evaluation will include the following three interconnected components or “studies”:

    1. Implementation Study. The goal of the implementation study is to provide a detailed description of the PJAC programs—how they are implemented, their participants, the contexts in which they are operated, and their promising practices. The implementation study will also assess whether the PJAC interventions are implemented as intended (implementation fidelity) as well as how the treatment implemented differed from the status quo (treatment contrast). The detailed descriptions will assist in interpreting program impacts and identifying program features and conditions necessary for effective program replication or improvement. Key activities of the implementation study will include: (1) A Management Information System (MIS) for collection and analysis of program participation data to track participant engagement in PJAC activities; (2) semi-structured interviews with program staff and staff from selected community partner organizations; (3) semi-structured interviews with program participants to learn about their experiences in PJAC; and (4) a staff questionnaire to gather broader quantitative information on program implementation and staff experiences.

    2. Impact Study: The goal of the impact study is to provide rigorous estimates of the effectiveness of the six programs using an experimental research design. Program applicants who are eligible for PJAC services will be randomly assigned to either a program group that is offered program services or to a control group that is not offered those services. The random assignment process will require child support program staff to complete a brief data entry protocol. The impact study will rely on administrative data from state and county child support systems, court records, criminal justice records, and data from the National Directory of New Hires. Administrative records data will be used to estimate impacts on child support payments, enforcement actions, contempt proceedings, jail stays, and employment and earnings. The impact study will also include a follow-up survey of participants that will be administered approximately 12 months after random assignment to a subset of the sample. The survey will gather information on participant experiences with the child support program and family court, family relationships, parenting and co-parenting, informal child support payments, and job characteristics. In an effort to enhance response rates, the PJAC survey firm will attempt to track survey sample members at a few points over the 12-month follow-up period in order to stay in touch with them and gather updated contact information from them.

    3. Benefit-Cost Study: The benefit-cost study will estimate the costs and benefits associated with the implementation and impact of the PJAC interventions. The study will examine the costs and benefits from the perspective of the government, noncustodial parents, custodial parents and their children, and society. Once measured, particular impacts or expenditures will constitute benefits or costs, depending on which analytical perspective is considered. For each of the perspectives, pertinent benefits and costs will be added together to determine the net value of the program. Key hypothesized benefits and costs to be assessed include increased PJAC intervention costs, reduced costs for contempt actions, increased payments from non-custodial parents, reduced court costs, and reduced jail time, among others. The benefit-cost study will rely on the results of the impact study, analysis of participation data from the MIS, and results of a staff time study in order to quantify various PJAC-related costs and benefits.

    This 60-Day Notice covers the following data collection activities: (1) Staff data entry for random assignment; (2) Study MIS to track program participation; (3) Staff and community partner interview topic guide; (4) Participant interview topic guide; and (5) Participant survey tracking letter.

    Respondents

    Respondents for the first information collection phase include study participants and grantee staff and community partners. Specific respondents per instrument are noted in the burden table below.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden hours Total annual
  • burden hours
  • Staff data entry for random assignment 120 150 0.05 900 300 Study MIS to track program participation 120 150 1.00 18,000 6,000 Staff and community partner interview topic guide 150 2 1.00 300 100 Participant interview topic guide 180 1 1.00 180 60 Participant survey tracking letter 3,000 3 0.10 900 300

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 6,760.

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chap 35), the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington DC 20201. Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address: [email protected] All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.

    The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of the 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 of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08740 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-41-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Notice To Propose the Re-Designation of the Service Delivery Area for the Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation, Formerly Known as Smith River Rancheria AGENCY:

    Indian Health Service, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    This document extends the comment period for the Tolowa Dee ni' redesignation of the Tribe's Service Delivery Area (SDA), which was published in the Federal Register on March 31, 2017. The comment period for the notice, which would have ended on May 1, 2017, is extended for 60 days.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the proposed SDA expansion published in the March 31, 2017, Federal Register (82 FR 16051) is extended to June 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission. You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):

    1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this regulation to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the “Submit a Comment” instructions.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address ONLY: Evonne Bennett-Barnes, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mailstop: 09E70, Rockville, Maryland 20857.

    Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.

    3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments to the above address.

    4. By hand or courier. If you prefer, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments before the close of the comment period to the address above.

    If you intend to deliver your comments to the Rockville address, please call telephone number (301) 443-1116 in advance to schedule your arrival with a staff member.

    Comments will be made available for public inspection at the Rockville address from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday-Friday, two weeks after publication of this notice.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Terri Schmidt, Acting Director, Office of Resource Access and Partnerships, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mailstop: 10E85C, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Telephone 301-443-2694 (This is not a toll free number).

    Background: The IHS currently provides services under regulations codified at 42 CFR part 136, subparts A through C. Subpart C defines a Contract Health Service Delivery Area, now known as PRC Service Delivery Area, as the geographic area within which PRC will be made available by the IHS to members of an identified Indian community who reside in the Service Delivery Area. Potential eligibility for services alone, or residence in a PRC Service Delivery Area by a person who is within the scope of the Indian health program, as set forth in 42 CFR 136.12, does not create a legal entitlement to PRC. Services needed, but not available at an IHS/Tribal facility, are provided under the PRC program depending on the availability of funds, the person's relative medical priority, and the actual availability and accessibility of alternate resources in accordance with the regulations.

    As applicable to the Tribes, these regulations provide that, unless otherwise designated, a PRC Service Delivery Area shall consist of a county which includes all or part of a reservation and any county or counties which have a common boundary with the reservation, 42 CFR 136.22(a)(6) (2016). The regulations also provide that after consultation with the Tribal governing body or bodies on those reservations included within the PRC Service Delivery Area, the Secretary may from time to time, re-designate areas within the United States for inclusion in or exclusion from a PRC Service Delivery Area. The regulations require that certain criteria must be considered before any re-designation is made. The criteria are as follows:

    (1) The number of Indians residing in the area proposed to be so included or excluded;

    (2) Whether the Tribal governing body has determined that Indians residing in the area near the reservation are socially and economically affiliated with the Tribes;

    (3) The geographic proximity to the reservation of the area whose inclusion or exclusion is being considered; and

    (4) The level of funding which would be available for the provision of PRC.

    Additionally, the regulations require that any re-designation of a PRC Service Delivery Area must be made in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553). In compliance with this requirement, we are publishing this proposal and requesting public comments.

    Congress designated the entire state of California as a PRC Service Delivery Area, excluding certain counties, under section 810 of the Indian Healthcare Improvement Act, Public Law 94-437, as amended (25 U.S.C. 1680). IHS has utilized the congressionally established PRC Service Delivery Area for the purposes of administering PRC benefits to members of the Tribe. Thus, members of the Tribe who reside outside of the statutorily established California PRC Service Delivery Area do not reside within the Tolowa Dee-ni's current PRC Service Delivery Area and are currently not eligible for PRC services.

    IHS has historically established PRC Service Delivery Areas in accordance with Congressional intent but has preserved regulatory flexibility to re-designate areas as appropriate for inclusion in or exclusion from PRC service delivery under PRC regulations. One of the criteria for such re-designations is the geographic proximity of the expanded area to the existing reservation or service delivery area. Here, IHS proposes to expand the Tribe's PRC Service Delivery Area beyond the geographic description in 25 U.S.C. 1680 to include a county adjacent to the Tribe's existing PRC Service Delivery Area, in a neighboring state. There are already PRC Service Delivery Areas that include part of the state of California and part of another state, for example, Cocopah Tribe of Arizona, (Yuma, Arizona, and Imperial, California); Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Indian Reservation, Arizona and California, (La Paz, Arizona; Riverside, California; San Bernardino, California; and Yuma, Arizona); Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of Arizona, California and Nevada, (Nevada; Mohave, Arizona; San Bernardino, California); and the Quechan Tribe of Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California and Arizona, (Yuma, Arizona; and Imperial, California).

    The Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation has a significant number of members who are not residents of California. According to the Tribe's estimates, 177 enrolled Tolowa Dee-ni' members are non-residents who remain actively involved with the Tribe, and reside in Curry County in the State of Oregon and are not currently eligible for PRC care.

    Under 42 CFR 136.23, those otherwise eligible Indians who do not reside on a reservation, but reside within a PRC Service Delivery Area must be either members of the Tribe or other IHS beneficiaries who maintain close economic and social ties with the Tribe. In this case, in applying the aforementioned PRC Service Delivery Area re-designation criteria required by operative regulations codified at 42 CFR part 136, subpart C, the following findings are made:

    1. By expanding, the Tribe estimates the current eligible population will be increased by 177.

    2. The Tribe has determined that these 177 individuals are members of the Tribe and they are socially and economically affiliated with the Tribe.

    3. The expanded area including Curry County in the State of Oregon maintains a common boundary with the State of California and the statutorily created California PRC Service Delivery Area.

    4. Generally, the Tribal members located in Curry County in the State of Oregon currently do not use the Indian health system for their PRC health care needs. The Tribe will use its existing Federal allocation for PRC funds to provide services to the expanded population. No additional financial resources will be allocated by IHS to the Tribe to provide services to Tribal members residing in Curry County in the State of Oregon.

    Purchased/Referred Care Service Delivery Areas Tribe/reservation County/state Ak Chin Indian Community Pinal, AZ. Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas Polk, TX.1 Alaska Entire State.2 Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming Hot Springs, WY, Fremont, WY, Sublette, WY. Aroostook Band of Micmacs Aroostook, ME.3 Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana Daniels, MT, McCone, MT, Richland, MT, Roosevelt, MT, Sheridan, MT, Valley, MT. Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin Ashland, WI, Iron, WI. Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan Chippewa, MI. Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana Glacier, MT, Pondera, MT. Brigham City Intermountain School Health Center, Utah (4). Burns Paiute Tribe Harney, OR. California Entire State, except for the counties listed in the footnote.5 Catawba Indian Nation All Counties in SC,6 Cabarrus, NC, Cleveland, NC, Gaston, NC, Mecklenburg, NC, Rutherford, NC, Union, NC. Cayuga Nation Alleghany, NY,7 Cattaraugus, NY, Chautauqua, NY, Erie, NY, Warren, PA. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota Corson, SD, Dewey, SD, Haakon, SD, Meade, SD, Perkins, SD, Potter, SD, Stanley, SD, Sully, SD, Walworth, SD, Ziebach, SD. Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana Chouteau, MT, Hill, MT, Liberty, MT. Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana St. Mary Parish, LA. Cocopah Tribe of Arizona Yuma, AZ, Imperial, CA. Coeur D'Alene Tribe Benewah, ID, Kootenai, ID, Latah, ID, Spokane, WA, Whitman, WA. Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Indian Reservation, Arizona and California La Paz, AZ, Riverside, CA, San Bernardino, CA, Yuma, AZ. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation Flathead, MT, Lake, MT, Missoula, MT, Sanders, MT. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Klickitat, WA, Lewis, WA, Skamania, WA,8 Yakima, WA. Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon Benton, OR,9 Clackamas, OR, Lane, OR, Lincoln, OR, Linn, OR, Marion, OR, Multnomah, OR, Polk, OR, Tillamook, OR, Washington, OR, Yam Hill, OR. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation Grays Harbor, WA, Lewis, WA, Thurston, WA. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Chelan, WA,10 Douglas, WA, Ferry, WA, Grant, WA, Lincoln, WA, Okanogan, WA, Stevens, WA. Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians Coos, OR,11 Curry, OR, Douglas, OR, Lane, OR, Lincoln, OR. Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Nevada and Utah Nevada, Juab, UT, Toole, UT. Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon Marion, OR, Multnomah, OR, Polk, OR,12 Tillamook, OR, Washington, OR, Yam Hill, OR. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Umatilla, OR, Union, OR. Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon Clackamas, OR, Jefferson, OR, Linn, OR, Marion, OR, Wasco, OR. Coquille Indian Tribe Coos, OR, Curry, OR, Douglas, OR, Jackson, OR, Lane, OR. Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana Allen Parish, LA, Elton, LA.13 Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians Coos, OR,14 Deshutes, OR, Douglas, OR, Jackson, OR, Josephine, OR, Klamath, OR, Lane, OR. Cowlitz Indian Tribe Columbia, OR,15 Clark, WA, Cowlitz, WA, King, WA, Lewis, WA, Peirce, WA, Skamania, WA, Thurston, WA, Kittitas, WA, Wahkiakum, WA. Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota Brule, SD, Buffalo, SD, Hand, SD, Hughes, SD, Hyde, SD, Lyman, SD, Stanley, SD. Crow Tribe of Montana Big Horn, MT, Carbon, MT, Treasure, MT,16 Yellowstone, MT, Big Horn, WY, Sheridan, WY. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Cherokee, NC, Graham, NC, Haywood, NC, Jackson, NC, Swain, NC. Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming Fremont, WY, Hot Springs, WY, Sublette, WY. Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota Moody, SD. Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin Forest, WI, Marinette, WI, Oconto, WI. Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana Blaine, MT, Phillips, MT. Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon Nevada, Malheur, OR. For McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona Maricopa, AZ. Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of Arizona, California and Nevada Nevada, Mohave, AZ, San Bernardino, CA. Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona Maricopa, AZ, Pinal, AZ. Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan Antrim, MI,17 Benzie, MI, Charlevoix, MI, Grand Traverse, MI, Leelanau, MI, Manistee, MI. Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan Delta, MI, Menominee, MI. Haskell Indian Health Center Douglas, KS.18 Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation, Arizona Coconino, AZ. Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin Adams, WI,19 Clark, WI, Columbia, WI, Crawford, WI, Dane, WI, Eau Clarrie, WI, Houston, MN, Jackson, WI, Juneau, WI, La Crosse, WI, Marathon, WI, Monroe, WI, Sauk, WI, Shawano, WI, Vernon, WI, Wood, WI. Hoh Indian Tribe Jefferson, WA. Hopi Tribe of Arizona Apache, AZ, Coconino, AZ, Navajo, AZ. Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians Aroostook, ME.20 Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona Coconino, AZ, Mohave, AZ, Yavapai, AZ. Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska Brown, KS, Doniphan, KS, Richardson, NE. Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Clallam, WA, Jefferson, WA. Jena Band of Choctaw Indians Grand Parish, LA,21 LaSalle Parish, LA, Rapides, LA. Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico Archuleta, CO, Rio Arriba, NM, Sandoval, NM. Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona Coconino, AZ, Mohave, AZ, Kane, UT. Kalispel Indian Community of the Kalispel Reservation Pend Oreille, WA, Spokane, WA. Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico Sandoval, NM, Santa Fe, NM. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan Baraga, MI, Houghton, MI, Ontonagon, MI. Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas Maverick, TX.22 Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas Brown, KS, Jackson, KS. Klamath Tribes Klamath, OR.23 Koi Nation of Northern California (formerly known as Lower Lake Rancheria, California) Lake, CA, Sonoma, CA.24 Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Boundary, ID. Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Sawyer, WI. Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation Wisconsin Iron, WI, Oneida, WI, Vilas, WI. Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan Gogebic, MI. Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan Kent, MI,25 Lake, MI, Manistee, MI, Mason, MI, Muskegon, MI, Newaygo, MI, Oceana, MI, Ottawa, MI, Wexford, MI. Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan Alcona, MI,26 Alger, MI, Alpena, MI, Antrim, MI, Benzie, MI, Charlevoix, MI, Cheboygan, MI, Chippewa, MI, Crawford, MI, Delta, MI, Emmet, MI, Grand Traverse, MI, Iosco, MI, Kalkaska, MI, Leelanau, MI, Luce, MI, Mackinac, MI, Manistee, MI, Missaukee, MI, Montmorency, MI, Ogemaw, MI, Oscoda, MI, Otsego, MI, Presque Isle, MI, Schoolcraft, MI, Roscommon, MI, Wexford, MI. Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota Brule, SD, Buffalo, SD, Hughes, SD, Lyman, SD, Stanley, SD. Lower Elwha Tribal Community Clallam, WA. Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota Redwood, MN, Renville, MN. Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation Whatcom, WA. Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah Indian Reservation Clallam, WA. Mashantucket Pequot Indian Tribe New London, CT.27 Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Barnstable, MA, Bristol, MA, Norfolk, MA, Plymouth, MA, Suffolk, MA.28 Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan Allegan, MI,29 Barry, MI, Kalamazoo, MI, Kent, MI, Ottawa, MI. Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin Langlade, WI, Menominee, WI, Oconto, WI, Shawano, WI. Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico Chaves, NM, Lincoln, NM, Otero, NM. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians Broward, FL, Collier, FL, Miami-Dade, FL, Hendry, FL. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota, Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) Itasca, MN, Koochiching, MN, St. Louis, MN. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota, Fond du Lac Band Carlton, MN, St. Louis, MN. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota, Grand Portage Band Cook, MN. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota, Leech Lake Band Beltrami, MN, Cass, MN, Hubbard, MN, Itasca, MN. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota Mille Lacs Band Aitkin, MN, Kanebec, MN, Mille Lacs, MN, Pine, MN. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota White Earth Band Becker, MN, Clearwater, MN, Mahnomen, MN, Norman, MN, Polk, MN. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians Attala, MS, Jasper, MS,30 Jones, MS, Kemper, MS, Leake, MS, Neshoba, MS, Newton, MS, Noxubee, MS,31 Scott, MS,32 Winston, MS. Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut Fairfield, CT, Hartford, CT, Litchfield, CT, Middlesex, CT, New Haven, CT, New London, CT, Tolland, CT, Windham, CT. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe King, WA, Pierce, WA. Narragansett Indian Tribe Washington, RI.33 Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico, & Utah Apache, AZ, Bernalillo, NM, Cibola, NM, Coconino, AZ, Kane, UT, McKinley, NM, Montezuma, CO, Navajo, AZ, Rio Arriba, NM, Sandoval, NM, San Juan, NM, San Juan, UT, Socorro, NM, Valencia, NM. Nevada Entire State.34 Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater, ID, Idaho, ID, Latah, ID, Lewis, ID, Nez Perce, ID. Nisqually Indian Tribe Pierce, WA, Thurston, WA. Nooksack Indian Tribe Whatcom, WA. Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana Big Horn, MT, Carter, MT,35 Rosebud, MT. Northwestern Band of Shoshone Nation Box Elder, UT.36 Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Pottawatomi, Michigan Allegan, MI,37 Barry, MI, Branch, MI, Calhoun, MI, Kalamazoo, MI, Kent, MI, Ottawa, MI. Oglala Sioux Tribe Bennett, SD, Cherry, NE, Custer, SD, Dawes, NE, Fall River, SD, Jackson, SD,38 Mellete, SD, Pennington, SD, Shannon, SD, Sheridan, NE, Todd, SD. Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico Rio Arriba, NM. Oklahoma Entire State.39 Omaha Tribe of Nebraska Burt, NE, Cuming, NE, Monona, IA, Thurston, NE, Wayne, NE. Oneida Nation Brown, WI, Outagamie, WI. Oneida Nation of New York Chenango, NY, Cortland, NY, Herkimer, NY, Madison, NY, Oneida, NY, Onondaga, NY. Onondaga Nation Onondaga, NY. Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Iron, UT,40 Millard, UT, Sevier, UT, Washington, UT. Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona Pima, AZ.41 Passamaquoddy Tribe Aroostook, ME,42 43 Hancock, ME,44 Washington, ME. Penobscot Nation Aroostook, ME,45 Penobscot, ME. Poarch Band of Creeks Baldwin, AL,46 Elmore, AL, Escambia, AL, Mobile, AL, Monroe, AL, Escambia, FL. Pokagon Band of Pottawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana Allegan, MI,47 Berrien, MI, Cass, MI, Elkhart, IN, Kosciusko, IN, La Porte, IN, Marshall, IN, St. Joseph, IN, Starke, IN, Van Buren, MI. Ponca Tribe of Nebraska Boyd, NE,48 Burt, NE, Charles Mix, SD, Douglas, NE, Hall, NE, Holt, NE, Knox, NE, Lancaster, NE, Madison, NE, Platte, NE, Pottawatomie, IA, Sarpy, NE, Stanton, NE, Wayne, NE, Woodbury, IA. Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Kitsap, WA. Prairie Band of Pottawatomi Nation Jackson, KS. Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota Goodhue, MN. Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico Cibola, NM. Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico Sandoval, NM, Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico Bernalillo, NM, Torrance, NM, Valencia, NM. Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico Sandoval, NM. Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico Bernalillo, NM, Cibola, NM, Sandoval, NM, Valencia, NM. Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico Taos, NM. Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico Rio Arriba, NM, Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico Sandoval, NM. Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico Los Alamos, NM, Rio Arriba, NM, Sandoval, NM, Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico Bernalillo, NM, Sandoval, NM. Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico Sandoval, NM. Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico Los Alamos, NM, Sandoval, NM, Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico Colfax, NM, Taos, NM. Pueblo of Tesuque, Mexico Sana Fe, NM. Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico Sandoval, NM. Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation King, WA, Pierce, WA, Thurston, WA. Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, Arizona and California Yuma, AZ, Imperial, CA. Quileute Tribe of the Quileute Reservation Clallam, WA, Jefferson, WA. Quinault Indian Nation Grays Harbor, WA, Jefferson, WA. Rapid City, South Dakota Pennington, SD.49 Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Bayfield, WI. Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota Beltrami, MN, Clearwater, MN, Koochiching, MN, Lake of the Woods, MN, Marshall, MN, Pennington, MN, Polk, MN, Roseau, MN. Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota Bennett, SD, Cherry, NE, Gregory, SD, Lyman, SD, Mellette, SD, Todd, SD, Tripp, SD. Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska Brown, KS, Richardson, NE. Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa Tama, IA. Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan Arenac, MI,50 Clare, MI, Isabella, MI, Midland, MI, Missaukee, MI. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe Franklin, NY, St. Lawrence, NY. Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona Maricopa, AZ. Samish Indian Nation Clallam, WA,51 Island, WA, Jefferson, WA, King, WA, Kitsap, WA, Pierce, WA, San Juan, WA, Skagit, WA, Snohomish, WA, Whatcom, WA. San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona Apache, AZ, Cochise, AZ, Gila, AZ, Graham, AZ, Greenlee, AZ, Pinal, AZ. San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona Coconino, AZ, San Juan, UT. Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska Bon Homme, SD, Knox, NE. Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe Snohomish, WA, Skagit, WA. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan Alger, MI,52 Chippewa, MI, Delta, MI, Luce, MI, Mackinac, MI, Marquette, MI, Schoolcraft, MI. Seminole Tribe of Florida Broward, FL, Collier, FL, Miami-Dade, FL, Glades, FL, Hendry, FL. Seneca Nation of Indians Alleghany, NY, Cattaraugus, NY, Chautauqua, NY, Erie, NY, Warren, PA. Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota Scott, MN. Shinnecock Indian Nation Nassau, NY,53 Suffolk, NY. Shoalwater Bay Tribe of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation Pacific, WA. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation Bannock, ID, Bingham, ID, Caribou, ID, Lemhi, ID,54 Power, ID. Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada Nevada, Owyhee, ID. Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota Codington, SD, Day, SD, Grant, SD, Marshall, SD, Richland, ND, Roberts, SD, Sargent, ND, Traverse, MN. Skokomish Indian Tribe Mason, WA. Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians of Utah Tooele, UT. Snoqualmie Indian Tribe Island, WA, King, WA,55 Mason, WA, Pierce, WA, Snohomish, WA. Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin Forest, WI. Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado Archuleta, CO, La Plata, CO, Montezuma, CO, Rio Arriba, NM, San Juan, NM. Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota Benson, ND, Eddy, ND, Nelson, ND, Ramsey, ND. Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation Ferry, WA, Lincoln, WA, Stevens, WA. Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation Mason, WA. St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Barron, WI, Burnett, WI, Pine, MN, Polk, WI, Washburn, WI. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota Adams, ND, Campbell, SD, Corson, SD, Dewey, SD, Emmons, ND, Grant, ND, Morton, ND, Perkins, SD, Sioux, ND, Walworth, SD, Ziebach, SD. Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of Washington Snohomish, WA. Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin Menominee, WI, Shawano, WI. Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation Kitsap, WA. Swinomish Indian Tribal Community Skagit, WA. Tejon Indian Tribe Kern, CA.56 Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota Dunn, ND, Mercer, ND, McKenzie, ND, McLean, ND, Mountrail, ND, Ward, ND. Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona Maricopa, AZ, Pima, AZ, Pinal, AZ. Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation (Smith River Rancheria) Del Norte, CA, Curry, OR.57 Tonawanda Band of Seneca Genesee, NY, Erie, NY, Niagara, NY. Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona Gila, AZ. Trenton Service Unit, North Dakota and Montana Divide, ND,58 McKenzie, ND, Williams, ND, Richland, MT, Roosevelt, MT, Sheridan, MT. Tulalip Tribes of Washington Snohomish, WA. Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe Avoyelles, LA, Rapides, LA.59 Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota Rolette, ND. Tuscarora Nation Niagara, NY. Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota Chippewa, MN, Yellow Medicine, MN. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe Skagit, WA. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah Carbon, UT, Daggett, UT, Duchesne, UT, Emery, UT, Grand, UT, Rio Blanco, CO, Summit, UT, Uintah, UT, Utah, UT, Wasatch, UT. Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Apache, AZ, La Plata, CO, Montezuma, CO, San Juan, NM, San Juan, UT. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) Dukes, MA,60 Barnstable, MA, Bristol, MA, Norfolk, MA, Plymouth, MA, Suffolk, MA.61 Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California Nevada, California except for the counties listed in footnote. White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona Apache, AZ, Coconino, AZ, Gila, AZ, Graham, AZ, Greenlee, AZ, Navajo, AZ. Wilton Rancheria, California Sacramento, CA.62 Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska Dakota, NE, Dixon, NE, Monona, IA, Thurston, NE, Wayne, NE, Woodbury, IA. Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota Bon Homme, SD, Boyd, NE, Charles Mix, SD, Douglas, SD, Gregory, SD, Hutchinson, SD, Knox, NE. Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona Yavapai, AZ. Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Yavapai, AZ. Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas El Paso, TX.63 Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico Apache, AZ, Cibola, NM, McKinley, NM, Valencia, NM. 1 Public Law 100-89, Restoration Act for Ysleta Del Sur and Alabama and Coushatta Tribes of Texas establishes service areas for “members of the Tribe” by sections 101(3) and 105(a) for the Pueblo and sections 201(3) and 206(a) respectively. 2 Entire State of Alaska is included as a CHSDA by regulation (42 CFR 136.22(a)(1)). 3 Aroostook Band of Micmacs was recognized by Congress on November 26, 1991, through the Aroostook Band of Micmac Settlement Act. Aroostook County, ME, was defined as the SDA. 4 Special programs have been established by Congress irrespective of the eligibility regulations. Eligibility for services at these facilities is based on the legislative history of the appropriation of funds for the particular facility rather than the eligibility regulations. Historically services have been provided at Brigham City Intermountain School Health Center, Utah (Public Law 88-358). 5 Entire State of California, excluding the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Marin, Orange, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Kern, Merced, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, Solano, Stanislaus, and Ventura, is designated a CHSDA (25 U.S.C. 1680). 6 The counties were recognized after the January 1984 CHSDA FRN was published, in accordance with Public Law 103-116, Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina Land Claims Settlement Act of 1993, dated October 27, 1993. 7 There is no reservation for the Cayuga Nation; the service delivery area consists of those counties identified by the Cayuga Nation. 8 Skamania County, WA, has historically been a part of the Yakama Service Unit population since 1979. 9 In order to carry out the Congressional intent of the Siletz Restoration Act, Public Law 95-195, as expressed in H. Report No. 95-623, at page 4, members of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon residing in these counties are eligible for contract health services. 10 Chelan County, WA, has historically been a part of the Colville Service Unit population since 1970. 11 Pursuant to Public Law 98-481 (H. Rept. No. 98-904), Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Restoration Act, members of the Tribe residing in these counties were specified as eligible for Federal services and benefits without regard to the existence of a Federal Indian reservation 12 The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon were recognized by Public Law 98-165 which was signed into law on November 22, 1983, and provides for eligibility in these six counties without regard to the existence of a reservation. 13 The CHSDA for the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana was expanded administratively by the Director, IHS, through regulation (42 CFR 136.22(6)) to include city limits of Elton, LA. 14 Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians recognized by Public Law 97-391, signed into law on December 29, 1983. House Rept. No. 97-862 designates Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine Counties as a service area without regard to the existence of a reservation. The IHS later administratively expanded the CHSDA to include the counties of Coos, OR, Deshutes, OR, Klamath, OR, and Lane, OR. 15 The Cowlitz Indian Tribe was recognized in July 2002 as documented at 67 FR 46329, July 12, 2002. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. The CHSDA was administratively expanded to include Columbia County, OR, Kittitas, WA, and Wahkiakum County, WA, as published at 67884 FR December 21, 2009. 16 Treasure County, MT, has historically been a part of the Crow Service Unit population. 17 The counties listed have historically been a part of the Grand Traverse Service Unit population since 1980. 18 Haskell Indian Health Center has historically been a part of Kansas Service Unit since 1979. Special programs have been established by Congress irrespective of the eligibility regulations. Eligibility for services at these facilities is based on the legislative history of the appropriation of funds for the particular facility rather than the eligibility regulations. Historically services have been provided at Haskell Indian Health Center (H. Rept. No. 95-392). 19 CHSDA counties for the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin were designated by regulation (42 CFR 136.22(a)(5)). Dane County, WI, was added to the reservation by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1986. 20 Public Law 97-428 provides that any member of the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians in or around the Town of Houlton shall be eligible without regard to existence of a reservation. 21 The Jena Band of Choctaw Indian was Federally acknowledged as documented at 60 FR 28480, May 31, 1995. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 22 Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas, formerly known as the Texas Band of Kickapoo, was recognized by Public Law 97-429, signed into law on January 8, 1983. The Act provides for eligibility for Kickapoo Tribal members residing in Maverick County without regard to the existence of a reservation. 23 The Klamath Indian Tribe Restoration Act (Pub. L. 99-398, Sec. 2(2)) states that for the purpose of Federal services and benefits “members of the tribe residing in Klamath County shall be deemed to be residing in or near a reservation”. 24 The Koi Nation of Northern California, formerly known as the Lower Lake Rancheria, was reaffirmed by the Secretary of the Bureau of Indian Affairs on December 29, 2000. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a PRC SDA, for the purposes of operating a PRC program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 25 The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Act recognized the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians and the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians. Pursuant to Public Law 103-324, Sec. 4(b) the counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 26 The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Act recognized the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians and the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians. Pursuant to Public Law 103-324, Sec. 4(b) the counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 27 Mashantucket Pequot Indian Claims Settlement Act, Public Law 98-134, signed into law on October 18, 1983, provides a reservation for the Mashantucket Pequot Indian Tribe in New London County, CT. 28 The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe was recognized in February 2007, as documented at 72 FR 8007, February 22, 2007. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 29 The Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan was recognized in October 1998, as documented at 63 FR 56936, October 23, 1998. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 30 Members of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians residing in Jasper and Noxubee Counties, MS, are eligible for contract health services; these two counties were inadvertently omitted from 42 CFR 136.22. 31Members of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians residing in Jasper and Noxubee Counties, MS, are eligible for contract health services; these two counties were inadvertently omitted from 42 CFR 136.22. 32 Scott County, MS, has historically been a part of the Choctaw Service Unit population since 1970. 33 The Narragansett Indian Tribe was recognized by Public Law 95-395, signed into law September 30, 1978. Lands in Washington County, RI, are now Federally restricted and the Bureau of Indian Affairs considers them as the Narragansett Indian Reservation. 34 Entire State of Nevada is included as a CHSDA by regulation (42 CFR 136.22(a)(2)). 35 Carter County, MT, has historically been a part of the Northern Cheyenne Service Unit population since 1979. 36 Land of Box Elder County, Utah, was taken into trust for the Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Nation in 1986. 37 The Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan, formerly known as the Huron Band of Potawatomi, Inc., was recognized in December 1995, as documented at 60 FR 66315, December 21, 1995. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 38 Washabaugh County, SD, merged and became part of Jackson County, SD, in 1983; both were/are CHSDA counties for the Oglala Sioux Tribe. 39 Entire State of Oklahoma is included as a CHSDA by regulation (42 CFR 136.22(a)(3)). 40 Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Restoration Act, Public Law 96-227, provides for the extension of services for the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah to these four counties without regard to the existence of a reservation. 41 Legislative history (H.R. Report No. 95-1021) to Public Law 95-375, Extension of Federal Benefits to Pascua Yaqui Indians, Arizona, expresses congressional intent that lands conveyed to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona pursuant to Act of October 8, 1964. (Pub. L. 88-350) shall be deemed a Federal Indian Reservation. 42 The Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-420; H. Rept. 96-1353) includes the intent of Congress to fund and provide contract health services to the Passamaquoddy Tribe and the Penobscot Nation. 43 The Passamaquoddy Tribe has two reservations: Indian Township and Pleasant Point. The PRC SDA for the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township, ME, is Aroostook County, ME, Washington County, ME, and Hancock County, ME. The PRC SDA for the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point, ME, is Washington County, ME, south of State Route 9, and Aroostook County, ME. 44 The Passamaquoddy Tribe's counties listed are designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a PRC SDA, for the purposes of operating a PRC program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 45 The Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-420; H. Rept. 96-1353) includes the intent of Congress to fund and provide PRC to the Passamaquoddy Tribe and the Penobscot Nation. 46 Counties in the Service Unit designated by Congress for the Poarch Band of Creek Indians (see H. Rept. 98-886, June 29, 1984; Cong. Record, October 10, 1984, Pg. H11929). 47 Public Law 103-323 restored Federal recognition to the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana, in 1994 and identified counties to serve as the SDA. 48 The Ponca Restoration Act, Public Law 101-484, recognized members of the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska in Boyd, Douglas, Knox, Madison or Lancaster counties of Nebraska or Charles Mix county of South Dakota as residing on or near a reservation. Public Law 104-109 made technical corrections to laws relating to Native Americans and added Burt, Hall, Holt, Platte, Sarpy, Stanton, and Wayne counties of Nebraska and Pottawatomie and Woodbury counties of Iowa to the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska SDA. 49 Special programs have been established by Congress irrespective of the eligibility regulations. Eligibility for services at these facilities is based on the legislative history of the appropriation of funds for the particular facility, rather than the eligibility regulations. Historically services have been provided at Rapid City (S. Rept. No. 1154, FY 1967 Interior Approp. 89th Cong. 2d Sess.). 50 Historically part of Isabella Reservation Area for the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan and the Eastern Michigan Service Unit population since 1979. 51 The Samish Indian Tribe Nation was Federally acknowledged in April 1996 as documented at 61 FR 15825, April 9, 1996. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 52 CHSDA counties for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan, were designated by regulation (42 CFR 136.22(a)(4)). 53 The Shinnecock Indian Nation was Federally acknowledged in June 2010 as documented at 75 FR 34760, June 18, 2010. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 54 Lemhi County, ID, has historically been a part of the Fort Hall Service Unit population since 1979. 55 The Snoqualmie Indian Tribe was Federally acknowledged in August 1997 as documented at 62 FR 45864, August 29, 1997. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 56 On December 30, 2011 the Office of Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs reaffirmed the Federal recognition of the Tejon Indian Tribe. The county listed was designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 57 The counties listed are designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a PRC SDA, for the purposes of operating a PRC program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 58 The Secretary acting through the Service is directed to provide contract health services to Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians that reside in Trenton Service Unit, North Dakota and Montana, in Divide, Mackenzie, and Williams counties in the state of North Dakota and the adjoining counties of Richland, Roosevelt, and Sheridan in the state of Montana (Sec. 815, Pub. L. 94-437). 59 Rapides County, LA, has historically been a part of the Tunica Biloxi Service Unit population since 1982. 60 According to Public Law 100-95, Sec. 12, members of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) residing on Martha's Vineyard are deemed to be living on or near an Indian reservation for the purposes of eligibility for Federal services. 61 The counties listed are designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a PRC SDA, for the purposes of operating a PRC program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 62 The Wilton Rancheria, California had Federal recognition restored in July 2009 as documented at 74 FR 33468, July 13, 2009. Sacramento County, CA, was designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA. Sacramento County was not covered when Congress originally established the State of California as a CHSDA excluding certain counties including Sacramento County (25 U.S.C. 1680). 63 Public Law 100-89, Restoration Act for Ysleta Del Sur and Alabama and Coushatta Tribes of Texas establishes service areas for “members of the Tribe” by sections 101(3) and 105(a) for the Pueblo and sections 201(3) and 206(a) respectively.

    This comment period is being extended to allow all interested parties the opportunity to comment on the proposed SDA. Therefore, we are extending the comment period until June 30, 2017.

    Dated: April 24, 2017. Chris Buchanan, Assistant Surgeon General, USPHS, Acting Director, Indian Health Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08669 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 4160-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes; Tribal Management Grant Program

    Announcement Type: New and Competing Continuation.

    Funding Announcement Number: HHS-2017-IHS-TMD-0001.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 93.228.

    Key Dates

    Application Deadline Date: June 4, 2017.

    Review Date: June 23-30, 2017.

    Earliest Anticipated Start Date: September 1, 2017.

    Signed Tribal Resolutions Due Date: June 4, 2017.

    Proof of Non-Profit Status Due Date: June 4, 2017.

    I. Funding Opportunity Description Statutory Authority

    The Indian Health Service (IHS) is accepting competitive grant applications for the Tribal Management Grant (TMG) program. This program is authorized under 25 U.S.C. 5322(b)(2) and 25 U.S.C. 5322(e) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), Public Law (Pub. L.) 93-638, as amended. This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) under 93.228.

    Background

    The TMG Program is a competitive grant program that is capacity building and developmental in nature and has been available for Federally-recognized Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations (T/TO) since shortly after the passage of the ISDEAA in 1975. It was established to assist T/TO to prepare for assuming all or part of existing IHS programs, functions, services, and activities (PFSAs) and further develop and improve their health management capability. The TMG Program provides competitive grants to T/TO to establish goals and performance measures for current health programs; assess current management capacity to determine if new components are appropriate; analyze programs to determine if T/TO management is practicable; and develop infrastructure systems to manage or organize PFSAs.

    Purpose

    The purpose of this IHS grant announcement is to announce the availability of the TMG Program to enhance and develop health management infrastructure and assist T/TO in assuming all or part of existing IHS PSFAs through a Title I contract and assist established Title I contractors and Title V compactors to further develop and improve their management capability. In addition, TMGs are available to T/TO under the authority of 25 U.S.C. 5322(e) for (1) obtaining technical assistance from providers designated by the T/TO (including T/TO that operate mature contracts) for the purposes of program planning and evaluation, including the development of any management systems necessary for contract management and the development of cost allocation plans for indirect cost rates; and (2) planning, designing, monitoring, and evaluating Federal programs serving the T/TO, including Federal administrative functions.

    II. Award Information Type of Award

    Grant.

    Estimated Funds Available

    The total amount of funding identified for the current fiscal year (FY) 2017 is approximately $2,412,000. Individual award amounts are anticipated to be between $50,000 and $100,000. The amount of funding available for new and competing continuation awards issued under this announcement is subject to the availability of appropriations and budgetary priorities of the Agency. The IHS is under no obligation to make awards that are selected for funding under this announcement.

    Anticipated Number of Awards

    Approximately 16-18 awards will be issued under this program announcement.

    Project Period

    The project periods vary based on the project type selected. Project periods could run from one, two, or three years and will run consecutively from the earliest anticipated start date of September 1, 2017 through August 31, 2018 for one year projects; September 1, 2017 through August 31, 2019 for two year projects; and September 1, 2017 through August 31, 2020 for three year projects. Please refer to “Eligible TMG Project Types, Maximum Funding Levels and Project Periods” below for additional details. State the number of years for the project period and include the exact dates.

    III. Eligibility Information

    I.

    1. Eligibility

    Eligible Applicants: “Indian Tribes” and “Tribal organizations” (T/TO) as defined by the ISDEAA are eligible to apply for the TMG Program. The definitions for each entity type are outlined below. Only one application per T/TO is allowed.

    Definitions: “Indian Tribe” means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688) [43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.], which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians. 25 U.S.C. 5304(e).

    “Tribal organization” means the recognized governing body of any Indian tribe; any legally established organization of Indians which is controlled, sanctioned, or chartered by such governing body or which is democratically elected by the adult members of the Indian community to be served by such organization and which includes the maximum participation of Indians in all phases of its activities. 25 U.S.C. 5304(l).

    Tribal organizations must provide proof of non-profit status.

    Eligible TMG Project Types, Maximum Funding Levels and Project Periods: The TMG Program consists of four project types: (1) Feasibility study; (2) planning; (3) evaluation study; and (4) health management structure. Applicants may submit applications for one project type only. Applicants must state the project type selected. Applications that address more than one project type will be considered ineligible. The maximum funding levels noted include both direct and indirect costs. Applicant budgets may not exceed the maximum funding level or project period identified for a project type. Applicants whose budget or project period exceed the maximum funding level or project period will be deemed ineligible and will not be reviewed. Please refer to Section IV.5, “Funding Restrictions” for further information regarding ineligible project activities.

    1. FEASIBILITY STUDY (Maximum funding/project period: $70,000/12 months)

    The Feasibility Study must include a study of a specific IHS program or segment of a program to determine if Tribal management of the program is possible. The study shall present the planned approach, training, and resources required to assume Tribal management of the program. The study must include the following four components:

    • Health needs and health care services assessments that identify existing health care services and delivery systems, program divisibility issues, health status indicators, unmet needs, volume projections, and demand analysis.

    • Management analysis of existing management structures, proposed management structures, implementation plans and requirements, and personnel staffing requirements and recruitment barriers.

    • Financial analysis of historical trends data, financial projections and new resource requirements for program management costs and analysis of potential revenues from Federal/non-Federal sources.

    • Decision statement/report that incorporates findings, conclusions and recommendations; the presentation of the study and recommendations to the Tribal governing body for determination regarding whether Tribal assumption of program(s) is desirable or warranted.

    2. PLANNING (Maximum funding/project period: $50,000/12 months)

    Planning projects entail a collection of data to establish goals and performance measures for the operation of current health programs or anticipated PFSAs under a Title I contract. Planning projects will specify the design of health programs and the management systems (including appropriate policies and procedures) to accomplish the health priorities of the T/TO. For example, planning projects could include the development of a Tribal Specific Health Plan or a Strategic Health Plan, etc. Please note that updated Healthy People information and Healthy People 2020 objectives are available in electronic format at the following Web site: http://www.health.gov/healthypeople/publications. The Public Health Service (PHS) encourages applicants submitting strategic health plans to address specific objectives of Healthy People 2020.

    3. EVALUATION STUDY (Maximum funding/project period: $50,000/12 months)

    The Evaluation Study must include a systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of data for the purpose of determining the value of a program. The extent of the evaluation study could relate to the goals and objectives, policies and procedures, or programs regarding targeted groups. The evaluation study could also be used to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of a Tribal program operation (i.e., direct services, financial management, personnel, data collection and analysis, third-party billing, etc.), as well as to determine the appropriateness of new components of a Tribal program operation that will assist Tribal efforts to improve their health care delivery systems.

    4. HEALTH MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE (Average funding/project period: $100,000/12 months; maximum funding/project period: $300,000/36 months)

    The first year maximum funding level is limited to $150,000 for multi-year projects. The Health Management Structure component allows for implementation of systems to manage or organize PFSAs. Management structures include health department organizations, health boards, and financial management systems, including systems for accounting, personnel, third-party billing, medical records, management information systems, etc. This includes the design, improvement, and correction of management systems that address weaknesses identified through quality control measures, internal control reviews, and audit report findings under required financial audits and ISDEAA requirements.

    For the minimum standards for the management systems used by Indian T/TO when carrying out self-determination contracts, please see 25 CFR part 900, Contracts Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Subpart F—“Standards for Tribal or Tribal Organization Management Systems,” §§ 900.35-900.60. For operational provisions applicable to carrying out self-governance compacts, please see 42 CFR part 137, Tribal Self-Governance, Subpart I,—“Operational Provisions” §§ 137.160-137.220.

    Please see Section IV “Application and Submission Information” for information on how to obtain a copy of the TMG application package.

    To be eligible for this “New/Competing, Continuation Announcement,” an applicant must be one of the following as defined by 25 U.S.C. 5304:

    i. An Indian Tribe, as defined by 25 U.S.C. 5304(e); or

    ii. A Tribal organization, as defined by 25 U.S.C. 5304(l).

    Note:

    Please refer to Section IV.2 (Application and Submission Information/Subsection 2, Content and Form of Application Submission) for additional proof of applicant status documents required such as Tribal resolutions, proof of non-profit status, etc.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching

    The IHS does not require matching funds or cost sharing for grants or cooperative agreements.

    3. Other Requirements

    If application budgets exceed the highest dollar amount outlined under the “Estimated Funds Available” section within this funding announcement, the application will be considered ineligible and will not be reviewed for further consideration. If deemed ineligible, IHS will not return the application. The applicant will be notified by email by the Division of Grants Management (DGM) of this decision.

    The following documentation is required.

    Tribal Resolution

    A. An Indian Tribe or Tribal organization that is proposing a project affecting another Indian Tribe must include resolutions from all affected Tribes to be served. Applications by Tribal organizations will not require a specific Tribal resolution if the current Tribal resolution(s) under which they operate would encompass the proposed grant activities.

    An official signed Tribal resolution must be received by the DGM prior to a Notice of Award being issued to any applicant selected for funding. However, if an official signed Tribal resolution cannot be submitted with the electronic application submission prior to the official application deadline date, a draft Tribal resolutions must be submitted by the deadline in order for the application to be considered complete and eligible for review. The draft Tribal resolution is not in lieu of the required signed resolution, but is acceptable until a signed resolution is received. If an official signed Tribal resolution is not received by DGM when funding decisions are made, then a Notice of Award will not be issued to that applicant and they will not receive any IHS funds until such time as they have submitted a signed resolution to the Grants Management Specialist listed in this Funding Announcement.

    B. Tribal organizations applying for technical assistance and/or training grants must submit documentation that the Tribal organization is applying upon the request of the Indian Tribe/Tribes it intends to serve.

    C. Documentation for Priority I participation requires a copy of the Federal Register notice or letter from the Bureau of Indian Affairs verifying establishment of Federally-recognized Tribal status within the last five years. The date on the documentation must reflect that Federal recognition was received during or after March 2012.

    D. Documentation for Priority II participation requires a copy of the most current transmittal letter and Attachment A from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Inspector General (OIG), National External Audit Review Center (NEAR). See “FUNDING PRIORITIES” below for more information. If an applicant is unable to locate a copy of the most recent transmittal letter or needs assistance with audit issues, information or technical assistance may be obtained by contacting the IHS, Office of Finance and Accounting, Division of Audit at (301) 443-1270, or the NEAR help line at (800) 732-0679 or (816) 426-7720. Federally-recognized Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations not subject to Single Audit Act requirements must provide a financial statement identifying the Federal dollars in the footnotes. The financial statement must also identify specific weaknesses/recommendations that will be addressed in the TMG proposal and that are related to 25 CFR part 900, subpart F—“Standards for Tribal and Tribal Organization Management Systems.”

    E. Documentation of Consortium participation—If an Indian Tribe submitting an application is a member of an eligible intertribal consortium, the Tribe must:

    —Identify the consortium. —Indicate if the consortium intends to submit a TMG application. —Demonstrate that the Tribe's application does not duplicate or overlap any objectives of the consortium's application. —Identify all consortium member Tribes. —Identify if any of the member Tribes intend to submit a TMG application of their own. —Demonstrate that the consortium's application does not duplicate or overlap any objectives of the other consortium members who may be submitting their own TMG application.

    Funding Priorities: The IHS has established the following funding priorities for TMG awards:

    • PRIORITY I—Any Indian Tribe that has received Federal recognition (including restored, funded, or unfunded) within the past five years, specifically received during or after March 2012, will be considered Priority I.

    • PRIORITY II—Federally-recognized Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations submitting a competing continuation application or a new application for the sole purpose of addressing audit material weaknesses will be considered Priority II.

    Priority II participation is only applicable to the Health Management Structure project type. For more information, see “Eligible TMG Project Types, Maximum Funding Levels and Project Periods” in Section II.

    • PRIORITY III—Eligible Direct Service and Title I Federally-recognized Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations submitting a competing continuation application or a new application will be considered Priority III.

    • PRIORITY IV—Eligible Title V Self Governance Federally-recognized Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations submitting a competing continuation or a new application will be considered Priority IV.

    The funding of approved Priority I applicants will occur before the funding of approved Priority II applicants. Priority II applicants will be funded before approved Priority III applicants. Priority III applicants will be funded before Priority IV applicants. Funds will be distributed until depleted.

    The following definitions are applicable to the PRIORITY II category:

    Audit finding means deficiencies which the auditor is required by 45 CFR 75.516, to report in the schedule of findings and questioned costs.

    Material weakness—“Statements on Auditing Standards 115” defines material weakness as a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity's financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis.

    Significant deficiency—Statements on Auditing Standards 115 defines significant deficiency as a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

    The audit findings are identified in Attachment A of the transmittal letter received from the HHS/OIG/NEAR. Please identify the material weaknesses to be addressed by underlining the item(s) listed on the Attachment A.

    Federally-recognized Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations not subject to Single Audit Act requirements must provide a financial statement identifying the Federal dollars received in the footnotes. The financial statement should also identify specific weaknesses/recommendations that will be addressed in the TMG proposal and that are related to 25 CFR part 900, subpart F—“Standards for Tribal and Tribal Organization Management Systems.”

    Proof of Non-Profit Status

    Organizations claiming non-profit status must submit proof. A copy of the 501(c)(3) Certificate must be received with the application submission by the Application Deadline Date listed under the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.

    An applicant submitting any of the above additional documentation after the initial application submission due date is required to ensure the information was received by the IHS DGM by obtaining documentation confirming delivery (i.e., FedEx tracking, postal return receipt, etc.).

    IV. Application and Submission Information 1. Obtaining Application Materials

    The application package and detailed instructions for this announcement can be found at http://www.Grants.gov or https://www.ihs.gov/dgm/funding/.

    Questions regarding the electronic application process may be directed to Mr. Paul Gettys at (301) 443-2114 or (301) 443-5204.

    2. Content and Form Application Submission

    The applicant must include the project narrative as an attachment to the application package. Mandatory documents for all applicants include:

    • Table of contents.

    • Abstract (one page) summarizing the project.

    • Application forms:

    ○ SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance.

    ○ SF-424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.

    ○ SF-424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.

    • Budget Justification and Narrative (must be single spaced and not exceed five pages).

    • Project Narrative (must be single spaced and not exceed 15 pages).

    ○ Background information on the organization.

    ○ Proposed scope of work, objectives, and activities that provide a description of what will be accomplished, including a one-page Timeframe Chart.

    • Tribal resolution.

    • 501(c)(3) Certificate (if applicable).

    • Position descriptions for key personnel.

    • Contractor/Consultant resumes or qualifications and scope of work.

    • Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL).

    • Certification Regarding Lobbying (GG-Lobbying Form).

    • Copy of current Negotiated Indirect Cost rate (IDC) agreement (required) in order to receive IDC.

    • Organizational Chart (optional).

    • Documentation of current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Financial Audit (if applicable).

    ○ Email confirmation from Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) that audits were submitted; or

    ○ Face sheets from audit reports. These can be found on the FAC Web site: https://harvester.census.gov/facdissem/Main.aspx.

    Public Policy Requirements

    All Federal-wide public policies apply to IHS grants and cooperative agreements with exception of the discrimination policy.

    Requirements for Project and Budget Narratives

    A. Project Narrative: This narrative should be a separate Word document that is no longer than 15 pages and must: Be single-spaced, be type written, have consecutively numbered pages, use black type not smaller than 12 points, and be printed on one side only of standard size 81/2″ x 11″ paper.

    Be sure to succinctly answer all questions listed under the evaluation criteria (refer to Section V.1, Evaluation criteria in this announcement) and place all responses and required information in the correct section (noted below), or they shall not be considered or scored. These narratives will assist the Objective Review Committee (ORC) in becoming familiar with the applicant's activities and accomplishments prior to this possible grant award. If the narrative exceeds the page limit, only the first 15 pages will be reviewed. The 15-page limit for the narrative does not include the work plan, standard forms, Tribal resolutions, table of contents, budget, budget justifications, narratives, and/or other appendix items.

    There are three parts to the narrative: Part A—Program Information; Part B—Program Planning and Evaluation; and Part C—Program Report. See below for additional details about what must be included in the narrative.

    Part A: Program Information (2 page limitation)

    Section 1: Needs

    Describe how the T/TO has determined the need to either enhance or develop its management capability to either assume PFSAs or not in the interest of self-determination. Note the progression of previous TMG projects/awards if applicable.

    Part B: Program Planning and Evaluation (11 page limitation)

    Section 1: Program Plans

    Describe fully and clearly the direction the T/TO plans to take with the selected TMG project type in addressing their health management infrastructure including how the T/TO plans to demonstrate improved health and services to the community or communities it serves. Include proposed timelines.

    Section 2: Program Evaluation

    Describe fully and clearly the improvements that will be made by the T/TO that will impact their management capability or prepare them for future improvements to their organization that will allow them to manage their health care system and identify the anticipated or expected benefits for the Tribe.

    Part C: Program Report (2 page limitation)

    Section 1: Describe major accomplishments over the last 24 months.

    Please identify and describe significant program achievements associated with the delivery of quality health services. Provide a comparison of the actual accomplishments to the goals established for the project period, or if applicable, provide justification for the lack of progress.

    Section 2: Describe major activities over the last 24 months.

    Please identify and summarize recent major health related project activities of the work done during the project period.

    B. Budget Narrative (5 page limitation)

    This narrative must include a line item budget with a narrative justification for all expenditures identifying reasonable allowable, allocable costs necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives as outlined in the project narrative. Budget should match the scope of work described in the project narrative.

    3. Submission Dates and Times

    Applications must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Any application received after the application deadline will not be accepted for processing, nor will it be given further consideration for funding. Grants.gov will notify the applicant via email if the application is rejected.

    If technical challenges arise and assistance is required with the electronic application process, contact Grants.gov Customer Support via email to [email protected] or at (800) 518-4726. Customer Support is available to address questions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (except on Federal holidays). If problems persist, contact Mr. Gettys ([email protected]), DGM Grant Systems Coordinator, by telephone at (301) 443-2114 or (301) 443-5204. Please be sure to contact Mr. Gettys at least ten days prior to the application deadline. Please do not contact the DGM until you have received a Grants.gov tracking number. In the event you are not able to obtain a tracking number, call the DGM as soon as possible.

    4. Intergovernmental Review

    Executive Order 12372 requiring intergovernmental review is not applicable to this program.

    5. Funding Restrictions

    • Pre-award costs are not allowable.

    • The available funds are inclusive of direct and appropriate indirect costs.

    • Only one grant will be awarded per applicant.

    • IHS will not acknowledge receipt of applications.

    • The TMG may not be used to support recurring operational programs or to replace existing public and private resources. Funding received under a recurring Public Law 93-638 contract cannot be totally supplanted or totally replaced. Exception is allowed to charge a portion or percentage of salaries of existing staff positions involved in implementing the TMG grant, if applicable. However, this percentage of TMG funding must reflect supplementation of funding for the project and not supplantation of existing ISDEAA contract funds. Supplementation is “adding to a program” whereas supplantation is “taking the place of” funds. An entity cannot use the TMG funds to supplant the ISDEAA contract or recurring funding.

    • Ineligible Project Activities—The inclusion of the following projects or activities in an application will render the application ineligible.

    ○ Planning and negotiating activities associated with the intent of a Tribe to enter the IHS Self-Governance Project. A separate grant program is administered by the IHS for this purpose. Prospective applicants interested in this program should contact Ms. Anna Johnson, Policy Analyst, Office of Tribal Self-Governance, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 08E05, Rockville, MD, 20857, (301) 443-7821, and request information concerning the “Tribal Self-Governance Program Planning Cooperative Agreement Announcement” or the “Negotiation Cooperative Agreement Announcement.”

    ○ Projects related to water, sanitation, and waste management.

    ○ Projects that include direct patient care and/or equipment to provide those medical services to be used to establish or augment or continue direct patient clinical care. Medical equipment that is allowable under the Special Diabetes Program for Indians is not allowable under the TMG Program.

    ○ Projects that include recruitment efforts for direct patient care services.

    ○ Projects that include long-term care or provision of any direct services.

    ○ Projects that include tuition, fees, or stipends for certification or training of staff to provide direct services.

    ○ Projects that include pre-planning, design, and planning of construction for facilities, including activities relating to program justification documents.

    ○ Projects that propose more than one project type. Refer to Section II, “Award Information,” specifically “Eligible TMG Project Types, Maximum Funding Levels and Project Periods” for more information. An example of a proposal with more than one project type that would be considered ineligible may include the creation of a strategic health plan (defined by TMG as a planning project type) and improving third-party billing structures (defined by TMG as a health management structure project type). Multi-year applications that include in the first year planning, evaluation, or feasibility activities with the remainder of the project years addressing management structure are also deemed ineligible.

    ○ Any Alaska Native Village that is neither a Title I nor a Title V organization and does not have the legal authority to contract services under the ISDEAA as it is affiliated with one of the Alaska health corporations as a consortium member and has all of its IHS funding for the Village administered through an Alaska health corporation, a Title V compactor, is not eligible for consideration under the TMG program.

    Moreover, Congress has reenacted its moratorium in Alaska on new contracting under the ISDEAA with Alaska Native Tribes that do not already have contracts or compacts with the IHS under this Act. See the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Jan. 17, 2014), Public Law 113-76, 128 Stat. 5, 343-44: SEC. 424. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and until October 1, 2018, the Indian Health Service may not disburse funds for the provision of health care services pursuant to Public Law 93-638 (25 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) to any Alaska Native village or Alaska Native village corporation that is located within the area served by an Alaska Native regional health entity.

    Consequently, Alaska Native Villages will not have any opportunity to enter into an ISDEAA contract with the IHS until this law lapses on October 1, 2018.

    • Other Limitations—A current TMG recipient cannot be awarded a new, renewal, or competing continuation grant for any of the following reasons:

    ○ The grantee will be administering two TMGs at the same time or have overlapping project/budget periods;

    ○ The current project is not progressing in a satisfactory manner;

    ○ The current project is not in compliance with program and financial reporting requirements; or

    ○ The applicant has an outstanding delinquent Federal debt. No award shall be made until either:

    The delinquent account is paid in full; or

    A negotiated repayment schedule is established and at least one payment is received.

    6. Electronic Submission Requirements

    All applications must be submitted electronically. Please use the http://www.Grants.gov Web site to submit an application electronically and select the “Find Grant Opportunities” link on the homepage. Follow the instructions for submitting an application under the Package tab. Electronic copies of the application may not be submitted as attachments to email messages addressed to IHS employees or offices.

    If the applicant needs to submit a paper application instead of submitting electronically through Grants.gov, a waiver must be requested. Prior approval must be requested and obtained from Mr. Robert Tarwater, Director, DGM, (see Section IV.6 below for additional information). A written waiver request must be sent to [email protected] with a copy to [email protected] The waiver must (1) be documented in writing (emails are acceptable), before submitting a paper application, and (2) include clear justification for the need to deviate from the required electronic grants submission process.

    Once the waiver request has been approved, the applicant will receive a confirmation of approval email containing submission instructions and the mailing address to submit the application. A copy of the written approval must be submitted along with the hardcopy of the application that is mailed to DGM. Paper applications that are submitted without a copy of the signed waiver from the Director of the DGM will not be reviewed or considered for funding. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Paper applications must be received by the DGM no later than 5:00 p.m., EDT, on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Late applications will not be accepted for processing or considered for funding. Applicants that do not adhere to the timelines for System for Award Management (SAM) and/or http://www.Grants.gov registration or that fail to request timely assistance with technical issues will not be considered for a waiver to submit a paper application.

    Please be aware of the following:

    • Please search for the application package in http://www.Grants.gov by entering the CFDA number or the Funding Opportunity Number. Both numbers are located in the header of this announcement.

    • If you experience technical challenges while submitting your application electronically, please contact Grants.gov Support directly at: [email protected] or (800) 518-4726. Customer Support is available to address questions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (except on Federal holidays).

    • Upon contacting Grants.gov, obtain a tracking number as proof of contact. The tracking number is helpful if there are technical issues that cannot be resolved and a waiver from the agency must be obtained.

    • Applicants are strongly encouraged not to wait until the deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov as the registration process for SAM and Grants.gov could take up to fifteen working days.

    • Please use the optional attachment feature in Grants.gov to attach additional documentation that may be requested by the DGM.

    • All applicants must comply with any page limitation requirements described in this funding announcement.

    • After electronically submitting the application, the applicant will receive an automatic acknowledgment from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The DGM will download the application from Grants.gov and provide necessary copies to the appropriate agency officials. Neither the DGM nor the Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes (ODSCT) will notify the applicant that the application has been received.

    • Email applications will not be accepted under this announcement.

    Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS)

    All IHS applicants and grantee organizations are required to obtain a DUNS number and maintain an active registration in the SAM database. The DUNS number is a unique 9-digit identification number provided by D&B which uniquely identifies each entity. The DUNS number is site specific; therefore, each distinct performance site may be assigned a DUNS number. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy, and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, you may access it through http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform, or to expedite the process, call (866) 705-5711.

    All HHS recipients are required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, as amended (“Transparency Act”), to report information on sub-awards. Accordingly, all IHS grantees must notify potential first-tier sub-recipients that no entity may receive a first-tier sub-award unless the entity has provided its DUNS number to the prime grantee organization. This requirement ensures the use of a universal identifier to enhance the quality of information available to the public pursuant to the Transparency Act.

    System for Award Management (SAM)

    Organizations that were not registered with Central Contractor Registration and have not registered with SAM will need to obtain a DUNS number first and then access the SAM online registration through the SAM home page at https://www.sam.gov (U.S. organizations will also need to provide an Employer Identification Number from the Internal Revenue Service that may take an additional 2-5 weeks to become active). Completing and submitting the registration takes approximately one hour to complete and SAM registration will take 3-5 business days to process. Registration with the SAM is free of charge. Applicants may register online at https://www.sam.gov.

    Additional information on implementing the Transparency Act, including the specific requirements for DUNS and SAM, can be found on the IHS Grants Management, Grants Policy Web site: https://www.ihs.gov/dgm/policytopics/.

    V. Application Review Information

    The instructions for preparing the application narrative also constitute the evaluation criteria for reviewing and scoring the application. Weights assigned to each section are noted in parentheses. The 15-page narrative should include only the first year of activities; information for multi-year projects should be included as an appendix. See “Multi-Year Project Requirements” at the end of this section for more information. The narrative section should be written in a manner that is clear to outside reviewers unfamiliar with prior related activities of the applicant. It should be well organized, succinct, and contain all information necessary for reviewers to understand the project fully. Points will be assigned to each evaluation criteria adding up to a total of 100 points. A minimum score of 60 points is required for funding. Points are assigned as follows:

    1. Criteria A. Introduction and Need for Assistance (20 points)

    (1) Describe the T/TO's current health operation. Include what programs and services are currently provided (i.e., Federally-funded, State-funded, etc.), information regarding technologies currently used (i.e., hardware, software, services, etc.), and identify the source(s) of technical support for those technologies (i.e., Tribal staff, area office, vendor, etc.). Include information regarding whether the T/TO has a health department and/or health board and how long it has been operating.

    (2) Describe the population to be served by the proposed project. Include the number of eligible IHS beneficiaries who currently use the services.

    (3) Describe the geographic location of the proposed project including any geographic barriers to the health care users in the area to be served.

    (4) Identify all TMGs received since FY 2012, dates of funding and a summary of project accomplishments. State how previous TMG funds facilitated the progression of health development relative to the current proposed project. (Copies of reports will not be accepted.)

    (5) Identify the eligible project type and priority group of the applicant.

    (6) Explain the need/reason for the proposed project by identifying specific gaps or weaknesses in services or infrastructure that will be addressed by the proposed project. Explain how these gaps/weaknesses have been assessed.

    (7) If the proposed project includes information technology (i.e., hardware, software, etc.), provide further information regarding measures taken or to be taken that ensure the proposed project will not create other gaps in services or infrastructure (i.e., negatively affect or impact IHS interface capability, Government Performance and Results Act reporting requirements, contract reporting requirements, Information Technology (IT) compatibility, etc.) if applicable.

    (8) Describe the effect of the proposed project on current programs (i.e., Federally-funded, State-funded, etc.) and, if applicable, on current equipment (i.e., hardware, software, services, etc.). Include the effect of the proposed project on planned/anticipated programs and/or equipment.

    (9) Address how the proposed project relates to the purpose of the TMG Program by addressing the appropriate description that follows:

    • Identify if the T/TO is an IHS Title I contractor. Address if the self-determination contract is a master contract of several programs or if individual contracts are used for each program. Include information regarding whether or not the Tribe participates in a consortium contract (i.e., more than one Tribe participating in a contract). Address what programs are currently provided through those contracts and how the proposed project will enhance the organization's capacity to manage the contracts currently in place.

    • Identify if the T/TO is not a Title I organization. Address how the proposed project will enhance the organization's management capabilities, what programs and services the organization is currently seeking to contract and an anticipated date for contract.

    • Identify if the T/TO is an IHS Title V compactor. Address when the T/TO entered into the compact and how the proposed project will further enhance the organization's management capabilities.

    B. Project Objective(s), Work Plan and Approach (40 points)

    (1) Identify the proposed project objective(s) addressing the following:

    • Objectives must be measureable and (if applicable) quantifiable.

    • Objectives must be results oriented.

    • Objectives must be time-limited.

    Example: By installing new third-party billing software, the Tribe will increase the number of bills processed by 15 percent at the end of 12 months.

    (2) Address how the proposed project will result in change or improvement in program operations or processes for each proposed project objective. Also address what tangible products are expected from the project (i.e., policies and procedures manual, health plan, etc.).

    (3) Address the extent to which the proposed project will build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the need(s) of the target population.

    (4) Submit a work plan in the Appendix which includes the following information:

    • Provide the action steps on a timeline for accomplishing the proposed project objective(s).

    • Identify who will perform the action steps.

    • Identify who will supervise the action steps taken.

    • Identify what tangible products will be produced during and at the end of the proposed project.

    • Identify who will accept and/or approve work products during the duration of the proposed project and at the end of the proposed project.

    • Include any training that will take place during the proposed project and who will be providing and attending the training.

    • Include evaluation activities planned in the work plans.

    (5) If consultants or contractors will be used during the proposed project, please include the following information in their scope of work (or note if consultants/contractors will not be used):

    • Educational requirements.

    • Desired qualifications and work experience.

    • Expected work products to be delivered on a timeline.

    If a potential consultant/contractor has already been identified, please include a resume in the Appendix.

    (6) Describe what updates (i.e., revision of policies/procedures, upgrades, technical support, etc.) will be required for the continued success of the proposed project. Include when these updates are anticipated and where funds will come from to conduct the update and/or maintenance.

    C. Program Evaluation (20 points)

    Each proposed objective requires an evaluation component to assess its progression and ensure its completion. Also, include the evaluation activities in the work plan.

    Describe the proposed plan to evaluate both outcomes and processes. Outcome evaluation relates to the results identified in the objectives, and process evaluation relates to the work plan and activities of the project.

    (1) For outcome evaluation, describe:

    • What will the criteria be for determining success of each objective?

    • What data will be collected to determine whether the objective was met?

    • At what intervals will data be collected?

    • Who will collect the data and their qualifications?

    • How will the data be analyzed?

    • How will the results be used?

    (2) For process evaluation, describe:

    • How will the project be monitored and assessed for potential problems and needed quality improvements?

    • Who will be responsible for monitoring and managing project improvements based on results of ongoing process improvements and their qualifications?

    • How will ongoing monitoring be used to improve the project?

    • Describe any products, such as manuals or policies, that might be developed and how they might lend themselves to replication by others.

    • How will the organization document what is learned throughout the project period?

    (3) Describe any evaluation efforts planned after the grant period has ended.

    (4) Describe the ultimate benefit to the Tribe that is expected to result from this project. An example of this might be the ability of the Tribe to expand preventive health services because of increased billing and third party payments.

    D. Organizational Capabilities, Key Personnel and Qualifications (15 points)

    This section outlines the broader capacity of the organization to complete the project outlined in the work plan. It includes the identification of personnel responsible for completing tasks and the chain of responsibility for successful completion of the projects outlined in the work plan.

    (1) Describe the organizational structure of the T/TO beyond health care activities, if applicable.

    (2) Provide information regarding plans to obtain management systems if the T/TO does not have an established management system currently in place that complies with 25 CFR part 900, subpart F, “Standards for Tribal or Tribal Organization Management Systems.” State if management systems are already in place and how long the systems have been in place.

    (3) Describe the ability of the organization to manage the proposed project. Include information regarding similarly sized projects in scope and financial assistance as well as other grants and projects successfully completed.

    (4) Describe what equipment (i.e., fax machine, phone, computer, etc.) and facility space (i.e., office space) will be available for use during the proposed project. Include information about any equipment not currently available that will be purchased through the grant.

    (5) List key personnel who will work on the project. Include all titles of key personnel in the work plan. In the Appendix, include position descriptions and resumes for all key personnel. Position descriptions should clearly describe each position and duties, indicating desired qualifications and experience requirements related to the proposed project. Resumes must indicate that the proposed staff member is qualified to carry out the proposed project activities. If a position is to be filled, indicate that information on the proposed position description.

    (6) Address how the T/TO will sustain the position(s) after the grant expires if the project requires additional personnel (i.e., IT support, etc.). State if there is no need for additional personnel.

    (7) If the personnel are to be only partially funded by this grant, indicate the percentage of time to be allocated to the project and identify the resources used to fund the remainder of the individual's salary.

    E. Categorical Budget and Budget Justification (5 points)

    (1) Provide a categorical budget for each of the 12-month budget periods requested.

    (2) If indirect costs are claimed, indicate and apply the current negotiated rate to the budget. Include a copy of the rate agreement in the Appendix.

    (3) Provide a narrative justification explaining why each categorical budget line item is necessary and relevant to the proposed project. Include sufficient cost and other details to facilitate the determination of cost allowability (i.e., equipment specifications, etc.).

    Multi-Year Project Requirements

    For projects requiring a second and/or third year, include only Year 2 and/or Year 3 narrative sections (objectives, evaluation components and work plan) that differ from those in Year 1. For every project year, include a full budget justification and a detailed, itemized categorical budget showing calculation methodologies for each item. The same weights and criteria which are used to evaluate a one-year project or the first year of a multi-year project will be applied when evaluating the second and third years of a multi-year application. A weak second and/or third year submission could negatively impact the overall score of an application and result in elimination of the proposed second and/or third years with a recommendation for only a one-year award.

    Additional Documents Can Be Uploaded as Appendix Items in Grants.gov

    • Work plan, logic model and/or time line for proposed objectives.

    • Position descriptions for key staff.

    • Resumes of key staff that reflect current duties.

    • Consultant or contractor proposed scope of work and letter of commitment (if applicable).

    • Current Indirect Cost Agreement.

    • Organizational chart.

    • Additional documents to support narrative (i.e., data tables, key news articles, etc.).

    2. Review and Selection

    Each application will be prescreened by the DGM staff for eligibility and completeness as outlined in the funding announcement. Applications that meet the eligibility criteria shall be reviewed for merit by the ORC based on evaluation criteria in this funding announcement. The ORC could be composed of both Tribal and Federal reviewers appointed by the IHS program to review and make recommendations on these applications. The technical review process ensures selection of quality projects in a national competition for limited funding. Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not be referred to the ORC. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Applicants will be notified by DGM, via email, to outline minor missing components (i.e., budget narratives, audit documentation, key contact form) needed for an otherwise complete application. All missing documents must be sent to DGM on or before the due date listed in the email of notification of missing documents required.

    To obtain a minimum score for funding by the ORC, applicants must address all program requirements and provide all required documentation.

    VI. Award Administration Information 1. Award Notices

    The Notice of Award (NoA) is a legally binding document signed by the Grants Management Officer and serves as the official notification of the grant award. The NoA will be initiated by the DGM in our grant system, GrantSolutions (https://www.grantsolutions.gov). Each entity that is approved for funding under this announcement will need to request or have a user account in GrantSolutions in order to retrieve their NoA. The NoA is the authorizing document for which funds are dispersed to the approved entities and reflects the amount of Federal funds awarded, the purpose of the grant, the terms and conditions of the award, the effective date of the award, and the budget/project period.

    Disapproved Applicants

    Applicants who received a score less than the recommended funding level for approval (60 points) and were deemed to be disapproved by the ORC, will receive an Executive Summary Statement from the ODSCT within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC outlining the strengths and weaknesses of their application submitted. The summary statement will be sent to the Authorized Organizational Representative that is identified on the face page (SF-424) of the application. The ODSCT will also provide additional contact information as needed to address questions and concerns as well as provide technical assistance if desired.

    Approved but Unfunded Applicants

    Approved but unfunded applicants that met the minimum scoring range and were deemed by the ORC to be “Approved,” but were not funded due to lack of funding, will have their applications held by DGM for a period of one year. If additional funding becomes available during the course of FY 2017 the approved but unfunded application may be re-considered by the awarding program office for possible funding. The applicant will also receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC.

    Note:

    Any correspondence other than the official NoA signed by an IHS grants management official announcing to the project director that an award has been made to their organization is not an authorization to implement their program on behalf of IHS.

    2. Administrative Requirements

    Grants are administered in accordance with the following regulations and policies:

    A. The criteria as outlined in this program announcement.

    B. Uniform Administrative Regulations for Grants:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, located at 45 CFR part 75.

    C. Grants Policy:

    • HHS Grants Policy Statement, Revised 01/07.

    D. Cost Principles:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Cost Principles,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart E.

    E. Audit Requirements:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Audit Requirements,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart F.

    3. Indirect Costs

    This section applies to all grant recipients that request reimbursement of indirect costs (IDC) in their grant application. In accordance with HHS Grants Policy Statement, Part II-27, IHS requires applicants to obtain a current IDC rate agreement prior to award. The rate agreement must be prepared in accordance with the applicable cost principles and guidance as provided by the cognizant agency or office. A current rate covers the applicable grant activities under the current award's budget period. If the current rate is not on file with the DGM at the time of award, the IDC portion of the budget will be restricted. The restrictions remain in place until the current rate is provided to the DGM.

    Generally, IDC rates for IHS grantees are negotiated with the Division of Cost Allocation (DCA) https://rates.psc.gov/ and the Department of Interior (Interior Business Center) https://www.doi.gov/ibc/services/finance/indirect-Cost-Services/indian-tribes. For questions regarding the indirect cost policy, please call the Grants Management Specialist listed under “Agency Contacts” or the main DGM office at (301) 443-5204.

    4. Reporting Requirements

    The grantee must submit required reports consistent with the applicable deadlines. Failure to submit required reports within the time allowed may result in suspension or termination of an active grant, withholding of additional awards for the project, or other enforcement actions such as withholding of payments or converting to the reimbursement method of payment. Continued failure to submit required reports may result in one or both of the following: (1) The imposition of special award provisions; and (2) the non-funding or non-award of other eligible projects or activities. This requirement applies whether the delinquency is attributable to the failure of the grantee organization or the individual responsible for preparation of the reports. Per DGM policy, all reports are required to be submitted electronically by attaching them as a “Grant Note” in GrantSolutions. Personnel responsible for submitting reports will be required to obtain a login and password for GrantSolutions. Please see the Agency Contacts list in section VII for the systems contact information.

    The reporting requirements for this program are noted below.

    A. Progress Reports

    Program progress reports are required semi-annually within 30 days after the budget period ends. These reports must include a brief comparison of actual accomplishments to the goals established for the period, or, if applicable, provide sound justification for the lack of progress, and other pertinent information as required. A final report must be submitted within 90 days of expiration of the budget/project period.

    B. Financial Reports

    Federal Financial Report FFR (SF-425), Cash Transaction Reports are due 30 days after the close of every calendar quarter to the Payment Management Services, HHS at https://pms.psc.gov. It is recommended that the applicant also send a copy of the FFR (SF-425) report to the Grants Management Specialist. Failure to submit timely reports may cause a disruption in timely payments to the organization.

    Grantees are responsible and accountable for accurate information being reported on all required reports: The Progress Reports and Federal Financial Report.

    C. Federal Sub-award Reporting System (FSRS)

    This award may be subject to the Transparency Act sub-award and executive compensation reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170.

    The Transparency Act requires the OMB to establish a single searchable database, accessible to the public, with information on financial assistance awards made by Federal agencies. The Transparency Act also includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards.

    IHS has implemented a Term of Award into all IHS Standard Terms and Conditions, NoAs and funding announcements regarding the FSRS reporting requirement. This IHS Term of Award is applicable to all IHS grant and cooperative agreements issued on or after October 1, 2010, with a $25,000 sub-award obligation dollar threshold met for any specific reporting period. Additionally, all new (discretionary) IHS awards (where the project period is made up of more than one budget period) and where: (1) The project period start date was October 1, 2010 or after and (2) the primary awardee will have a $25,000 sub-award obligation dollar threshold during any specific reporting period will be required to address the FSRS reporting.

    For the full IHS award term implementing this requirement and additional award applicability information, visit the DGM Grants Policy Web site at: https://www.ihs.gov/dgm/policytopics/.

    D. Compliance With Executive Order 13166 Implementation of Services Accessibility Provisions for All Grant Application Packages and Funding Opportunity Announcements

    Recipients of Federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with Federal civil rights law. This means that recipients of HHS funds must ensure equal access to their programs without regard to a person's race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, sex and religion. This includes ensuring your programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. HHS provides guidance to recipients of FFA on meeting their legal obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs by persons with limited English proficiency. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/limited-english-proficiency/guidance-federal-financial-assistance-recipients-title-VI/.

    The HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/section-1557/index.html; and http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/index.html. Recipients of FFA also have specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/disability/index.html. Please contact the HHS OCR for more information about obligations and prohibitions under Federal civil rights laws at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/about-us/contact-us/headquarters-and-regional-addresses/index.html or call 1-800-368-1019 or TDD 1-800-537-7697. Also note it is an HHS Departmental goal to ensure access to quality, culturally competent care, including long-term services and supports, for vulnerable populations. For further guidance on providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services, recipients should review the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and Health Care at http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=2&lvlid=53.

    Pursuant to 45 CFR 80.3(d), an individual shall not be deemed subjected to discrimination by reason of his/her exclusion from benefits limited by federal law to individuals eligible for benefits and services from the IHS.

    Recipients will be required to sign the HHS-690 Assurance of Compliance form which can be obtained from the following Web site: http://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/forms/hhs-690.pdf, and send it directly to the: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Civil Rights, 200 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20201.

    E. Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)

    The IHS is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) before making any award in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000) over the period of performance. An applicant may review and comment on any information about itself that a federal awarding agency previously entered. IHS will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR 75.205.

    As required by 45 CFR part 75 Appendix XII of the Uniform Guidance, non-federal entities (NFEs) are required to disclose in FAPIIS any information about criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings, and/or affirm that there is no new information to provide. This applies to NFEs that receive Federal awards (currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts) greater than $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of an award/project.

    Mandatory Disclosure Requirements

    As required by 2 CFR part 200 of the Uniform Guidance, and the HHS implementing regulations at 45 CFR part 75, effective January 1, 2016, the IHS must require a non-federal entity or an applicant for a Federal award to disclose, in a timely manner, in writing to the IHS or pass-through entity all violations of Federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery,or gratutity violations potentially affecting the Federal award.

    Submission is required for all applicants and recipients, in writing, to the IHS and to the HHS Office of Inspector General all information related to violations of Federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the Federal award. 45 CFR 75.113.

    Disclosures must be sent in writing to: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service, Division of Grants Management, ATTN: Robert Tarwater, Director, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mailstop 09E70, Rockville, Maryland 20857.

    (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line)

    Office: (301) 443-5204.

    Fax: (301) 594-0899.

    Email: [email protected]

    AND

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, ATTN: Mandatory Grant Disclosures, Intake Coordinator, 330 Independence Avenue SW., Cohen Building, Room 5527, Washington, DC 20201.

    URL: http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/reportfraud/index.asp.

    (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line).

    Fax: (202) 205-0604 (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line) or

    Email: [email protected]

    Failure to make required disclosures can result in any of the remedies described in 45 CFR 75.371 Remedies for noncompliance, including suspension or debarment (See 2 CFR parts 180 & 376 and 31 U.S.C. 3321).

    VII. Agency Contacts

    1. Questions on the programmatic issues may be directed to: Roselyn Tso, Acting Director, Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 08E17, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: (301) 443-1104, Email: [email protected].

    2. Questions on grants management and fiscal matters may be directed to:

    Ms. Vanietta Armstrong, Grants Management Specialist, Indian Health Service, OMS/DGM, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: (301) 443-4792, Fax: (301) 594-0899, Email: [email protected].

    3. Questions on systems matters may be directed to: Mr. Paul Gettys, Grant Systems Coordinator, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-2114; or the DGM main line (301) 443-5204, Fax: (301) 594-0899, E-Mail: [email protected].

    VIII. Other Information

    The Public Health Service strongly encourages all cooperative agreement and contract recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of the facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the HHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.

    Dated: April 24, 2017.

    RADM Chris Buchanan, R.E.H.S., M.P.H.

    Assistant Surgeon General, USPHS Acting Director

    Indian Health Service VIII. Other Information

    The PHS strongly encourages all cooperative agreement and contract recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of the facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the HHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.

    Dated: April 24, 2017. Elizabeth A. Fowler, Deputy Director for Management Operations, Indian Health Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08775 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; IMAT R21 Review.

    Date: May 17, 2017.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W114, Rockville, MD 20850 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Jeffrey E. DeClue, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Research Technology and Contract Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W114, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6371, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; IMAT R33 Review.

    Date: May 18, 2017.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W114, Rockville, MD 20850 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Jeffrey E. DeClue, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Research Technology and Contract Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W114, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6371, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NCI Clinical and Translational R21 & Omnibus R03: SEP-2.

    Date: June 5, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Westin Arlington Gateway Hotel, 801 N. Glebe Road, Arlington, VA 22203.

    Contact Person: Robert S. Coyne, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Special Review Branch Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W236, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-5120, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NCI Program Project I (P01).

    Date: June 7-8, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda Marriott Suites, 6711 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20817.

    Contact Person: Sanita Bharti, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Research Program Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W618, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-5909, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NCI Clinical and Translational R21 & Omnibus R03: SEP 6.

    Date: June 13-14, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Gaithersburg Marriott Washingtonian Center, 9751 Washingtonian Boulevard, Gaithersburg, MD 20878.

    Contact Person: Hasan Siddiqui, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Special Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W240, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-5122, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute, Initial Review Group; Subcommittee F—Institutional Training and Education.

    Date: June 13, 2017.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W606, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Timothy C. Meeker, MD, Scientific Review Officer, Resources and Training Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W606, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6464, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Youth Enjoy Science (YES).

    Date: June 21, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W530, Rockville, MD 20850 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Shamala K. Srinivas, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Referral, Review, and Program Coordination, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W530, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6430, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Canine Immunotherapy Trials RFA CA-17-001 (U01) & RFA CA-17-002 (U24).

    Date: June 22, 2017.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 1E030, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Caterina Bianco, MD, Ph.D., Acting Chief, Resources and Training Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W110, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6459, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NCI R01 Meeting Teleconference.

    Date: June 22, 2017.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W618, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Sanita Bharti, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Research Program Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W618, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-5909, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; PDAC U01 Review.

    Date: June 26, 2017.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W126, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Caron A. Lyman, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Research Program Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W126, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6348, [email protected]mail.nih.gov.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NCI R03 & Clinical and Translational R21: SEP-7.

    Date: June 28-29, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel and Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Beyeong-Chul Lee, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Resources and Training Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W238, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-7755, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; CIMAC and CIDC U24 Review.

    Date: July 13, 2017.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W030, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Majed Hamawy, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Resources and Training Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W120, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6457, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 25, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08704 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Generic Clearance for Surveys of Customers and Partners of the Office of Extramural Research of the National Institutes of Health AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on February 16, 2017, and allowed 60-days for public comment. No public comments were received. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30-days of the date of this application.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs, [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-6974, Attention: NIH Desk Officer.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments or contact: Dr. Paula Y. Goodwin, Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Extramural Programs, OER, NIH, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 350, Bethesda, MD 20892, or call non-toll-free number (301) 496-9232 or Email your request, including your address to: [email protected] Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested in writing.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of Extramural Programs (OEP), Office of Extramural Research (OER), National Institutes of Health (NIH), may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the NIH has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.

    Proposed collection: Generic Clearance for Surveys of Customers and Partners of the Office of Extramural Research of the National Institutes of Health—0925-0627—Reinstatement without change—Office of the Director (OD), Office of Extramural Research (OER), Office of Extramural Programs (OEP), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: OER develops, coordinates the implementation of, and evaluates NIH-wide policies and procedures for the award of extramural funds. To move forward with our initiatives to ensure success in accomplishing the NIH mission, input from partners and customers is essential. Quality management principles have been integrated into OER's culture and these surveys will provide customer satisfaction input on various elements of OER's business processes. The approximately 14 (10 quantitative and 4 qualitative) customer satisfaction surveys that will be conducted under this generic clearance will gather and measure customer and partner satisfaction with OER processes and operations. The data collected from these surveys will provide the feedback to track and gauge satisfaction with NIH's statutorily mandated operations and processes. OER/OD/NIH will present data and outcomes from these surveys to inform the NIH staff, officers, leadership, advisory committees, and other decision-making bodies as appropriate. Based on feedback from these stakeholders, OER/OD/NIH will formulate improvement plans and take action when necessary.

    OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 1911.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of response Average time per response
  • (in hours)
  • Annual hours of burden per survey
    Quantitative survey Science professionals—applicants, reviewers, Institutional Officials 1500 1 20/60 500 Adult science trainees 1000 1 20/60 333 General public 2500 1 20/60 833 Totals 5,000 5000 1,666 Qualitative survey Science professionals—applicants, reviewers, Institutional Officials 200 1 1 200 Adult science trainees 25 1 1 25 General public 20 1 1 20 Totals 245 245 245
    Dated: April 26, 2017. Lawrence A. Tabak, Deputy Director, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08773 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Establishment of the Interdepartmental Serious Mental Illness Coordinating Committee (ISMICC) AGENCY:

    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Establishment of the Interdepartmental Serious Mental Illness Coordinating Committee (ISMICC).

    SUMMARY:

    The Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), in accordance with section 6031 of the 21st Century Cures Act, announces the establishment of the Interdepartmental Serious Mental Illness Coordinating Committee (ISMICC). The Secretary designated the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use as Chair of the ISMICC. This ISMICC will consist of federal members listed below or their designees and non-federal public members.

    DATES:

    Established March 15, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Foote, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 14E53C, Rockville, MD 20857; telephone: 240-276-1279; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background and Authority

    The ISMICC is established in accordance with section 6031 of the 21st Century Cures Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., as amended, to report to the Secretary, Congress, and any other relevant federal department or agency on advances in serious mental illness (SMI) and serious emotional disturbance (SED), research related to the prevention of, diagnosis of, intervention in, and treatment and recovery of SMIs, SEDs, and advances in access to services and support for adults with SMI or children with SED. The Secretary designated the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use as Chair of the ISMICC. In addition, the ISMICC will evaluate the effect federal programs related to serious mental illness have on public health, including public health outcomes such as (A) rates of suicide, suicide attempts, incidence and prevalence of SMIs, SEDs, and substance use disorders, overdose, overdose deaths, emergency hospitalizations, emergency room boarding, preventable emergency room visits, interaction with the criminal justice system, homelessness, and unemployment; (B) increased rates of employment and enrollment in educational and vocational programs; (C) quality of mental and substance use disorders treatment services; or (D) any other criteria as may be determined by the Secretary. Finally, the ISMICC will make specific recommendations for actions that agencies can take to better coordinate the administration of mental health services for adults with SMI or children with SED. Not later than 1(one) year after the date of enactment of the 21st Century Cures Act, and 5 (five) years after such date of enactment, the ISMICC shall submit a report to Congress and any other relevant federal department or agency.

    II. Structure, Membership, and Operation

    This ISMICC will consist of federal members listed below or their designees and non-federal public members.

    Federal Membership: The ISMICC will be composed of the following federal members or their designees:

    • The Secretary;

    • The Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use;

    • The Attorney General;

    • The Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs;

    • The Secretary of the Department of Defense;

    • The Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development;

    • The Secretary of the Department of Education;

    • The Secretary of the Department of Labor;

    • The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; and

    • The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.

    Non-federal Membership: The ISMICC shall also include not less than 14 non-federal public members appointed by the Secretary of which:

    • At least two individuals who have received treatment for a diagnosis of a SMI;

    • A parent or legal guardian of an adult with a history of SMI or a child with a history of SED;

    • A representative of a leading research, advocacy, or service organization for adults with SMI;

    • At least two members who are one of the following:

    ○ A licensed psychiatrist with experience treating SMI;

    ○ A licensed psychologist with experience in treating SMI or SED;

    ○ A licensed clinical social worker with experience treating SMIs or SEDs; or

    ○ A licensed psychiatric nurse, nurse practitioner, or physician's assistant with experience in treating SMIs or SEDs.

    • A licensed mental health professional with a specialty in treating children and adolescents with a SED;

    • A mental health professional who has research or clinical mental health experience in working with minorities;

    • A mental health professional who has research or clinical mental health experience in working with medically underserved populations;

    • A state certified mental health peer support specialist;

    • A judge with experience in adjudicating cases related to criminal justice or SMI;

    • A law enforcement officer or corrections officer with extensive experience in interfacing with adults with a SMI, children with SED, or individuals in a mental health crisis; and

    • An individual with experience providing services for homeless individuals and working with adults with SMI, children with a SED, or individuals in a mental health crisis.

    The term of office of a non-federal member of the ISMICC shall be for three years, subject to reappointment to serve for one or more additional three year terms. If a vacancy occurs in the ISMICC among the members, the Secretary shall make an appointment to fill such vacancy within 90 days from the date the vacancy occurs. Any member appointed to fill a vacancy for an unexpired term shall be appointed for the remainder of such term. A member may serve after the expiration of the member's term until a successor has been appointed. Initial appointments shall be made in such a manner as to ensure that the terms of the members not all expire in the same year. The ISMICC is required to meet twice per year. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration shall provide orientation and training for new members of the ISMICC for their effective participation in the functions of the ISMICC.

    A separate Federal Register Notice will be posted to solicit nominations for the non-federal members of the ISMICC.

    Dated: April 13, 2017. Carlos Castillo, Committee Management Officer, SAMHSA.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08703 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Current List of HHS-Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities Which Meet Minimum Standards To Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies AGENCY:

    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notifies federal agencies of the laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines).

    A notice listing all currently HHS-certified laboratories and IITFs is published in the Federal Register during the first week of each month. If any laboratory or IITF certification is suspended or revoked, the laboratory or IITF will be omitted from subsequent lists until such time as it is restored to full certification under the Mandatory Guidelines.

    If any laboratory or IITF has withdrawn from the HHS National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP) during the past month, it will be listed at the end and will be omitted from the monthly listing thereafter.

    This notice is also available on the Internet at http://www.samhsa.gov/workplace.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Giselle Hersh, Division of Workplace Programs, SAMHSA/CSAP, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 16N03A, Rockville, Maryland 20857; 240-276-2600 (voice).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notifies federal agencies of the laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines). The Mandatory Guidelines were first published in the Federal Register on April 11, 1988 (53 FR 11970), and subsequently revised in the Federal Register on June 9, 1994 (59 FR 29908); September 30, 1997 (62 FR 51118); April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19644); November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71858); December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75122); and on April 30, 2010 (75 FR 22809).

    The Mandatory Guidelines were initially developed in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and section 503 of Public Law 100-71. The “Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs,” as amended in the revisions listed above, requires strict standards that laboratories and IITFs must meet in order to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens for federal agencies.

    To become certified, an applicant laboratory or IITF must undergo three rounds of performance testing plus an on-site inspection. To maintain that certification, a laboratory or IITF must participate in a quarterly performance testing program plus undergo periodic, on-site inspections.

    Laboratories and IITFs in the applicant stage of certification are not to be considered as meeting the minimum requirements described in the HHS Mandatory Guidelines. A HHS-certified laboratory or IITF must have its letter of certification from HHS/SAMHSA (formerly: HHS/NIDA), which attests that it has met minimum standards.

    In accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines dated November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71858), the following HHS-certified laboratories and IITFs meet the minimum standards to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens:

    HHS-Certified Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities Dynacare, 6628 50th Street NW., Edmonton, AB Canada T6B 2N7, 780-784-1190, (Formerly: Gamma-Dynacare Medical Laboratories). HHS-Certified Laboratories ACM Medical Laboratory, Inc., 160 Elmgrove Park, Rochester, NY 14624, 844-486-9226. Aegis Analytical Laboratories, Inc., 345 Hill Ave., Nashville, TN 37210, 615-255-2400, (Formerly: Aegis Sciences Corporation, Aegis Analytical Laboratories, Inc., Aegis Analytical Laboratories). Alere Toxicology Services, 1111 Newton St., Gretna, LA 70053, 504-361-8989/800-433-3823, (Formerly: Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc., Laboratory Specialists, Inc.). Alere Toxicology Services, 450 Southlake Blvd., Richmond, VA 23236, 804-378-9130, (Formerly: Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc., Scientific Testing Laboratories, Inc.; Kroll Scientific Testing Laboratories, Inc.). Baptist Medical Center-Toxicology Laboratory, 11401 I-30, Little Rock, AR 72209-7056, 501-202-2783, (Formerly: Forensic Toxicology Laboratory Baptist Medical Center). Clinical Reference Laboratory, Inc., 8433 Quivira Road, Lenexa, KS 66215-2802, 800-445-6917. DrugScan, Inc., 200 Precision Road, Suite 200, Horsham, PA 19044, 800-235-4890. Dynacare*, 245 Pall Mall Street, London, ONT, Canada N6A 1P4, 519-679-1630, (Formerly: Gamma-Dynacare Medical Laboratories). ElSohly Laboratories, Inc., 5 Industrial Park Drive, Oxford, MS 38655, 662-236-2609. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 7207 N. Gessner Road, Houston, TX 77040, 713-856-8288/800-800-2387. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 69 First Ave., Raritan, NJ 08869, 908-526-2400/800-437-4986, (Formerly: Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc.). Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 1904 Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 919-572-6900/800-833-3984, (Formerly: LabCorp Occupational Testing Services, Inc., CompuChem Laboratories, Inc.; CompuChem Laboratories, Inc., A Subsidiary of Roche Biomedical Laboratory; Roche CompuChem Laboratories, Inc., A Member of the Roche Group). Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 1120 Main Street, Southaven, MS 38671, 866-827-8042/800-233-6339, (Formerly: LabCorp Occupational Testing Services, Inc.; MedExpress/National Laboratory Center). LabOne, Inc. d/b/a Quest Diagnostics, 10101 Renner Blvd., Lenexa, KS 66219, 913-888-3927/800-873-8845, (Formerly: Quest Diagnostics Incorporated; LabOne, Inc.; Center for Laboratory Services, a Division of LabOne, Inc.). MedTox Laboratories, Inc., 402 W. County Road D, St. Paul, MN 55112, 651-636-7466/800-832-3244. MetroLab-Legacy Laboratory Services, 1225 NE 2nd Ave., Portland, OR 97232, 503-413-5295/800-950-5295. Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Forensic Toxicology Laboratory, 1 Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55417, 612-725-2088, Testing for Veterans Affairs (VA) Employees Only. National Toxicology Laboratories, Inc., 1100 California Ave., Bakersfield, CA 93304, 661-322-4250/800-350-3515. One Source Toxicology Laboratory, Inc., 1213 Genoa-Red Bluff, Pasadena, TX 77504, 888-747-3774, (Formerly: University of Texas Medical Branch, Clinical Chemistry Division; UTMB Pathology-Toxicology Laboratory). Pacific Toxicology Laboratories, 9348 DeSoto Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, 800-328-6942, (Formerly: Centinela Hospital Airport Toxicology Laboratory). Pathology Associates Medical Laboratories, 110 West Cliff Dr., Spokane, WA 99204, 509-755-8991/800-541-7891x7. Phamatech, Inc., 15175 Innovation Drive, San Diego, CA 92128, 888-635-5840. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 1777 Montreal Circle, Tucker, GA 30084, 800-729-6432, (Formerly: SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories; SmithKline Bio-Science Laboratories). Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 400 Egypt Road, Norristown, PA 19403, 610-631-4600/877-642-2216, (Formerly: SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories; SmithKline Bio-Science Laboratories). Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 8401 Fallbrook Ave., West Hills, CA 91304, 818-737-6370, (Formerly: SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories). Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, 3700 Westwind Blvd., Santa Rosa, CA 95403, 800-255-2159. STERLING Reference Laboratories, 2617 East L Street, Tacoma, Washington 98421, 800-442-0438. US Army Forensic Toxicology Drug Testing Laboratory, 2490 Wilson St., Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-5235, 301-677-7085, Testing for Department of Defense (DoD) Employees Only.

    *The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) voted to end its Laboratory Accreditation Program for Substance Abuse (LAPSA) effective May 12, 1998. Laboratories certified through that program were accredited to conduct forensic urine drug testing as required by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. As of that date, the certification of those accredited Canadian laboratories will continue under DOT authority. The responsibility for conducting quarterly performance testing plus periodic on-site inspections of those LAPSA-accredited laboratories was transferred to the U.S. HHS, with the HHS' NLCP contractor continuing to have an active role in the performance testing and laboratory inspection processes. Other Canadian laboratories wishing to be considered for the NLCP may apply directly to the NLCP contractor just as U.S. laboratories do.

    Upon finding a Canadian laboratory to be qualified, HHS will recommend that DOT certify the laboratory (Federal Register, July 16, 1996) as meeting the minimum standards of the Mandatory Guidelines published in the Federal Register on November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71858). After receiving DOT certification, the laboratory will be included in the monthly list of HHS-certified laboratories and participate in the NLCP certification maintenance program.

    Charles LoDico, Chemist.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08712 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2017-0316] Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee teleconference meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee will meet via teleconference, to complete the discussions from its March 22-23, 2017, meetings on various issues related to the training and fitness of merchant marine personnel. The teleconference will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The full Committee is scheduled to meet by teleconference on Tuesday, May 16, 2017, from 11 a.m. until 2 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Please note that this teleconference may adjourn early if the Committee has completed its business.

    ADDRESSES:

    To join the teleconference, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to obtain the needed information no later than 5 p.m. on May 10, 2017. The number of teleconference lines is limited and will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. To physically join those participating from U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, it will be hosted in Room 6K15-15, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr Ave SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509 (https://www.uscg.mil/baseNCR/pages/visitor_trans.asp).

    Pre-registration Information: Foreign nationals participating physically at the U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters will be required to pre-register no later than 5 p.m. on April 28, 2017, to be admitted to the meeting. U.S. citizen participating physically at the U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters will be required to pre-register no later than 5 p.m. on May 10, 2017, to be admitted to the meeting. To pre-register, contact Lieutenant Junior Grade James Fortin at 202-372-1128 or [email protected] with MERPAC in the subject line and provide your name, company, and telephone number; if a foreign national, also provide your country of citizenship, and passport number and expiration date. All attendees will be required to provide a government-issued picture identification card in order to gain admittance to the building.

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the Alternate Designated Federal Officer as soon as possible using the contact information provided in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

    Instructions: You are free to submit comments at any time, including orally at the teleconference, but if you want committee members to review your comment before the teleconference, please submit your comments no later than May 10, 2017. We are particularly interested in comments on the issues in the “Agenda” section below. You must include “Department of Homeland Security” and docket number USCG-2017-0316. Written comments may also be submitted using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If you encounter technical difficulties with comment submission, contact the individual in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You may review the Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Docket Search: For access to the docket to read documents or comments related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0316 in the Search box, press Enter, and then click on the item you wish to view.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lieutenant Junior Grade James Fortin, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, telephone 202-372-1128, fax 202-372-8385 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 United States Code Appendix.

    The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee was established under authority of section 310 of the Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014, codified at Title 46, United States Code, section 8108, and chartered under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix). The Committee acts solely in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security through the Commandant of the Coast Guard on matters relating to personnel in the United States merchant marine, including training, qualifications, certification, documentation, and fitness standards and other matters as assigned by the Commandant. The Committee shall also review and comment on proposed Coast Guard regulations and policies relating to personnel in the United States merchant marine, including training, qualifications, certification, documentation, and fitness standards; may be given special assignments by the Secretary and may conduct studies, inquiries, workshops, and fact finding in consultation with individuals and groups in the private sector and with State or local governments; and shall advise, consult with, and make recommendations reflecting its independent judgment to the Secretary.

    Agenda

    The agenda for the May 16, 2017, full Committee teleconference meeting is as follows:

    (1) Introduction.

    (2) Designated Federal Officer announcements.

    (3) Roll call of Committee members and determination of a quorum.

    (4) New Business.

    (a) New task statement, Military Education, Training and Assessment for STCW and National Mariner Endorsements;

    (b) New task statement, Review and comment on the “Guidelines for Issuing Endorsements for Tankerman PIC Restricted to Fuel Transfers on Towing Vessels” policy letter (CG-MMC Policy Letter No. 01-17);

    (c) New task statement, Provide input to MARAD's working group that will examine and assess the size of the pool of U.S. mariners necessary to support the U.S. flag fleet in times of national emergency; and

    (d) New task statement, Communication between External Stakeholders and the Mariner Credentialing Program.

    (e) New task statement, Fundamental requirement for Officers to read and write in English.

    (5) Report summaries and recommendations from the following working groups:

    (a) Task Statement 87, Review of policy documents providing guidance on the implementation of the December 24, 2013 International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers rulemaking;

    (b) Task Statement 95, Recommendations Regarding Training Requirements for Officer Endorsements for Master or Mate (Pilot) of Towing Vessels, except Assistance Towing and Apprentice Mate (Steersman) of Towing Vessels, in Inland Service;

    (c) Task Statement 96, Review and comment on the course and program approval requirements including 46 CFR 10.402, 10.403, 10.407 and NVIC 03-14 guidelines for approval of training courses and programs;

    (d) Task Statement 97, Develop and recommend the specifications for a Designated Examiner, Qualified Assessor and Designated Medical Examiner online verification tool so that the public, mariners and shipping companies can verify the Designated Examiner, Qualified Assessor and Designated Medical Examiners for Coast Guard approval of individuals to perform the functions of those positions;

    (e) New task statement, Military Education, Training and Assessment for STCW and National Mariner Endorsements;

    (f) New task statement, Review and comment on the “Guidelines for Issuing Endorsements for Tankerman PIC Restricted to Fuel Transfers on Towing Vessels” policy letter (CG-MMC Policy Letter No. 01-17);

    (g) New task statement, Provide input to MARAD's working group that will examine and assess the size of the pool of U.S. mariners necessary to support the U.S. flag fleet in times of national emergency; and

    (h) New task statement, Communication between External Stakeholders and the Mariner Credentialing Program.

    (6) Public comment period.

    (7) Discussion of working group recommendations. The Committee will review the information presented on each issue, deliberate on any recommendations presented by the working groups, and approve/formulate recommendations. The Committee will also close any completed tasks. Official action on these recommendations may be taken on this date.

    (8) Closing remarks.

    (9) Adjournment of meeting.

    A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at https://homeport.uscg.mil/merpac no later than May 10, 2017. Alternatively, you may contact Lieutenant Junior Grade James Fortin as noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    Public comments will be limited to three minutes per speaker. Please note that the public comment periods will end following the last call for comments. Please contact Lieutenant Junior Grade James Fortin, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, to register as a speaker. Please note that the teleconference may adjourn early if the work is completed.

    Dated: April 26, 2017. J.G. Lantz, Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08755 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Customs and Border Protection [1651-0003] Agency Information Collection Activities: Transportation Entry and Manifest of Goods Subject to CBP Inspection and Permit AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted (no later than May 31, 2017 to be assured of consideration).

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected] or faxed to (202) 395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to the CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email [email protected] Please note that the contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. Individuals seeking information about other CBP programs should contact the CBP National Customer Service Center at 877-227-5511, (TTY) 1-800-877-8339, or CBP Web site at https://www.cbp.gov/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register (82 FR 10496) on February 13, 2017, allowing for a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the request for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    Title: Transportation Entry and Manifest of Goods Subject to CBP Inspection and Permit

    OMB Number: 1651-0003

    Form Numbers: CBP Forms 7512 and 7512A

    Type of Review: Extension (without change)

    Current Actions: This submission is being made to extend the expiration date with no change to the burden hours or to the information collected.

    Affected Public: Businesses

    Abstract: CBP Forms 7512 and 7512A are used by carriers and brokers to serve as the manifest and transportation entry for cargo moving under bond within the United States. The data on the form is used by CBP to identify the carrier who initiated the bonded movement and to document merchandise moving in-bond. These forms provide documentation that CBP uses for enforcement, targeting, and protection of revenue. Forms 7512 and 7512A collect information such as the names of the importer and consignee; a description of the merchandise moving in-bond; and the ports of lading and unlading. Various provisions in 19 CFR require the use of these forms including 19 CFR 10.60, 19 CFR 10.61 and 19 CFR part 18. The forms can be found at http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/toolbox/forms/.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 6,200.

    Estimated Number of Average Responses per Respondent: 871.

    Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 5,400,000.

    Estimated Time per Response: 10 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 896,400 hours.

    Dated: April 25, 2017. Seth Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08674 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Customs and Border Protection [1651-0036] Agency Information Collection Activities: Temporary Scientific or Educational Purposes AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted no later than May 31, 2017 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected] or faxed to (202) 395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to the CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email [email protected] Please note that the contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. Individuals seeking information about other CBP programs should contact the CBP National Customer Service Center at 877-227-5511, (TTY) 1-800-877-8339, or CBP Web site at https://www.cbp.gov/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register (82 FR 9751) on February 8, 2017, allowing for a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the request for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    Title: Declaration of the Ultimate Consignee that Articles were Exported for Temporary Scientific or Educational Purposes.

    OMB Number: 1651-0036.

    Form Number: None.

    Current Actions: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with no change to the burden hours or to the information collected.

    Type of Review: Extension (without change).

    Affected Public: Businesses.

    Abstract: The Declaration of the Ultimate Consignee that Articles were Exported for Temporary Scientific or Educational Purposes is used to document duty free entry under conditions when articles are temporarily exported solely for scientific or educational purposes. This declaration, which is completed by the ultimate consignee and submitted to CBP by the importer or the agent of the importer, is used to assist CBP personnel in determining whether the imported articles should be free of duty. It is provided for under 19 U.S.C. 1202, HTSUS Subheading 9801.00.40, and 19 CFR 10.67(a)(3) which requires a declaration to CBP stating that the articles were sent from the United States solely for temporary scientific or educational use and describing the specific use to which they were put while abroad.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 55.

    Estimated Number of Annual Responses per Respondent: 3.

    Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 165.

    Estimated Time per Response: 10 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 27.

    Dated: April 25, 2017. Seth Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08677 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [1651-0129] Agency Information Collection Activities: Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity Through Partnership Encouragement Act of 2006 AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted (no later than May 31, 2017) to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected] or faxed to (202) 395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to the CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email [email protected] Please note that the contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. Individuals seeking information about other CBP programs should contact the CBP National Customer Service Center at 877-227-5511, (TTY) 1-800-877-8339, or CBP Web site at https://www.cbp.gov/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register (82 FR 10495) on February 13, 2017, allowing for a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the request for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    Title: Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act of 2006 (“Haiti Hope Act”).

    OMB Number: 1651-0129.

    Current Actions: This submission is being made to extend the expiration date with no change to the burden hours. There is no change to the information being collected.

    Type of Review: Extension (without change).

    Affected Public: Businesses.

    Abstract: Title V of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 amended the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA 19 U.S.C. 2701-2707) and authorized the President to extend additional trade benefits to Haiti. This trade program, the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act of 2006 (“Haiti HOPE Act”), provides for duty-free treatment for certain apparel articles and certain wire harness automotive components from Haiti.

    Those wishing to claim duty-free treatment under this program must prepare a declaration of compliance which identifies and details the costs of the beneficiary components of production and non-beneficiary components of production to show that the 50% value content requirement was satisfied. The information collected under the Haiti Hope Act is provided for in 19 CFR 10.848.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 8.

    Estimated Number of Annual Responses per Respondent: 72.

    Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 576.

    Estimated Time per Response: 20 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 190.

    Dated: April 25, 2017. Seth Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08675 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [1651-0037] Agency Information Collection Activities: Entry of Articles for Exhibition AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-Day Notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted (no later than June 30, 2017) to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0037 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Email. Submit comments to: [email protected]

    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email [email protected] Please note that the contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. Individuals seeking information about other CBP programs should contact the CBP National Customer Service Center at 877-227-5511, (TTY) 1-800-877-8339, or CBP Web site at https://www.cbp.gov/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the request for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    Title: Entry of Articles for Exhibition.

    OMB Number: 1651-0037.

    Form Number: None.

    Current Actions: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with no change to the burden hours or to the information collected.

    Type of Review: Extension (without change).

    Affected Public: Businesses.

    Abstract: Goods entered for exhibit at fairs, or for constructing, installing, or maintaining foreign exhibits at a fair, may be free of duty under 19 U.S.C. 1752. In order to substantiate that goods qualify for duty-free treatment, the consignee of the merchandise must provide information to CBP about the imported goods, which is specified in 19 CFR 147.11(c).

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 50.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 50.

    Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 2,500.

    Estimated Time per Response: 20 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 832.

    Dated: April 25, 2017. Seth Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08678 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No.: FR-6017-N-01] Federal Housing Administration (FHA): Indefinite Deferral of Implementation of the Small Building Risk Sharing Initiative AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice advises the public that HUD is deferring implementation of the Small Building Risk Sharing Program authorized by Section 542(b) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, to facilitate the financing of small multifamily properties.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Donald Billingsley, Office of Multifamily Housing Programs, Office of Production, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6148, Washington, DC 20410; email address [email protected] and telephone number (202) 402-7125 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The “Small Building Risk Sharing Initiative Final Notice” (Final Notice) was published on July 16, 2015 at 80 FR 42105, following an initial notice published for public comment on November 4, 2013, at 78 FR 66043. The Final Notice announced implementation of an Initiative under the Risk Sharing Program, authorized by Section 542(b) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, to facilitate the financing of small multifamily properties.

    While applications were received pursuant to the Final Notice, HUD never implemented the program. In addition, it is not clear whether the program is still needed under current economic conditions. HUD therefore indefinitely defers the applicability of the Final Notice implementing the Small Buildings Risk Sharing Program (the “Initiative”) under Section 542(b) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 and will not accept additional applications at this time. HUD may in the future proceed with the program or a revised program; however, HUD would, at a minimum, have to determine the following before proceeding:

    (a) If the Initiative is still needed to provide debt financing to small, affordable properties, or whether the availability of long-term, low-cost permanent financing to support small properties has increased substantially since the Initiative was first proposed, specifically through new and expanded federally backed financing programs offered through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac;

    (b) The regulatory requirements and restrictions that would be imposed on property owners/borrowers participating in the Initiative regarding tenant rents and incomes, and whether these requirements would impose unfair and inappropriate economic burden on small property owners who provide affordable market rents but do not otherwise receive a government funded housing subsidy;

    (c) Whether existing Federal Housing Administration multifamily lending programs, including the newly expanded Tax Credit Pilot Program which supports new construction and substantial rehabilitation projects, adequately serve the debt financing needs of small properties that support affordable rental housing; and,

    (d) If the provisions of the Initiative as published adequately account for HUD's share of risk assumed for loans originated under the Initiative, or need to be modified in a revised Initiative notice.

    Dated: April 24, 2017. Genger Charles, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08721 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P