Federal Register Vol. 82, No.96,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 96 (May 19, 2017)

Page Range22879-23137
FR Document

82_FR_96
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 22895 - Medicare Program; Advancing Care Coordination Through Episode Payment Models (EPMs); Cardiac Rehabilitation Incentive Payment Model; and Changes to the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model (CJR); Delay of Effective DatePDF
82 FR 22972 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
82 FR 23003 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 22975 - Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities-Model Demonstration Projects To Improve Algebraic Reasoning for Students With Disabilities in Middle and High SchoolPDF
82 FR 22985 - Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities-National Center To Enhance Educational Systems To Promote the Use of Practices Supported by EvidencePDF
82 FR 23128 - Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or Modification of a Railroad Signal SystemPDF
82 FR 22888 - Air Quality Designations for the 2012 Primary Annual Fine Particle (PM2.5PDF
82 FR 22984 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Veterans Upward Bound (VUB) Program Annual Performance ReportPDF
82 FR 23070 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Whatever LLCPDF
82 FR 23071 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Mallinckrodt LLCPDF
82 FR 23067 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Eli-Elsohly LaboratoriesPDF
82 FR 23070 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: American Radiolabeled ChemicalsPDF
82 FR 23068 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: National Center for Natural Products Research NIDA MPROJECTPDF
82 FR 23067 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Patheon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.PDF
82 FR 22972 - Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 23072 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comments Requested National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)PDF
82 FR 22997 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 23069 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Galephar Pharmaceutical Research, Inc.PDF
82 FR 23069 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Johnson Matthey Pharmaceutical Materials, Inc.PDF
82 FR 22969 - United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board: Meeting of the United States Travel and Tourism Advisory BoardPDF
82 FR 23068 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Chemtos, LLCPDF
82 FR 23066 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Insys Manufacturing, LLCPDF
82 FR 23058 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Comprehensive Listing of Transactional Documents for Mortgagors, Mortgagees and Contractors; Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Healthcare Facility Documents: Proposed Revisions and Updates of Information CollectionPDF
82 FR 23062 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Mortgagee's Application for Partial SettlementPDF
82 FR 23007 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 23008 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 23005 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 23062 - 10-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Certificate of Housing Counseling: Homeownership and Certificate of Housing Counseling: Home RetentionPDF
82 FR 23058 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: HUD-Owned Real Estate-Good Neighbor Next Door ProgramPDF
82 FR 23061 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Technical Suitability of Products Program Section 521 of the National Housing ActPDF
82 FR 23060 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Record of Employee InterviewPDF
82 FR 23075 - Privacy Act of 1974 System of Records NoticePDF
82 FR 22884 - Authentication of Electronic Signatures on Electronically Filed Statements of AccountPDF
82 FR 22886 - Disruption of Copyright Office Electronic SystemsPDF
82 FR 23004 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Application From the Joint Commission for Continued CMS-Approval of Its Critical Access Hospital Accreditation ProgramPDF
82 FR 23126 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Tarsila do Amaral: Inventing Modernism in Brazil” ExhibitionPDF
82 FR 23126 - Notice; Call for Expert ReviewersPDF
82 FR 22882 - Safety Zone; Sabine River, Orange, TexasPDF
82 FR 22934 - Special Local Regulation; Commencement Bay, Tacoma, WAPDF
82 FR 22971 - Procurement List; Addition and DeletionPDF
82 FR 22972 - Procurement List; Proposed DeletionsPDF
82 FR 23010 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 23073 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air ActPDF
82 FR 23000 - Open Commission Meeting, Thursday, May 18 2017PDF
82 FR 23133 - Heritage Bank of St. Tammany, Covington, Louisiana; Approval of Conversion ApplicationPDF
82 FR 23010 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request: Application Process for Clinical Research Training and Medical Education at the NIH Clinical Center and Its Impact on Course and Training Program Enrollment and Effectiveness (Clinical Center)PDF
82 FR 23126 - Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
82 FR 22970 - Welded ASTM A-312 Stainless Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2014-2015PDF
82 FR 23132 - Request for Comments on the Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service DeliveryPDF
82 FR 23131 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel TEMPLAR; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
82 FR 23132 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel SEAS LIFE; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
82 FR 23127 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property at the Abilene Regional Airport, Abilene, TexasPDF
82 FR 23127 - Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Disposal of 9.63 Acres of Airport Land at Laconia Municipal Airport in Gilford, NHPDF
82 FR 23002 - Update to Notice of Financial Institutions for Which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Has Been Appointed Either Receiver, Liquidator, or ManagerPDF
82 FR 23051 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 23036 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 22973 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Application Forms and Instructions for the National Resource Centers (NRC) Program and the Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) Fellowship ProgramPDF
82 FR 22985 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Application for Grants Under the Predominantly Black Institutions Formula Grant ProgramPDF
82 FR 22974 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Financial Status and Program Performance Final Report for State and Partnership for the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP)PDF
82 FR 23018 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 23028 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 23024 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 23033 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 23026 - Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations for Sierra County, California and Incorporated AreasPDF
82 FR 23038 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 23031 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 23042 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 23047 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 23019 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 23045 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 23048 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 23034 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 23032 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 23125 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: NEA/AC Performance Reporting System (ACPRS)PDF
82 FR 23130 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
82 FR 23129 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
82 FR 23046 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 23026 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 23055 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 23032 - Resighini Rancheria; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 23023 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Community Preparedness and Participation SurveyPDF
82 FR 23050 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 22899 - Suspension of Community EligibilityPDF
82 FR 23134 - Survey of Foreign Ownership of U.S. Securities as of June 30, 2017PDF
82 FR 23135 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (GLAHS), West Los Angeles Medical Center Campus, Proposed Master Plan for Improvements and ReconfigurationPDF
82 FR 23014 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for LicensingPDF
82 FR 23014 - Prospective Grant of an Exclusive Patent License: Manufacturing and Testing of PVSRIPO in the Treatment of Solid, Non-lymphoid Tumors Expressing Poliovirus Receptor CD155PDF
82 FR 23013 - Prospective Grant of Exclusive Patent License: The Development of Monospecific and Bispecific Antibodies to GPC3 for the Treatment of Human Liver CancersPDF
82 FR 23012 - Prospective Grant of Exclusive Patent License: Chimeric L1/L2 Protein and Virus-Like Particles Based Human Papillomavirus VaccinesPDF
82 FR 23125 - Nevada Disaster Number NV-00048PDF
82 FR 23066 - Meeting of the Judicial Conference; Committee on Rules of Practice and ProcedurePDF
82 FR 23009 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 22893 - 340B Drug Pricing Program Ceiling Price and Manufacturer Civil Monetary Penalties RegulationPDF
82 FR 22880 - Safety Zone; Space Coast Super Boat Grand Prix; Atlantic Ocean, Cocoa Beach, FLPDF
82 FR 23003 - Information Collection; Ombudsman Inquiry/Request InstrumentPDF
82 FR 23074 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection; eComments Requested; Number of Full-Time Law Enforcement Employees as of October 31PDF
82 FR 23064 - Certain Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest and BondingPDF
82 FR 23063 - Furfuryl Alcohol From China; Scheduling of an Expedited Five-Year ReviewPDF
82 FR 23064 - Carton Closing Staples From ChinaPDF
82 FR 22953 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 22918 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 22913 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., AirplanesPDF
82 FR 23123 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Listing Standard for Special Purpose Acquisition Companies To Change Shareholder Vote Requirement for the Approval of a Business CombinationPDF
82 FR 23083 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee SchedulePDF
82 FR 23100 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee SchedulePDF
82 FR 23080 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission or Advance Notice Relating to Amendments to the ICE Clear Europe Limited Articles of AssociationPDF
82 FR 23078 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Anonymous Trade Reporting and ClearingPDF
82 FR 23121 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Concerning the Options Clearing Corporation's Management StructurePDF
82 FR 23118 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees SchedulePDF
82 FR 22995 - Revisions to Oil Pipeline Regulations Pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 1992; Notice of Annual Change in the Producer Price Index for Finished GoodsPDF
82 FR 22995 - Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed 2017 Expansion ProjectPDF
82 FR 22996 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 22996 - Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC; Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Revised Schedule for Environmental Review of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header ProjectPDF
82 FR 22994 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
82 FR 23133 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8945PDF
82 FR 23077 - New Postal ProductsPDF
82 FR 23133 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy PanelPDF
82 FR 23078 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 23078 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 22969 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Minnesota Advisory Committee To Review and Discuss Testimony Regarding Civil Rights and Policing Practices in MinnesotaPDF
82 FR 23013 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 22966 - Agency Information Collection: Proposed Collection; Comments Request Study of Third Party Processor Services, Fees, and Business PracticesPDF
82 FR 23133 - Advisory Board: Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 22936 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Regional Haze State Implementation PlanPDF
82 FR 22964 - Notice of Funds Availability: Inviting Applications for the Market Access ProgramPDF
82 FR 22956 - Notice of Funds Availability: Inviting Applications for the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops ProgramPDF
82 FR 22959 - Notice of Funds Availability: Inviting Applications for the Emerging Markets ProgramPDF
82 FR 23074 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; State Exchange on Employment and Disability Initiative EvaluationPDF
82 FR 22998 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
82 FR 22997 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
82 FR 23000 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
82 FR 22901 - Connect America Fund, ETC Annual Reports and Certifications, Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation RegimePDF
82 FR 23002 - Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
82 FR 22962 - Notice of Funds Availability: Inviting Applications for the Foreign Market Development Cooperator ProgramPDF
82 FR 22953 - Notice of Funds Availability: Inviting Applications for the Quality Samples ProgramPDF
82 FR 23072 - Notice of Charter ReestablishmentPDF
82 FR 23135 - Agency Information Collection Activity: VA National Veterans Sports Programs and Special Event Surveys Data CollectionPDF
82 FR 23126 - SJI Board of Directors Meeting, NoticePDF
82 FR 22879 - National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement ProgramPDF
82 FR 22922 - Proposed Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Kenosha, WIPDF
82 FR 22924 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, for Wayne, NEPDF
82 FR 23015 - Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning a Certain Visitor Management SystemPDF
82 FR 22925 - Safety Standard for Booster SeatsPDF
82 FR 22907 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 22910 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 22915 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
82 FR 22904 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 22949 - State of North Dakota Underground Injection Control Program; Class VI Primacy ApprovalPDF

Issue

82 96 Friday, May 19, 2017 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Commodity Credit Corporation

See

Food and Nutrition Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 22953 2017-10141
Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services RULES Medicare Program: Advancing Care Coordination Through Episode Payment Models; Cardiac Rehabilitation Incentive Payment Model; and Changes to the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model; Delay of Effective Date, 22895-22899 2017-10340 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23005-23008 2017-10225 2017-10227 Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Application from the Joint Commission for Continued Approval of its Critical Access Hospital Accreditation Program, 23004-23005 2017-10216 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23008-23010 2017-10150 2017-10209 2017-10226 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Minnesota Advisory Committee, 22969 2017-10114 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Sabine River, Orange, TX, 22882-22884 2017-10213 Space Coast Super Boat Grand Prix; Atlantic Ocean, Cocoa Beach, FL, 22880-22882 2017-10148 PROPOSED RULES Special Local Regulations: Commencement Bay, Tacoma, WA, 22934-22936 2017-10212 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 22971-22972 2017-10210 2017-10211 Commodity Credit Commodity Credit Corporation NOTICES Funding Availability: Emerging Markets Program, 22959-22962 2017-10105 Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program, 22962-22964 2017-10097 Market Access Program, 22964-22966 2017-10107 Quality Samples Program, 22953-22956 2017-10096 Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program, 22956-22959 2017-10106 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Conversion Applications; Approvals: Heritage Bank of St. Tammany, Covington, LA, 23133 2017-10206 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission PROPOSED RULES Safety Standards: Booster Seats, 22925-22934 2017-10044 NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 22972 2017-10338 Copyright Office Copyright Office, Library of Congress RULES Authentication of Electronic Signatures on Electronically Filed Statements of Account, 22884-22886 2017-10219 Disruption of Copyright Office Electronic Systems, 22886-22888 2017-10218 Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 22972-22973 2017-10237 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Bulk Manufacturers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Chemtos, LLC, 23068-23069 2017-10231 Galephar Pharmaceutical Research, Inc., 23069-23070 2017-10234 Johnson Matthey Pharmaceutical Materials, Inc., 23069 2017-10233 Importers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Mallinckrodt LLC, 23071-23072 2017-10242 Whatever LLC, 23070 2017-10243 Manufacturers of Controlled Substances; Applications: American Radiolabeled Chemicals, 23070-23071 2017-10240 Eli-Elsohly Laboratories, 23067-23068 2017-10241 Insys Manufacturing, LLC, 23066-23067 2017-10230 National Center for Natural Products Research NIDA MPROJECT, 23068 2017-10239 Patheon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 23067 2017-10238 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Grants under the Predominantly Black Institutions Formula Grant Program, 22985 2017-10191 Application Forms and Instructions for the National Resource Centers Program and the Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowship Program, 22973-22974 2017-10192 Financial Status and Program Performance Final Report for State and Partnership for the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, 22974-22975 2017-10190 Veterans Upward Bound Program Annual Performance Report, 22984-22985 2017-10244 Applications for New Awards: Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities—Model Demonstration Projects to Improve Algebraic Reasoning for Students with Disabilities in Middle and High School, 22975-22984 2017-10249 Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities—National Center to Enhance Educational Systems to Promote the Use of Practices Supported by Evidence, 22985-22994 2017-10248 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Air Quality Designations for the 2012 Primary Annual Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Areas in Tennessee, 22888-22893 2017-10245 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Louisiana; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, 22936-22949 2017-10108 State of North Dakota Underground Injection Control Program; Class VI Primacy Approval, 22949-22952 2017-10001 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, 22997 2017-10235 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 22904-22913, 22918-22922 2017-10032 2017-10034 2017-10035 2017-10134 Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes, 22913-22915 2017-10133 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 22915-22918 2017-10033 Amendment of Class D and E Airspace: Kenosha, WI, 22922-22924 2017-10081 Amendment of Class E Airspace: Wayne, NE, 22924-22925 2017-10077 NOTICES Airport Property Disposals: Acres of Airport Land at Laconia Municipal Airport, Gilford, NH, 23127 2017-10197 Airport Property Releases: Abilene Regional Airport, Abilene, TX, 23127-23128 2017-10198 Meetings: Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee, 23126-23127 2017-10204 Federal Bureau Federal Bureau of Investigation NOTICES Charter Reestablishments: Criminal Justice Information Services Advisory Policy Board, 23072 2017-10095 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Connect America Fund: ETC Annual Reports and Certifications, Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime, 22901-22903 2017-10099 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 22997-23000, 23002 2017-10098 2017-10100 2017-10101 2017-10102 Meetings:, 23000-23001 2017-10207 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Updated Listing of Financial Institutions in Liquidation, 23002-23003 2017-10195 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 23003 2017-10287 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Suspensions of Community Eligibility, 22899-22901 2017-10161 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Community Preparedness and Participation Survey, 23023-23024 2017-10163 Flood Hazard Determinations, 23024-23026, 23032-23034, 23045-23047, 23050-23051, 23055-23057 2017-10162 2017-10166 2017-10168 2017-10169 2017-10174 2017-10178 2017-10186 2017-10187 Flood Hazard Determinations; Changes, 23028-23031, 23038-23045, 23048-23055 2017-10177 2017-10182 2017-10184 2017-10188 2017-10194 Flood Hazard Determinations; Proposals, 23018-23023, 23026, 23031-23032, 23034-23038, 23047-23048 2017-10176 2017-10180 2017-10181 2017-10183 2017-10185 2017-10189 2017-10193 Major Disasters and Related Determinations: Resighini Rancheria, 23032 2017-10165 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Annual Change in the Producer Price Index for Finished Goods, 22995 2017-10125 Combined Filings, 22994, 22996-22997 2017-10121 2017-10123 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Co. 2017 Expansion Project, 22995-22996 2017-10124 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC; Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project, 22996 2017-10122 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration RULES National Performance Management Measures: Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, 22879-22880 2017-10092 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Applications for Approval of Discontinuance or Modification of a Railroad Signal System, 23128-23129 2017-10247 Applications: Railroad Signal Systems; Discontinuances or Modifications, 23128 2017-10246 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23129-23131 2017-10170 2017-10171 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Study of Third Party Processor Services, Fees, and Business Practices, 22966-22969 2017-10112 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Ombudsman Inquiry/Request Instrument, 23003 2017-10147 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

RULES 340B Drug Pricing Program Ceiling Price and Manufacturer Civil Monetary Penalties Regulation, 22893-22895 2017-10149
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Certificate of Housing Counseling—Homeownership; Certificate of Housing Counseling—Home Retention, 23062-23063 2017-10224 Comprehensive Listing of Transactional Documents for Mortgagors, Mortgagees and Contractors, 23058-23060 2017-10229 HUD-Owned Real Estate-Good Neighbor Next Door Program, 23058 2017-10223 Mortgagee's Application for Partial Settlement, 23062 2017-10228 Record of Employee Interview, 23060-23061 2017-10221 Technical Suitability of Products Program Section 521 of the National Housing Act, 23061-23062 2017-10222 Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23133-23134 2017-10120 Meetings: Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, 23133 2017-10118 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Welded ASTM A-312 Stainless Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea, 22970-22971 2017-10203 Meetings: United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, 22969-22970 2017-10232 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Carton Closing Staples from China, 23064 2017-10142 Certain Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, 23064-23066 2017-10144 Furfuryl Alcohol from China, 23063-23064 2017-10143 Judicial Conference Judicial Conference of the United States NOTICES Meetings: Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, 23066 2017-10151 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

See

Federal Bureau of Investigation

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Incident-Based Reporting System, 23072-23073 2017-10236 Number of Full-time Law Enforcement Employees as of October 31, 23074 2017-10145 Proposed Consent Decree under the Clean Air Act, 23073-23074 2017-10208
Labor Department Labor Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: State Exchange on Employment and Disability Initiative Evaluation, 23074-23075 2017-10104 Library Library of Congress See

Copyright Office, Library of Congress

Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, 23132 2017-10202 Requests for Administrative Waivers of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel SEAS LIFE, 23132-23133 2017-10200 Vessel TEMPLAR, 23131-23132 2017-10201 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals Application Process for Clinical Research Training and Medical Education at the NIH Clinical Center and its Impact on Course and Training Program Enrollment and Effectiveness, 23010-23011 2017-10205 Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing, 23014-23015 2017-10156 Meetings: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 23013 2017-10113 Proposed Exclusive Licenses: Chimeric L1/L2 Protein and Virus-Like Particles Based Human Papillomavirus Vaccines, 23012-23013 2017-10153 Development of Monospecific and Bispecific Antibodies to GPC3 for the Treatment of Human Liver Cancers, 23013-23014 2017-10154 Proposed Exclusive Patent Licenses: Manufacturing and Testing of PVSRIPO in the Treatment of Solid, Non-lymphoid Tumors expressing Poliovirus Receptor CD155, 23014 2017-10155 National Transportation National Transportation Safety Board NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 23075-23077 2017-10220 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 23077-23078 2017-10119 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement, 23078 2017-10117 Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 23078 2017-10115 2017-10116 Saint Lawrence Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Board, 23133 2017-10109 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 23118-23121 2017-10126 Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 23078-23080 2017-10128 ICE Clear Europe Ltd., 23080-23083 2017-10129 Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, 23100-23118 2017-10130 MIAX PEARL, LLC, 23083-23100 2017-10131 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 23123-23125 2017-10132 Options Clearing Corp., 23121-23123 2017-10127 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Nevada; Amendment 1, 23125 2017-10152 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: NEA/AC Performance Reporting System, 23125-23126 2017-10172 Calls for Expert Reviewers: Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 23126 2017-10214 Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Tarsila do Amaral—Inventing Modernism in Brazil Exhibition, 23126 2017-10215 State Justice State Justice Institute NOTICES Meetings: Board of Directors, 23126 2017-10093 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Internal Revenue Service

NOTICES Survey of Foreign Ownership of U.S. Securities as of June 30, 2017, 23134-23135 2017-10160
Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Country of Origin Determinations: Certain Visitor Management System, 23015-23018 2017-10057 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: VA National Veterans Sports Programs and Special Event Surveys Data Collection, 23135 2017-10094 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, West Los Angeles Medical Center Campus, Proposed Master Plan for Improvements and Reconfiguration, 23135-23137 2017-10158 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 96 Friday, May 19, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration 23 CFR Part 490 [Docket No. FHWA-2013-0054] RIN 2125-AF54 National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program AGENCY:

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION:

Final regulation; delay of effective date.

SUMMARY:

This document announces the indefinite delay of specific portions of the National Performance Management measures; Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program Final Rule (PM#3) (RIN 2125-AF54) and announces the initiation of additional regulatory proceedings for those portions.

DATES:

Effective May 19, 2017, the effective date of the amendments to 49 CFR 490.105(c)(5) and (d)(1)(v), 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(H), (b)(2)(ii)(J), (b)(3)(ii)(I), and (c)(4), 490.109(d)(1)(v) and (f)(1)(v), 490.503(a)(2), 490.505 (Definition of Greenhouse gas (GHG)), 490.507(b), 490.509(f), (g) and (h), 490.511(a)(2), (c), (d), and (f), and 490.513(d) published on January 18, 2017, at 82 FR 5970 is delayed indefinitely. FHWA will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the new effective date. The remainder of the provisions of the Final Rule published on January 18, 2017, at 82 FR 5970, and not otherwise specified in this document, will take effect on May 20, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher Richardson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Legislation, Regulations, and General Law, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-0761. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access and Filing

A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, the Final Rule, and all background material may be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov using the docket numbers listed above. A copy of this document will be placed on the docket. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the Web site. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's Web site at http://www.ofr.gov and the Government Publishing Office's Web site at http://www.thefederalregister.org.

Background

On January 20, 2017, the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff issued a memorandum entitled, “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review.” This memorandum directed heads of executive departments and agencies to take certain steps to ensure that the President's appointees and designees have the opportunity to review new and pending regulations. It instructed agencies to temporarily postpone the effective dates of regulations that had been published in the Federal Register but were not yet effective until 60 days after the date of the memorandum (January 20, 2017). In accordance with that directive, FHWA announced on February 13, 2017, at 82 FR 10441 that it would delay the effective date of the PM#3 Final Rule to March 21, 2017. On March 21, 2017, at 82 FR 14438, FHWA further delayed the effective date to May 20, 2017.

This document confirms that the majority of the PM#3 Final Rule will become effective on May 20, 2017. After further consideration, FHWA has also determined that the portions of the PM#3 Final Rule pertaining to the measure on the percent change in CO2 emissions from the reference year 2017, generated by on-road mobile sources on the National Highway System (the GHG measure) would benefit from further notice and comment procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). As such, this document delays the effective date for these provisions and announces that FHWA will be publishing an NPRM in the Federal Register in the coming weeks pertaining to the GHG measure. The effective date is delayed until such rulemaking on the GHG measure is completed.

Specifically, FHWA is delaying the effective date indefinitely for the following sections of the Final Rule:

1. 23 CFR 490.105(c)(5) 2. 23 CFR 490.105(d)(1)(v) 3. 23 CFR 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(H) 4. 23 CFR 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(J) 5. 23 CFR 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(I) 6. 23 CFR 490.107(c)(4) 7. 23 CFR 490.109(d)(1)(v) 8. 23 CFR 490.109(f)(1)(v) 9. 23 CFR 490.503(a)(2) 10. 23 CFR 490.505 (Definition of Greenhouse gas (GHG)) 11. 23 CFR 490.507(b) 12. 23 CFR 490.509(f) 13. 23 CFR 490.509(g) 14. 23 CFR 490.509(h) 15. 23 CFR 490.511(a)(2) 16. 23 CFR 490.511(c) 17. 23 CFR 490.511(d) 18. 23 CFR 490.511(f) 19. 23 CFR 490.513(d). Waiver of Rulemaking and Delayed Effective Date

Under section 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the APA, FHWA generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. Under section 553(d) of the APA, FHWA ordinarily publishes rules not less than 30 days before their effective dates. However, the APA provides that an agency is not required to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking or provide a delay in effective date for the provisions of a rule when the agency, for good cause, finds that the requirement is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3)).

Good cause exists to suspend the effective date of the GHG measure without notice and comment. Given the imminence of the effective date of the PM#3 Final Rule, seeking prior public comment on this delay of the GHG measure would be impractical, as well as contrary to the public interest in the orderly promulgation and implementation of regulations. The President's appointees and designees need to further delay the effective date of the sections of the PM#3 Final Rule pertaining to the GHG measure to have adequate time to review them, and neither the notice and comment process nor a 30 day delay in effective date could be implemented in time to allow for this review. Additionally, the public will have the opportunity to provide additional comments on the GHG measure in the near future.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 490

Bridges, Highway safety, Highways and roads, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Issued on: May 15, 2017. Walter C. Waidelich, Jr., Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017-10092 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0131] RIN 1625-AA08 Safety Zone; Space Coast Super Boat Grand Prix; Atlantic Ocean, Cocoa Beach, FL AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean offshore from Cocoa Beach, FL during the Space Coast Super Boat Grand Prix, a series of high-speed boat races. The safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of participant vessels, spectators, and the general public during the event. This regulation prohibits persons and non-participant vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Jacksonville or a designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 10 a.m. until 5 p.m. on May 21, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0131 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions about this rule, call or email Lieutenant Allan Storm, Sector Jacksonville, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (904) 714-7616, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations COTP Captain of the Port CFR  Code of Federal Regulations DHS  Department of Homeland Security E.O.  Executive order FR  Federal Register NPRM  Notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L.  Public Law §   Section U.S.C.  United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because insufficient time remains to publish an NPRM and to receive public comments, as the Space Coast Super Boat Grand Prix event will occur before the rulemaking process would be completed. Because of the dangers associated with high speed boat races, the safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectators, and vessels transiting the event area. For those reasons, it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to publish an NPRM.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safety of the event participants, the general public, vessels and the navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of Cocoa Beach, Florida during the Space Coast Super Boat Grand Prix race event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a safety zone on certain navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of Cocoa Beach, Florida during the Space Coast Super Boat Grand Prix race event. The safety zone will cover an offshore area approximately two and a half nautical miles long by one-half nautical mile wide. The races are scheduled to take place from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on May 21, 2017. Approximately 30 high-speed race boats are anticipated to participate in the races. No person or non-participant vessel will be permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without obtaining permission from the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone is granted by the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and/or by on-scene designated representatives.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

E.O.s 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs’ ” (February 2, 2017).

The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone will be enforced for only 7 hours; (2) although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) persons and vessels will still be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area if authorized by the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and/or by on-scene designated representatives.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

C. Collection of Information

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within a limited area on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of Cocoa Beach, Florida during a one-day racing event lasting seven hours. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.

2. Add a temporary § 165.T07-0131 to read as follows:
§ 165.T07-0131 Safety Zone; Space Coast Super Boat Grand Prix; Atlantic Ocean, Cocoa Beach, FL.

(a) Location. The following regulated area is a safety zone located offshore from Cocoa Beach, FL: All waters of the Atlantic Ocean encompassed within the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 28°22′16″ N., 080°36′04″ W.; thence east to Point 2 in position 28°2′15″ N., 080°35′38″ W.; thence south to Point 3 in position 28°19′46″ N., 080°35′38″ W.; thence west to Point 4 in position 28°19′47″ N., 080°36′22″ W.; thence north back to origin. These coordinates are based on North American Datum 1983.

(b) Definition. As used in this section, the term “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP) Jacksonville in the enforcement of the regulated areas.

(c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the COTP Jacksonville or a designated representative.

(2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the COTP Jacksonville by telephone at 904-714-7557, or a designated representative via VHF-FM radio on channel 16 to request authorization. If authorization is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP Jacksonville or designated representative.

(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM channel 16, and/or by on-scene designated representatives.

(d) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced from 10 a.m. until 5 p.m. on May 21, 2017.

Dated: May 8, 2017. T.C. Wiemers, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Jacksonville.
[FR Doc. 2017-10148 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG 2017-0294] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Sabine River, Orange, Texas AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain navigable waters of the Sabine River adjacent to the public boat ramp located in Orange, TX. This safety zone is necessary to protect persons and vessels from hazards associated with a high speed boat race competition. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 8:30 a.m. on May 20, 2017 through 6 p.m. on May 21, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0294 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Scott Whalen, Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 409-719-5086, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port, Port Arthur DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. The Coast Guard received notice on March 22, 2017 that this boat racing event is scheduled to take place from May 20 to 21, 2017. Upon full review of the event details, the Coast Guard determined that additional safety measures were necessary due to potential navigational hazards present during the high speed boat race. The safety zone needs to be established by May 20, 2017. As such, it is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to public interest because regulatory action is necessary to limit access to the area of the high speed boat races, protecting participants, spectators, and other persons and vessels from the potential hazards during a high speed boat race on a navigable waterway. The Coast Guard will notify the public and maritime community that the safety zone will be in effect and of its enforcement periods via broadcast notices to mariners (BNM) and the event will be advertised in the Local Notice to Mariners (LNM).

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port, Port Arthur (COTP) has determined that the potential hazards associated with high speed boat races are a safety concern for vessels operating on the Sabine River. This rule is needed to protect participants, spectators, and other persons and vessels in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the scheduled races.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 8:30 a.m. on May 20, 2017 through 6 p.m. on May 21, 2017. The safety zone covers all navigable waters of the Sabine River, shoreline to shoreline, adjacent to the public boat ramp located in Orange, TX. The northern boundary is from the end of Navy Pier One at 30°05′50″ N., 93°43′15″ W. then easterly to the rivers eastern shore. The southern boundary is a line shoreline to shoreline at latitude 30°05′33″ N. (NAD83). The duration of the safety zone is intended to protect participants, spectators, and other persons and vessels, in the navigable waters of the Sabine River during the high speed boat races. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. This safety zone is over a 2-day period and enforcement during the effective times, enforcement periods will include scheduled breaks, providing opportunity for vessels to transit through the affected area. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessel to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on vessel owners or operators.

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

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

C. Collection of Information

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone during a 2-day period that will prohibit entry within the zone without permission of the Captain of the Port. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Record of Environmental Consideration are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. Add temporary § 165.T08-0294 to read as follows:
§ 165.T08-0294 Safety Zone; Sabine River, Orange, Texas.

Location. The following area is a safety zone: Certain navigable waters of the Sabine River adjacent to the Orange public boat ramps located in Orange, TX. The northern boundary is from the end of old Navy Pier One at 30°05′50″ N., 93°43′15″ W., then easterly to the rivers eastern shore. The southern boundary is a line shoreline to shoreline at latitude 30°05′33″ N. (NAD83).

(a) Effective period. This rule is effective from 8:30 a.m. on May 20, 2017 through 6 p.m. on May 21, 2017. Enforcement during the effective period will allow for scheduled breaks allowing vessels to pass through the safety zone. Notice of scheduled breaks will be provided as indicated under paragraph (c) of this section.

(b) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited to all persons and vessels except those vessels specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur (COTP) or a designated representative.

(2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM channel 13 or 16, or by phone at 409-719-5070.

(3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or COTP's designated representative.

(c) Information broadcasts. The Coast Guard will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of channel restrictions and Vessel Traffic Service advisories on VHF-FM channel 65A.

Dated: May 16, 2017 R.S. Ogrydziak Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Port Arthur, Texas.
[FR Doc. 2017-10213 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Office 37 CFR Part 201 [Docket No. 2013-5] Authentication of Electronic Signatures on Electronically Filed Statements of Account AGENCY:

U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The United States Copyright Office is amending its regulation prescribing requirements related to the submission of Statements of Account under the section 111 license for secondary transmissions of broadcast programming by cable systems. The amendments will allow cable systems operating under the statutory license to electronically sign Statements of Account, and to submit them to the Office electronically.

DATES:

Effective June 19, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sarang V. Damle, General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights, by email at [email protected], or Regan A. Smith, Deputy General Counsel, by email at [email protected] Each can be contacted by telephone by calling (202) 707-8350.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

Section 111 of the Copyright Act, title 17 of the United States Code, provides cable operators with a statutory license to retransmit a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission made by a television station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). As section 111 directs, the Copyright Office has issued a regulation prescribing deposit requirements for cable operators to make use of this license. 37 CFR 201.17; see 17 U.S.C. 111(d). Cable system statutory licensees are required to file Statements of Account (“SOAs”) and pay royalty and filing fees to the Copyright Office, which are received by its Licensing Division. SOAs contain information on a cable operator's channel line-ups and gross receipts for the sale of cable service to the public. Cable systems are directed to file either a short- or long-form SOA (called the “SA1/2” and “SA3” forms, respectively), depending upon whether the system has reported semiannual gross receipts of more or less than $527,600. 37 CFR 201.17(d). Payments made under the cable statutory license are remitted semi-annually to the Office, which invests the royalties in United States Treasury securities pending distribution of the funds to those copyright owners who are entitled to receive a share of the fees.

Currently, the process for submission of SOAs is paper-based, and each cable system filer (or “remitter”) is required to include “the handwritten signature” of a person of authority (e.g., a corporate officer if the system is owned by a corporation) accompanying a “declaration of the veracity of the statements of fact contained in the [SOA] and the good faith of the person signing in making such statement of fact.” 37 CFR 201.17(e)(14). On June 26, 2013, the Copyright Office issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) proposing amendments to its regulations to allow remitters to use electronic signatures and file Statements of Account electronically. 78 FR 38240 (June 26, 2013). At that time, as part of a broader reengineering of the workflow of the Licensing Division, the Office was in the process of configuring and deploying a software package to serve as an electronic filing system. 78 FR at 38241. The NPRM presumed that electronic signatures and submission of SOAs, and, eventually, royalty payments, would occur through deployment of this new system. The Office received two comments in response to the NPRM: One from National Cable & Telecommunications Association (“NCTA”), which is addressed below, and another from Hooks Management Group, LLC, which expressed overall support for electronic filing.

Since the issuance of the NPRM, the Office discovered a number of issues with the development of the new system, which caused reassessment of the project in its original form.1 Accordingly, the Office shifted efforts to identify a more cost-effective and efficient solution, and requested that the Library of Congress terminate the contract.

1 For example, the vendor hired to develop this software indicated that it would be unable to fulfill the deliverables under the current development contract and that basic operation and maintenance would rise in 2017 to a costly annual overhead expense. Further, the Office learned that after June 2018, the vendor would no longer be supporting the software version that had been licensed, and that a significant additional expenditure of funds would be necessary to move the project to a new software version.

At that same time, the Office made plans to develop an alternate, spreadsheet-based form to allow the electronic submission of SOAs. In addition to the PDF forms already available on the Office's Web site, the Office will now post fillable electronic short- and long-form SOAs (“SA1/2E” and “SA3E” forms) on its Web site at https://www.copyright.gov/licensing/ and https://www.copyright.gov/forms/. These forms employ a format similar to a preparatory tool already used by many stakeholders to file SOAs with the Office, while making the forms and option of electronic submission available to all remitters. Informal feedback from stakeholders regarding the Office's decision to terminate the original project and implement a more cost-effective solution has been positive.

II. Discussion

The Office now amends its regulations to permit the electronic signature and submission of SOAs. These regulatory amendments are expected to allow the Office to immediately receive SOAs submitted by remitters via email. Permitting electronic submission and signatures will provide a more efficient and convenient method for remitters over the current paper-based system. In addition, electronic submission of documents will provide the data included in SOAs in a more useable format to the Office and to copyright owners interested in viewing and extracting this information.

The comments focused principally on the electronic authentication and signature requirement of the proposed rule. As discussed below, the Office has simplified its approach to electronic signature and submission of SOAs from that set forth in the NPRM. This new approach has allowed the Office to streamline the regulatory language of the proposed rule.

Signatures. The NPRM had presumed it was necessary to establish “a robust identity authentication system for the preparation and electronic filing of SOAs.” 78 FR at 38241. In part, this was because the electronic system as originally conceived would eventually be expanded to handle royalty payments. Under this assumption, the NPRM tentatively concluded that it was necessary to implement a Level 3-qualifying method of identity assurance used for electronic transactions filed with the federal government under the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”)'s manual, E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies, [OMB 04-04]. Id. at 38242. Among other things, this authentication would establish “the identity of the individual(s) preparing the form” and “the individual(s) charged with the responsibility of certifying and signing the SOA during a secure online session.” Id.

In its comment, NCTA urged the Office “to modify its rules to expressly permit the use of facsimile or `s-signatures' on paper statements of account.” NCTA Comments at 1. NCTA suggested that allowing cable operators to use “s-signatures” (e.g.,/s/John Smith) would provide greater flexibility in preparing submissions, without posing a risk to copyright owners. NCTA also suggested that the “robust identity authentication system,” with “complex” accompanying rules envisioned by the NPRM was overly complex, and pointed out that the FCC has not adopted an authentication or verification process when accepting routine filings by NCTA members. NCTA Comments at 4-5.

In light of NCTA's comment, and the decision to move to a different solution for electronic completion and submission of SOAs, the Office has reassessed its requirements with respect to electronic submission and use of electronic signatures. Under the reconceived procedure, electronic SOAs would come in on their own, and royalty payments would continue to separately be sent to the Office using an electronic funds transfer. This diminishes the need for a robust authentication system. Indeed, the OMB's guidance for authentication and verification is not intended to apply to electronically signed documents.2 The Office also recently assessed the requirements for electronic signatures in a recently published notice of proposed rulemaking concerning the modernization of copyright recordation (“Recordation NPRM”), which tentatively concluded that documents bearing electronic signatures should be recordable under section 205. As the Recordation NPRM also noted, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (“E-Sign Act”), enacted in 2000, provides that “with respect to any transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce . . . a signature, contract, or other record relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.” 15 U.S.C. 7001(a)(1). The E-Sign Act defines “electronic signature” broadly as “an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record.” Id. at 7006(5). Although the E-Sign Act does not restrict the Office's authority to issue regulations related to section 111, the Office views the E-Sign Act as persuasive guidance.

2E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies, [OMB 04-04], § 1.2 (Dec. 16, 2003).

The Government Paperwork Elimination Act is also persuasive, in that it directs executive agencies to provide “for the option of electronic maintenance, submission, or disclosure of information, when practicable as a substitute for paper” and “for the use and acceptance of electronic signatures, when practicable.” See Public Law 105-277, tit. xvii, sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-750 (1998). And, as NCTA pointed out, other agencies, including the FCC and the United States Patent and Trademark Office, already consider electronic or s-signatures to be valid original signatures on virtually all documents. NCTA Comments at 3.

Based on this reassessment, the final rule amends the signature requirements in section 201.17(e)(14) to expressly permit the submission of any legally valid signature, including electronic signatures, and does not include some of the more complex definitions and requirements proposed by the NPRM as a new section 201.17(e)(15). In addition, the Office is removing the current handwritten signature requirement, and will now allow the use of electronic or s-signatures on all forms—e.g, the paper SA1/2 and SA3 forms, and their electronic counterparts designated as SA1/2E, and SA3E—although the Office will continue to accept handwritten signatures on the paper-based SA1/2 and SA3 forms.

Accounting Periods and Deposits. To account for electronic submission, and as set out in the proposed rule, the Office is removing the term “physically” from Section 201.17(c)(2), which presently includes a reference to SOAs being “physically received.”

Forms; Electronic Submission. The Office is amending section 201.17(d) to account for its provision of the electronic forms, as described above. In addition, the amendment makes explicit that SOAs should be submitted to the Licensing Division in accordance with instructions provided on the form itself or otherwise made available on the Office's Web site at https://www.copyright.gov/licensing/. In practice, as it has done with other electronically submitted forms, such as notices submitted under section 115, the Office plans to require the electronic forms (e.g., the SA1/2E and SA3E forms) to be submitted electronically, and to allow paper-based forms (e.g., the SA1/2 and SA3 forms) to be submitted either via physical mail or electronically.3

3See Requirements and Instructions for Electronically Submitting a Section 115 Notice of Intention to the Copyright Office, https://www.copyright.gov/licensing/115/noi-instructions.html (“The NOI must be emailed as an Excel file, and must not be converted to PDF or any other file format.”).

Copies of Statements of Account. In light of the changes to section 201.17(d), which clarify that instructions for submitting forms will be provided by the Office on its Web site or the form itself, the Office is removing section 201.17(l), which currently proscribes the number of physical copies that must be filed by licensees.

Corrections, Supplemental Payments, and Refunds. As raised in the NPRM, and following the same rationale allowing for the electronic signature and submission of SOAs, the Office is updating its rule to allow for electronic signatures and submission in connection with corrections, supplemental payments, and refunds. In addition, as proposed in the NPRM, the Office is now codifying its practice of accepting a signed and certified amended SOA in lieu of a sworn affidavit or statement under 28 U.S.C. 1746 currently required by the regulation. In practice, the Office receives few sworn affidavits or statements that are not part of an amended SOA, and so to facilitate efficiency and clarity, the final rule removes references to separate affidavits or statements and simply requires remitters to submit an amended SOA.

Batch Submissions. The proposed rule also included language permitting the submission of multiple SOAs by the same cable operator in one group or “batch” filing. NCTA's comment raised a concern that this change would be “unnecessarily burdensome” by imposing overly rigid requirements for the review, signature, and submission of SOAs upon remitters. NCTA Comments at 4. In light of the Office's redirected efforts described above and NCTA's comment, the final rule does not include this originally-proposed amendment.

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 201

Copyright.

Regulations

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Office amends 37 CFR part 201 as follows:

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

17 U.S.C. 702.

2. Amend § 201.17 by: a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (c)(2); b. Revising paragraph (d); c. Revising paragraphs (e)(14) introductory text and (e)(14)(iii)(A); d. Removing paragraph (l); e. Redesignating paragraphs (m) and (n) as paragraphs (l) and (m), respectively; and f. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (l)(4)(iii)(B).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 201.17 Statements of account covering compulsory licenses for secondary transmissions by cable systems.

(c) * * *

(2) Upon receiving a Statement of Account and royalty fee, the Copyright Office will make an official record of the actual date when such Statement and fee were received in the Copyright Office. * * *

(d) Statement of Account forms and submission. Cable systems should submit each Statement of Account using an appropriate form provided by the Copyright Office on its Web site and following the instructions for completion and submission provided on the Office's Web site or the form itself.

(e) * * *

(14) A legally binding signature, including an electronic signature as defined in 15 U.S.C. 7006, of:

(iii) * * *

(A) The printed name of the person signing the Statement of Account;

(l) * * *

(4) * * *

(iii) * * *

(B) In the case of a request filed under paragraph (m)(2)(ii) of this section, where the royalty fee was miscalculated and the amount deposited in the Copyright Office was either too high or too low, the request must be accompanied by an amended Statement of Account. The amended Statement shall include an explanation of why the royalty fee was improperly calculated and a detailed analysis of the proper royalty calculations.

Dated: May 12, 2017. Karyn Temple Claggett, Acting Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office.

Approved by:

Carla D. Hayden, Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 2017-10219 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-30-P
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Office 37 CFR Part 201 [Docket No. 2017-4] Disruption of Copyright Office Electronic Systems AGENCY:

U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Copyright Office is amending its regulations governing delays in the receipt of material caused by the disruption of postal or other transportation or communication services. The amendments, for the first time, specifically address the effect of a disruption or suspension of any Copyright Office electronic system on the Office's receipt of applications, fees, deposits, or other materials, and the assignment of a constructive date of receipt to such materials. The amendments also make various revisions to the existing portions of the rule for usability and readability. In addition, the amendments specify how the Office will assign effective dates of receipt when, in the absence of a declaration of a general disruption, the Office does not receive, loses, or misplaces materials that were physically delivered or attempted to be physically delivered to the Office.

DATES:

Effective June 19, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anna Chauvet, Assistant General Counsel, by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 202-707-8350.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 709 of the Copyright Act (title 17, United States Code) addresses the situation where the “general disruption or suspension of postal or other transportation or communications services” prevents the timely receipt by the U.S. Copyright Office (“Office”) of “a deposit, application, fee, or any other material.” In such situations, and “on the basis of such evidence as the Register may by regulation require,” the Register of Copyrights may deem the receipt of such material to be timely, so long as it is actually received “within one month after the date on which the Register determines that the disruption or suspension of such services has terminated.” 17 U.S.C. 709. In addition, section 702 of the Copyright Act authorizes the Register to “establish regulations not inconsistent with law for the administration of the functions and duties made the responsibility of the Register under this title.” 17 U.S.C. 702.

The Office's regulations implementing section 709 can be found in 37 CFR 201.8. When the Office first promulgated these regulations, many of the Office's current electronic systems did not exist, and the regulations were not amended to specifically address outages of such systems. In 2015, the Office's online system used to register copyright claims was disrupted for over a week due to an equipment failure, highlighting the need for the Office to update its regulations to address the effect of a disruption or suspension of any Copyright Office electronic system on the Office's receipt of applications, fees, deposits, or any other materials.

On March 2, 2017, the Office published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) setting forth proposed regulatory amendments designed to close this gap in the Office's regulations. 82 FR 12326. The proposed amendments addressed the effect of a disruption or suspension of any Copyright Office electronic system on the Office's receipt of applications, fees, deposits, or other materials, and the assignment of a constructive date of receipt to such materials. 82 FR 12326. The Office received six comments in response to the NPRM. None of the commenters opposed or proposed amendments to the proposed rule.

As explained in the NPRM, assigning a date of receipt based on the date materials would have been received but for the disruption of a Copyright Office electronic system is important in a number of contexts. For example, thousands of copyright claims are filed each year using the Office's electronic filing system, and the effective date of registration of a copyright is the date the application, fees, and deposit are received by the Office. 17 U.S.C. 410(d). That date can affect the copyright owner's rights and remedies, such as eligibility for statutory damages and attorney's fees. See 17 U.S.C. 412 (statutory damages and attorney's fees available only for works with effective date of registration prior to commencement of infringement or, for published works, within three months of first publication of the work). In addition, certain filings may be submitted to the Office only in electronic form. See 37 CFR 201.38 (online service providers must designate an agent to receive notifications of claimed copyright infringement through the Copyright Office's Web site).

The Office's amendments accordingly make several updates to 37 CFR 201.8 to account for electronic outages. Among other things, the amendments allow the Register to assign, as the date of receipt, the date on which she determines the material would have been received but for the disruption or suspension of the electronic system. Ordinarily, when a person submits materials through an Office electronic system, those materials are received in the Office on the date the submission was made. In cases where a person attempts to submit materials, but is unable to do so because of a disruption or suspension of a Copyright Office electronic system, the amendments will allow the Register to use the date that the attempt was made as the date of receipt. In cases where it is unclear when the attempt was made, the amendments provide the Register with discretion to determine the effective date of receipt on a case-by-case basis.

In addition, the amendments make several other changes to update the rule to account for more recent practices, and improve the usability and readability of the regulation. For instance, the amendments comprehensively update paragraph (c) of § 201.8, which specifies the deadline for requesting an adjustment of the date of receipt in cases where a person attempted to submit material to the Office but was unable to do so due to the declared suspension or disruption of postal or other transportation or communications services. Under the previous rule, an applicant could only submit such a request after the issuance of a certificate of registration or recordation. That is because, in the past, most materials were submitted to the Office on paper. Permitting the submission of requests prior to the issuance of the certificate would have imposed unacceptable burdens on the Office, primarily due to difficulties in locating the pending paper applications or submissions to which the requests pertained. Now that the Office has implemented electronic systems, it is easier to make date adjustments, such as correcting the effective date of registration or date of recordation, while the application or submission is still pending. Accordingly, the Office's amendments allow persons seeking to adjust the date of receipt of any material that could not be submitted electronically due to a disruption or suspension of a Copyright Office electronic system, to submit a request on the date the Register publishes the announcement declaring that the disruption or suspension has terminated under § 201.8(a), up to one year after the date on which the disruption or suspension has terminated under § 201.8(a).

Finally, the amendments add § 201.8(b)(2) and (c)(2), which address a related issue. On occasion, a person may deliver or attempt to deliver material to the Office, but the Office may have no record of having received such material or may have lost or misplaced that material after it was received. Although such situations are rare, they do occur occasionally as mail delivered to the Office must go through extensive security screening.1 If the person provides satisfactory evidence that he or she physically delivered or attempted to physically deliver that material to the Office, the amendment allows the Register to assign, as the date of receipt, the date on which the material would have been received. Such a request must be made no later than one year after the person physically delivered or attempted to physically deliver the application, fee, deposit, or other material to the Office.

1 As the NPRM thus made clear, sections 201.8(b)(2) and (c)(2) are meant to address situations where the Office does not receive, loses, or misplaces materials that were physically delivered or attempted to be physically delivered to the Office. The rule is not intended to address short-term or routine outages of electronic systems that may occur in the absence of a declaration of a general disruption under section 201.8(a). The language of the final rule clarifies this point for the avoidance of any doubt.

As a technical matter, these provisions do not implement section 709, which pertains to a general disruption of postal or other services; rather, the Office is implementing these provisions as an exercise of its general regulatory authority under section 702 of the Copyright Act.

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 201

Copyright.

Final Regulations

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Office amends 37 CFR part 201 as follows:

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

17 U.S.C. 702.

2. Section 201.8 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through (f) introductory text, (f)(4), by adding paragraph (f)(5), and by removing paragraph (g). The revisions and addition read as follows:
§ 201.8 Disruption of postal or other transportation or communication services.

(a) Declaration of disruption. For purposes of 17 U.S.C. 709, when the Register has determined that there is or has been a general disruption or suspension of postal or other transportation or communications services, including a disruption or suspension of a Copyright Office electronic system, that has delayed the receipt by the Copyright Office of applications, fees, deposits, or any other materials, the Register shall publish an announcement of that determination, stating the date on which the disruption or suspension commenced. The announcement may, if appropriate, limit the means of delivery that are subject to relief pursuant to section 709. Following the cessation of the disruption or suspension of services, the Register shall publish an announcement stating the date on which the disruption or suspension has terminated, and may provide specific instructions on how to make a request under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(b) Request for earlier filing date due to disruption—(1) When the Register has declared a disruption. When the Register has made a declaration of disruption under paragraph (a) of this section, any person who, in compliance with any instructions provided by the Register, provides satisfactory evidence as described in paragraph (e) of this section that he or she attempted to deliver an application, fee, deposit, or other material to the Copyright Office, but that receipt by the Copyright Office was delayed due to a general disruption or suspension of postal or other transportation or communications services announced under paragraph (a), shall be assigned, as the date of receipt of the application, fee, deposit, or other material, the date on which the Register determines the material would have been received but for the disruption or suspension of services, so long as the application, fee, deposit, or other material was actually received in the Copyright Office within one month after the date the Register identifies pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section that disruption or suspension of services has terminated. Such requests should be mailed to the address specified in § 201.1(c)(1), or through any other delivery method the Register specifies in a published announcement under paragraph (a) of this section.

(2) With respect to disruption affecting specific submission. In the absence of a declaration of disruption under paragraph (a) of this section, any person who provides satisfactory evidence as described in paragraph (e) of this section that he or she physically delivered or attempted to physically deliver an application, fee, deposit, or other material to the Copyright Office, but that the Office did not receive that material or that it was lost or misplaced by the Office after its delivery to the Office, shall be assigned, as the date of receipt, the date that the Register determines that the material was received or would have been received. Such requests may be mailed to the address specified in § 201.1(c)(1), or through any other delivery method specified by the Copyright Office.

(c) Timing. (1) A request under paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be made no earlier than the date on which the Register publishes the announcement under paragraph (a) of this section declaring that the disruption or suspension has terminated, and no later than one year after the publication of that announcement.

(2) A request under paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall be made no later than one year after the person physically delivered or attempted to physically deliver the application, fee, deposit, or other material to the Copyright Office.

(d) Return of certificate. In cases where a certificate of registration or a certificate of recordation has already been issued, the original certificate must be returned to the Copyright Office along with the request under paragraph (b) of this section.

(e) Satisfactory evidence. In all cases the Register shall have discretion in determining whether materials submitted with a request under paragraph (b) of this section constitute satisfactory evidence. For purposes of paragraph (b) of this section, satisfactory evidence may include:

(1) A receipt from the United States Postal Service indicating the date on which the United States Postal Service received material for delivery to the Copyright Office by means of first class mail, Priority Mail, or Express Mail;

(2) A receipt from a delivery service such as, or comparable to, United Parcel Service, Federal Express, or Airborne Express, indicating the date on which the delivery service received material for delivery to the Copyright Office; and

(i) The date on which delivery was to be made to the Copyright Office, or

(ii) The period of time (e.g., overnight, or two days) from receipt by the delivery service to the date on which delivery was to be made to the Copyright Office;

(3) A statement under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, from a person with actual knowledge of the facts relating to the attempt to deliver the material to the Copyright Office, setting forth with particularity facts which satisfy the Register that in the absence of the general disruption or suspension of postal or other transportation or communications services, including a disruption or suspension of a Copyright Office electronic system, or but for the misdelivery, misplacement, or loss of materials sent to the Copyright Office, the material would have been received by the Copyright Office by a particular date; or

(4) Other documentary evidence which the Register deems equivalent to the evidence set forth in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section.

(f) Presumption of receipt. For purposes of paragraph (b) of this section, the Register shall presume that but for the general disruption or suspension of postal or other transportation or communications services, including a disruption or suspension of a Copyright Office electronic system, or but for the misdelivery, misplacement, or loss of materials sent to the Copyright Office:

(4) Materials deposited with a delivery service such as, or comparable to, United Parcel Service, Federal Express, or Airborne Express, would have been received in the Copyright Office on the date indicated on the receipt from the delivery service;

(5) Materials submitted or attempted to be submitted through a Copyright Office electronic system would have been received in the Copyright Office on the date the attempt was made. If it is unclear when an attempt was made, the Register will determine the effective date of receipt on a case-by-case basis.

Dated: May 11, 2017. Karyn Temple Claggett, Acting Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office.

Approved by:

Carla D. Hayden, Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 2017-10218 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-30-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 81 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0918; FRL-9962-89-OAR] RIN 2060-AT44 Air Quality Designations for the 2012 Primary Annual Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for Areas in Tennessee AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is establishing air quality designations in the United States (U.S.) for the 2012 primary annual fine particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for the remaining undesignated areas in the state of Tennessee. When the EPA designated the majority of areas in the country in December 2014, and March 2015, the EPA deferred initial area designations for several locations, including all of the state of Tennessee except three counties in the Chattanooga area, because the EPA could not determine using available data whether the areas were meeting or not meeting the NAAQS. However, we believed that forthcoming data in 2015 would allow the EPA to make that determination. Tennessee has now submitted complete, quality-assured, and certified air quality monitoring data for 2015 for the areas identified in this document, and based on these data, the EPA is designating these areas as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on June 19, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0918. All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not 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 in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, William Jefferson Clinton West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

In addition, the EPA has established a Web site for the rulemakings to initially designate areas for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS at: https://www3.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2012standards/index.htm. This Web site includes the EPA's final PM2.5 designations, as well as state and tribal initial recommendation letters, the EPA's modification letters, technical support documents, responses to comments and other related technical information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For general questions concerning this action, please contact Carla Oldham, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Planning Division, C539-04, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-3347, email at [email protected] The Region 4 contact is Madolyn Sanchez, U.S. EPA, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960, telephone (404) 562-9644, email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On December 14, 2012, the EPA promulgated a revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS to provide increased protection of public health from fine particle pollution (78 FR 3086; January 15, 2013). In that action, the EPA strengthened the primary annual PM2.5 standard from 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 12.0 μg/m3, which is attained when the 3-year average of the annual arithmetic means does not exceed 12.0 μg/m3. Section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7407(d), governs the process for initial area designations after the EPA establishes a new or revised NAAQS. Under CAA section 107(d), each governor is required to, and each tribal leader may, if they so choose, recommend air quality designations to the EPA by a date that cannot be later than 1 year after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. The EPA considers these recommendations as part of its duty to promulgate the area designations and boundaries for the new or revised NAAQS. If, after careful consideration of these recommendations, the EPA believes that it is necessary to modify a state's recommendation and intends to promulgate a designation different from a state's recommendation, the EPA must notify the state at least 120 days prior to promulgating the final designation and the EPA must provide the state an opportunity to demonstrate why any proposed modification is inappropriate. These modifications may relate either to an area's designation or to its boundaries.

On December 18, 2014, the Administrator of the EPA signed a final action promulgating initial designations for the 2012 primary PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2011-2013-air quality monitoring data for the majority of the U.S., including areas of Indian country (80 FR 2206; January 15, 2015). In that action, the EPA also deferred initial area designations for several areas where available data, including air quality monitoring data, were insufficient to determine whether the areas met or did not meet the NAAQS, but where forthcoming data were likely to result in complete and valid air quality data sufficient to determine whether these areas meet the NAAQS. Accordingly, the EPA stated that it would use the additional time available as provided under section 107(d)(1)(B) of the CAA to assess relevant information and subsequently promulgate initial designations for the identified areas through a separate rulemaking action or actions. The deferred areas included the entire state of Tennessee, except three counties in the Chattanooga area; several areas in the state of Georgia, including two neighboring counties in the bordering states of Alabama and South Carolina; the entire state of Florida; and areas of Indian country located in these areas.

In separate actions published on April 15, 2015 (80 FR 18535), and September 6, 2016 (81 FR 61136), the EPA completed designations of unclassifiable/attainment for all remaining deferred areas in the state of Georgia (including two neighboring counties in the bordering states of Alabama and South Carolina) and 62 counties in the state of Florida, including areas of Indian country located in those areas.

II. Purpose and Designation Decisions Based on 2013-2015 Data

The purpose of this action is to announce and promulgate initial area designations of unclassifiable/attainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for the remaining 92 counties in the state of Tennessee.1 All of the areas at issue in this action were initially deferred in the EPA's January 15, 2015, rulemaking.2 Since then, the state of Tennessee submitted to the EPA complete, quality-assured, and certified air quality monitoring data from 2013-2015 for these deferred areas. These data provide the EPA with sufficient information to promulgate initial designations for the remaining undesignated areas in the state of Tennessee in this action. Air quality data collected and submitted to the EPA for 2013-2015 for these areas indicate that the areas are attaining the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and are not causing or contributing to a violation of the NAAQS in a nearby area. Therefore, the EPA is designating the remaining 92 undesignated counties in the state of Tennessee as unclassifiable/attainment. This designation is consistent with Tennessee's recommended area designations and boundaries for these areas for the 2012 PM2.5 standard. The table at the end of this final rule (amendments to 40 CFR 81.343—Tennessee) lists all areas for which the EPA has promulgated an initial designation in Tennessee. There are no areas of Indian country covered by this action.

1 The 3 previously designated unclassifiable/attainment counties in the Chattanooga area are Hamilton County, Marion County and Sequatchie County.

2See also the technical support document for the deferred Tennessee areas in the rulemaking docket, document numbered EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0918-0325.

III. Environmental Justice Considerations

When the EPA establishes a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the EPA to designate all areas of the U.S. as either nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable. The EPA provided a meaningful opportunity for members of the public to participate in the development of the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 standard that underlies the present action, including conducting an outreach and information call with environmental justice organizations on August 9, 2012.

As part of the process of reviewing the PM air quality criteria and revising the primary annual PM2.5 standard, the EPA identified persons from lower socioeconomic strata as an at-risk population for PM-related health effects. As a result, the EPA carefully evaluated the potential impacts on low-income and minority populations. Based on this evaluation and consideration of public comments, the EPA eliminated spatial averaging provisions as part of the form of the primary annual PM2.5 standard in order to avoid potential disproportionate impacts on at-risk populations, including populations from lower socioeconomics strata. See 78 FR at 3267 (January 15, 2013).

This final action addresses designation determinations for certain areas in Tennessee based on that 2012 primary annual PM2.5 standard. The CAA requires the EPA to determine through a designation process whether an area meets or does not meet any new or revised national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard. The promulgation of area designations facilitates public understanding and awareness of the air quality in an area. For this action, the complete and valid monitoring data from Tennessee indicate that all affected areas are meeting the NAAQS. Furthermore, no area affected by this action is contributing to a NAAQS violation in a nearby area.

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

This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget because it responds to the CAA requirement to promulgate air quality designations after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This action fulfills the non-discretionary duty for the EPA to promulgate air quality designations after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS and does not contain any information collection activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

This designation action under CAA section 107(d) is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. Section 107(d)(2)(B) of the CAA explicitly provides that designations are exempt from the notice and comment provisions of the APA. In addition, designations under section 107(d) are not among the list of actions that are subject to the notice and comment procedures of CAA section 307(d).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action implements mandates specifically and explicitly set forth in the CAA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (40 CFR 50.18). The CAA establishes the process whereby states take primary responsibility for developing plans, where required, to meet the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

This action does not have tribal implications. It will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. Areas of Indian country are not being designated as part of this action.

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The documentation for this determination is contained in Section III of this preamble, “Environmental Justice Considerations.”

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

L. Judicial Review

Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: (i) When the agency action consists of “nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken by the Administrator,” or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally applicable, if “such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.”

This final action, in conjunction with the previous final actions designating areas across the U.S. for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, is “nationally applicable” within the meaning of section 307(b)(1). At the core of this final action is the EPA's interpretations of the definitions of nonattainment, attainment and unclassifiable under section 107(d)(1) of the CAA, and its application of those interpretations to areas across the country. For the same reasons, the Administrator is also determining that the final designations are of nationwide scope and effect for the purposes of section 307(b)(1). This is particularly appropriate because, in the report on the 1977 Amendments that revised section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator's determination that an action is of “nationwide scope or effect” would be appropriate for any action that has a scope or effect beyond a single judicial circuit. H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 323, 324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03. Here, the scope and effect of this final action extends to numerous judicial circuits since the designations relate to the designations for areas across the country. In these circumstances, section 307(b)(1) and its legislative history calls for the Administrator to find the action to be of “nationwide scope or effect” and for venue to be in the D.C. Circuit.

Thus, any petitions for review of final designations must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date final action is published in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

Dated: May 10, 2017. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 81 is amended as follows:

PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES 1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Subpart C—Section 107 Attainment Status Designations 2. Section 81.343 is amended by revising the table entitled “Tennessee—2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS [Primary]” to read as follows:
§ 81.343 Tennessee. Tennessee—2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS [Primary] Designated area 1 Designation Date 2 Type Classification Date 2 Type Statewide: Anderson County Unclassifiable/Attainment Bedford County Unclassifiable/Attainment Benton County Unclassifiable/Attainment Bledsoe County Unclassifiable/Attainment Blount County Unclassifiable/Attainment Bradley County Unclassifiable/Attainment Campbell County Unclassifiable/Attainment Cannon County Unclassifiable/Attainment Carroll County Unclassifiable/Attainment Carter County Unclassifiable/Attainment Cheatham County Unclassifiable/Attainment Chester County Unclassifiable/Attainment Claiborne County Unclassifiable/Attainment Clay County Unclassifiable/Attainment Cocke County Unclassifiable/Attainment Coffee County Unclassifiable/Attainment Crockett County Unclassifiable/Attainment Cumberland County Unclassifiable/Attainment Davidson County Unclassifiable/Attainment Decatur County Unclassifiable/Attainment DeKalb County Unclassifiable/Attainment Dickson County Unclassifiable/Attainment Dyer County Unclassifiable/Attainment Fayette County Unclassifiable/Attainment Fentress County Unclassifiable/Attainment Franklin County Unclassifiable/Attainment Gibson County Unclassifiable/Attainment Giles County Unclassifiable/Attainment Grainger County Unclassifiable/Attainment Greene County Unclassifiable/Attainment Grundy County Unclassifiable/Attainment Hamblen County Unclassifiable/Attainment Hamilton County April 15, 2015 Unclassifiable/Attainment Hancock County Unclassifiable/Attainment Hardeman County Unclassifiable/Attainment Hardin County Unclassifiable/Attainment Hawkins County Unclassifiable/Attainment Haywood County Unclassifiable/Attainment Henderson County Unclassifiable/Attainment Henry County Unclassifiable/Attainment Hickman County Unclassifiable/Attainment Houston County Unclassifiable/Attainment Humphreys County Unclassifiable/Attainment Jackson County Unclassifiable/Attainment Jefferson County Unclassifiable/Attainment Johnson County Unclassifiable/Attainment Knox County Unclassifiable/Attainment Lake County Unclassifiable/Attainment Lauderdale County Unclassifiable/Attainment Lawrence County Unclassifiable/Attainment Lewis County Unclassifiable/Attainment Lincoln County Unclassifiable/Attainment Loudon County Unclassifiable/Attainment McMinn County Unclassifiable/Attainment McNairy County Unclassifiable/Attainment Macon County Unclassifiable/Attainment Madison County Unclassifiable/Attainment Marion County April 15, 2015 Unclassifiable/Attainment Marshall County Unclassifiable/Attainment Maury County Unclassifiable/Attainment Meigs County Unclassifiable/Attainment Monroe County Unclassifiable/Attainment Montgomery County Unclassifiable/Attainment Moore County Unclassifiable/Attainment Morgan County Unclassifiable/Attainment Obion County Unclassifiable/Attainment Overton County Unclassifiable/Attainment Perry County Unclassifiable/Attainment Pickett County Unclassifiable/Attainment Polk County Unclassifiable/Attainment Putnam County Unclassifiable/Attainment Rhea County Unclassifiable/Attainment Roane County Unclassifiable/Attainment Robertson County Unclassifiable/Attainment Rutherford County Unclassifiable/Attainment Scott County Unclassifiable/Attainment Sequatchie County April 15, 2015 Unclassifiable/Attainment Sevier County Unclassifiable/Attainment Shelby County Unclassifiable/Attainment Smith County Unclassifiable/Attainment Stewart County Unclassifiable/Attainment Sullivan County Unclassifiable/Attainment Sumner County Unclassifiable/Attainment Tipton County Unclassifiable/Attainment Trousdale County Unclassifiable/Attainment Unicoi County Unclassifiable/Attainment Union County Unclassifiable/Attainment Van Buren County Unclassifiable/Attainment Warren County Unclassifiable/Attainment Washington County Unclassifiable/Attainment Wayne County Unclassifiable/Attainment Weakley County Unclassifiable/Attainment White County Unclassifiable/Attainment Williamson County Unclassifiable/Attainment Wilson County Unclassifiable/Attainment 1 Includes areas of Indian country located in each county or area, if any, except as otherwise specified. 2 This date is June 19, 2017, unless otherwise noted.
[FR Doc. 2017-10245 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 42 CFR Part 10 RIN 0906-AA89 340B Drug Pricing Program Ceiling Price and Manufacturer Civil Monetary Penalties Regulation AGENCY:

Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Final rule; further delay of effective date.

SUMMARY:

The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) administers section 340B of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), referred to as the “340B Drug Pricing Program” or the “340B Program.” HRSA published a final rule on January 5, 2017, that set forth the calculation of the ceiling price and application of civil monetary penalties. The final rule applied to all drug manufacturers that are required to make their drugs available to covered entities under the 340B Program. In accordance with a January 20, 2017, memorandum from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” HRSA issued an interim final rule that delayed the effective date of the final rule published in the Federal Register (82 FR 1210, (January 5, 2017)) to May 22, 2017. HHS invited commenters to provide their views on whether a longer delay of the effective date to October 1, 2017, would be more appropriate. After consideration of the comments received on the interim final rule, HHS is delaying the effective date of the January 5, 2017 final rule, to October 1, 2017.

DATES:

As of May 19, 2017, the effective date of the final rule published in the Federal Register (82 FR 1210, (January 5, 2017)) is further delayed to October 1, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

CAPT Krista Pedley, Director, Office of Pharmacy Affairs, Healthcare Systems Bureau, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 08W05A, Rockville, MD 20857, or by telephone at 301-594-4353.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

In September 2010, HHS published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register, “340B Drug Pricing Program Manufacturer Civil Monetary Penalties” (75 FR 57230, (September 20, 2010)). HHS subsequently published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in June 2015 to implement civil monetary penalties (CMPs) for manufacturers who knowingly and intentionally charge a covered entity more than the ceiling price for a covered outpatient drug; to provide clarity regarding the requirement that manufacturers calculate the 340B ceiling price on a quarterly basis; and to establish the requirement that a manufacturer charge a $.01 (penny pricing policy) for drugs when the ceiling price calculation equals zero (80 FR 34583, (June 17, 2015)). The public comment period closed August 17, 2015, and HRSA received 35 comments. After review of the initial comments, HHS reopened the comment period (81 FR 22960, (April 19, 2016)) to invite additional comments on the following areas of the NPRM: 340B ceiling price calculations that result in a ceiling price that equals zero (penny pricing); the methodology that manufacturers use when estimating the ceiling price for a new covered outpatient drug; and the definition of the “knowing and intentional” standard to be applied when assessing a CMP for manufacturers that overcharge a covered entity. The comment period closed May 19, 2016, and HHS received 72 comments.

On January 5, 2017, HHS published a final rule in the Federal Register (82 FR 1210, (January 5, 2017)) and comments from both the NPRM and the reopening notice were considered in the development of the final rule. The provisions of that rule were to be effective March 6, 2017; however, HHS issued a subsequent final rule (82 FR 12508, (March 6, 2017)) delaying the effective date to March 21, 2017, in accordance with a January 20, 2017 memorandum from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review.” 1 In the January 5, 2017 final rule, HHS recognized that the effective date fell during the middle of a quarter and stakeholders needed time to adjust systems and update their policies and procedures. As such, HHS stated that it intended to enforce the requirements of the final rule at the start of the next quarter, which began April 1, 2017.

1 See: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/20/memorandum-heads-executive-departments-and-agencies.

After further consideration and to provide affected parties sufficient time to make needed changes to facilitate compliance, and because there were questions raised, HHS issued an interim final rule (82 FR 14332, (March 20, 2017)) to delay the effective date of the final rule to May 22, 2017, and solicited additional comment on whether that date should be further delayed to October 1, 2017. HHS received a number of comments on the interim final rule both supporting and opposing the delay of the effective date to May 22, 2017, or alternatively to October 1, 2017. After careful consideration of the comments received, HHS has decided to delay the effective date of the January 5, 2017 final rule to October 1, 2017. As the effective date of the final rule has been changed to October 1, 2017, enforcement will be correspondingly delayed to October 1, 2017. HHS continues to believe that the delay of the effective date provides regulated entities sufficient time to implement the requirements of the rule.

Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) requires that Federal agencies provide at least 30 days after publication of a final rule in the Federal Register before making it effective, unless good cause can be found not to do so. HHS finds that there is good cause for making this final rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register given that failure to do so would result in the final rule published on January 5, 2017, going into effect for several weeks, before having a delayed effective date of October 1, 2017. To preclude this uncertainty in the marketplace and to ease the burdens on all stakeholders, HHS believes that a clear effective date is an important goal and one that becomes particularly important when it is paired with potential civil monetary penalties. The additional time provided to the public before the rule takes effect constitutes an extra quarter and will assist stakeholders in preparing to comply with these new program requirements.

II. Analysis and Responses to Public Comments

In the interim final rule, we solicited comments regarding whether HHS should delay the January 5, 2017 final rule to May 22, 2017, or alternatively to October 1, 2017. We received a broad range of 51 comments from covered entities, manufacturers, and groups representing these stakeholders. In this final rule, we will only be responding to comments related to whether HHS should delay the January 5, 2017 final rule to May 22, 2017, or to October 1, 2017. Comments that raised issues beyond the narrow scope of the interim final rule, including comments related to withdrawal of the rule or comments related to policy matters, were not considered and are not addressed in this rulemaking. We have summarized the relevant comments received and provided our responses below.

Comment: Some commenters supported the May 22, 2017, effective date and opposed further delaying the final rule until October 1, 2017. The commenters explain that adequate enforcement of manufacturers' pricing obligations is key to the success of the 340B Program. These commenters also suggest that further delay of the final rule would result in a lack of oversight, regulation and basic enforcements for manufacturers, which would continue to hamper the 340B Program and lessen covered entities' ability to stretch scarce resources.

Response: HHS decided to delay the effective date of the January 5, 2017 final rule to October 1, 2017, to provide affected parties sufficient time to make needed changes to facilitate compliance. Given the comments received from stakeholders on the interim final rule regarding the challenges with complying with the January 5, 2017 final rule, HHS determined that delaying the effective date to October 1, 2017, is necessary to provide adequate time for compliance and to mitigate implementation concerns. HHS disagrees that further delay of the final rule would result in a lack of oversight, regulation, and basic enforcements for manufacturers.

Comment: Many commenters opposed further delaying the effective date to October 1, 2017, and suggested that the final rule be enforced immediately. These commenters noted that overcharges in the 340B Program were a widespread problem and that during 2003 and 2005, the HHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a report,2 which found that HRSA lacked the necessary oversight mechanisms to ensure that covered entities pay at or below the 340B ceiling price. The commenters further noted that because of these deficiencies, Congress amended the 340B statute to improve manufacturer compliance by directing HRSA to implement standards for calculating ceiling prices and establish civil monetary penalties for manufacturers that knowingly and intentionally overcharge 340B covered entities. Commenters said that these standards were to be implemented in 2010 and given the long delay in promulgating regulations, they do not support any further delay of the January 5, 2017 final rule. The commenters stated that civil monetary penalties are needed now because they are the only viable penalty that HRSA can impose on manufacturers that violate their 340B pricing obligations.

2 See: OIG, Deficiencies in the Oversight of the 340B Drug Pricing Program (October 2005).

Response: HHS does not agree that that the final rule should be enforced immediately. We are delaying the effective date of the January 5, 2017 final rule to October 1, 2017, to ensure that affected parties have sufficient time to make changes needed to facilitate compliance, which we believe will benefit all 340B stakeholders and enhance program integrity.

Comment: Some commenters raised concerns that the interim final rule did not satisfy APA requirements for rulemaking. Specifically, they argued that HHS had not shown good cause for delaying the effective date of the January 5, 2017 final rule without prior notice or opportunity for public comment and making that change effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register.

Response: HHS disagrees that the good cause exemptions of the APA do not apply here. Our finding that good cause existed to waive the normal rulemaking requirements of the APA was based on our view that in this limited instance notice and public comment was impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Because completion of a rulemaking with notice and comment procedures would not occur until after the previously announced effective date, we believe a delay in determining the effective date would create confusion that could disrupt orderly implementation of the January 5, 2017 final rule, and would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. In addition, we reiterate that we remain concerned that the original effective date for the January 5, 2017 final rule did not allow for sufficient time to consider the regulatory burdens that may be posed and did not provide stakeholders sufficient time to come into compliance with the new program requirements in the final rule. While there was good cause to amend the effective date of the January 5, 2017 final rule, without prior notice or opportunity for public comment and to make the action immediately effective, we note that we implemented the action on an interim basis only and provided notice and an opportunity for comment on the further delay of the effective date of the final rule to October 1, 2017. Based on the foregoing considerations as well as the comments received on our proposal in the interim final rule to further delay the effective date, we are delaying the effective date of the final rule to October 1, 2017.

Comment: Many commenters supported further delaying the effective date to October 1, 2017, at a minimum, and agreed with HHS that more time was needed for stakeholders to come into compliance.

Response: HHS agrees with the commenters and has decided to delay the effective date of the January 5, 2017 final rule to October 1, 2017.

III. Regulatory Impact Analysis

HHS examined the effects of this final rule as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 8, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, September 19, 1980), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999).

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review as established in Executive Order 12866, emphasizing the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule: (1) Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more in any 1 year, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”); (2) creating a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year), and a “significant” regulatory action is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

HHS does not believe the proposal to delay the effective date of the January 5, 2017 final rule will have an economic impact of $100 million or more, and is therefore not designated as an “economically significant” final rule under section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order 12866. Therefore, the economic impact of having no rule in place related to the policies addressed in the final rule is believed to be minimal, as the policies would not yet be required or enforceable.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (RFA) and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996, which amended the RFA, require HHS to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses. If a rule has a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, the Secretary must specifically consider the economic effect of the rule on small entities and analyze regulatory options that could lessen the impact of the rule. HHS will use an RFA threshold of at least a 3 percent impact on at least 5 percent of small entities.

For purposes of the RFA, HHS considers all health care providers to be small entities either by meeting the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standard for a small business, or for being a nonprofit organization that is not dominant in its market. The current SBA size standard for health care providers ranges from annual receipts of $7 million to $35.5 million. As of January 1, 2017, over 12,000 covered entities participate in the 340B Program, which represent safety-net health care providers across the country. HHS determined, and the Secretary certifies that this final rule will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small manufacturers; therefore, we are not preparing an analysis of impact for this RFA. HHS estimates the economic impact on small entities and small manufacturers will be minimal.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” During 2013, that threshold level was approximately $141 million. HHS does not expect this final rule to exceed the threshold.

Executive Order 13132—Federalism

HHS reviewed this final rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism, and has determined that it does not have “federalism implications.” This final rule would not “have substantial direct effects on the States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This final rule would not adversely affect the following family elements: Family safety, family stability, marital commitment; parental rights in the education, nurture, and supervision of their children; family functioning, disposable income or poverty; or the behavior and personal responsibility of youth, as determined under Section 654(c) of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that OMB approve all collections of information by a federal agency from the public before they can be implemented. This final rule is projected to have no impact on current reporting and recordkeeping burden for manufacturers under the 340B Program. This final rule would result in no new reporting burdens.

Dated: May 10, 2017. George Sigounas, Administrator, Health Resources and Services Administration. Approved: May 15, 2017. Thomas E. Price, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2017-10149 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Parts 510 and 512 [CMS-5519-F3] RIN 0938-AS90 Medicare Program; Advancing Care Coordination Through Episode Payment Models (EPMs); Cardiac Rehabilitation Incentive Payment Model; and Changes to the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model (CJR); Delay of Effective Date AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule; delay of effective date.

SUMMARY:

This final rule finalizes May 20, 2017 as the effective date of the final rule titled “Advancing Care Coordination Through Episode Payment Models (EPMs); Cardiac Rehabilitation Incentive Payment Model; and Changes to the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model (CJR)” originally published in the January 3, 2017 Federal Register. This final rule also finalizes a delay of the applicability date of the regulations at 42 CFR part 512 from July 1, 2017 to January 1, 2018 and delays the effective date of the specific CJR regulations listed in the DATES section from July 1, 2017 to January 1, 2018.

DATES:

Effective date: The final rule published in the January 3, 2017 Federal Register (82 FR 180)) is effective May 20, 2017, except for the provisions of the final rule contained in the following amendatory instructions, which are effective January 1, 2018: Number 3 amending 42 CFR 510.2; number 4 adding 42 CFR 510.110; number 6 amending 42 CFR 510.120; number 14 amending 42 CFR 510.405; number 15 amending 42 CFR 510.410; number 16 revising 42 CFR 510.500; number 17 revising 42 CFR 510.505; number 18 adding 42 CFR 510.506; and number 19 amending 42 CFR 510.515.

Applicability date: The applicability date of the regulations at 42 CFR part 512 is January 1, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Harris (410) 786-0812. For questions related to the EPMs: [email protected]. For questions related to the CJR model: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

In the interim final rule with comment period published on March 21, 2017 (82 FR 14464), we delayed the effective date of the final rule titled “Advancing Care Coordination Through Episode Payment Models (EPMs); Cardiac Rehabilitation Incentive Payment Model; and Changes to the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model (CJR)” to May 20, 2017, the applicability date of the regulations at 42 CFR part 512 to October 1, 2017, and the effective date of the specific CJR regulations itemized in the DATES section to October 1, 2017. The 30-day comment period for that rule closed on April 19, 2017. We received 47 submissions in response to our comment solicitation on the start date for the EPMs and Cardiac Rehabilitation (CR) incentive payment model, and we have summarized and responded to comments related to the appropriateness of this delay as well as a further delay until January 1, 2018, in the following section.

II. Provisions of the Interim Final Rule With Comment Period and Analysis of and Responses to Public Comments

In the January 3, 2017 Federal Register (82 FR 180), we published a final rule titled “Advancing Care Coordination Through Episode Payment Models (EPMs); Cardiac Rehabilitation Incentive Payment Model; and Changes to the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model (CJR)” (hereafter called the EPM final rule), which implements three new Medicare Parts A and B EPMs and a Cardiac Rehabilitation (CR) incentive payment model, and implements changes to the existing CJR model under section 1115A of the Social Security Act (the Act). Under the three new EPMs, acute care hospitals in certain selected geographic areas will participate in retrospective EPMs targeting care for Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries receiving services during acute myocardial infarction (AMI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), and surgical hip/femur fracture treatment (SHFFT) episodes. All related care within 90 days of hospital discharge will be included in the episode of care. The three new EPMs are called the AMI EPM, CABG EPM, and SHFFT EPM. Under the CR incentive payment model, acute care hospitals in certain selected geographic areas will receive retrospective incentive payments for beneficiary utilization of cardiac rehabilitation/intensive cardiac rehabilitation services during the 90 days following the hospital discharge that initiated an AMI or a CABG episode.

The EPM final rule included an effective date of February 18, 2017 for all provisions except those contained in the following amendatory instructions, which were to become effective on July 1, 2017: Number 3 amending 42 CFR 510.2; number 4 adding 42 CFR 510.110; number 6 amending 42 CFR 510.120; number 14 amending 42 CFR 510.405; number 15 amending 42 CFR 510.410; number 16 revising 42 CFR 510.500; number 17 revising 42 CFR 510.505; number 18 adding 42 CFR 510.506; and number 19 amending 42 CFR 510.515. For the EPMs and CR incentive payment model, the provisions in the EPM final rule regarding the regulations at 42 CFR part 512 were to become effective February 18, 2017, but the applicability date was July 1, 2017, meaning that the episodes for those models would not start until July 1, 2017.

In the February 17, 2017 Federal Register (82 FR 10961), as directed by the memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, titled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review”, we published a final rule that delayed the effective date of the EPM final rule for provisions that were to become effective on February 18, 2017, to an effective date of March 21, 2017. In the February 17, 2017 final rule (82 FR 10961), we stated that the provisions contained in the amendatory instructions summarized in the previous paragraph remained effective July 1, 2017. In addition, the applicability dates for the EPMs and CR incentive payment model remained July 1, 2017.

The January 20, 2017 “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” memorandum encourages agencies to consider proposing for notice and comment a rule to delay the effective date for regulations beyond that 60-day period. In the interim final rule with comment period published on March 21, 2017 (hereafter called the March 21, 2017 IFC), we further delayed the effective date of the EPM final rule from March 21, 2017 (as provided in the final rule published in the February 17, 2017 Federal Register (82 FR 10961)) to May 20, 2017; delayed the applicability date of the regulations that were to be applicable on July 1, 2017 to an applicability date of October 1, 2017; and delayed the effective date of certain conforming changes to CJR provisions that were to be effective July 1, 2017 to October 1, 2017. These delays postponed the applicability of the EPMs and the CR incentive payment model, as well as the date on which conforming changes to the CJR model regulations take effect, until October 1, 2017. This additional 3-month delay was necessary to allow time for additional review, to ensure that the agency had adequate time to undertake notice and comment rulemaking to propose changes to the policy as warranted, and to ensure that participants have a clear understanding of the models and are not required to take needless compliance steps due to the rule taking effect for a short duration before any potential changes are effectuated. We noted that, in light of the potential need for further notice and comment rulemaking prior to the start of the models, it would be problematic not to adjust the start date for the EPMs and CR incentive payment model from July 1, 2017. Given participants' need for advance notice of the terms of the models, and the fact that the episodes being tested in these models exceed 90 days in duration because they initiate with a hospitalization and end 90 days after discharge, we believed that immediately moving the start date of the EPMs and CR incentive payment model to October 1, 2017 was appropriate.

Moreover, in the January 3, 2017 final rule, payment year one for the EPMs was originally to cover the 6-month period from July 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017. Subsequent EPM model years run a full 12 months in accordance with the calendar year. Considering the length of episodes in the models, we believed it would be preferable to maintain a duration of at least 6 months for payment year one and that it would be less burdensome for participants to adhere as closely to the calendar year as possible when defining model payment years. Further, to the extent that we would propose and finalize revisions to the model, should we determine changes are warranted, we noted that participants should have reasonable time to prepare. Therefore, we sought comment on a longer delay of the start date, including to January 1, 2018, and noted that we would address the comments and effectuate any additional delay in the models' start date when we finalized the March 21, 2017 IFC. In addition, we noted that if we effectuated any additional delay in the models' start date, we also would delay the effective date of certain conforming CJR regulation changes (that is, the changes listed in the DATES section of the EPM final rule that originally were to take effect July 1, 2017) so that the effective date of those changes remained aligned with the start date of the EPMs.

The 30-day comment period for the March 21, 2017 IFC closed on April 19, 2017. We received multiple comments on the models' start date change on which we solicited comment in the IFC and those comments and our responses are discussed in the following paragraphs. We also received a number of comments on the models that did not relate to the start date change comment solicitation. These additional comments suggested that we reconsider or revise various model aspects, policies and design components; in particular these comments suggested that we should make participation in the models voluntary instead of mandatory. We will not respond to these comments in this final rule as they are out of scope of this rulemaking, but we may take them into consideration in future rulemaking.

Comment: Many commenters supported CMS' further delay of the start date from October 1, 2017 to January 1, 2018 for the EPMs and CR incentive payment model. Commenters requested at least 6 months of preparation time after the EPM final rule takes effect, stating that the EPM episodes are complex, involve sick patients with many entry points into acute care settings, and require the establishment of networks for coordination across numerous specialists. Commenters stated that participants need time to evaluate the final model provisions, to develop specific EPM care plans, and to update health information technology, quality metrics, patient and family education, care management and discharge planning. Commenters stated that more lead time is needed to redesign clinical care in a manner that ensures beneficiaries receive the most appropriate and optimal care, including increasing referrals to cardiac rehabilitation. Some commenters requested that we provide historic claims data as scheduled and do not delay sharing data so that hospital can identify opportunities for care redesign in advance of the models' start date. Additionally, commenters noted that January 1, 2018 would be better than October 1, 2017 to start the models, as a 3-month payment year one would not allow for meaningful performance outcomes. Commenters also noted that a model start date of January 1, 2018 would allow CMS to engage in additional rulemaking on the specific EPM structure and overall model design.

A few commenters suggested that the October 1, 2017 start date should be retained, and hospitals should have the option to delay their participation in the EPMs until January 1, 2018. This option would allow hospitals with no prior experience operating under risk-based models more time to prepare while other hospitals could begin participating sooner. One commenter did not support further delay until January 1, 2018, stating that continued uncertainty around the start date of the EPMs and CR incentive payment model may penalize proactive providers who have been preparing for implementation of the EPMs and CR incentive payment model since they were notified of their participation in the model at the time of the publication of the EPM final rule in early 2017. Several commenters suggested that rather than delaying the EPMs, CMS should withdraw these models all together. Other commenters suggested that these models be delayed indefinitely until further evaluation can be done to determine consequences of these models on the health care marketplace in the selected geographic areas and on other Innovation Center models.

Response: We thank commenters for their feedback. Based on this feedback, we agree with the majority of commenters that an additional delay prior to the start of the EPMs and CR incentive payment model is necessary. Delaying the EPMs' and CR incentive payment model's start date dates until January 1, 2018 will ensure that CMS has adequate time to undertake notice and comment rulemaking, if modifications are warranted. This would ensure that, in the case of any policy changes, participants would have a clear understanding of the governing rules before episodes begin and have the opportunity to take additional steps to adjust to any potential changes that may be effectuated.

Moreover, in the EPM final rule, payment year one for the EPMs was established to cover the 6-month period from July 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017. Subsequent EPM model years run a full 12 months in accordance with the calendar year. Considering that the length of episodes in the EPMs includes the duration of the hospitalization and the 90 day post-discharge period and therefore exceeds 90 days in duration, we believe it would be preferable to maintain a duration of at least 6 months for payment year one, which also would also give participant hospitals 6 additional months of experience in the models before downside risk begins for all participants. Additionally, we believe it would be less burdensome for participants to adhere as closely to the calendar year as possible when defining model payment years.

We disagree with commenters who were opposed to further delaying the models until January 1, 2018 on the basis that a delay would penalize those participants who may be ready for an October 1, 2017 implementation date. Additionally, we are respectfully rejecting the suggestion that optional model start dates of October and January should be allowed due to the additional operational and administrative burden that would arise from creating two sets of model timeframes. We believe that all model participants should have time to consider proposed changes to these models, operate under the same model timeframe, and have time between the establishment of the final model parameters and the start date of the models.

We also note that we disagree with commenters who suggested that CMS withdraw these models altogether and/or delay them indefinitely. As we stated in the January 3, 2017 EPM final rule, we believe these models will further our goals of improving the efficiency and quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries receiving care for these common clinical conditions and procedures.

Comment: Several commenters did not support the delay of the establishment of an Alternative Payment Models Beneficiary Ombudsman, which they believe would result from a delay of the EPM final rule. These commenters stated that beneficiaries whose care is provided through alternative payment models have unique questions and may face a variety of issues, and a centralized, expert resource with information about all of the Alternative Payment Models will support CMS's existing information networks and allow for robust tracking of complaints and problems. Commenters stated that focused ombudsman programs work well both in protecting beneficiaries and helping demonstrations stay on track by identifying issues early. Commenters stated that an ombudsman can help ensure consumer understanding, identify systemic issues with implementation, and solve many problems without the need to use formal appeals processes.

Response: As we stated in the January 3, 2017 EPM final rule (82 FR 430), we intend to establish an Alternative Payment Models Beneficiary Ombudsman within CMS who will complement the Medicare Beneficiary Ombudsman in responding to beneficiary inquiries and concerns arising from care under the EPMs, CR incentive payment model and CJR model, as well as other Innovation Center models, under the existing Medicare processes. We agree with the commenters that ombudsman programs are helpful to resolve beneficiary concerns and in tracking model issues. We note that delaying the start date of the EPMs and CR incentive payment model will allow CMS additional time to establish ombudsman support for these models.

For the CJR model, there are already numerous model-specific processes in place and in the Medicare program generally to protect beneficiary choice. We have established similar protections for beneficiary choice in the EPM regulations. In the EPMs and CJR model, beneficiaries retain their right to choose the provider or supplier for medically necessary, covered services. Under these models, the beneficiary retains the benefits of the doctor-patient relationship and is provided additional notification of any sharing arrangements the participant hospital may have with EPM and CJR collaborators that could create a potential conflict of interest. In addition, the beneficiary must be provided with a notice for continuing services that are not covered under the models or Medicare, such as a continued stay in an EPM participant or a skilled nursing facility (SNF), and the beneficiary has access to the existing expedited review process in these cases. At any time during these models, the beneficiary retains the right to also voice concerns or grievances using currently available resources, by calling their local Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) contractor or by calling the 1-800-MEDICARE helpline.

Comment: Several commenters strongly urged CMS to refrain from delaying implementation of the CR incentive payment model. Citing multiple research studies on cardiac rehabilitation data, commenters stated that cardiac rehabilitation has health benefits as well as financial advantages, including reduced hospitalizations and use of medical resources. Commenters stated that the incentive payments may be used to better coordinate cardiac rehabilitation and to support beneficiary adherence to the CR treatment plans by removing barriers to participation.

Response: Although we appreciate the commenters' support for the CR incentive payment model, we note that the CR incentive payment model that will run in the EPM MSAs is designed to incentivize CR utilization by beneficiaries in active EPM AMI and CABG episodes. The CR incentive payment model is being tested in EPM model MSAs and in other FFS MSAs concurrently. Prior to January 1, 2018 there will be no active EPM episodes in the EPM MSAs. We believe it would be confusing and operationally challenging to start the CR incentive payment model on October 1, 2017, which is 3 months before the EPM cardiac models start. We believe that existing Medicare FFS provisions sufficiently allow beneficiaries access to appropriate cardiac rehabilitation services prior to the start of the CR incentive payment model. Thus, we do not agree that we should begin the CR incentive payment model prior to the EPMs, and will start the CR incentive payment model in conjunction with the AMI and CABG EPMs on January 1, 2018.

Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns about delaying the conforming changes to the CJR model that were originally intended to take effect July 1, 2017 to October. These commenters also objected to a further delay of those same CJR model changes to January 1, 2018. One commenter expressed support for delaying these CJR conforming changes to allow participants ample time to implement changes within their healthcare systems, even though there could be some impact on clinicians' participation in the 2017 Advanced APM track. Commenters expressed concern regarding the ability of orthopedic surgeons to achieve qualified provider status for participating in an Advanced APM for 2017 should the models be delayed beyond October 1, 2017. Commenters stated that changes to CJR requirements for beneficiary notification and sharing arrangements provide clarity, help ensure compliance with timely beneficiary notification, and enhance hospitals' ability to engage with additional crucial care partners through the use of financial incentives. Commenters expressed concern that without these changes to beneficiary notification and sharing agreements, there will continue to be beneficiary confusion and distress regarding the notification requirement and an increased burden for participants. Commenters also expressed concern that a further delay of changes to the types of entities that can be CJR collaborators would prevent non-physician practitioner group practices, therapy group practices, therapists in private practice, and comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facilities from becoming CJR collaborators during 2017.

Response: We thank the commenters for their feedback. The purpose of making conforming changes to certain aspects of the CJR model was to align the established EPM policies with CJR policies that are similar, which we believe would decrease burden, particularly for CJR hospitals participating in the SHFFT model. We note that several changes to the CJR beneficiary notification requirements will take effect on May 20, 2017, most notably the changes at § 510.405(a) and (b) changes that recognize that the beneficiary's condition may affect the timing of notification about the CJR model and that cover notification by collaborators about applicable sharing arrangements (82 FR 616). We are only delaying changes to the beneficiary notification provisions (that is, revisions to § 510.405(b)(1), (2), and (4)) that add non-physician practitioner group practices (NPPGPs) and therapy group practices (TGPs) to the collaborators responsible for compliance with § 510.405 because the conforming provisions that add NPPGPs and TGPs to the list of eligible collaborators are being delayed until January to align collaborator requirements across the CJR and SHFFT models.

We note that the provisions in the EPM final rule that allow hospitals to join the Advanced APM option under the CJR model are effective May 20, 2017, and will allow eligible clinicians on a CJR affiliated practitioner list to potentially qualify as Qualifying APM Participants (QPs) under the Quality Payment Program in 2017. In response to commenters' concern regarding the ability of orthopedic surgeons to achieve QP status for participating in an Advanced APM for 2017, we would like to clarify that the delay until January 1, 2018 of certain conforming changes to the CJR regulations is unlikely to have an effect on most eligible clinicians to achieve QP status for participating in an Advanced APM for 2017. We understand that the conforming changes to the types of CJR collaborators, including the change that permits ACOs to be CJR collaborators, will not become effective until January 1, 2018. However, physicians and physician group practices have been valid CJR collaborator types since the CJR model began, and therefore we believe that most orthopedic surgeons furnishing services to beneficiaries included in CJR in 2017 would already have arranged to be CJR collaborators under these existing categories. Therefore, we believe orthopedic surgeons' ability to qualify for QP status in 2017 is unlikely to be significantly affected by the delay of regulations that broaden the scope of CJR collaborator provider types.

Final Decision: After careful consideration of the public comments received, we are finalizing a further delay of the start date of the EPMs and CR incentive payment model until January 1, 2018, such that these models' performance year 1 would start on January 1, 2018 and end on December 31, 2018. Additionally, we are finalizing a further delay of the effective date of the CJR regulation amendments that were to take effect October 1, 2017. These CJR regulation amendments will now be effective as of January 1, 2018, to maintain our policy of aligning these changes with the EPMs.

III. Out of Scope Public Comments Received

We received public comments suggesting changes to the overall design of the EPMs, CR incentive payment model and CJR model that were outside of the scope of the March 21, 2017 IFC. These comments touched on participation requirements, data, pricing, quality measures, episode length, CR and SNF waivers, beneficiary exclusions and notification requirements, repayment, coding, and model overlap issues. We consider these public comments to be outside of the scope of the March 21, 2017 IFC; and therefore, we are not addressing them in this final rule. We may consider these public comments in future rulemaking.

IV. Waiver of the Delay in Effective Date

Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) normally requires a 30-day delay in the effective date of a rule, but this delay can be waived for good cause. Because in the March 21, 2017 IFC we immediately adjusted the applicability dates of the EPMs and CR incentive payment model (and the effective date of certain conforming CJR model changes) by 3 months, but believed a 6-month delay might be warranted, in the March 21, 2017 IFC we solicited public comment on the appropriateness of a further delay in the applicability (model start) date of the EPMs and CR incentive payment model, and took those comments into consideration in this final rule. In light of the comments, we are implementing a further delay in the applicability (model start) date for the EPMs and CR incentive payment model (as well as a further delay in the effective date of the conforming CJR model changes specified in the DATES section of this final rule). We believe that a 30-day delay in the effective date of this final rule would be contrary to the public interest because it would cause confusion for affected participants. Specifically, as of May 20, 2017, the EPM final rule would become effective and would specify an October 1, 2017 start date for the EPMs and CR incentive payment model, and then this final rule would subsequently specify a January 1, 2018 start date for the EPMs and CR incentive payment model. Such an outcome could cause participants to take needless compliance steps in anticipation of an October 1, 2017 start date, and before any potential modifications, if warranted, can be effectuated. For these reasons, we find good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date provided for in 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Based on these findings, this final rule is effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

Dated: May 12, 2017. Seema Verma, Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Approved: May 15, 2017. Thomas E. Price, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2017-10340 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8479] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

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

DATES:

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Patricia Suber, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

Flood insurance, Floodplains.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

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

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

§ 64.6 [Amended]
2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community
  • No.
  • Effective date
  • authorization/cancellation
  • of sale of
  • flood insurance
  • in community
  • Current effective
  • map date
  • Date certain
  • federal
  • assistance no
  • longer available
  • in SFHAs
  • Region I Connecticut: Ansonia, City of, New Haven County 090071 November 2, 1974, Emerg; September 2, 1981, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp May 16, 2017 May 16, 2017 Branford, Town of, New Haven County 090073 April 5, 1973, Emerg; December 15, 1977, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do*   Do. Bristol, City of, Hartford County 090023 May 2, 1975, Emerg; November 18, 1981, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. Cheshire, Town of, New Haven County 090074 March 13, 1975, Emerg; July 16, 1981, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. Derby, City of, New Haven County 090075 February 4, 1972, Emerg; September 15, 1977, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. East Haven, Town of, New Haven County 090076 April 19, 1973, Emerg; February 1, 1978, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. Guilford, Town of, New Haven County 090077 October 20, 1972, Emerg; May 1, 1978, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. Hamden, Town of, New Haven County 090078 May 3, 1973, Emerg; June 15, 1979, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. New Britain, City of, Hartford County 090032 August 22, 1973, Emerg; July 16, 1981, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. New Haven, City of, New Haven County 090084 October 25, 1973, Emerg; July 16, 1980, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. North Haven, Town of, New Haven County 090086 July 13, 1973, Emerg; September 17, 1980, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. Orange, Town of, New Haven County 090087 May 25, 1973, Emerg; March 18, 1980, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. Prospect, Town of, New Haven County 090151 July 1, 1975, Emerg; February 4, 1977, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. Southington, Town of, Hartford County 090037 July 3, 1975, Emerg; July 16, 1981, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. Wallingford, Town of, New Haven County 090090 June 25, 1973, Emerg; September 15, 1978, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. Woodbridge, Town of, New Haven County 090153 June 18, 1975, Emerg; March 16, 1981, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. Region IV Mississippi: Charleston, City of, Tallahatchie County 280169 May 19, 1975, Emerg; August 4, 1987, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. Crowder, City of, Panola and Quitman Counties 280128 August 6, 1975, Emerg; August 1, 1986, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. Glendora, City of, Tallahatchie County 280210 April 9, 1974, Emerg; September 27, 1985, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. Marks, City of, Quitman County 280140 March 4, 1974, Emerg; September 4, 1985, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. Quitman County, Unincorporated Areas 280207 March 4, 1974, Emerg; September 4, 1985, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. Sumner, Town of, Tallahatchie County 280194 January 28, 1974, Emerg; September 4, 1985, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. Tutwiler, Town of, Tallahatchie County 280197 January 28, 1974, Emerg; September 1, 1986, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. Webb, Town of, Tallahatchie County 280213 May 3, 1975, Emerg; August 1, 1986, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. South Carolina: Chester County, Unincorporated Areas 450047 August 20, 1975, Emerg; July 5, 1982, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. Lancaster, City of, Lancaster County 450121 December 7, 1973, Emerg; July 5, 1982, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. Lancaster County, Unincorporated Areas 450120 July 3, 1975, Emerg; January 6, 1983, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. Tega Cay, City of, York County 450036 N/A, Emerg; January 28, 2009, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. York County, Unincorporated Areas 450193 June 18, 1975, Emerg; November 4, 1981, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. Region VII Iowa: Anita, City of, Cass County 190048 April 11, 1975, Emerg; June 17, 1986, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. Cass County, Unincorporated Areas 190852 August 25, 1975, Emerg; September 1, 1986, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. Fonda, City of, Pocahontas County 190483 May 26, 2010, Emerg; May 1, 2011, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. Griswold, City of, Cass County 190346 October 26, 1976, Emerg; May 1, 1987, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. Marne, City of, Cass County 190348 September 11, 2008, Emerg; January 6, 2011, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. Massena, City of, Cass County 190349 January 15, 2008, Emerg; January 6, 2011, Reg; May 16, 2017, Susp ......do   Do. *do = Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension.
    Dated: May 4, 2017. Michael M. Grimm, Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10161 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 54 [WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58, CC Docket No. 01-92; FCC 17-36] Connect America Fund, ETC Annual Reports and Certifications, Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) grants the Petition for Reconsideration filed by NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association (NTCA) of the Commission's Rate-of-Return Reform Order with respect to the average per-location, per-project construction limitation on universal service support provided for in the Rate-of-Return Reform Order. Amending the rule as described below will encourage carriers to plan cost-effective broadband deployment projects that include higher-cost locations, while maintaining adequate incentives for the efficient use of universal service funds.

    DATES:

    Effective June 19, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alexander Minard, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-0428 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Order on Reconsideration in WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58, CC Docket No. 01-92; FCC 17-36, adopted on April 20, 2017 and released on April 21, 2017. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, or at the following Internet address: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0421/FCC-17-36A1.pdf.

    I. Order on Reconsideration

    1. By this Order, the Commission grants the Petition for Reconsideration filed by NTCA of the Commission's Rate-of-Return Reform Order, 81 FR 24282, April 25, 2016, with respect to the average per-location, per-project construction limitation on universal service support provided for in the Rate-of-Return Reform Order. The Commission finds that amending the rule as described below will encourage carriers to plan cost-effective broadband deployment projects that include higher-cost locations, while maintaining adequate incentives for the efficient use of universal service funds.

    2. In the Rate-of-Return Reform Order, the Commission adopted a Capital Investment Allowance to limit universal service reimbursement of capital expenses associated with very high-cost locations, with a goal of preserving funds for more efficient projects with deployment to a greater number of lower-cost locations. As part of the Capital Investment Allowance, the Commission adopted a rule precluding carriers from seeking universal service support for all capital expenses associated with any construction project with average per-location costs above a company-specific “Maximum Average Per-Location Construction Project Limitation.”

    3. NTCA seeks reconsideration of how the construction limitation is applied. NTCA contends that disallowing all costs associated with a construction project will cause carriers to exclude certain locations to reduce the average per-location cost of the project, with the possible consequence of permanently “stranding” some locations without broadband-capable service. For example, if a carrier subject to a $10,000 average per-location limitation developed a project costing $105,000 to serve 10 locations (i.e., with an average cost per-location served of $10,500), the cost of the entire project would be disallowed. The carrier might instead exclude a handful of the highest cost locations to bring the average per-location cost below the threshold. Once excluded, however, there may not be a subsequent project that deploys service to those locations as efficiently as the first project and, as a result, the location may never receive broadband-capable service.

    4. NTCA therefore requests that the rule disallow, for the purpose of seeking universal service support, only the portion of a project's expenses that exceed the average per-location threshold. In the example above, where the $10,500 average per-location cost of the project exceeds the carrier's $10,000 Maximum Average Per Location Construction Project Loop Plant Investment Limitation, the carrier would report $100,000 (i.e., $10,000 per location) for universal service support purposes and exclude $5,000 (i.e., the amount in excess of $10,000 per location). In that case, a carrier might elect to deploy service to the highest-cost locations without prejudice to its ability to receive universal service support for the project, up to the amount of the average per-location cap.

    5. Upon reconsideration, the Commission agrees that wholly disallowing costs associated with projects exceeding the construction limitation could have the effect of preventing deployment to some locations that a carrier might otherwise choose to serve. As the Commission noted in adopting the Capital Investment Allowance, “[a]lthough it is the Commission's goal to ensure broadband deployment throughout all areas, finite universal service resources must be used where they are most needed.” NTCA's proposed solution is to retain the average per-location construction limitation as a maximum amount includable for universal service support purposes in connection with a construction project. The Commission finds that this solution adequately preserves two critical Commission interests: First, promoting efficient use of universal service funds to maximize the number of high-cost locations with broadband-capable facilities, and second, enabling some locations to be efficiently included within another deployment project (when they might otherwise be denied service altogether). The Commission therefore grants NTCA's petition with respect to the construction limitation.

    II. Procedural Matters

    6. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

    7. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 as amended (RFA) requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

    8. In this Order on Reconsideration, the Commission amends the construction project limitation within the Capital Investment Allowance to permit carriers to report, for universal service purposes, capital expenses per location up to the established per-location per project limit, rather than disallowing all capital expenses associated with construction projects in excess of the limit. This project-specific limitation provides a reasonable upper limit on the amount of per-location capital expenses associated with a carrier's new construction project that the Commission expects will rarely be exceeded. Moreover, to the extent that this rule change has a significant economic impact on any small carriers, the rule change will provide such carries additional flexibility to undertake new construction projects that exceed the limit without risk of losing all universal service support associated with the project. Because the Commission anticipates that this rule will not affect a substantial number of carriers, the Commission does not anticipate that it will affect a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Commission certifies that the requirements of this Order on Reconsideration will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy of the Order on Reconsideration including a copy of this final certification to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

    9. Congressional Review Act. The Commission will send a copy of this Order on Reconsideration to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    III. Ordering Clauses

    10. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1 through 4, 214(e)(6), and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 214(e)(6), 254, and pursuant section 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by NTCA on January 3, 2017 is granted to the extent indicated above and this Order on Reconsideration is adopted, effective thirty (30) days after publication of the text or summary thereof in the Federal Register.

    11. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of this Order on Reconsideration to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    12. It is further ordered that pursuant to section 1.427 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.427, this Order shall be effective 30 days after publication of the text or summary thereof in the Federal Register.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54

    Communications common carriers, Health facilities, Infants and children, Internet, Libraries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Telecommunications, Telephone.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 54 as follows:

    PART 54—UNIVERSAL SERVICE 1. The authority citation for part 54 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 254, 303(r), 403, and 1302 unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend § 54.303 by revising paragraph (f) introductory text to read as follows:
    § 54.303 Eligible Capital Investment and Operating Expenses.

    (f) Construction allowance adjustment. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, a rate-of-return carrier must exclude from the data it submits for the purposes of obtaining high-cost support under subpart K or subpart M of this part the amount of Loop Plant Investment associated with a new construction project that exceeds the Maximum Average Per Location Construction Project Limitation for that project as determined by the Administrator according to the following formula:

    [FR Doc. 2017-10099 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    82 96 Friday, May 19, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0472; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-148-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A310-203, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the wing bottom skin at the main landing gear (MLG) reinforcing plate is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would require a modification of the wing bottom skin at the MLG reinforcing plate. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 3, 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 Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0472; 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 Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0472; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-148-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    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 widespread fatigue damage. 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.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0170, dated August 19, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A310-203, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    In response to the FAA Part 26 rule, wing structural items of the Airbus A310 design that are deemed potentially susceptible to Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD) have been assessed. The bottom skin at the main landing gear (MLG) reinforcing plate has been highlighted as an area susceptible to Multi Site Damage (MSD).

    This condition, if not corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the wing.

    Airbus performed a detailed widespread fatigue damage tolerance analysis of the bottom skin at the MLG reinforcing plate, and concluded that a modification is necessary to the fastener holes at the inboard edge of the reinforcing plate forward of the rear spar. The modification consists of inspection [related investigative actions of a check and a rotating probe inspection] and a first oversize of the critical holes on the first two rows of fasteners [and corrective actions, e.g., repair]. Airbus modification 13751 was introduced and Service Bulletin (SB) A310-57-2104 was issued to provide in-service modification instructions. The accomplishment of this modification at the specified time will recondition/renovate/extend the life of the fastener holes in the bottom skin at the MLG reinforcing plate and prevent the development of MSD up to the Extended Service Goal (ESG).

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires certain modifications to the wing bottom skin at the MLG reinforcing plate, forward of the wing rear spar [including related investigative actions of a check and a rotating probe inspection and corrective actions, e.g., repair].

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0472.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2104, dated December 15, 2015. The service information describes procedures for a modification of the left hand (LH) and right hand (RH) wing bottom skin at the MLG reinforcing plate, including related investigative actions and applicable corrective actions. 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 and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Explanation of Compliance Time

    The compliance time for the replacement specified in this proposed AD for addressing WFD was established to ensure that discrepant structure is replaced before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it becomes a hazard to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service bulletin related to WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly warrant such an extension.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 8 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
  • Modification 52 work-hours × $85 per hour = $4,420 $12,000 $16,420 $131,360
    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): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2017-0472; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-148-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 3, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-203, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the wing bottom skin at the main landing gear (MLG) reinforcing plate is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to prevent multi-site damage in the bottom skin at the MLG reinforcing plate, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Modification

    Within the compliance times defined in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, table 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD, or table 3 to paragraph (g) of this AD, as applicable to airplane type and utilization: Do a modification of the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) wing bottom skin at the MLG reinforcing plate, including all related investigative actions and applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2104, dated December 15, 2015, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. All related investigative and applicable corrective actions must be done before further flight. For purposes of this AD, the term “short range” applies to airplanes with an average flight time (AFT) lower than 1.5 flight hours (FH) per flight cycle, and the term “long range” applies to airplanes with an average flight time equal to or higher than 1.5 FH per flight cycle. For determining the “short range” and “long range” airplanes, the AFT is the total accumulated flight hours, counted from take-off to touch-down, divided by the total accumulated flight cycles at the effective date of this AD.

    Table 1 to Paragraph (g) of This AD—Model A310-200 Series Airplanes Compliance Time (whichever occurs later, A or B) A Before exceeding 28,800 flight cycles (FC) or 57,600 FH, whichever occurs first since first flight of the airplane. B Within 960 FC, or 1,920 FH, or 12 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD. Table 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD—A310-300 “short-range” Airplanes Compliance Time (whichever occurs later, A or B) A Before exceeding 27,700 FC or 77,700 FH, whichever occurs first since first flight of the airplane. B Within 920 FC, or 2,580 FH, or 12 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD. Table 3 to paragraph (g) of this AD—A310-300 “short-range” Airplanes Compliance Time (whichever occurs later, A or B) A Before exceeding 20,500 FC or 102,500 FH, whichever occurs first since first flight of the airplane. B Within 680 FC, or 3,420 FH, or 12 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD. (h) Exception to Service Information Specifications

    Where Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2104, dated December 15, 2015, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance): Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

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

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

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0170, dated August 19, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0472.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 10, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10032 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7264; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-185-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

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

    SUMMARY:

    We are revising an earlier notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for certain Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes. This action revises the NPRM by including new inspection locations for certain airplanes, and removing incorrect part numbers. We are proposing this airworthiness directive (AD) to address the unsafe condition on these products. Since these actions impose an additional burden over those proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2016 (81 FR 40201), is reopened.

    We must receive comments on this SNPRM by July 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this SNPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7264; 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 SNPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-7264; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-185-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this SNPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this SNPRM based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2016 (81 FR 40201) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a quality control review on the final assembly line, which determined that the wrong aluminum alloy was used to manufacture several structural parts. The NPRM proposed to require a one-time eddy current conductivity measurement of certain cabin and cargo compartment structural parts to determine if an incorrect aluminum alloy was used, and replacement of any affected part with a serviceable part.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0021, dated February 8, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Following an Airbus quality control review on the final assembly line, it was discovered that wrong aluminum alloy was used to manufacture several structural parts.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus published [Service Bulletin] (SB) A330-53-3261, SB A330-53-3262, and SB A340-53-5072, as applicable to aeroplane type/model, to provide instructions to identify the affected parts. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2015-0206 to require a one-time special detailed inspection (SDI) [eddy current conductivity measurements] of certain cabin and/or cargo compartment parts for material identification and, depending on findings, replacement with serviceable parts.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Airbus identified that the list of affected structural parts in SB A330-53-3261 was incorrect. Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued SB A330-53-3261 Revision 01 to introduce the new locations to be inspected and remove other parts not affected.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2015-0206, which is superseded, and expands the locations to be inspected.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7264.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following service information:

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3261, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated November 10, 2016.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3262, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 23, 2015.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-5072, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 23, 2015.

    The service information describes procedures for a one-time eddy current conductivity measurement of certain cabin and cargo compartment structural parts to determine if an incorrect aluminum alloy was used, and replacement of any affected part with a serviceable part. This service information is distinct since it applies to different parts on different airplanes. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing the NPRM. We considered the comments received.

    Request To Change Compliance Time

    American Airlines (AA) asked that we change the compliance time for the on-condition replacement specified in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) from “before further flight” to “within 6 years after the effective date of the AD, or within 12 years from the aeroplane date of manufacture, whichever occurs first” to correspond with the compliance time in the EASA AD. AA stated that this would provide more flexibility to operators in order to have a better plan to procure the parts and accomplish the replacement without extended downtime if the replacement parts are not immediately available after doing the inspection.

    We agree with the commenter for the reasons provided. We have changed the compliance time specified in paragraph (h) of this proposed AD accordingly.

    Request To Correct Typographical Error

    AA asked that we correct a typographical error specified in the second box of Figure A-GFAAA, Sheet 02, “Inspection Flowchart,” of the service information identified in paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). AA stated that the conductivity measurement should specify Sigma 60 instead of Sigma 480.

    We agree that the conductivity measurement specified in the second box of the specified inspection flowchart is incorrect. We have added paragraph (i) to this proposed AD to specify this exception to the inspection flowchart in the service information. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

    Additional Changes to This Proposed AD

    As stated previously, we have revised this proposed AD to include new inspection locations for certain airplanes, and to remove incorrect part numbers from table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this proposed AD.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This SNPRM

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

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 37 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 17 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $53,465, or $1,445 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any on-condition repairs would take about 45 work-hours and would require parts costing $0, for a cost of $3,825 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs.

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our cost estimate.

    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): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-7264; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-185-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 3, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.

    (1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3261, Revision 01, dated November 10, 2016; and/or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3262, dated June 23, 2015.

    (2) Airbus Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers 1030, 1040, 1079, 1091, 1102, and 1122.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a quality control review on the final assembly line, which determined that the wrong aluminum alloy was used to manufacture several structural parts. We are issuing this AD to detect and replace structural parts made of incorrect aluminum alloy. This condition could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) One-time Measurement

    Except as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD: Within 6 years after the effective date of this AD, but not exceeding 12 years since the date of issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness; do a one-time eddy current conductivity measurement of the cabin and cargo compartment structural parts identified in the “Affected Part Number” column of table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD to determine if an incorrect aluminum alloy was used, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD.

    (1) For cargo compartment structural parts for Model A330 airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3261, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated November 10, 2016.

    (2) For cabin structural parts for Model A330 airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3262, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 23, 2015; except part number F5377004320300, which is located in the “cabin” area, but must be inspected in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3261, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated November 10, 2016.

    (3) For cargo compartment structural parts for Model A340 airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-5072, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 23, 2015.

    Table 1 to Paragraphs (g) and (h) of This AD—Parts To Be Inspected/Installed Affected
  • part number
  • Acceptable
  • replacement
  • part number
  • Area
    F5347126620600 F5347126620000 Cabin. F5347126621000 F5347126620400 Cabin. F5377004320300 F5377004320351 Cabin. F5347170420400 F5347170420400 Cargo. F5347170420600 F5347170420600 Cargo. G5367131300000 G5367131300000 Cargo. G5367173700000 G5367173700000 Cargo. G5367173800000 G5367173800000 Cargo.
    (h) Replacement

    If during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any affected part having a part number specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD is found to have a measured value greater than that specified in Figure A-GFAAA, Sheet 02, “Inspection Flowchart,” of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, except as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD: Within 6 years after the effective date of this AD, but not exceeding 12 years since the date of issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, replace the affected part with an acceptable replacement part having a part number specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD.

    (i) Exception to Certain Service Information

    Where Figure A-GFAAA, Sheet 02, “Inspection Flowchart,” of the service information identified in paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of this AD specifies to “do the conductivity (σ) measurement with 60kHz (refer to Appendix 01) σ480 = __ MS/m,” the correct conductivity measurement is “σ60 = __ MS/m.”

    (j) Additional Inspection for Certain Airplanes

    For Model A330 airplanes on which the inspection and replacement, as applicable, specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD were done before the effective date of this AD, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3261, dated June 23, 2015: Within 6 years after the effective date of this AD, but not exceeding 12 years since the date of issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, do a one-time eddy current conductivity measurement of structural parts having part number (P/N) G5367131300000, P/N G5367173700000, and P/N G5367173800000, located in fuselage section 15, in accordance with the “Additional Work” section of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3261, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated November 10, 2016.

    (k) Replacement

    If during the inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD, any affected part having a part number specified in paragraph (j) of this AD is found to have a measured value greater than that specified in Figure A-GFAAA, Sheet 02, “Inspection Flowchart,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3261, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated November 10, 2016: Within 6 years after the effective date of this AD, but not exceeding 12 years since the date of issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, replace the affected part with an acceptable replacement part having a part number specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3261, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated November 10, 2016.

    (l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to the person identified in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

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

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

    (m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0021, dated February 8, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7264.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 8, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10035 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6429; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-117-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

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

    SUMMARY:

    We are revising an earlier notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-05-02, which applies to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233, and A321 series airplanes. This action revises the NPRM by proposing to require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new or revised structural inspection requirements and adding airplanes to the applicability. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Since these actions impose an additional burden over that proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 11, 2016 (81 FR 29198), is reopened.

    We must receive comments on this SNPRM by July 3, 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 SNPRM, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]m; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6429; 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 SNPRM, 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:

    Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-6429; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-117-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this SNPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this SNPRM 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 SNPRM.

    Discussion

    On February 25, 2015, we issued AD 2015-05-02, Amendment 39-18112 (80 FR 15152, March 23, 2015) (“AD 2015-05-02”). AD 2015-05-02 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233, and A321 series airplanes.

    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD to supersede AD 2015-05-02 that would apply to certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 11, 2016 (81 FR 29198) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) which indicates that principal structural elements and certain life-limited parts are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or revised structural inspection requirements.

    Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM, the manufacturer has issued more restrictive airworthiness limitations and added Model A320-251N and -271N airplanes to the applicability.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0239, dated December 2, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations for Airbus A320 family aeroplanes are currently included in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) documents. The Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items are published in ALS Part 2, approved by EASA.

    The instructions contained in the ALS Part 2 have been identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness. Failure to comply with these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.

    Previously, EASA issued AD 2015-0083 to require accomplishment of all maintenance tasks as described in ALS Part 2 at Revision 03. Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Airbus issued Revision 04, and later on Revision 05 of the ALS Part 2, including new and/or more restrictive items, and new A320 models were certified.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2015-0083, which is superseded, expands the Applicability by adding the models A320-251N and A320-271N, requires accomplishment of all maintenance tasks as described in the ALS Part 2, Revision 05 (hereafter referred to as `the ALS' in this [EASA] AD), and provides specific compliance times for ALS task 572021-01-1 (Wide Spread Fatigue Damage related).

    The required action is revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new or revised structural inspection requirements. The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, and WFD, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6429.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information.

    • A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1—Safe Life—Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL—ALI), Revision 04, dated June 20, 2016. This service information describes mandatory instructions and airworthiness limitations for the “safe-life” structure.

    • A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—Damage-Tolerant—Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT—ALI), Revision 05, dated July 8, 2016. This service information describes mandatory instructions and airworthiness limitations arising from fatigue and damage tolerance evaluation of damage tolerant structural elements.

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

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing the NPRM. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

    Requests To Specify Revised Service Information

    Airbus requested that we revise the NPRM to specify the latest ALS Part 1 document, which is currently Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1 SL—ALI, Revision 03, dated February 22, 2016. Airbus and United Airlines (UAL) requested that we revise the NPRM to specify Revision 05 of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—DT—ALI, which is expected to be published soon.

    We agree with the commenters' requests. We have reviewed the latest ALS documents: Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—SL—ALI, Revision 04, dated June 20, 2016; and Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—DT—ALI, Revision 05, dated July 8, 2016.

    We have added paragraph (j) to this proposed AD to specify that the incorporation of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—SL—ALI, Revision 04, dated June 20, 2016, is a method of compliance for the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this proposed AD. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

    We have also revised paragraph (i) of this proposed AD to specify incorporation of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—DT—ALI, Revision 05, dated July 8, 2016.

    Request To Allow Repair Design Approval Sheets (RDAS)

    UAL requested that we allow the instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA) defined in Airbus/EASA-approved RDAS as an acceptable adaptation to an ALI task for the affected repair location in lieu of obtaining approval of an FAA alternative method of compliance (AMOC). UAL stated that paragraph (j) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) (referred to as paragraph (k) of this proposed AD (in the SNPRM)) prohibits alternative action(s), including inspections and/or intervals, unless approved by an AMOC.

    We do not agree with UAL's request. 14 CFR part 39.17 states that if a change in a product affects an operator's ability to accomplish the actions required by the airworthiness directive in any way, the operator must request FAA approval of an AMOC. For approval of an AMOC, the operator must provide evidence that the change will eliminate the unsafe condition or include the specific proposed actions to address the unsafe condition. An operator can submit a RDAS as substantiation to support a request for an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this proposed AD. We have not changed this proposed AD in this regard.

    Request for Repair Policy Clarification

    UAL requested that we clarify the repairs required by the proposed AD. UAL explained that paragraph 5.3 of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2, DT—ALI, Revision 04, dated December 18, 2015, states that operators must follow the structural repair manual or RDAS in case of damage or repairs. UAL stated that it is not certain that this provision provides authority to incorporate the adapted ICA for the repairs without requesting approval of an FAA AMOC.

    We agree that clarification is necessary. AMOCs are not required to address findings from the required ALS inspection because the AD does not mandate corrective actions. An AMOC is only required if there are deviations from the ALS inspection method or interval. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes are required by general airworthiness and operational regulations to perform maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We have not changed this proposed AD in this regard.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This SNPRM

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

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,182 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions required by AD 2015-05-02, and retained in this proposed AD, take about 2 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2015-05-02 is $170 per product.

    We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $200,940, or $170 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

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

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-05-02, Amendment 39-18112 (80 FR 15152, March 23, 2015), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-6429; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-117-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 3, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2015-05-02, Amendment 39-18112 (80 FR 15152, March 23, 2015) (“AD 2015-05-02”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before July 8, 2016.

    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.

    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.

    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, and -271N airplanes.

    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Periodic Inspections.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder which indicates that principal structural elements and certain life-limited parts are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, and WFD, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (n) of AD 2015-05-02, with no changes. Within 30 days after March 2, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2014-23-15, Amendment 39-18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015) (“AD 2014-23-15”)), revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALIs) specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions is at the applicable time identified in the ALIs specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD; or within 4 months after March 2, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2014-23-15); whichever occurs later.

    (1) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, Revision 02, dated May 13, 2011.

    (2) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—Damage-Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT ALI), Revision 02, dated May 28, 2013.

    (h) Retained Limitation: No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and/or Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs), With an Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (o) of AD 2015-05-02, with an exception. Except as specified in paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD, as applicable, after accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, and/or CDCCLs may be used unless the actions, intervals, and/or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.

    (i) New Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the ALIs specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2, Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT—ALI), Revision 05, dated July 8, 2016. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions is at the applicable time identified in the ALIs specified in

    Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2, DT—ALI, Revision 05, dated July 8, 2016, without exceeding the inspection intervals in the ALIs specified in the service information identified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD. Accomplishing this action terminates the requirements of paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.

    (j) New Method of Compliance for Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the ALIs specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL—ALI), Revision 04, dated June 20, 2016, is a method of compliance for the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions is at the applicable time identified in the ALIs specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL—ALI), Revision 04, dated June 20, 2016, without exceeding the inspection intervals in the ALIs specified in the service information identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. Accomplishing this action terminates the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

    (k) New No Alternative Actions and/or Intervals

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (i) or specified in paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) and/or intervals may be used unless the actions and/or intervals are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.

    (l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

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

    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2015-05-02, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

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

    (m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0239, dated December 2, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6429.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 8, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10034 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0481; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-196-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., 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 Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of low clearance in the aft equipment bay between auxiliary power unit (APU) generator power cables and a hydraulic line, which can cause damage to wire insulation. This proposed AD would require an inspection of the APU generator power cables and the adjacent hydraulic line for damage, and repair, if necessary; and modification of the APU generator power cable installation. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 3, 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 Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0481; 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 Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Services Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7301; fax 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0481; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-196-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-28, dated September 28, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Low clearance between the APU generator power cables and a hydraulic return line was found in the Aft Equipment Bay (AEB) on some aeroplanes in service. Absence of clearance can cause damage to the insulation of the wire, which can lead to a fault in the APU electrical system or arcing with the metallic hydraulic return line and could cause a fire in the AEB.

    This [Canadian] AD is issued to mandate an [general visual] inspection [for damage] of the APU generator power cables and the hydraulic return line, [and repair, if necessary] and a modification of the clamp arrangement to give sufficient clearance between the power cables and the hydraulic return line.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0481.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-24-28, dated July 27, 2016, and Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-24-003, dated July 27, 2016. The service information describes procedures for the inspection of the APU generator power cables and the adjacent hydraulic line for damage, and repair, if necessary; and modification of the APU generator power cable installation. These documents are distinct since they apply to different configurations of this model. 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 and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 162 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
  • Inspect and modify cables 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 (1) $85 $13,770 1 We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the parts cost associated with the modification specified in this proposed AD.

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these repairs:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Repair Up to 5 work-hours × $85 per hour = $425 (1) $425 1 We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the parts cost associated with the repair specified in this proposed AD.

    According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    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): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2017-0481; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-196-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 3, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 20003 through 20635 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical power.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of low clearance in the aft equipment bay between auxiliary power unit (APU) generator power cables and a hydraulic line, which can cause damage to wire insulation. We are issuing this AD to prevent electrical arcing from power cables, which could cause a fire in the aft equipment bay.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection of APU Generator Power Cables and Hydraulic Line, Repairs, and Modification

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, do the applicable actions required by paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.

    (1) For airplanes having serial numbers 20003 through 20500 inclusive: Do a general visual inspection of the APU generator power cables and the adjacent hydraulic line for damage, and do all applicable repairs; and modify the APU generator power cable installation; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-24-28, dated July 27, 2016, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all applicable repairs before further flight.

    (2) For airplanes having serial numbers 20501 through 20635 inclusive: Do a general visual inspection of the APU generator power cables and the adjacent hydraulic line for damage, and do all applicable repairs; and modify the APU generator power cable installation; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-24-003, dated July 27, 2016, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all applicable repairs before further flight.

    (h) Exception to the Service Information

    Where Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-24-28, dated July 27, 2016, and Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-24-003, dated July 27, 2016, specify to contact the manufacturer for repair, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, 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 ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-28, dated September 28, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0481.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Services Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7301; fax 516-794-5531.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 12, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10133 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0340; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-002-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 757-200, -200PF, and -300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracking found at a certain fuselage frame inner chord. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for any cracking of a certain fuselage frame inner chord; for certain airplanes, an identification of the material of a certain fuselage frame inner chord; and applicable corrective actions. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 3, 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. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0340.

    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-2017-0340; 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:

    Muoi Vuong, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5205; 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-2017-0340; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-002-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

    We have received a report indicating that an operator found a 0.406-inch-long crack in the fuselage station (STA) 1380 frame inner chord, originating from a fastener hole between fuselage stringers S-25R and S-26R. The crack was found during frame web corrosion removal on an airplane with a 7075-T73 aluminum alloy at the fuselage STA 1380 frame inner chord. Boeing received five other reports of cracking on airplanes with a 7075-T73 aluminum alloy at the fuselage STA 1380 frame inner chord. Boeing has determined that existing internal zonal general visual and detailed structural inspections of the number 2 cargo door cutout are not adequate to reliably detect a crack before it grows to a critical length. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the door opening during flight, and result in rapid decompression of the airplane and the inability to sustain loads required for continued safe flight and landing.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016. The service information describes procedures for repetitive surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for any cracking of the fuselage STA 1380 frame inner chord; an identification of the material (an inspection or measurement) of the fuselage STA 1380 frame inner chord; and applicable corrective actions. 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-20++-+++++.

    The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. Corrective actions correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016, 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 588 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 Surface HFEC inspection 5 work-hours × $85 per hour = $425 per inspection cycle $0 $425 per inspection cycle $249,900 per inspection cycle. Identify the material Up to 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 0 Up to $170 Up to $99,960.

    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-2017-0340; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-002-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 3, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking found at the fuselage station (STA) 1380 frame inner chord. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such cracks, which could result in the door opening during flight, and result in rapid decompression of the airplane and the inability to sustain loads required for continued safe flight and landing.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection for Group 1 Airplanes

    For Group 1 airplanes as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016; except as specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, do a surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for any cracking of the fuselage STA 1380 frame inner chord, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016; except as specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the surface HFEC inspection, thereafter, at the times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016.

    (h) Inspection for Group 2 Airplanes

    For Group 2 airplanes as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016; except as specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, identify the material of the fuselage STA 1380 frame inner chord, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016.

    (1) If the fuselage STA 1380 frame inner chord material 2024-T42 aluminum alloy is found during any identification required by paragraph (h) of this AD: No further action is required by this AD for that airplane.

    (2) If the fuselage STA 1380 frame inner chord material 7075-T73 aluminum alloy is found during any identification required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Before further flight, do a surface HFEC inspection for any cracking of the fuselage STA 1380 frame inner chord, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016; except as specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the surface HFEC inspection, thereafter, at the times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016.

    (i) Exceptions to the Service Information

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016, 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) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action and identifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance): Before further flight, repair the crack using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 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 (i)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as 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 Muoi Vuong, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5205; 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 May 10, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10033 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0476; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-110-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-08-01, for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD 2014-08-01 currently requires an inspection for part numbers of the interconnecting struts and, for affected interconnecting struts, identification of the part and serial numbers of the associated target and proximity sensors and replacement or re-identification of the flap interconnecting strut if necessary. Since we issued AD 2014-08-01, we have determined that certain airplanes must be inspected to verify the interconnecting strut part number. This proposed AD would add airplanes to the applicability. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 3, 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 Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0476; 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 Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0476; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-110-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On April 7, 2014, we issued AD 2014-08-01, Amendment 39-17825 (79 FR 23900, April 29, 2014) (“AD 2014-08-01”), for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD 2014-08-01 superseded AD 2014-03-08, Amendment 39-17745 (79 FR 9398, February 19, 2014) (“AD 2014-03-08”). AD 2014-08-01 was prompted by a report that an investigation showed that when a certain combination of target/proximity sensor serial numbers is installed on a flap interconnecting strut, a “target FAR” signal cannot be detected when it reaches the mechanical end stop of the interconnecting strut. AD 2014-08-01 requires an inspection to determine the part number of the interconnecting struts installed on the wings, identifying the part number and the serial number of the associated target and proximity sensor if applicable, and replacing or re-identifying the flap interconnecting strut if applicable. We issued AD 2014-08-01 to correct the definition of a serviceable interconnecting strut.

    Since we issued AD 2014-08-01, we received a report that airplanes were delivered with pre-modification 27956 part number installed on the flap interconnecting strut(s), but declared to be in post-modification configuration in the Aircraft Inspection Report. We have determined that certain airplanes must be inspected to verify the interconnecting strut part number.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0113, dated June 15, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The flap interconnecting strut is a safety device of the High Lift System which acts as an alternative load path from one flap surface to another in case of a flap drive system disconnection. In such a failure case, the installed proximity sensors provide information to the slat flap control computer (SFCC) and the operation of the flap drive system is inhibited.

    An engineering investigation showed that, when a certain combination of target/sensor serial number (s/n) is installed on a flap interconnecting strut, a “target FAR” signal cannot be detected when reaching the mechanical end stop of the interconnecting strut.

    This condition, if not corrected, could cause a flap down drive disconnection to remain undetected, due to an already-failed interconnecting strut sensor, potentially resulting in asymmetric flap panel movement and consequent loss of control of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-27-1206 and SB A320-57-1164, to provide identification and replacement instructions for struts that have a certain target/sensor s/n combination installed. Aeroplanes on which modification (mod) 27956 had been accomplished in production were identified as not affected by the unsafe condition. Consequently, EASA issued [EASA] AD 2012-0012 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-03-08] to require accomplishment of these inspections and corrective actions.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Airbus has informed EASA about a batch of aeroplanes that were delivered with pre-mod 27956 Part Number (P/N) flap interconnecting strut(s) installed, but declared to be in post-mod configuration in the Aircraft Inspection Report. Airbus SB A320-57-1202 has been issued to provide instructions to verify the interconnecting strut P/N, and to update aircraft documentation.

    In addition, to ensure that all pre-mod parts are checked and corrected as required, SB A320-27-1206 was revised to include a wider range of P/N of affected interconnecting struts.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2012-0012, which is superseded, expands the Applicability, changes the compliance time and requires an additional inspection for aeroplanes that have already been inspected.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0476.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-27-1206, Revision 02, dated November 2, 2015. The service information describes an inspection to determine the part number of the installed interconnecting struts and the part number and serial number of the associated target and proximity sensor, and replacement and re-identification of the interconnecting struts. 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 and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,032 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions required by AD 2014-08-01, and retained in this proposed AD, take about 8 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2014-08-01 is $680 per product.

    We also estimate that it would take about 15 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,315,800, or $1,275 per product.

    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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-08-01, Amendment 39-17825 (79 FR 23900, April 29, 2014), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2017-0476; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-110-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 3, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2014-08-01, Amendment 39-17825 (79 FR 23900, April 29, 2014) (“AD 2014-08-01”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that an investigation showed that when a certain combination of a target/proximity sensor serial numbers is installed on a flap interconnecting strut, a “target FAR” signal cannot be detected when reaching the mechanical end stop of the interconnecting strut. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct a latent failure of the flap down drive disconnection due to an already-failed interconnecting strut sensor, which could result in asymmetric flap panel movement and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Inspection to Determine the Part Number of the Interconnecting Struts, With Revised Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-08-01, with revised service information. Within 8,000 flight hours after March 26, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-03-08, Amendment 39-17745 (79 FR 9398, February 19, 2014) (“AD 2014-03-08”)), inspect to determine the part number of the interconnecting struts installed on both the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) wings of the airplane, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1206, Revision 01, dated October 10, 2011; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1206, Revision 02, dated November 2, 2015. A review of the airplane maintenance records is acceptable for determining the part number of the installed interconnecting struts, in lieu of the inspection, if the part number of the installed interconnecting struts, and the part number and the serial number of the associated target and proximity sensor, can be conclusively determined from that review. Accomplishment of the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

    (1) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 27956 has been embodied in production, and on which no interconnecting strut has been replaced with a strut having a part number specified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD since the airplane's first flight: No further work is required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (2) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any interconnecting strut is installed with a part number specified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD: Within 8,000 flight hours after March 26, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-03-08), determine the part number and the serial number of the associated target and proximity sensor.

    (i) For airplanes having conditions specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i)(A), (g)(2)(i)(B), (g)(2)(i)(C), and (g)(2)(i)(D) of this AD: Before further flight, replace the interconnecting strut with a serviceable unit, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1206, Revision 01, dated October 10, 2011; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1206, Revision 02, dated November 2, 2015. For the purposes of paragraph (g) of this AD, a serviceable interconnecting strut is a unit which has been determined to be in compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (A) A target part number (P/N) ABS0121-13 or P/N 8-536-01; and

    (B) A target serial number lower than 1600, or a target serial number that is unreadable; and

    (C) A proximity sensor having P/N ABS0121-31 or P/N 8-372-04; and

    (D) A proximity sensor having a serial number between C59198 and C59435, or a serial number (S/N) C500000 or higher.

    (ii) For a target having S/N 1600 or higher and target P/N ABS0121-13 or P/N 8-536-01: Within 8,000 flight hours after March 26, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-03-08), re-identify the interconnecting strut, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1206, Revision 01, dated October 10, 2011; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1206, Revision 02, dated November 2, 2015.

    Figure 1 to Paragraphs (g) and (h) of This AD—Interconnecting Strut Part Numbers Interconnecting strut part numbers D5757030500000 D5757030500100 D5757030500200 D5757030500600 D5757030500800 D5757030501000 D5757030501200 D5757032200000 (h) Retained Parts Installation Prohibition, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2014-08-01, with no changes. As of March 26, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-03-08), no person may install an interconnecting strut with a part number specified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, on any airplane, except for parts identified in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, provided that the actions in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) are done. As of the effective date of this AD, comply with the requirements of paragraph (l) of this AD in lieu of the requirements of this paragraph.

    (i) New Requirements of This AD: Inspection To Determine the Part Number of the Interconnecting Struts and the Associated Target and Proximity Sensor

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, accomplish the actions specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1206, Revision 02, dated November 2, 2015. Accomplishment of the actions specified in this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (1) Inspect to determine the part number of the interconnecting struts installed on both the LH and RH wings on the airplane.

    (2) If an interconnecting strut is installed with a part number specified in figure 2 to paragraphs (i)(2), (k), and (l) of this AD, identify the part number and the serial number of the associated target and proximity sensor; and for the target and proximity sensor part number and serial number combination specified in paragraph (j) of this AD, within the compliance times specified in paragraph (j) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph (j) of this AD for that interconnecting strut.

    Figure 2 to Paragraphs (i)(2), (k), and (l) of This AD—Affected Interconnecting Struts [XXX signifies any alpha-numeric combination. It may be possible to find units with only XX] D57570305000XXX D57570305001XXX D57570305002XXX D57570305006XXX D57570305008XXX D57570305010XXX D57570305012XXX D57570322000XXX (j) New Requirements of This AD: Replacement or Reidentification

    (1) If the target serial number is lower than 1600 or is unreadable, and the proximity sensor part number is P/N ABS0121-31 or P/N 8-372-04 with a serial number between S/N C59198 and C59435, or S/N C500000 or higher: Before further flight, do the actions required by paragraph (j)(1)(i) or (j)(1)(ii) of this AD. For the purposes of paragraph (j) of this AD, a serviceable interconnecting strut is a unit which has been determined to be in compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD.

    (i) Replace the interconnecting strut with a serviceable unit, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1206, Revision 02, dated November 2, 2015.

    (ii) Do a general visual inspection of the flap down drive to detect discrepancies, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1206, Revision 02, dated November 2, 2015.

    (A) If no discrepancy is found, within 50 flight cycles after the inspection, replace the interconnecting strut with a serviceable unit, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1206, Revision 02, dated November 2, 2015.

    (B) If any discrepancy is found, before further flight, replace the interconnecting strut with a serviceable unit, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1206, Revision 02, dated November 2, 2015.

    (2) If the target serial number is 1600 or higher (with any proximity sensor part number and serial number): Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, re-identify the interconnecting strut, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1206, Revision 02, dated November 2, 2015.

    (k) Additional Provisions of This AD

    (1) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 27956 has been embodied in production, and on which no interconnecting strut with a part number identified in figure 2 to paragraphs (i)(2), (k), and (l) of this AD is installed since the airplane's first flight, are not affected by the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD, except for those manufacturer serial numbers specified in figure 3 to paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Airplanes having manufacturer serial numbers specified in figure 3 to paragraph (k)(1) of this AD are affected by the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD.

    (2) For an airplane that has already been inspected before the effective date of this AD as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1206, dated January 28, 2011; or Revision 1, dated October 10, 2011: Within the compliance time specified in paragraph (i) of this AD, accomplish the additional work specified in and in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1206, Revision 2, dated November 2, 2015, unless it is determined that no interconnecting strut with a part number specified in figure 2 to paragraphs (i)(2), (k), and (l) of this AD is installed on that airplane. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable to make this determination, provided the part number can be conclusively identified from that review.

    Figure 3 to Paragraph (k)(1) of This AD—Additional Affected Manufacturer Serial Numbers Airplane model— Affected Manufacturer Serial Numbers— A320 series airplanes 1857 1858 1860 1861 1864 1865 1867 1868 1871 1873 1874 1877 1879 1883 1885 1888 1889 1891 1892 1894 1895 1896 1898 1899 1900 1902 1903 1904 1906 1907 1909 1910 1911 1913 1914 1915 1917 1918 1920 1922 1924 1927 1929 1931 1933 1935 1937 1940 1942 1944 1945 1948 1949 1951 1954 1957 1958 1961 1964 1965 1968 1969 1973 1975 1979 1981 1983 1987 A319 series airplanes 1819 1820 1824 1826 1831 1833 1837 1839 1841 1844 1846 1851 1853 1855 1863 1866 1870 1872 1875 1876 1880 1882 1884 1886 1890 1893 1897 1901 1908 1912 1916 1923 1925 1934 1936 1938 1943 1947 (l) New Requirement of This AD: Parts Installation Limitations

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, an interconnecting strut with a part number specified in figure 2 to paragraphs (i)(2), (k), and (l) of this AD, unless it has been modified in accordance with the requirements of this AD.

    (m) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before March 26, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-03-08), using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1206, dated January 28, 2011, and if additional work has been accomplished using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1206, Revision 01, dated October 10, 2011.

    (n) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

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

    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2014-08-01 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

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

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

    (o) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0113, dated June 15, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0476.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 11, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10134 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0210; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-10] Proposed Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Kenosha, WI AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify Class D airspace, Class E airspace designated as a surface area, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and remove Class E airspace designated as an extension of Class D airspace at Kenosha Regional Airport, Kenosha, WI. The FAA is proposing this action due to the decommissioning of the Kenosha VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) facilities, which provided navigation guidance for portions of the affected routes. This action would enhance the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport. Additionally, the airport name and geographic coordinates would be adjusted in the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 3, 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 202-366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0210; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-10 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

    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 would amend Class D airspace, Class E airspace designated as a surface area, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, as well as remove Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D airspace at Kenosha Regional Airport, Kenosha, WI, to enhance the safety and management of IFR operations at this airport..

    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. Commenters 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-2017-0210/Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-10.” 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 Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    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:

    Modifying the Class D airspace to within a 4.2-mile radius (increased from a 4.1-mile radius) of Kenosha Regional Airport, Kenosha, WI;

    Modifying the Class E airspace designated as a surface area to within a 4.2-mile radius (increased from a 4.1-mile radius) of Kenosha Regional Airport, and removing the Kenosha VOR and the 7-mile extension northeast of the airport;

    Removing the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D airspace at Kenosha Regional Airport; and

    Modifying the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.7-mile radius (reduced from a 7-mile radius) of Kenosha Regional Airport (formerly Kenosha Municipal Airport), with an extension from the Kenosha Localizer to 10 miles west of the localizer, and updating the name and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Kenosha VOR and to bring the airspace in compliance with FAA Order JO 7400.2K, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, at this airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

    Additionally, this action would replace the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the Class D and Class E surface area airspace legal descriptions.

    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, 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 5000 Class D Airspace. AGL WI D Kenosha, WI [Amended] Kenosha Regional Airport, WI (Lat. 42°35′45″ N., long. 87°55′40″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,200 feet within a 4.2-mile radius of Kenosha Regional Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. AGL WI E2 Kenosha, WI [Amended] Kenosha Regional Airport, WI (Lat. 42°35′45″ N., long. 87°55′40″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,200 feet within a 4.2-mile radius of Kenosha Regional Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Area Designated as an Extension of Class D Airspace. AGL WI E4 Kenosha, WI [Removed] Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL WI E5 Kenosha, WI [Amended] Kenosha Regional Airport, WI (Lat. 42°35′44″ N., long. 87°55′40″ W.) Kenosha Localizer (Lat. 42°36′04″ N., long. 87°55′11″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.7-mile radius of Kenosha Regional Airport, and within 9.9 miles north and 5.9 miles south of a 246° bearing from the Kenosha Localizer to 10 miles west of the Kenosha Localizer, excluding that airspace within the Chicago, IL, and Milwaukee, WI, Class E airspace areas.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 10, 2017. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10081 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0287; Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-6] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, for Wayne, NE AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending up to 700 feet above the surface at Wayne Municipal Airport, Wayne, NE, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Wayne non-directional Radio Beacon (NDB) serving the airport, and cancellation of the NDB approach. This proposal would enhance the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. This action also would adjust the geographic coordinates of the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 3, 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 (202) 366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0287/Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-6, 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 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ron Laster, Federal Aviation Administration, Contract Support, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5879.

    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 amend Class E airspace to support IFR operations in standard instruments approach procedures at the airport.

    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. Commenters 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-2017-0287/Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-6.” 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 Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    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 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 modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from 7.5-miles) of Wayne Municipal Airport, Wayne, NE. Airspace redesign of standard instrument approach procedures is necessary for IFR operations at the airport due to the decommissioning of the Wayne NDB, and cancellation of the NDB approach. The geographic coordinates of the airport also would be updated to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action would enhance the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations 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. ACE NE E5 Wayne, NE [Amended] Wayne Municipal Airport, NE

    (Lat. 42°14′30″ N., long. 96°58′56″ W.)

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

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 8, 2017. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10077 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION 16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1237 [CPSC Docket No. 2017-0023] Safety Standard for Booster Seats AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    Section 104 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) requires the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) to promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. These standards are to be “substantially the same as” applicable voluntary standards, or more stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. The Commission is proposing a safety standard for booster seats in response to the direction under section 104(b) of the CPSIA. In addition, the Commission is proposing an amendment to include booster seats in the list of notice of requirements (NORs) issued by the Commission.

    DATES:

    Submit comments by August 2, 2017. Submit comments regarding information collection by June 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments related to the Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of the marking, labeling, and instructional literature requirements of the proposed mandatory standard for booster seats should be directed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-6974, or emailed to [email protected]

    Other comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2017-0023, may be submitted electronically or in writing:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. The Commission does not accept comments submitted by email, except through www.regulations.gov. The Commission encourages you to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.

    Written Submissions: Submit written submissions by mail/hand delivery/courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this proposed rulemaking. All comments received may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal information provided, to: http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at all, such information should be submitted in writing.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to: http://www.regulations.gov, and insert the docket number, CPSC-2017-0023, into the “Search” box, and follow the prompts.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Celestine T. Kish, Project Manager, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: (301) 987-2547; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background and Statutory Authority

    The CPSIA was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA requires the Commission to: (1) Examine and assess the effectiveness of voluntary consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products, in consultation with representatives of consumer groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and independent child product engineers and experts; and (2) promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. Standards issued under section 104 are to be “substantially the same as” the applicable voluntary standards, or more stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product.

    Section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA defines the term “durable infant or toddler product” as “a durable product intended for use, or that may be reasonably expected to be used, by children under the age of 5 years.” Section 104(f)(2)(C) of the CPSIA specifically identifies “booster chairs” as a durable infant or toddler product.

    Pursuant to section 104(b)(1)(A) of the CPSIA, the Commission consulted with manufacturers, retailers, trade organizations, laboratories, consumer advocacy groups, consultants, and members of the public in the development of this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), largely through the ASTM process.

    Based on a briefing package prepared by CPSC staff, the proposed rule would incorporate by reference the most recent booster seat voluntary standard developed by ASTM International, ASTM F2640-17ε 1, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Booster Seats, without modification. [https://cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Notice%20of%20Proposed%20Rulemaking%20-%20Booster%20Seats%20-%20May%203%202017.pdf?97pmoM5UAGyQBBPFtTPyvFu_RjCZMAwL] If finalized, the ASTM standard would be a mandatory safety rule under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA).

    The testing and certification requirements of section 14(a) of the CPSA apply to the standards promulgated under section 104 of the CPSIA. Section 14(a)(3) of the CPSA requires the Commission to publish an NOR for the accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (test laboratories) to assess conformity with a children's product safety rule to which a children's product is subject. The proposed rule for booster seats, if issued as a final rule, would be a children's product safety rule that requires the issuance of an NOR. To meet the requirement that the Commission issue an NOR for the booster seats standard, this NPR also proposes to amend 16 CFR part 1112 to include 16 CFR part 1237, the CFR section where the booster seat standard will be codified if the standard becomes final.

    II. Product Information A. Definition of “Booster Seat”

    ASTM F2640-17 ε 1 defines a “booster seat” as “a juvenile chair, which is placed on an adult chair to elevate a child to standard dining table height. The booster seat is made for the purpose of containing a child, up to 5 years of age, and normally for the purposes of feeding or eating. A booster seat may be height adjustable and include a reclined position.” Booster seats may be constructed from a wide variety of materials, including wood, plastic, fabric, metal, and/or foam. Most booster seats, notably those intended for home use, have removable trays, allowing a table to be used as an alternative eating surface. Some booster seats are intended to double as floor seats for toddlers, and others are high chair/booster seat combination products. The ASTM standard covers combination products when they are in their booster seat configuration.

    Several suppliers produce booster seats that are designed specifically for use in restaurants. These suppliers sell their “food-service” booster seats directly to restaurants or through restaurant supply companies; however, consumers may purchase these products directly, for example online through third parties such as Amazon.com. Consequently, these food-service booster seats may also be found in homes. Furthermore, consumers use these food-service booster seats in establishments open to the public. ASTM F2640-17ε 1 broadly defines booster seats as “a juvenile chair, which is placed on an adult chair to elevate a child to standard dining table height.” There is no exclusion for food-service booster seats and ASTM subcommittee members have stated in several subcommittee meetings that food-service booster seats are included in the standard.

    The standard does not cover car booster seats, which are also sometimes referred to as “booster seats.”

    B. Booster Seat Means of Attachment to Adult Chairs

    Currently, booster seats use a variety of methods to secure the booster on an adult chair; most employ a method of attachment, such as straps or suction, to attach to an adult chair. However, a few booster seats rely on the occupant's weight (along with anti-skid bottoms or grip feet to minimize slippage by means of friction) to secure the booster seat onto an adult chair. As discussed below in section VI.A., not all methods of securing a booster seat to an adult chair comply with the attachment requirements in ASTM F2640-17ε 1.

    III. Incident Data

    The Commission is aware of a total of 867 incidents (2 fatal, 865 nonfatal) related to booster seats, reported to have occurred between January 1, 2008 and September 30, 2016. Information on 83 percent of these incidents was based on retailer and manufacturer reports submitted through the CPSC's “Retailer Reporting Program.” Various sources, such as hotlines, Internet reports, newspaper clippings, medical examiners, and other state and local authorities provided the CPSC with the remaining incident reports. Because reporting is ongoing, the number of reported fatalities, nonfatal injuries, and non-injury incidents may change in the future.

    A. Fatalities

    CPSC has reports of two fatalities associated with the use of a booster seat:

    In one incident, a 22-month-old female, sitting on a booster seat attached to an adult chair, pushed off from the table and tipped the adult chair backwards into a glass panel of a china cabinet behind her. The cause of death was listed as “exsanguination due to hemorrhage from incised wound.”

    In the other incident, a 4-year-old male fell from a booster seat to the floor; he seemed uninjured at the time, but later that evening when riding his bike, the child fell, became unresponsive, and later died. The cause of death was multiple blunt force trauma.

    B. Nonfatalities

    CPSC has reports of 146 booster seat nonfatal injury incidents occurring between January 1, 2008 and September 30, 2016. Among the incidents with age information available, a majority of the incidents involved children 18 months and under. The severity of the injury types among the 146 reported injuries were as follows:

    Four children required a hospital admission. The injuries were skull fractures, concussions, and other head injuries.

    Another 22 children were treated and released from a hospital emergency department (ED) for injuries resulting mostly from falls.

    The remaining incidents primarily involved contusions, abrasions, and lacerations, due to falls or entrapment of limbs/extremities.

    The remaining 719 non-injury incident reports specified that no injury had occurred or provided no information about any injury. However, many of the descriptions indicated the potential for a serious injury or even death.

    C. Hazard Pattern Identification

    CPSC staff considered all 867 reported incidents to identify hazard patterns associated with booster seats; subsequently, staff considered the hazard patterns when reviewing the adequacy of ASTM F2640-17ε 1. CPSC staff identified the following hazard patterns associated with booster seats:

    1. Restraint/Attachment Problems (37%): 317 incidents involved the mechanism for attaching a booster seat to an adult chair, or the restraint system that contains the child within the booster seat. Issues with the attachment mechanism included anchor Buckles/clasps/straps breaking, tearing, fraying, detaching or releasing. Restraint-system problems included: Buckles/prongs breaking, jamming, releasing too easily, or separating from straps; straps tearing or fraying, pinching, or coming undone; and general inadequacy or ineffectiveness of restraints in containing the child in place. In 18 incident reports, it was not clear from the report if the buckle or strap referred to in the report meant the restraint or the attachment system. In eight of the incident reports, both systems were reported to have failed. Thirty-seven injuries are included in this category, of which seven were treated at a hospital ED.

    2. Seat-Related Issues (29%): 254 incidents involved seat-related issues. These incidents included failure of the lock/latch that controls the seat-recline function; seat pads tearing, cracking, and/or peeling; the seat back detaching altogether; seat height adjustment lock/latch failure; and seat detachment from the base available for certain models. Twenty-one injuries are included in this category, two resulting in hospitalizations and five of which were ED-treated injuries.

    3. Tray-Related Issues (20%): 171 incidents involved issues relating to booster seat trays. These incidents included tray paint finish peeling off, trays failing to lock/stay locked, trays with sharp protrusions on the underside, trays too tight/difficult to release, and trays pinching fingers. These incidents also included complaints about broken toy-accessories, which are usually attached to the tray (or tray-insert). Thirty-six injuries are included in this category, including one that required ED treatment.

    4. Design Problems (4%): 33 incidents involved a potential entrapment hazard due to the design of the booster seat. Most of these incidents involved limbs, fingers, and toes entrapped in spaces/openings between the armrest and seat back/tray, between passive crotch restraint bar and seat/tray, between tray inserts, or in toy accessories. Fifteen injuries were included in this category, two requiring ED treatment.

    5. Stability-Related Issues (4%): 31 incidents involved issues of booster seat stability. Most of these incidents (27 of 31) concerned the adult chair to which the booster seat was attached tipping back or over. Some of these incidents resulted from the child pushing back from the table or counter. Twenty-two injuries (including two hospitalizations and five ED-treated injuries) and one fatality are included in this category.

    6. Armrest Problems (3%): 24 incidents involved booster seat armrests cracking or breaking. In a few cases, the armrest reportedly arrived broken inside the booster seat packaging. One injury is included in this category.

    7. Miscellaneous Product Issues (2%): 16 miscellaneous incidents involved a variety of product-related issues, including unclear assembly instructions, poor quality construction, odor, rough surface, breakage, or loose hardware at unspecified sites. Nine injuries were included in this category, including two ED-treated injuries.

    8. Combination of Multiple Issues (2%): 17 incidents involved a combination of the above-listed product hazards. Four injuries were included in this category.

    9. Unknown Issues (<0.5%): Four incidents involved unknown issues. In these incidents, insufficient information was available for CPSC staff to determine how the incidents occurred. In one incident in this category, a fatality, there were confounding factors reported that likely contributed to the death. One other injury was reported in this category.

    D. Product Recalls

    Compliance staff reviewed recalls of booster seats that occurred from January 1, 2008 to September 30, 2016. During that time, there was one consumer-level recall involving booster seats. The recall was conducted to resolve a fall hazard caused when the stitching on the booster seat's restraint straps loosened, allowing the straps to separate from the seat and the child to fall out of the seat.

    IV. International Standards for Booster Seats

    CPSC staff identified one international standard—BS EN16120 Child Use and Care Articles—Chair Mounted Seat—intended for a similar product category. EN16120 addresses products for a more narrow age range of children (up to 36 months); whereas, F2640-17ε 1 includes products intended for children up to 5 years of age. Some individual requirements in the EN16120 standard are more stringent than ASTM F2640-17ε 1. For example, EN16120 contains requirements for head entrapment, lateral protection, surface chemicals, cords/ribbons, material shrinkage, packaging film, and monofilament threads. Conversely, some individual requirements in F2640-17ε 1 are more stringent than those found in EN 16120; ASTM F2640-17ε 1 includes requirements for tray performance and toy accessories. CPSC staff believes that the current ASTM standard, ASTM F2640-17ε 1, is the most comprehensive of the standards to address the identified product hazards.

    V. Voluntary Standard—ASTM F2640 A. History of ASTM F2640

    The voluntary standard for booster seats was first approved and published in 2007, as ASTM F2640-07, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Booster Seats. ASTM has revised the voluntary standard nine times since then. The current version of the standard, ASTM F2640-17ε 1 was approved on March 01, 2017 and published in March 2017.

    B. Description of the Current Voluntary Standard-ASTM F3118-17 ε 1

    ASTM F2640-17ε 1 includes the following key provisions: Scope, terminology, general requirements, performance requirements, test methods, marking and labeling, and instructional literature.

    Scope. This section states the scope of the standard, detailing what constitutes a booster seat. As stated in section II.A. of this preamble, the Scope section describes a booster seat as “a juvenile chair, which is placed on an adult chair to elevate a child to standard dining table height.” The scope section further specifies appropriate ages for children using a booster seat, stating that a “booster seat is made for the purpose of containing a child, up to 5 years of age, and normally for the purposes of feeding or eating.”

    Terminology. This section provides definitions of terms specific to this standard.

    General Requirements. This section addresses numerous hazards with several general requirements; most are also found in the other ASTM juvenile product standards. The general requirements included in this section are:

    Sharp edges or points;

    Small parts;

    Wood parts;

    Lead in paint;

    Scissoring, shearing, and pinching;

    Openings;

    Exposed coil springs;

    Protective components;

    Labeling; and

    Toys.

    Performance Requirements and Test Methods. These sections contain performance requirements specific to booster seats (discussed here) and the test methods that must be used to assess conformity with such requirements.

    Tray impact test: This test assesses the tray's resistance to breaking into small pieces or creating sharp points/edges when dropped from a specified height.

    Tray engagement test: This test assesses the tray's ability to remain engaged to the booster seat when subjected to a specified force horizontally and vertically.

    Static load test: This test assesses whether the booster seat can support its maximum recommended weight, by gradually applying a static load on the center of the seating surface for a specified amount of time.

    Restraint system test: This test assesses whether the restraint system can secure a child in the manufacturer's recommended-use positions.

    Attachment test: This test specifies that a booster seat must have a means of attaching a booster seat to an adult chair and assesses the booster seat's ability to remain fastened to the adult chair when force is applied.

    Structural integrity: This requirement assesses the durability of the locking/latching devices to prevent folding or adjustment of the booster seat.

    Maximum booster seat dimensions: This requirement assesses how large a booster seat can be in relation to the adult chair dimensions specified on the booster seat's packaging.

    Marking and Labeling. This section contains various requirements relating to warnings, labeling, and required markings for booster seats. This section prescribes various substance, format, and prominence requirements for such information.

    Instructional Literature. This section requires that easily readable and understandable instructions be provided with booster seats. Additionally, the section contains requirements relating to instructional literature contents and format.

    VI. Assessment of the Voluntary Standard ASTM F2640-17ε 1

    CPSC staff identified 867 incidents (including two fatalities) related to the use of booster seats. CPSC staff examined the incident data, identified hazard patterns in the data, and worked with ASTM to develop the performance requirements in ASTM F2640. The incident data and identified hazard patterns served as the basis for the development of ASTM F2640-17ε 1 by ASTM with CPSC staff support throughout the process.

    CPSC believes that the current voluntary standard, ASTM F2640-17ε 1, addresses the primary hazard patterns identified in the incident data. The following section discusses how each of the identified product-related issues or hazard patterns listed in section III.C. of this preamble is addressed by the current voluntary standard:

    A. Restraint/Attachment Problems

    Restraint system and attachment problems included buckles/prongs breaking, jamming, releasing too easily, or separating from straps; straps tearing or fraying, pinching, or coming undone; and inadequacy or ineffectiveness of restraints in containing the child in place, Similarly, complaints about the seat attachment system involved anchor buckles/clasps/straps breaking, tearing, fraying, detaching, or releasing. CPSC evaluated the attachment and restraint system tests in ASTM F2640-17ε 1, and believes that these tests adequately address this hazard.

    Section 6.5 of ASTM F2640-17ε 1 requires that a booster seat must have a means of “attaching” to an adult chair, and be able to withstand a specified force without becoming detached from the adult chair. Booster seats may employ several methods to secure to an adult chair, including straps, suction, and anti-skid bottoms or grip feet that minimize slippage on the chair by means of friction. However, because “grip feet” and “friction bottoms” do not actually attach (i.e., fasten) the booster seat to an adult chair, a majority of ASTM subcommittee members, as well as CPSC staff, does not consider these means of securing booster seats to an adult chair to be a means of attachment that Section 6.5 requires. Conversely, because suction physically fastens the booster seat to an adult chair, CPSC staff and a majority of ASTM subcommittee members consider suction to be a means of attachment under Section 6.5 of the current ASTM standard; nevertheless, any booster seat using suction as a means of attachment must still pass the attachment test to be compliant.

    Thus, promulgating the requirements of ASTM F2640ε 1 as a mandatory standard might result in the following: (1) Booster seats that currently use grip feet/friction bottoms to secure the booster seat to the surface upon which it sits (disproportionately used on food-service booster seats) would not comply with the mandatory standard due to their lack of a means of attachment; and (2) booster seats that currently use suction as a means of attachment may not pass the mandatory standard's attachment test. CPSC requests comments on the effect of ASTM F2640-17ε 1's attachment requirements becoming mandatory on booster seats that currently use grip feet/friction bottoms to secure the booster to the surface upon which it sits. Furthermore, CPSC requests comments on whether a suction attachment method is capable of passing ASTM F2640ε 1's attachment test.

    B. Seat-Related Issues

    Seat-related issues included failure of the lock/latch that controls the seat-recline function; seat pads tearing, cracking, and/or peeling; seat backs detaching altogether; seat height adjustment lock/latch failures; and seat detachment from the base that is available for certain models. CPSC evaluated the static load and dynamic booster seat tests in ASTM F2640-17ε 1, and believes that these tests adequately address this hazard.

    C. Tray-Related Issues

    Tray-related issues included trays with paint finish peeling off, trays failing to lock/stay locked, trays with sharp protrusions on the underside, trays that were too tight/difficult to release, and trays pinching fingers. Upon evaluation, CPSC believes that the general requirements section of F2640-17ε 1 adequately addresses peeling paint, sharp protrusions, and pinching hazards, and the standard's tray engagement test adequately address the tray locking failures.

    D. Design Problems

    Booster seat design problems resulted in limbs, fingers, and toes entrapped in spaces/openings between the armrest and seat back/tray, between passive crotch restraint bar and seat/tray, between tray inserts, or in toy accessories. CPSC evaluated the general requirements of ASTM 2640-17ε 1 (namely requirements relating to scissoring, shearing, and pinching, openings, and toys) and believes that the ASTM standard adequately addresses this hazard.

    E. Stability-Related Issues

    Stability-related incidents included instances where the adult chair to which the booster seat was attached, tipped back or tipped over. Addressing the stability of the booster seat while attached to an adult chair is difficult in a standard for booster seats because stability is dependent on the adult chair. The ASTM booster seat subcommittee and CPSC staff worked diligently to find an effective requirement to adequately address stability without specifying requirements for the adult chair. Although ASTM F2640-17ε 1 does not contain a performance requirement to address this hazard, it does contain a labeling requirement, whereby booster seats must contain a cautionary statement: “Never allow a child to push away from table.” Moreover, ASTM F2640-17ε 1 requires a booster seat to identify on the booster seat packaging the size of adult chair on which the booster seat can fit, thereby allowing consumers to make a more informed purchasing choice.

    F. Armrest Problems

    Armrest problems included booster seat armrests cracking, and in a few cases, the armrest arriving to the consumer broken in the packaging. CPSC evaluated the static and dynamic load tests contained in ASTM F2640-17ε 1, and believes that those tests adequately address armrest-related hazards.

    G. Miscellaneous Product-Related Issues

    Miscellaneous product-related issues included unclear assembly instructions, poor quality construction, odor, rough surface, breakage, or loose hardware at unspecified sites. CPSC evaluated the general requirements section, as well as the instructional literature requirements of ASTM F2640-17ε 1, and believes that those requirements adequately address this hazard.

    VII. Proposed Standard for Booster Seats

    As discussed in the previous section, the Commission concludes that ASTM F2640-17ε 1 adequately addresses the hazards associated with booster seats. Thus, the Commission proposes to incorporate by reference ASTM F2640-17ε 1, without modification, into the final rule.

    VIII. Proposed Amendment to 16 CFR Part 1112 To Include NOR for Booster Seats

    The CPSA establishes certain requirements for product certification and testing. Products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission, must be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Certification of children's products subject to a children's product safety rule must be based on testing conducted by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body. Id. 2063(a)(2). The Commission must publish an NOR for the accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies to assess conformity with a children's product safety rule to which a children's product is subject. Id. 2063(a)(3). Thus, the proposed rule for 16 CFR part 1237, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Booster Seats, if issued as a final rule, would be a children's product safety rule that requires the issuance of an NOR.

    The Commission published a final rule, Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies, 78 FR 15836 (March 12, 2013), codified at 16 CFR part 1112 (part 1112) and effective on June 10, 2013, which establishes requirements for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies to test for conformity with a children's product safety rule in accordance with section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA. Part 1112 also codifies all of the NORs issued previously by the Commission.

    All new NORs for new children's product safety rules, such as the booster seats standard, require an amendment to part 1112. To meet the requirement that the Commission issue an NOR for the booster seats standard, as part of this NPR, the Commission proposes to amend the existing rule that codifies the list of all NORs issued by the Commission to add booster seats to the list of children's product safety rules for which the CPSC has issued an NOR.

    Test laboratories applying for acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body to test to the new standard for booster seats would be required to meet the third party conformity assessment body accreditation requirements in part 1112. When a laboratory meets the requirements as a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body, the laboratory can apply to the CPSC to have 16 CFR part 1237, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Booster Seats, included in the laboratory's scope of accreditation of CPSC safety rules listed for the laboratory on the CPSC Web site at: www.cpsc.gov/labsearch.

    Incorporation by Reference

    The Commission proposes to incorporate by reference ASTM F2640-17ε 1, without modification. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. For a proposed rule, agencies must discuss in the preamble to the NPR ways that the materials the agency proposes to incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested persons or how the agency worked to make the materials reasonably available. In addition, the preamble to the proposed rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(a).

    In accordance with the OFR's requirements, section V.B. of this preamble summarizes the provisions of ASTM F2640-17ε 1 that the Commission proposes to incorporate by reference. ASTM F2640-17ε 1 is copyrighted. By permission of ASTM, the standard can be viewed as a read-only document during the comment period on this NPR, at: http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. Interested persons may also purchase a copy of ASTM F2640-17ε 1 from ASTM International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428; http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. One may also inspect a copy at CPSC's Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923.

    IX. Effective Date

    The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that the effective date of a rule be at least 30 days after publication of the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Although a 6-month effective date has been adopted for several other section 104 rules, the Commission is proposing an effective date of 12 months after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register to allow booster seat manufacturers additional time to bring their products into compliance after the final rule is issued. CPSC was unable to rule out a significant economic impact for some booster seat importers and small firms, and a 12-month effective date will allow additional time for manufacturers and importers to make necessary changes to bring their booster seats into conformance with the ASTM F2640-17ε 1 and arrange for third party testing.

    X. Regulatory Flexibility Act A. Introduction

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that agencies review a proposed rule for the rule's potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses. Section 603 of the RFA generally requires that agencies prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and make the analysis available to the public for comment when the agency publishes an NPR. 5 U.S.C. 603. Section 605 of the RFA provides that an IRFA is not required if the agency certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Staff could not rule out a significant economic impact on 20 of the 29 small suppliers of booster seats to the U.S. market. Accordingly, staff prepared an IRFA and poses several questions for public comment to help staff assess the rule's potential impact on small businesses.

    The IRFA must describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities and identify significant alternatives that accomplish the statutory objectives and minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. Specifically, the IRFA must contain:

    A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered;

    a succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule;

    a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;

    a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities subject to the requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for the preparation of reports or records; and

    identification, to the extent possible, of all relevant federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule; and

    In addition, the IRFA must describe any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.

    B. Market Description

    The Commission has identified 49 firms supplying booster seats to the U.S. market, 39 that supply home-use booster seats, and 10 that supply food-service booster seats. Forty-four of these firms (28 manufacturers, 15 importers, and one supplier with an unknown supply source) are domestic. The remaining five firms are foreign.

    C. Reason for Agency Action and Legal Basis for Proposed Rule

    As discussed in section I. of this preamble, section 104 of the CPSIA requires the CPSC to promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products that are substantially the same as, or more stringent than, the relevant voluntary standard. Section 104(f)(2)(C) of the CPSIA specifically identifies “booster chairs” as a durable infant or toddler product for which the Commission shall promulgate a consumer product safety standard.

    D. Impact of Proposed 16 CFR Part 1237 on Small Businesses

    CPSC staff is aware of 49 firms currently marketing booster seats in the United States, 44 that are domestic. Under U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines, a manufacturer is considered small if it has 500 or fewer employees; and importers and wholesalers are considered small if they have 100 or fewer employees. Staff limited its analysis to domestic firms because SBA guidelines and definitions pertain to U.S.-based entities. Based on these guidelines, 29 of the 44 domestic firms are small—18 manufacturers, 10 importers, and one firm with an unknown supply source. Additional unknown small domestic booster seat suppliers may be operating in the U.S. market.

    1. Small Manufacturers i. Small Manufacturers With Compliant Booster Seats

    Of the 18 small manufacturers, eight produce booster seats that comply with ASTM F2640-14, the voluntary standard currently in effect for testing purposes under the Juvenile Product Manufactures Association (JPMA) certification program. In general, it is expected that the small manufacturers whose booster seats already comply with the current voluntary standard will remain compliant with the voluntary standard as it evolves, because these small manufacturers follow, and in some cases, participate actively in the standard development process. ASTM F2640-17ε 1 has already been published and will be in effect by the time the mandatory standard becomes final. Moreover, history indicates that these firms are likely to be in compliance by the time the mandatory standard takes effect.

    All but one of these eight already-compliant firms supply home-use booster seats that use straps/belts as an attachment method. The remaining small manufacturer uses suction to attach their home-use booster seat to adult chairs. It is unclear whether the suction-type booster seats would pass the attachment test in ASTM F2640-17ε 1 without modifications. Several participants in the ASTM voluntary standards development process, including one of the supplier representatives contacted by CPSC staff, believes that belts and/or straps will be required to pass the attachment test. If modifications were required, the impact could be significant. The firm could undertake efforts to improve their existing suction system, or they could modify the chair to use strap/belt attachment system, which would involve creating new product molds, as well as the cost of the belts and buckles. Several of the supplier representatives staff contacted believe that a complete redesign for booster seats costs approximately $500,000. Although it is unlikely that the cost of addressing the attachment performance requirement would be that high, any change that involves redesign can be expensive, and the affected firm likely has relatively low sales revenue. Therefore, staff cannot rule out a significant impact on this firm.

    ii. Small Manufacturers With Noncompliant Booster Seats

    Ten small manufacturers produce booster seats that do not comply with the voluntary standard; half are home-use booster seat manufacturers, and the other half are food-service booster seat manufacturers. Staff cannot rule out a significant economic impact for any of these small manufacturers. The booster seats manufactured by all 10 firms are likely to require modifications, some of which may be significant, to meet the requirements of the voluntary standard. For example, eight of the 10 firms use attachment methods other than belts or straps, such as suction or friction, on one or more of their booster seat products. Six of those firms supply plastic or foam booster seats, which are likely to be more expensive to modify than wooden booster seats. In addition, some plastic booster seats may require a complete redesign to comply with the warning label requirements, even if sufficient space is available on the product to display the labels.

    Staff cannot determine the extent and cost of the changes required for compliance of these manufacturers' booster seat products; therefore, staff cannot rule out a significant economic impact on these businesses. However, based on the revenue data available for these firms, the impact is not likely to be significant for two of the firms, unless modifications that cost more than $200,000 are required. The impact on five of the firms could be significant, even with relatively minor changes (i.e., less than $40,000). Without additional information, staff cannot determine the impact on the remaining three firms.

    The Commission requests information on the changes that may be required to meet the voluntary standard, ASTM F2640-17ε 1 and, in particular, the time and cost associated with any necessary redesign or retrofitting. The Commission also requests information on the degree to which modifications required as a result of ASTM F2640-17ε 1's attachment test may add to a firm's costs.

    iii. Third Part Testing Costs for Small Manufacturers

    Under section 14 of the CPSA, once the requirements of ASTM F2640-17ε 1 are effective, all manufacturers will be subject to the third party testing and certification requirements under the 1107 rule. Third party testing will include any physical and mechanical test requirements specified in the final booster seat rule. Manufacturers and importers should already be conducting required lead testing for booster seats. Third party testing costs are in addition to the direct costs of meeting the requirements of the booster seat standard.

    Eight of the 18 small booster seats manufacturers are already testing their products, although not necessarily by a third party, to verify compliance with the ASTM standard. For these manufacturers, the impact on testing costs will be limited to the difference between the cost of third party tests and the cost of current testing regimes. CPSC staff contacted small booster seat manufacturers. They estimate that third party testing booster seats to the ASTM voluntary standard would cost about $500 to $1,000 per model sample. For the eight small manufacturers that are already testing, the incremental costs are unlikely to be economically significant.

    For the 10 small manufacturers that are not currently testing their products to verify compliance with the ASTM standard, the impact of third party testing could result in significant costs for three firms. Although CPSC does not currently know how many samples will be needed to meet the “high degree of assurance” criterion required in the 1107 rule, testing costs could exceed one percent of gross revenue for two of these firms, if five samples are needed to be tested (assuming high-end testing costs of $1,000 per model sample). Revenue information was not available for the third firm, but that firm's revenue appears to be very small. Accordingly, that firm might be significantly affected by third party testing costs.

    The Commission welcomes comments regarding overall testing costs and incremental costs due to third party testing (i.e., how much does moving from a voluntary to a mandatory third party testing regime add to testing costs, in total, and on a per-test basis). In addition, the Commission seeks comments on the number of booster seat units that typically need to be tested to provide a “high degree of assurance.”

    2. Small Importers

    CPSC does not believe that any of the 10 small importers of booster seats currently complies with the ASTM standard. There is insufficient information to rule out a significant impact for any of the 10 small importers supplying noncompliant booster seats. Whether there will be a significant economic impact will depend upon the extent of the changes required to comply and the responses of importers' supplying firms. Any increase in production costs experienced by their suppliers from changes made to meet the mandatory standard may be passed on to these importers. Costs would include expenses associated with coming into compliance with the voluntary standard, as well as costs associated with the attachment test (all of the home-use booster seats supplied by these firms already use straps/belts, but neither of the food-service suppliers appears to do so, and therefore, they will likely need to make changes to come into compliance).

    Four of the 10 importers with noncompliant booster seats (two import food-service booster seats, and two import home-use booster seats) do not appear to have direct ties to their product suppliers. These firms may opt to switch to alternative suppliers (or, in some cases, alternative products), rather than bear the cost of complying with the standard. Although it is unclear whether the costs associated with changing suppliers would be significant for these firms.

    The remaining six firms (all of which import home-use booster seats) are directly tied to their foreign suppliers, and therefore, finding an alternative supply source would not be a viable alternative. The foreign suppliers of these firms, however, may have an incentive to work with their U.S. subsidiaries/distributors to maintain an American market presence. It is also possible that these firms may discontinue the sale of booster seats altogether because booster seats are not a large component of their product lines. CPSC staff was unable to determine whether exiting the booster seats market would generate significant economic impacts due to the lack of sales revenue for booster seats, as well as the lack of revenue data for most of these firms.

    As with manufacturers, importers will be subject to third party testing and certification requirements; consequently, importers will be subject to costs similar to those of manufacturers, if their supplying foreign firm(s) does not perform third party testing. Moving to third party certification for the requirements of the proposed rule is unlikely to result in significant costs for the four small importers for whom revenue data are available. However, there was no revenue data available for the remaining six small importers; accordingly, CPSC had no basis for examining the size of the impact on those firms.

    3. Summary

    In summary, based upon current information, CPSC cannot rule out a significant economic impact for 20 of the 29 booster seat firms operating in the U.S. market. The 12-month proposed effective date would help to spread costs over a longer time-frame.

    4. Alternatives

    One alternative is available to minimize the economic impact on small entities supplying booster seats while also meeting the statutory objectives. The Commission could allow a later effective date than proposed.

    The Commission is proposing a 12-month effective date to allow booster seat manufacturers additional time (beyond the more usual 6-month effective date) to bring their products into compliance after the final rule is issued. The Commission believes that the proposed 12-month effective date would allow firms that may not be aware of the ASTM voluntary standard, or may believe that their product falls outside the scope of the standard, additional time to make this determination and thereafter, bring their products into compliance. The Commission could further reduce the proposed rule's impact on small businesses by setting an effective date later than 12 months after the final rule is issued. A later effective date would reduce the economic impact on firms in two ways. First firms would be less likely to experience a lapse in production/importation, which could result if they are unable to bring their products into compliance and certify compliance based on third party tests within the required timeframe. Additionally, firms could spread the costs of developing compliant products over a longer time period, thereby reducing their annual costs, as well as the present value of their total costs (i.e., they could time their spending to better accommodate their individual circumstances).

    E. Impact of Proposed 16 CFR Part 1112 Amendment on Small Businesses

    This proposed rule also would amend part 1112 to add booster seats to the list of children's products for which the Commission has issued an NOR. As required by the RFA, staff conducted a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) when the Commission issued the part 1112 rule (78 FR 15836, 15855-58). The FRFA concluded that the accreditation requirements would not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small testing laboratories because no requirements were imposed on test laboratories that did not intend to provide third party testing services. The only test laboratories that were expected to provide such services were those that anticipated receiving sufficient revenue from the mandated testing to justify accepting the requirements as a business decision.

    Based on similar reasoning, amending 16 CFR part 1112 to include the NOR for the booster seat product standard will not have a significant adverse impact on small test laboratories. Moreover, based upon the number of test laboratories in the United States that have applied for CPSC acceptance of accreditation to test for conformance to other mandatory juvenile product standards, we expect that only a few test laboratories will seek CPSC acceptance of their accreditation to test for conformance with the booster seats standard. Most of these test laboratories will have already been accredited to test for conformance to other mandatory juvenile product standards, and the only costs to them would be the cost of adding the booster seat standard to their scope of accreditation. Consequently, the Commission certifies that the proposed NOR amending 16 CFR part 1112 to include the infant booster seat standard will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    XI. Environmental Considerations

    The Commission's regulations address whether the agency is required to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. Under these regulations, certain categories of CPSC actions normally have “little or no potential for affecting the human environment,” and therefore, they do not require an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. Safety standards providing requirements for products come under this categorical exclusion. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). The proposed rule falls within the categorical exclusion.

    XII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains information collection requirements that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). In this document, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), we set forth:

    A title for the collection of information;

    a summary of the collection of information;

    a brief description of the need for the information and the proposed use of the information;

    a description of the likely respondents and proposed frequency of response to the collection of information;

    an estimate of the burden that shall result from the collection of information; and

    notice that comments may be submitted to the OMB.

    Title: Safety Standard for Booster Seats.

    Description: The proposed rule would require each booster seat to comply with ASTM F2640-17ε 1, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Booster Seats. Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F2640-17ε 1 contain requirements for marking, labeling, and instructional literature. These requirements fall within the definition of “collection of information,” as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3).

    Description of Respondents: Persons who manufacture or import booster seats.

    Estimated Burden: We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 16 CFR Section Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of responses Total annual responses Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden hours
    1237 49 2 98 1 98

    Our estimate is based on the following:

    Forty-nine known entities supply booster seats to the U.S. market and may need to make some modifications to their existing warning labels. We estimate that the time required to make these modifications is about 1 hour per model. Based on an evaluation of supplier product lines, each entity supplies an average of 2 models of booster seats; therefore, the estimated burden associated with labels is 1 hour per model × 49 entities × 2 models per entity = 98 hours. We estimate the hourly compensation for the time required to create and update labels is $33.53 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,” December 2016, Table 9, total compensation for all sales and office workers in goods-producing private industries: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/). Therefore, the estimated annual cost to industry associated with the labeling requirements is $3,286 ($33.53 per hour × 98 hours). No operating, maintenance, or capital costs are associated with the collection.

    Section 9.1 of ASTM F2640-17ε 1 requires instructions to be supplied with the product. Under the OMB's regulations (5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2)), the time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with a collection of information that would be incurred by persons in the “normal course of their activities” are excluded from a burden estimate, where an agency demonstrates that the disclosure activities required to comply are “usual and customary.” We are unaware of booster seats that generally require use instructions but lack such instructions. Therefore, we tentatively estimate that no burden hours are associated with section 9.1 of ASTM F2640-17ε 1, because any burden associated with supplying instructions with booster seats would be “usual and customary” and not within the definition of “burden” under the OMB's regulations.

    Based on this analysis, the proposed standard for booster seats would impose a burden to industry of 98 hours at a cost of $3,286 annually.

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), we have submitted the information collection requirements of this rule to the OMB for review. Interested persons are requested to submit comments regarding information collection by June 19, 2017, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB (see the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice).

    Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), we invite comments on:

    Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the CPSC's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    the accuracy of the CPSC's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    ways to reduce the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology; and

    the estimated burden hours associated with label modification, including any alternative estimates.

    XIII. Preemption

    Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that when a consumer product safety standard is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a standard or regulation that prescribes requirements for the performance, composition, contents, design, finish, construction, packaging, or labeling of such product dealing with the same risk of injury unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of states may apply to the Commission for an exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA refers to the rules to be issued under that section as “consumer product safety rules.” Therefore, the preemption provision of section 26(a) of the CPSA would apply to a rule issued under section 104.

    XIV. Request for Comments

    This NPR begins a rulemaking proceeding under section 104(b) of the CPSIA to issue a consumer product safety standard for booster seats, and to amend part 1112 to add booster seats to the list of children's product safety rules for which the CPSC has issued an NOR. We invite all interested persons to submit comments on any aspect of this proposal. In addition to requests for specific comments elsewhere in this NPR, the Commission requests comments on the differences between home-use and food-service booster seats and the ability of each type of booster seat to meet the requirements in the proposed booster seat standard, the proposed effective date, and the costs of compliance with, and testing to, the proposed booster seats standard. During the comment period, ASTM F2640-17ε 1, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Booster Seats, is available as a read-only document at: http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm.

    Comments should be submitted in accordance with the instructions in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice.

    List of Subjects 16 CFR Part 1112

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

    16 CFR Part 1237

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

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

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

    2. Amend § 1112.15 by adding paragraph (b)(47) to read as follows:
    § 1112.15 When can a third party conformity assessment body apply for CPSC acceptance for a particular CPSC rule or test method?

    (b) * * *

    (47) 16 CFR part 1237, Safety Standard for Booster Seats.

    3. Add part 1237 to read as follows: PART 1237—SAFETY STANDARD FOR BOOSTER SEATS Sec. 1237.1 Scope. 1237.2 Requirements for booster seats. Authority:

    Sec. 104, Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Sec. 3, Pub. L. 112-28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011).

    § 1237.1 Scope.

    This part establishes a consumer product safety standard booster seats.

    § 1237.2 Requirements for booster seats.

    Each booster seat must comply with all applicable provisions of ASTM F2640-17ε 1, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Booster Seats (approved on March 1, 2017). The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from ASTM International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428; http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may inspect a copy at the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federalregulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Dated: May 15, 2017. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10044 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0334] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Commencement Bay, Tacoma, WA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary special local regulation for certain waters of Commencement Bay for the 2017 World Water Ski Racing Championships. This action is necessary to safeguard participants and spectators from the hazards associated with race events and to ensure public safety during the duration of the events on Commencement Bay near Tacoma, WA, during the 2017 World Water Ski Racing Championships on July 29, 31, and August 2, 2017. This special local regulation prohibits non-participant persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the race area and prohibits vessels from transiting at speeds that cause wake within the spectator area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Puget Sound or a Designated Representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0334 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Zachary Spence, Sector Puget Sound Waterways Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 206-217-6051, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On December 8, 2016, Overload Productions notified the Coast Guard that it intends on conducting a high speed water ski race on Commencement Bay. Approximately 40 motor boats and water skiers will be participating in the races and operating at high speeds with limited maneuverability, which poses a significant hazard to race participants and other boaters. In addition the event sponsors anticipate a potential small number of on-water spectators to be present during the races.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and participants in the race as well as spectators and the maritime public. The rulemaking would accomplish this purpose by establishing two regulated areas before, during, and after the scheduled event, one for race participants, and one for spectators and the maritime public. Many factors amplify the potential hazards of the race, including limited maneuverability of the race participants, commercial vessel traffic, and the number of local recreational and fishing vessels. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would create a temporary special local regulation on certain waters of Commencement Bay in Tacoma, WA for the 2017 World Water Ski Racing Championships. This special local regulation would establish two separate regulated areas, a race area and a spectator area. Within the race area, all persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels participating in the high-speed water ski races, are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within. Within the spectator area, all vessels are prohibited from anchoring and are required to transit at the minimum speed necessary to maintain course, minimizing vessels wake, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Puget Sound or a Designated Representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this proposed rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.

    As this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the Special Local Regulation. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around race area or through the spectator area which would only impact a small designated area of Commencement Bay for less than nine hours during the days of event. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the regulated areas.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a special local regulation lasting for nine hours on each day the event occurs and would prohibit entry into the race area and restrict movement within the spectator area. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under section 2.B.2, and figure 2-1, paragraph 34(h) of the Instruction. Paragraph 34(h) pertains to special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

    PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add § 100.T13-0334 to read as follows:
    § 100.T13-0334 Special Local Regulation; Commencement Bay, Tacoma, WA

    (a) Location. The special local regulations found in paragraph (c) apply in the following areas.

    (1) Race Area. All waters of Commencement Bay encompassed within an imaginary line connecting the following coordinates: Starting at point 1 in position 47°18′9.6″ N., 122°30′23.6″ W.; thence northeast to Point 2 in position 47°18′15.2″ N., 122°30′14.4″ W.; thence east to Point 3 in position 47°18′15.2″ N., 122°28′46.7″ W.; thence south to Point 4 in position 47°17′20.1″ N., 122°28′46.9″ W.; thence southwest to Point 5 in position 47°17′5.5″ N., 122°29′6.4″ W.; thence northwest back to origin.

    (2) Spectator Area. All waters of Commencement Bay encompassed within an imaginary line connecting the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 47°18′15.2″ N., 122°28′46.7″ W.; thence east to Point 2 in position 47°17′20.1″ N., 122°28′46.9″ W.; thence south to Point 3 in position 47°17′19.8″ N., 122°28′38.1″ W.; thence west to Point 4 in position 47°18′15.5″ N., 122°28′46.1″ W.; thence north back to origin.

    (b) Definitions. For the purpose of this section the following definitions apply:

    Designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Puget Sound (COTP) in the enforcement of the regulated areas identified in paragraph (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.

    Patrol Vessel means any Coast Guard vessel, Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel, or other federal, state or local law enforcement vessel.

    (c) Special Local Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels participating in the high-speed water ski races, are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the race area.

    (2) All persons and vessels entering, exiting, or moving within the spectator area must operate at speeds, which will create a minimum wake, and will not exceed seven knots. The maximum speed may be reduced at the discretion of the Patrol Commander.

    (3) A succession of sharp, short signals by whistle or horn from a Patrol Vessel will serve as a signal to stop. Vessels signaled must stop and comply with the orders of the Patrol Vessel. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.

    (4) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, remain within or transit in excess of wake speed within any of the regulated areas must contact the Captain of the Port Puget Sound by telephone at (206) 217-6002, or a designated representative via VHF-FM radio on channel 16 to request authorization. If authorization is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Puget Sound or a designated representative.

    (d) Notice of Enforcement. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the enforcement of this Special Local Regulation by all appropriate means to ensure the widest dissemination among the public, as practicable; such means of notification may include but are not limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, and by on-scene designated representatives.

    (e) Enforcement Period. This rule is effective from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on July 29, 31, and August 2, 2017, unless cancelled sooner by the Captain of the Port Puget Sound.

    Dated: May 5, 2017. B.C. McPherson, CAPT, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10212 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0129; FRL-9961-28-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a portion of a revision to the Louisiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Louisiana through the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) on February 10, 2017, that addresses regional haze requirements for the first planning period. LDEQ submitted this SIP revision to address deficiencies identified by the EPA in a previous action. The EPA is proposing to approve the majority of the SIP revision, which addresses the CAA requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure and install the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART), while deferring action on LDEQ's BART determination for a single facility. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to approve most of LDEQ's BART evaluations and conclusions for Louisiana's BART-eligible electric generating unit (EGU) sources and to approve LDEQ's sulfur-dioxide (SO2) and particulate-matter (PM) emission limits for those sources that are subject to BART. The EPA is also proposing to approve Louisiana's reliance on the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) trading program for ozone-season nitrogen oxides (NOX) as a permissible alternative to source-specific NOX BART emission limits. This action is being taken under sections 110 and 169A of the CAA.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0129, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected] Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact Jennifer Huser, [email protected] For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Huser, 214-665-7347, [email protected] To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Jennifer Huser or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. Background A. The Regional Haze Program B. Our Previous Actions on Louisiana Regional Haze C. CSAPR as an Alternative to Source-Specific NOX BART II. Our Evaluation of Louisiana's BART Analysis A. Identification of BART-Eligible Sources B. Evaluation of Which Sources Are Subject to BART C. Sources That Are No Longer in Operation D. Sources That Screened Out of BART 1. Visibility Impairment Threshold 2. Model Plant Analysis 3. CALPUFF Modeling To Screen Out Sources E. Subject to BART Sources 1. Reliance on CSAPR To Satisfy NOX BART 2. Sources That Deferred a Five-Factor Analysis Due to a Change in Operation 3. Louisiana's Five-Factor Analyses for SO2 and PM BART a. Cleco Brame Energy Center b. Entergy Little Gypsy c. Entergy Ninemile Point d. Entergy Waterford III. Proposed Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background A. The Regional Haze Program

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of sources and activities that are located across a broad geographic area and emit fine particulates (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), and soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form PM2.5, which impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that can be seen. PM2.5 can also cause serious adverse health effects and mortality in humans; it also contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.

    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, “Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments” (IMPROVE), shows that visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national parks and wilderness areas. In 1999, the average visual range in many Class I areas (i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western United States was 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution. In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average visual range was less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. CAA programs have reduced some haze-causing pollution, lessening some visibility impairment and resulting in partially improved average visual ranges.

    CAA requirements to address the problem of visibility impairment continue to be implemented. In Section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, man-made impairment of visibility in 156 national parks and wilderness areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas. On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I areas that is “reasonably attributable” to a single source or small group of sources, i.e., “reasonably attributable visibility impairment.” These regulations represented the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.

    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze issues, and EPA promulgated regulations addressing regional haze in 1999. The Regional Haze Rule revised the existing visibility regulations to add provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in our visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. States were required to submit the first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often under-controlled, older stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install and operate the “Best Available Retrofit Technology” (BART). Larger “fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants” are one of these source categories. Under the Regional Haze Rule, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for “BART-eligible” sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. The evaluation of BART for electric generating units (EGUs) that are located at fossil-fuel fired power plants having a generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts must follow the “Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule” at appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the “BART Guidelines”). Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides for greater progress towards improving visibility than BART.

    B. Our Previous Actions on Louisiana Regional Haze

    On June 13, 2008, Louisiana submitted a SIP to address regional haze (2008 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP or 2008 SIP revision). We acted on that submittal in two separate actions. Our first action was a limited disapproval 1 because of deficiencies in the state's regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). Our second action was a partial limited approval/partial disapproval 2 because the 2008 SIP revision met some but not all of the applicable requirements of the CAA and our regulations as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.300-308, but as a whole, the 2008 SIP revision strengthened the SIP. On August 11, 2016, Louisiana submitted a SIP revision to address the deficiencies related to BART for four non-EGU facilities. We proposed to approve that revision on October 27, 2016.3 On February 10, 2017, Louisiana submitted a SIP revision intended to address the deficiencies related to BART for EGU sources (2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP or 2017 SIP revision), a portion of which is the subject of this proposed action.

    1 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012).

    2 77 FR 39425 (July 3, 2012).

    3 81 FR 74750 (October 27, 2016).

    C. CSAPR as an Alternative to Source-Specific NOX BART

    In 2005, the EPA published CAIR, which required 28 states and the District of Columbia to reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX that significantly contribute to or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particulates and/or 8-hour ozone in any downwind state.4 EPA demonstrated that CAIR would achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal than would BART; and therefore, states could rely on CAIR as an alternative to EGU BART for SO2 and NOX.5

    4 70 FR 25161 (May 12, 2005).

    5 70 FR 39104, 39139 (July 6, 2005).

    Louisiana's 2008 Regional Haze SIP relied on participation in CAIR as an alternative to meeting the source-specific EGU BART requirements for SO2 and NOX.6 Shortly after Louisiana submitted its SIP to us, however, the D.C. Circuit remanded CAIR (without vacatur).7 The court thereby left CAIR and CAIR Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) in place in order to “temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR” until we could, by rulemaking, replace CAIR consistent with the court's opinion.8 In 2011, we promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to replace CAIR.9 While EGUs in Louisiana were required to participate in CAIR for both SO2 and NOX, Louisiana EGUs are only included in CSAPR for ozone-season NOX.10

    6See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) (2006).

    7 The court decided to vacate CAIR on July 11, 2008, and revised its decision, so as to remand the rule without vacatur, on December 23, 2008. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 901 (D.C. Cir. 2008), modified, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Louisiana's initial Regional Haze SIP was submitted on June 13, 2008. 77 FR 39425.

    8 550 F.3d at 1178.

    9 76 FR 48207 (August 8, 2011).

    10 76 FR 82219, at 82226 (December 30, 2011).

    In 2012, we issued a limited disapproval of Louisiana's and several other states' regional haze SIPs because of reliance on CAIR as an alternative to EGU BART for SO2 and/or NOX.11 We also determined that CSAPR would provide for greater reasonable progress than BART and amended the Regional Haze Rule to allow CSAPR participation as an alternative to source-specific SO2 and/or NOX BART for EGUs, on a pollutant-specific basis.12 Because Louisiana EGUs are included in CSAPR for NOX, Louisiana can rely on CSAPR better than BART for NOX. However, Louisiana's regional haze program must include source-by-source EGU BART demonstrations for all other visibility impairing pollutants, namely, SO2 and PM.

    11 The limited disapproval triggered the EPA's obligation to issue a FIP or approve a SIP revision to correct the relevant deficiencies within 2 years of the final limited disapproval action. CAA section 110(c)(1); 77 FR 33642, at 33654 (August 6, 2012).

    12 While that rulemaking also promulgated FIPs for several states to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR as an alternative to BART, it did not include a FIP for Louisiana. 77 FR 33642, 33654.

    CSAPR has been subject to extensive litigation, and on July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision generally upholding CSAPR but remanding without vacating the CSAPR emissions budgets for a number of states.13 We are in the process of responding to the remand of these CSAPR budgets. On October 26, 2016, we finalized an update to the CSAPR rule that addresses the 1997 ozone NAAQS portion of the remand and the CAA requirements addressing interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.14 Additionally, three states, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, have adopted or committed to adopt SIPs to replace the remanded FIPs and will continue the states' participation in the CSAPR program on a voluntary basis with the same budgets. On November 10, 2016, we proposed a rule intended to address the remainder of the court's remand as it relates to Texas.15 This separate proposed rule includes an assessment of the impacts of the set of actions that the EPA has taken or expects to take in response to the D.C. Circuit's remand on our 2012 demonstration that participation in CSAPR provides for greater reasonable progress than BART. Based on that assessment, the EPA proposed that states may continue to rely on CSAPR as being better than BART on a pollutant-specific basis.

    13 Louisiana's ozone season NOX budgets were not included in the remand. EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

    14 81 FR74504 (October 26, 2016).

    15 81 FR 78954 (November 10, 2016).

    II. Our Evaluation of Louisiana's BART Analysis A. Identification of BART-Eligible Sources

    In our partial disapproval and partial limited approval of the 2008 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP, we approved LDEQ's identification of 76 BART-eligible sources.16 Table 1 lists the EGU sources that were identified in the 2008 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP submittal as BART-eligible.

    16 See 77 FR 11839 at 11848 (February 28, 2012).

    Table 1—Identification of BART-Eligible EGU Sources Facility name Units Parish Cleco Rodemacher/Brame Nesbitt I (Unit 1), Rodemacher II (Unit 2) Rapides. Cleco Teche Unit 3 St. Mary. Entergy Sterlington Unit 7 Ouachita. Entergy Michoud Units 2 and 3 Orleans. Entergy Waterford Units 1, 2, and auxiliary boiler St. Charles. Entergy Willow Glen Units 2, 3, 4, 5, auxiliary boiler Iberville. Entergy Ninemile Point Units 4 and 5 Jefferson. Entergy Nelson * Units 4, 6, and auxiliary boiler Calcasieu. Entergy Little Gypsy Units 2, 3, and auxiliary boiler St. Charles. Louisiana Generating (NRG) Big Cajun I Units 1 and 2 Point Coupee. Louisiana Generating (NRG) Big Cajun II Units 1 and 2 Point Coupee. Louisiana Energy and Power Authority Plaquemine Steam Plant Boilers 1 and 2 Iberville. Louisiana Energy and Power Authority Morgan City Steam Plant Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 boilers St. Mary/St. Martin. City of Ruston—Ruston Electric Generating Plant Boilers 1, 2, and 3 Lincoln. Lafayette Utilities System Louis “Doc” Bonin Electric Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3 Lafayette. Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government Houma Generating Station Units 15 and 16 Terrebonne. City of Natchitoches Utility Department 3 boilers Natchitoches. * We are not acting on BART determinations for Entergy Nelson in this action. We will address BART for Entergy Nelson in a future rulemaking. B. Evaluation of Which Sources Are Subject to BART

    Because Louisiana's 2008 Regional Haze SIP relied on CAIR as better than BART for EGUs, the submittal did not include a determination of which BART-eligible EGUs were subject to BART. On May 19, 2015, we sent CAA Section 114 letters to several BART-eligible sources in Louisiana. In those letters, we noted our understanding that the sources were actively working with LDEQ to develop a SIP. However, in order to be in a position to develop a FIP should that be necessary, we requested information regarding the BART-eligible sources. The Section 114 letters required sources to conduct modeling to determine if the sources were subject to BART, and included a modeling protocol. The letters also requested that a BART analysis be performed in accordance with the BART Guidelines for those sources determined to be subject to BART. We worked closely with those BART-eligible facilities and with LDEQ to this end, and all the information we received from the facilities was also sent to LDEQ. As a result, the LDEQ submitted a revised SIP submittal on February 10, 2017, that evaluates BART-eligible EGUs in the State and provides a BART determination for each such source for all visibility impairing pollutants except NOX. This proposal addresses the entire 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP, but for the portion concerning one BART-eligible EGU facility, specifically the Entergy Nelson facility. We will propose action on the Entergy Nelson portion of the SIP at a later date. We note that Louisiana unintentionally omitted discussion of two BART-eligible facilities in its 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP: Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government Houma Generating Station and Louisiana Energy and Power Authority Plaquemine Steam Plant. We will address these two sources in the model plant analysis section below.

    C. Sources That Are No Longer in Operation

    Several sources that were identified as BART-eligible have since retired from operation, rendering them no longer subject to the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. For the units identified in the Table 2, the LDEQ provided documentation supporting permit rescissions to make these retirements permanent and enforceable.17

    17 See Appendix E of the 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP for supporting documentation and the TSD for this action for additional information.

    Table 2—Retired Sources Facility name Units Parish Louisiana Energy and Power Authority, Morgan City Steam Plant Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 boilers St. Mary/St. Martin. City of Ruston, Ruston Electric Generating Plant Boilers 1, 2, and 3 Lincoln. City of Natchitoches Utility Department 3 boilers Natchitoches.

    In addition, Entergy Michoud Units 2 and 3 were identified as BART-eligible, but are no longer in operation. By letter dated August 10, 2016, Entergy System Operating Committee elected to permanently retire Michoud Units 2 and 3, effective June 1, 2016. This action was described in detail through a permit application to the state. As of the time of this proposal, LDEQ has not yet finalized that permit. The 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP includes the Air Permit Briefing Sheet that confirms Entergy's request to remove Units 2 and 3 from the permit.18 We propose to approve the SIP based on the draft permit, and note that we expect the proposed permit removing Units 2 and 3 to be final before we take final action to approve this portion of the 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP. Alternatively, LDEQ could submit another enforceable document to ensure that Units 2 and 3 cannot restart without a BART analysis and emission limits, or demonstrate the units have been deconstructed to the point that they cannot restart without obtaining a new NSR permit, making them not operational during the timeframe for BART eligibility.

    18 See Appendix D of the 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP.

    D. Sources That Screened Out of BART

    Once a list of BART-eligible sources still in operation within a state has been compiled, the state must determine whether to make BART determinations for all of them or to consider exempting some of them from BART because they are not reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. The BART Guidelines present several options that rely on modeling analyses and/or emissions analyses to determine if a source is not reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area. A source that is not reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area is not “subject to BART,” and for such sources, a state need not apply the five statutory factors to make a BART determination.19 Those sources are determined to be not subject to BART. Sources that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area are subject to BART.20 For each source subject to BART, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) requires that the LDEQ identify the level of control representing BART after considering the factors set out in CAA section 169A(g)(2). To determine which sources are anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment, the BART Guidelines state “you can use CALPUFF or other appropriate model to estimate the visibility impacts from a single source at a Class I area.” 21

    19 See 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, III, How to Identify Sources “Subject to BART”.

    20Id.

    21 See 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, III, How to Identify Sources “Subject to BART”.

    1. Visibility Impairment Threshold

    The preamble to the BART Guidelines advises that, “for purposes of determining which sources are subject to BART, States should consider a 1.0 deciview 22 change or more from an individual source to `cause' visibility impairment, and a change of 0.5 deciviews to `contribute' to impairment.” 23 It further advises that “States should have discretion to set an appropriate threshold depending on the facts of the situation,” and describes situations in which states may wish to exercise that discretion, mainly in situations in which a number of sources in an area are all contributing fairly equally to the visibility impairment of a Class I area. In Louisiana's 2008 Regional Haze SIP submittal, the LDEQ used a contribution threshold of 0.5 dv for determining which sources are subject to BART, and we approved this threshold in our previous action.24 The 2017 SIP revision includes a full five factor BART determination for each of the State's BART-eligible EGUs whose visibility impacts exceed the 0.5 dv threshold.

    22 As we note in the Regional Haze Rule (64 FR 35725, July 1, 1999), the “deciview” or “dv” is an atmospheric haze index that expresses changes in visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions.

    23 70 FR 39104, 39120 (July 6, 2005), [40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y].

    24 See, 77 FR 11839, 11849 (February 28, 2012).

    2. Model Plant Analysis

    As part of our development of the BART Guidelines, we developed analyses of model plants with representative plume and stack characteristics for both EGU and non-EGU sources using the CALPUFF model.25 As we discuss in the BART Guidelines,26 based on those analyses, we believe that sources that emit less than 1,000 tons per year of NOX and SO2 and that are located more than 100 km from any Class I area can be exempted from the BART determination. The BART Guidelines note that the model plant concept can be extended using additional modeling analyses to ratios of emission levels and distances other than 1,000 tons/100 km. The BART Guidelines explain that: “you may find based on representative plant analyses that certain types of sources are not reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment. To do this, you may conduct your own modeling to establish emission levels and distances from Class I areas on which you can rely to exempt sources with those characteristics.” 27 Modeling analyses of representative plants are used to reflect groupings of specific sources with important common characteristics.

    25 CALPUFF Analysis in Support of the June 2005 Changes to the Regional Haze Rule, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 15, 2005, Docket No. OAR-2002-0076.

    26 70 FR 39119 (July 6, 2005).

    27 70 FR 39163 (July 6, 2005).

    As we mention above, we note that Louisiana unintentionally omitted discussion of two BART-eligible facilities in its 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP: Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government Houma Generating Station (Houma) and Louisiana Energy and Power Authority Plaquemine Steam Plant (Plaquemine). However, Louisiana's 2008 Regional Haze SIP submittal identified these two sources as BART-eligible, and we approved the inclusion of these two sources on that list in 2012.28 The LDEQ has indicated that it inadvertently failed to address whether these two sources are subject to BART in the 2017 Regional Haze SIP. These two sources were included in its 2008 Regional Haze SIP, but Louisiana relied on CAIR better than BART coverage for these sources when they adopted their 2008 SIP. Therefore, we have evaluated these two sources based on available information to determine whether they are subject to BART. We are not relying on the 1000 tpy/100 km model plant approach but are instead relying on existing modeling included in the 2008 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP as being a representative plant analysis for the purpose of establishing emission levels and distances to exempt BART-eligible sources. Specifically, the 2008 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP included review of CALPUFF modeling of a source owner, Valero, which demonstrated that Valero's BART-eligible sources do not cause or contribute to visibility impairment at the nearby Class I area, Breton National Wildlife Refuge (Breton). The Valero plant is representative (similar stack height and parameters) of the Houma and Plaquemine sources and can therefore be relied on in a model plant analysis to demonstrate that, based on baseline emissions and distance to the Class I area, the Houma and Plaquemine sources are not anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at Breton and are therefore not subject to BART.29 We analyzed the ratio of visibility impairing pollutants, denoted as `Q' (NOX, SO2, and PM-10 in tons/year) 30 to the distance, denoted as `D' (distance of source to Breton in km). For example, if two sources were similar but one has a lower Q/D value, the lower ratio value (either due to lower emissions and/or greater distance) would be expected to have smaller visibility impacts at Breton. The Q/D ratio for Houma and Plaquemine are significantly lower compared to Valero's ratio (See Table 3). The Q/D ratios of Houma are approximately 20% of Valero's, and Plaquemine's ratio is less than 10% of Valero's Q/D ratio, and modeled impacts of the Valero source were less than the 0.5 dv threshold. Therefore, the data demonstrates that visibility impacts from the BART-eligible units at Houma and Plaquemine are reasonably anticipated to be less than the modeled impacts from Valero and less than the 0.5 dv threshold to screen out. See the CALPUFF Modeling TSD for additional discussion of the model plant analysis.

    28 See Appendix E of the 2008 Louisiana RH SIP contained in the docket for the rulemaking at: 77 FR 11839, 11848.

    29 See 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y.

    30 To calculate Q, the maximum 24-hr emissions for NOX, SO2 and PM from the 2000-2004 baseline were identified for each BART-eligible unit at a source (See Table 9.3 of the 2008 Louisiana RH SIP). Emissions are not paired in time (i.e. max 24- hour NOX emissions value would not usually be on the same day as max 24-hour SO2 emissions). The sum of these daily max NOX, PM and SO2 emissions were summed and then multiplied by 365 days.

    We also note that on December 11, 2015, the Lafayette Utilities System Louis “Doc” Bonin Generating Station advised our Clean Air Markets Division that: Unit 1 last operated on June 22, 2011, and was put into cold storage on June 1, 2013; Unit 2 last operated on July 5, 2013, and was put into cold storage on June 29, 2014; and Unit 3 last operated on August 27, 2013, and was put into cold storage on June 24, 2014. The Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) is currently conducting a study to predict the future use of these unit(s) for peaking purposes. If it is determined that these units are no longer necessary to facilitate electrical power generation, they will be retired.31 However, at this time Lafayette Utilities System has not yet submitted a request to rescind the permit for the Louis “Doc” Bonin Electric Generating Station. Because placing the units in cold storage is not a permanent and enforceable closure under the Regional Haze requirements, we included Louis “Doc” Bonin in our model plant analysis. The Q/D ratio for Louis “Doc” Bonin is significantly lower compared to Valero's Q/D ratio (See Table 3). The ratio is less than 40% of Valero's ratio and modeled impacts of the Valero source were less than the 0.5 dv threshold, which demonstrates that visibility impairment from the BART-eligible units at Louis “Doc” Bonin are reasonably anticipated to be less than the modeled impacts from Valero and below the 0.5 dv threshold to screen out. The model plant analysis demonstrates that, based on baseline emissions, the source is not anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment of any Class I area, and is therefore not subject to BART. See the CALPUFF Modeling TSD for additional discussion of the model plant analysis. Because the modeling results demonstrate that Louis “Doc” Bonin is not subject to BART, we propose to approve this portion of the 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP.

    31 See Appendix E of the 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP.

    Table 3—Model Plant Q/D Ratios Facility NOX
  • (TPY)
  • SOX
  • (TPY)
  • PM
  • (TPY)
  • Facility
  • emissions
  • (TPY)
  • Distance to
  • Breton
  • (km)
  • Q/D
  • (TPY/km)
  • Max
  • percentile
  • Delta DV
  • Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government Houma Generating Station 909.8 3.65 7.3 930.75 165 5.64 Louisiana Energy and Power Authority Plaquemine Steam Plant 492.75 0 0 492.75 227.1 2.17 Lafayette Utilities System Louis “Doc” Bonin Electric Generating Station 2993 7.3 109.5 3109.8 298.9 10.04 Valero 1876 1091 401.5 3368.5 139.3 24.18 0.484

    Based on the results of this analysis, we propose that the BART-eligible sources identified in Table 4 are not reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to the visibility impairment at a Class I area and are not subject to BART.

    Table 4—Sources Screened Out Using Model Plant Analysis Facility Name Units Parish Louisiana Energy and Power Authority Plaquemine Steam Plant Boilers 1 and 2 Iberville. Lafayette Utilities System Louis “Doc” Bonin Electric Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3 Lafayette. Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government Houma Generating Station Units 15 and 16 Terrebonne. 3. CALPUFF Modeling To Screen Out Sources

    Some sources were modeled directly with CALPUFF to determine whether the BART-eligible source causes or contributes to visibility impairment in nearby Class I areas. The maximum 98th percentile impact from the modeled years (calculated based on annual average natural background conditions) was compared with the 0.5 dv screening threshold following the modeling protocol described in the CALPUFF Modeling TSD. The BART Guidelines recommend that states use the 24-hour average actual emission rate from the highest emitting day of the meteorological period modeled, unless this rate reflects periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction. The maximum 24-hour emission rate (lb/hr) for NOX and SO2 from the initial baseline period (with the noted difference for Big Cajun II discussed below) for each source was identified through a review of the daily emission data for each BART-eligible unit from EPA's Air Markets Program Data.32 See the CALPUFF Modeling TSD for additional discussion and model results for this portion of the screening analysis.

    32http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.

    As previously discussed, LDEQ submitted its initial Regional Haze SIP in 2008 and relied on CAIR as a substitute for BART for SO2 and NOX for all of its BART-eligible EGUs. Due to reliance on CAIR, that SIP submittal did not include a determination of which BART-eligible EGUs were subject to BART. EPA's limited disapproval of Louisiana's Regional Haze SIP due to the State's reliance on CAIR revived Louisiana's obligation to provide a SIP to fully address EGU BART.33 While Louisiana's 2017 Regional Haze SIP revision relies on CSAPR for EGU BART for NOX, it does not provide an alternative to source-by-source EGU BART for SO2 and PM. Therefore, Louisiana's 2017 Regional Haze SIP revision included modeling of the impacts of the 24-hour maximum emission rate during the 2000-2004 baseline period (with the noted exception of Big Cajun II discussed below) of all visibility-impairing pollutants from all BART-eligible units at the facility. BART-eligible sources with visibility impacts above the 0.5 dv threshold are subject to BART.

    33 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012).

    The Big Cajun II Power Plant is a coal-fired power station owned and operated by Louisiana Generating, LLC, (a subsidiary of NRG Energy). In our prior action on the 2008 Regional Haze SIP submittal, we approved Louisiana's determination that Big Cajun II has two BART-eligible units, Unit 1 and Unit 2.34 Unit 1 is a coal-fired unit, and Unit 2 was formerly a coal-fired unit but is now a gas-fired unit. The LDEQ's screening modeling for Big Cajun II accounted for current operating conditions at the facility. The modeling analysis was conducted using the current enforceable short term emission limits from the facility that reflect controls installed after the 2008 Regional Haze SIP submittal.

    34 See TSD Table 6 in the Rulemaking Docket numbered EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0510.

    On March 6, 2013, Louisiana Generating entered a consent decree (CD) with EPA, the LDEQ, and others to resolve a complaint filed against Louisiana Generating for several violations of the CAA at Big Cajun II. U.S. et al v. Louisiana Generating, LLC, Civil Action No. 09-100-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.). Among other things, the CD requires Louisiana Generating to refuel Big Cajun II Unit 2 to natural gas, and install and continuously operate dry sorbent injection (DSI) at Big Cajun II Unit 1 while maintaining a 30-day rolling average SO2 emission rate of no greater than 0.380 lb/MMBtu by no later than April 15, 2015.35 Prior to the submittal of the 2017 Regional Haze SIP, the LDEQ and Louisiana Generating entered into an Agreed Order on Consent (AOC) that made these existing control requirements and maximum daily emission limits permanent and enforceable for BART. The AOC is included in Louisiana's 2017 SIP revision. Thus, if the EPA finalizes its proposed approval of this portion of the SIP submittal, the control requirements and emission limits will become permanent and federally enforceable for purposes of regional haze. As these controls were not installed to meet BART requirements, and existing enforceable emission limits for Units 1 and 2 prevent the source from emitting at levels seen during the 2000-2004 baseline, LDEQ's screening modeling in the 2017 Regional Haze SIP submittal utilizes the current daily emission limits for these units in the AOC as representative of the anticipated 24-hr maximum emissions for screening modeling purposes. LDEQ's modeling demonstrates that, based on these existing controls and enforceable emission limits, Big Cajun II contributes less than 0.5 dv at all impacted Class I areas, and therefore the facility is not subject to BART.

    35 CD paragraph 62 in the docket for this rulemaking.

    It should be noted that in addition to requiring DSI, the applicable enforcement CD requires Louisiana Generating to retire, refuel, repower, or retrofit Big Cajun II Unit 1 by no later than April 1, 2025. Louisiana Generating must notify us of which option it will select to comply with this condition no later than December 31, 2022, and any option taken would produce significantly fewer emissions.36

    36 CD paragraph 63 in the docket for this rulemaking.

    With the use of CALPUFF modeling results, Louisiana concluded, and we are proposing to agree, that the facilities listed in Table 5 have visibility impacts of less than 0.5 dv,37 and therefore, are not subject to BART:

    37 In our previous action on Louisiana Regional Haze, we approved Louisiana's selection of 0.5 dv as the threshold for screening out BART-eligible sources. See 77 FR 11839, 11848.

    Table 5—Sources With Visibility Impact of Less Than 0.5 dv Facility name Units Parish Cleco Teche Unit 3 St. Mary. Entergy Sterlington Unit 7 Ouachita. Louisiana Generating (NRG) Big Cajun I Units 1 and 2 Point Coupee. Louisiana Generating (NRG) Big Cajun II Units 1 and 2 Pointe Coupee. E. Subject to BART Sources

    With the use of CALPUFF modeling results as discussed above, Louisiana concluded, and we are proposing to agree, that the facilities listed in Table 6 have visibility impacts greater than 0.5 dv. These facilities are therefore subject to BART and must undergo a five-factor analysis. See the CALPUFF Modeling TSD for our review of CALPUFF modeling in the 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP.

    Table 6—Subject to BART Sources Addressed in This Proposal Facility name Units Parish Cleco Rodemacher/Brame Nesbitt I (Unit 1), Rodemacher II (Unit 2) Rapides. Entergy Waterford Units 1, 2, and auxiliary boiler St. Charles. Entergy Willow Glen Units 2, 3, 4, 5, and auxiliary boiler Iberville. Entergy Ninemile Point Units 4 and 5 Jefferson. Entergy Little Gypsy Units 2, 3, and auxiliary boiler St. Charles.

    We note that in addition to the CALPUFF modeling included in the 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP submittal, the results of CAMx modeling performed by Trinity consultants was included in the submittal as additional screening analyses 38 that purport to demonstrate that the baseline visibility impacts from Cleco Brame and a number of the Entergy sources 39 are significantly less than the 0.5 dv threshold established by Louisiana. However, this modeling was not conducted in accordance with the BART Guidelines and a previous modeling protocol developed for the use of CAMx modeling for BART screening (EPA, Texas and FLM representatives approved),40 41 and does not properly assess the maximum baseline impacts. Therefore, we agree with LDEQ's decision to not rely on this CAMx modeling, but rather rely on the CALPUFF modeling for BART determinations.42 We provide a detailed discussion of our review of this CAMx modeling in the CAMx Modeling TSD. We also note that for the largest emission sources, those with coal-fired units, we performed our own CAMx modeling following the BART Guidelines and consistent with previously agreed techniques and metrics of the Texas CAMx BART screening protocol to provide additional information on visibility impacts and impairment and address possible concerns with utilizing CALPUFF to assess visibility impacts at Class I areas located farther from the emission sources. See the CAMx Modeling TSD for additional information on EPA's CAMx modeling protocol, inputs, and model results.

    38 See October 10, 2016 Letter from Cleco Corporation to Vivian Aucoin and Vennetta Hayes, LDEQ, RE: Cleco Corporation Louisiana BART CAMx Modeling, included in Appendix B of the 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP submittal; CAMx Modeling Report, prepared for Entergy Services by Trinity Consultants, Inc. and All 4 Inc, October 14, 2016, included in Appendix D of the 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP submittal.

    39 Entergy's CAMx modeling included model results for Michoud, Little Gypsy, R.S. Nelson, Ninemile Point, Willow Glen, and Waterford.

    40 Texas had over 120 BART-eligible facilities located at a wide range of distances to the nearest class I areas in their original Regional Haze SIP. Due to the distances between sources and Class I areas and the number of sources, Texas worked with EPA and FLM representatives to develop a modeling protocol to conduct BART screening of sources using CAMx photochemical modeling. Texas was the only state that screened sources using CAMx and had a protocol developed for how the modeling was to be performed and what metrics had to be evaluated for determining if a source screened out. See Guidance for the Application of the CAMx Hybrid Photochemical Grid Model to Assess Visibility Impacts of Texas BART Sources at Class I Areas, ENVIRON International, December 13, 2007, available in the docket for this action.

    41 EPA, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), and FLM representatives verbally approved the approach in 2006 and in email exchange with TCEQ representatives in February 2007 (see email from Erik Snyder (EPA) to Greg Nudd of TCEQ Feb. 13, 2007 and response email from Greg Nudd to Erik Snyder Feb. 15, 2007, available in the docket for this action).

    42 See Response to Comments in Appendix A of the 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP submittal.

    1. Reliance on CSAPR To Satisfy NOX BART

    Louisiana's 2017 Regional Haze SIP submittal relies on CSAPR better than BART for NOX for EGUs. We propose to find that the NOX BART requirements for EGUs in Louisiana will be satisfied by our determination, proposed for separate finalization, that Louisiana's participation in CSAPR's ozone-season NOX program is a permissible alternative to source-specific NOX BART. We cannot finalize this portion of the proposed SIP approval unless and until we finalize the proposed finding that CSAPR continues to be better than BART 43 because finalization of that proposal provides the basis for Louisiana to rely on CSAPR participation as an alternative to source-specific EGU BART for NOX.

    43 81 FR 78954.

    2. Sources That Deferred a Five-Factor Analysis Due to a Change in Operation

    Entergy operates five BART-eligible units at the Willow Glen Electric Generating Plant (Willow Glen) in Iberville Parish, Louisiana, all of which burn natural gas. Unit 2 is an EGU boiler with a maximum heat input capacity of 2,188 MMBtu/hr. Unit 3 is an EGU boiler with a maximum heat input capacity of 5,900 MMBtu/hr. Unit 4 is an EGU boiler with a maximum heat input capacity of 5,400 MMBtu/hr. Unit 5 is an EGU boiler with a maximum heat input capacity of 5,544 MMBtu/hr. Unit 3 also has an auxiliary boiler with a maximum heat input capacity of 206 MMBtu/hr, which is itself BART-eligible. All of these units are also permitted to burn fuel oil, but none has done so in several years. Entergy has no operational plans to burn oil at these units in the future. Entergy's analysis, included in the 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP Appendix D, addresses BART for the natural-gas-firing scenario and does not consider emissions from fuel-oil firing. Entergy's analysis states that if conditions change such that it becomes economic to burn fuel oil, the facility will submit a five-factor BART analysis for the fuel-oil firing scenario to Louisiana to be submitted to us as a SIP revision. Until such a SIP revision is approved, the 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP precludes fuel-oil combustion at the Willow Glen facility. To make the prohibition on fuel-oil usage at Willow Glen enforceable, Entergy and LDEQ entered an AOC, included in the SIP that establishes the following requirement:

    Before fuel oil firing is allowed to take place at Units 2, 3, 4, 5, and the auxiliary boiler at the Facility, a revised BART determination must be promulgated for SO2 and PM for the fuel oil firing scenario through a FIP or an action by the LDEQ as a SIP revision and approved by EPA such that the action will become federally enforceable.44

    44 See AOC in Appendix D of the 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP submittal.

    With our final approval of this portion of the SIP submittal, the conditions in the AOC will become federally enforceable for purposes of regional haze. We propose to find that this approach is adequate to address BART.45

    45 Under the AOC, if any of the five units at Willow Glen decides to burn fuel oil, Entergy will complete a BART analysis for each pollutant for the fuel oil firing scenario and submit the analysis to the State. Upon receiving Entergy's submission indicating that the units intend to switch to fuel oil, the State will submit a SIP revision with BART determinations for the fuel oil firing scenario for the units intending to switch to fuel oil. The sources will not begin to burn fuel oil until we have approved the submitted SIP revision containing the BART determinations.

    With regard to BART requirements for the gas-firing scenario, SO2 and PM emissions for the gas-only fired units that are subject to BART are inherently low,46 and are so minimal that the installation of any additional PM or SO2 controls on these units would likely achieve very small emissions reductions and have minimal visibility benefits. As there are no appropriate add-on controls and the status quo reflects the most stringent controls, we propose to agree with Louisiana that SO2 and PM BART is no additional controls for the Willow Glen units when burning natural gas.

    46 AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1, Chapter 1: External Sources, Section 1.4, Natural Gas Combustion, available here: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/final/c01s04.pdf.

    3. Louisiana's Five-Factor Analyses for SO2 and PM BART

    In determining BART, the state must consider the five statutory factors in section 169A of the CAA: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining useful life of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology. See also 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). All units that are subject to BART must undergo a BART analysis. The BART Guidelines break the analysis down into five steps: 47

    47 70 FR 39103, 39164 (July 6, 2005) [40 CFR 51, App. Y].

    STEP 1—Identify All Available Retrofit Control Technologies,

    STEP 2—Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options,

    STEP 3—Evaluate Control Effectiveness of Remaining Control Technologies,

    STEP 4—Evaluate Impacts and Document the Results, and

    STEP 5—Evaluate Visibility Impacts.

    As mentioned previously, we disapproved portions of Louisiana's 2008 Regional Haze SIP due to the state's reliance on CAIR as an alternative to source-by-source BART for EGUs.48 Following our limited disapproval, LDEQ worked closely with the BART-eligible facilities and with us to revise its Regional Haze SIP, which resulted in the submittal of its 2017 Regional Haze SIP. The 2017 SIP submittal includes, among other things, a five-factor BART analysis for each subject to BART source for PM and SO2. Louisiana's 2017 Regional Haze SIP relies on CSAPR participation as an alternative to source-specific EGU BART for NOX. In evaluating the State's 2017 SIP revision, we reviewed each BART analysis for SO2 and PM for each subject to BART source and other relevant information provided in the 2017 Regional Haze SIP submittal.

    48 77 FR 33642.

    a. Cleco Brame Energy Center

    The Cleco Brame Energy Center includes two units that are subject to BART. Nesbitt 1 (Brame Unit 1) is a 440-megawatt (MW) EGU boiler that burns natural gas and is not equipped with any air pollution controls. Rodemacher 2 (Brame Unit 2) is a 523 MW wall-fired EGU boiler that burns Powder River Basin (PRB) coal. Cleco submitted a BART screening analysis to us and LDEQ on August 31, 2015, and a BART five-factor analysis dated October 31, 2015, revised April 14, 2016 and April 18, 2016 in response to an information request.49 These analyses were adopted and incorporated into Louisiana's 2017 Regional Haze SIP (Appendix B).

    49 Wren Stenger, Section 114(a) Information Request letter to Darren Olagues (Cleco), May 19, 2015.

    Nesbitt 1

    Nesbitt 1 is currently permitted to burn natural gas and oil. However, this unit has not burned oil in the recent past. LDEQ did not conduct a five-factor BART analysis for Nesbitt 1, concluding that “SO2 BART controls are satisfied through the conversion to natural gas.” 50 The preamble to the BART Guidelines states: 51

    50 See Cleco BART Analysis in Appendix B of the 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP.

    51 70 FR 39116.

    Consistent with the CAA and the implementing regulations, States can adopt a more streamlined approach to making BART determinations where appropriate. Although BART determinations are based on the totality of circumstances in a given situation, such as the distance of the source from a Class I area, the type and amount of pollutant at issue, and the availability and cost of controls, it is clear that in some situations, one or more factors will clearly suggest an outcome. Thus, for example, a State need not undertake an exhaustive analysis of a source's impact on visibility resulting from relatively minor emissions of a pollutant where it is clear that controls would be costly and any improvements in visibility resulting from reductions in emissions of that pollutant would be negligible. In a scenario, for example, where a source emits thousands of tons of SO2 but less than one hundred tons of NOX, the State could easily conclude that requiring expensive controls to reduce NOX would not be appropriate.

    SO2 and PM emissions from gas-fired units are inherently low,52 so the installation of any additional PM or SO2 controls on this unit would likely achieve very small emissions reductions and have minimal visibility benefits.

    52 AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1, Chapter 1: External Sources, Section 1.4, Natural Gas Combustion, available here: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/final/c01s04.pdf.

    Before burning fuel oil at this unit, Cleco has committed to submit a five-factor BART analysis for the fuel-oil-firing scenario to Louisiana to be submitted to us as a SIP revision, and fuel oil combustion will not take place until our final approval of that SIP revision. To make the prohibition on fuel-oil usage at this unit enforceable, Cleco and LDEQ entered an AOC that establishes enforceable limits, consistent with the exclusive use of natural gas, of 3.0 lb/hr SO2 and 37.3 lb/hr PM10 on 30-day rolling averages and a limitation on Nesbitt 1 analogous to the limitation for Willow Glen discussed previously.53 This AOC is included in Louisiana's 2017 SIP revision. With our final approval of this portion of the 2017 SIP submittal and the AOC, that limitation will become federally enforceable for purposes of Regional Haze. We propose to find this approach adequate to meet BART.

    53 See AOC in Appendix B of the 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP.

    Rodemacher 2

    As the 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP indicates,54 recent pollution control upgrades at Rodemacher 2 include:

    54 See BART Analysis in Appendix B of the 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP.

    • Low-NOX burners (LNB) installed in 2008;

    • Low-sulfur coal combustion starting in 2009;

    • Selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) installed in 2014; and

    • DSI, activated carbon injection (ACI), and a fabric filter baghouse installed in 2015.

    In assessing SO2 BART, Cleco considered the five BART factors we discuss above. In assessing feasible control technologies and their effectiveness, Cleco considered an enhancement to the existing DSI system, dry scrubbing (spray dry absorption, or SDA), and wet scrubbing (wet flue gas desulfurization, or wet FGD). In considering enhanced DSI, Cleco relied upon on-site testing it had conducted to determine the performance potential of an enhanced DSI system. The testing was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the DSI system to control hydrochloric acid for compliance with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), but the continuous emissions monitor system (CEMS) was operating and capturing SO2 emissions data during the test, which provided the necessary information to determine the control efficiency of DSI and enhanced DSI for SO2.55 As a result of this testing, Cleco determined that the current and enhanced DSI systems have SO2 removal efficiencies of approximately 39% and 63%, respectively, with the enhanced DSI system being capable of meeting a monthly SO2 emission limit of 0.30 lbs/MMBtu. Cleco secured this limit as part of the same AOC referenced above for the Nesbitt 1. Cleco also assessed SDA and wet FGD as being capable of meeting emission limits of 0.06 and 0.04 lbs/MMBtu, respectively.

    55 See the April 5, 2016 letter to Guy Donaldson from Bill Matthews in our docket.

    In considering the costs of compliance for these controls, Cleco concluded that the enhanced DSI system would not require any additional capital expenses, but would require additional operating costs due to the need for additional sorbent (trona). Cleco didn't specifically address the energy impacts and non-air quality impacts of enhanced DSI, but we conclude that any considerations regarding these factors would be very minimal over the already installed DSI system. Cleco also assessed the costs associated with installing and operating SDA and wet FGD, as discussed below. In regards to energy impacts and non-air quality impacts, Cleco concluded that wet FGD poses certain water and waste disposal problems over SDA. Cleco concluded that remaining useful life was not an important factor for any of the control scenarios.

    In assessing visibility impacts, the state's submittal included CALPUFF modeling evaluating the visibility benefits of DSI, enhanced DSI, SDA, and wet FGD. We summarize the results of that modeling in Table 7.

    56 DSI modeled at 0.41 lb/MMBtu, DSI and fabric filter are already installed and operational.

    Table 7—Anticipated Visibility Benefit Due to Controls on Cleco Rodemacher Unit 2 [CALPUFF, 98th percentile] Class I area Baseline
  • impact
  • (dv)
  • Visibility benefit of controls over baseline
  • (dv)
  • DSI 56 Enhanced
  • DSI
  • SDA WFGD
    Breton 0.724 0.134 0.226 0.436 0.445 Caney Creek 0.734 0.085 0.122 0.311 0.322

    Enhanced DSI achieves benefits of approximately 0.092 dv at Breton and 0.037 dv at Caney Creek Wilderness (Caney Creek) over DSI and benefits of 0.226 dv at Breton and 0.122 dv at Caney Creek over the baseline impairment. The visibility benefits of SDA and wet FGD exceed the benefits from enhanced DSI by approximately 0.2 dv at Caney Creek and Breton.

    We also performed our own CAMx modeling analysis for Cleco Rodemacher Unit 2 following the BART Guidelines to evaluate the maximum baseline visibility impacts and potential benefits from two levels of controls, DSI at 0.41 lb/MMBtu and wet FGD at 0.04 lb/MMBtu, to supplement the CALPUFF modeling. As discussed above, Louisiana relied on CALPUFF modeling to inform BART determinations consistent with the BART Guidelines. However, the use of CALPUFF is typically used for distances less than 300-400 km. The Cleco Brame source is located 352 km from Caney Creek and 422 km from Breton. CAMx provides a scientifically validated platform for assessment of visibility impacts over a wide range of source-to-receptor distances. CAMx is also more suited than some other modeling approaches for evaluating the impacts of SO2, NOX, VOC, and PM emissions as it has a more robust chemistry mechanism than CALPUFF. Our CAMx Modeling TSD provides a detailed description of the modeling protocol, model inputs, and model results, the latter of which is summarized in Table 8.

    57 DSI modeled at 0.41 lb/MMBtu, DSI and fabric filter are already installed and operational.

    58 DSI modeled at 0.41 lb/MMBtu, DSI and fabric filter are already installed and operational.

    Table 8—Anticipated Visibility Benefit Due to Controls on Cleco Rodemacher Unit 2 [CAMX] Class I area Baseline
  • impact
  • (dv)
  • (maximum)
  • Baseline
  • impact
  • (dv)
  • (average top ten impacted days)
  • Visibility benefit of controls over baseline (dv) maximum impact DSI 57 WFGD Visibility benefit of controls over baseline (dv) average top ten impacted days DSI 58 WFGD
    Breton 0.713 0.315 0.187 0.399 0.117 0.271 Caney Creek 2.051 1.005 0.119 0.238 0.271 0.459

    The CAMx-modeled visibility benefits of WFGD are 0.212 dv at Breton and 0.119 dv at Caney Creek over those from DSI for the most impacted day. Examining the top ten impacted days during the baseline period, the average benefit on this set of days of WFGD over DSI is 0.154 dv at Breton and 0.188 dv at Caney Creek. As enhanced DSI would reduce SO2 emissions from an emission rate of 0.41 lb/MMBtu to 0.3 lb/MMBtu, enhanced DSI would lead to greater visibility benefits than DSI. Thus, the visibility benefits of WFGD compared to enhanced DSI would be smaller than those discussed above.

    As explained in our TSD, we identified some uncertainties with Cleco's BART analysis for Rodemacher 2. These include a lack of documentation for cost figures, and the fact that the DSI testing that Cleco relied on was not intended to evaluate DSI for SO2 control efficiency, which caused some uncertainty concerning the potential control level of DSI and enhanced DSI. However, because DSI and a fabric filter baghouse are already installed and operational, the cost-effectiveness of Cleco's enhanced DSI is based only on the cost of the additional reagent and no additional capital costs are involved. Consequently, we believe that the uncertainty of Cleco's enhanced DSI cost-effectiveness figures is low and that Cleco's estimated cost-effectiveness of $967/ton 59 is reasonable. Conversely, we believe that significant uncertainty exists with respect to Cleco's cost-effectiveness estimates for SDA and wet FGD—$8,589/ton and $5,580/ton, respectively. Based on our experience reviewing and conducting control cost analyses for many other facilities, we believe that Cleco's estimates are likely too high.

    59 Cleco lists this as an incremental cost-effectiveness figure for enhanced DSI over the existing DSI system. However, the enhanced DSI system has no additional capital costs, and when the already sunk capital costs of the existing DSI system are removed (which have been carried forward), the $967/ton figure becomes the average cost-effectiveness value for enhanced DSI.

    Nevertheless, even though the actual costs of SDA and wet FGD are likely lower, enhanced DSI is more cost-effective and the incremental costs of obtaining the additional 0.1-0.2 dv of visibility improvement that can be achieved by SDA or wet FGD are likely to be high. Therefore, we propose to agree with Louisiana's determination that enhanced DSI is SO2 BART for Rodemacher 2, with a SO2 emission limit of 0.30 lbs/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling basis. LDEQ and Cleco entered into an AOC to make this limit enforceable.

    In assessing PM BART, Cleco notes that Rodemacher 2 is equipped with an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) and a fabric filter baghouse, which offer excellent PM control, and concludes that PM BART is no further control. As discussed earlier, the BART rules allow for a more streamlined approach to making BART determinations when appropriate.60 The BART Guidelines further state that if a BART source already has controls that are among the most stringent available and the controls are made federally enforceable for BART, the remainder of the BART analysis is unnecessary.61 The existing ESP combined with the baghouse meets the definition of “among the most stringent controls” for PM at this unit and are made federally enforceable for BART through the AOC. The AOC allows the unit to meet the emissions limits by use of the ESP and the baghouse, conversion to natural gas only, unit retirement, or another means of achieving compliance.

    60 70 FR 39116.

    61 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y.IV.D.1.9.

    In addition, CALPUFF visibility modeling shows that baseline impairment due to PM is very small, at 0.01 dv or less at both Breton and Caney Creek compared to the overall visibility impairment from all pollutants of approximately 0.6 dv.62 Our CAMx modeling estimates that baseline visibility impairment due to PM emissions from the unit is less than 1% of the total visibility impairment due to the unit, at both Caney Creek and Breton.63 We propose to find that the visibility impacts due to PM emissions are so minimal that any additional PM controls would only result in very minimal visibility benefit that could not justify the cost of any upgrades and/or operational changes needed to achieve a more stringent emission limit. We therefore propose to agree with Louisiana that no additional controls are required to satisfy PM BART. LDEQ and Cleco entered into an AOC establishing an enforceable limit on PM10 consistent with current controls at 545 lb/hr on a 30-day rolling basis.

    62 See Table 4-3 CLECO Brame Energy Center BART Five-Factor Analysis, prepared by Trinity Consultants, October 31, 2015. Available in Appendix B of the 2017 Regional Haze SIP submittal.

    63 Calculated as percent of total extinction due to the unit. See CAMx Modeling TSD for additional information.

    b. Entergy Little Gypsy

    Entergy operates three BART-eligible units at Little Gypsy Generating Plant (Little Gypsy). Unit 2 is an EGU boiler with a maximum heat input capacity of 4,550 MMBtu/hr that is permitted to burn natural gas as its primary fuel, and No. 2 and No. 4 fuel oil as secondary fuels. Unit 3 is an EGU boiler with a maximum heat input capacity of 5,578 MMBtu/hr that burns natural gas, but is also permitted to burn fuel oil. The auxiliary boiler for Unit 3 has a maximum heat input capacity of 252 MMBtu/hr and is permitted to burn only natural gas. According to November 9, 2015 updated CALPUFF screening modeling conducted by Trinity Consultants on behalf of Entergy,64 the baseline visibility impacts of Little Gypsy are greater than 0.5 dv, so the 2017 SIP revision demonstrates that the three units at Little Gypsy are subject to BART.65

    64 See Appendix D of the 2017 SIP submittal.

    65 See CALPUFF Modeling TSD for a summary of model results.

    LDEQ and Entergy entered into an AOC limiting fuel oil to ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) with a sulfur content of 0.0015% for both Units 2 and 3. As the BART Guidelines state, “if a source commits to a BART determination that consists of the most stringent controls available, then there is no need to complete the remaining analyses.” 66 Entergy states that during the baseline period, Units 2 and 3 burned fuel oil 67 with an average sulfur content of 0.5%. Switching to ULSD will result in a reduction of SO2 emissions of over 99%. We propose to find that ULSD is the most stringent control available for addressing SO2 emissions from fuel oil burning, and we propose to agree with LDEQ that this satisfies BART for SO2 for Little Gypsy Unit 2.

    66 See 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, IV, D.

    67 For this and all units herein assessed for BART, the primary fuel burned has historically been pipeline quality natural gas. Please see the TSD for more details.

    The 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP narrative does not include a BART determination for the auxiliary boiler, but the BART analysis in Appendix D of the SIP submittal does address the auxiliary boiler and concludes that no additional controls are necessary for BART. The auxiliary boiler is permitted to only burn natural gas. We note that SO2 and PM emissions for gas-fired units are inherently low 68 and so minimal that the installation of any additional PM or SO2 controls on such units would likely achieve very low emissions reductions and minimal visibility benefits. As there are no appropriate add-on controls and the status quo reflects the most stringent controls, we propose to agree with LDEQ that SO2 and PM BART is no additional controls for the Little Gypsy auxiliary boiler. For the same reason, we propose to approve LDEQ's conclusion that PM BART for Little Gypsy Units 2 and 3 during gas-firing operation is no additional controls.

    68 AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1, Chapter 1: External Sources, Section 1.4, Natural Gas Combustion, available here: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/final/c01s04.pdf.

    With regards to PM BART for the fuel-oil-firing scenarios at Units 2 and 3, Louisiana evaluated wet ESP, wet scrubber, cyclone, and switching fuels to 0.0015% S fuel oil (ULSD). In evaluating energy and non-air quality impacts, the BART analysis identifies energy impacts associated with energy usage for ESPs and scrubbers. In addition, ESPs and scrubbers generate wastewater streams and the resulting wastewater treatment will generate filter cake, requiring land-filling. LDEQ did not identify any impacts regarding remaining useful life. The costs of compliance for these add-on control options are very high compared to their anticipated visibility benefits.69 The modeled visibility benefits of add-on controls are very small and range from 0.0 dv to 0.037 dv for cyclone, wet scrubber, and wet ESP. Therefore, we propose that the costs of add-on PM controls do not justify the expected improvement in visibility. Accordingly, we are proposing to agree with Louisiana that the fuel sulfur content limits contained in the AOC that were determined to meet SO2 BART also satisfy PM BART.

    69 See TSD for summary of PM control cost analysis.

    c. Entergy Ninemile Point

    Entergy operates two BART-eligible units at Ninemile Point Electric Generating Plant (Ninemile Point). Unit 4 is an EGU boiler with a maximum heat input capacity of 7,146 MMBtu/hr that burns primarily natural gas and No. 2 and No. 4 fuel oil. Unit 5 is an EGU boiler with a maximum heat input capacity of 7,152 MMBtu/hr that burns primarily natural gas and No. 2 and No. 4 fuel oil. LDEQ's SIP submittal demonstrates that the two units at Ninemile Point are subject to BART. LDEQ and Entergy entered into an AOC limiting fuel oil to ULSD with a sulfur content of 0.0015%. As the BART Guidelines state “if a source commits to a BART determination that consists of the most stringent controls available, then there is no need to complete the remaining analyses.” 70 Entergy states that during the baseline period these units burned fuel oil with an average sulfur content of 0.3%. Switching to ULSD will result in a reduction of SO2 emissions by over 99%. We propose to find that ULSD is the most stringent control available for addressing SO2 emissions and we propose to agree with LDEQ that this satisfies BART for SO2 for Ninemile Point Units 4 and 5.

    70 See 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, IV, D.

    For PM BART for Units 4 and 5, Louisiana evaluated wet ESP, wet scrubber, cyclones, and switching fuels to ULSD. In evaluating energy and non-air quality impacts, the BART analysis identifies energy impacts associated with energy usage for ESPs and scrubbers. In addition, ESPs and scrubbers generate wastewater streams and the resulting wastewater treatment will generate filter cake, requiring land-filling. LDEQ did not identify any impacts regarding the remaining useful life. The cost of compliance for these add-on control options is very high compared to the anticipated visibility benefits of controls. The modeled visibility benefits of add-on controls are very small and range from 0 dv to 0.08 dv for cyclone, wet scrubber and wet ESP. The BART analyses in the 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP demonstrate that the cost of retrofitting the Units 4 and 5 with add-on PM controls would be extremely high compared to the visibility benefit for any of the units.71 We believe that the cost of add-on PM controls does not justify the minimal expected improvement in visibility for these units. Accordingly, we are proposing to agree with LDEQ's determination that the fuel content limits for oil burning contained in the AOC that were determined to meet SO2 BART also satisfy PM BART for Units 4 and 5.

    71 See TSD for summary of PM control cost analysis.

    d. Entergy Waterford

    Entergy operates three BART-eligible units at the Waterford 1 & 2 72 Generating Plant (Waterford) in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. Unit 1 is an EGU boiler with a maximum heat input capacity of 4,440 MMBtu/hr that burns primarily natural gas and No. 6 fuel oil as its secondary fuel. Unit 2 is an EGU boiler with a maximum heat input capacity of 4,440 MMBtu/hr that burns primarily natural gas and No. 6 fuel oil as its secondary fuel. The auxiliary boiler (77 MMBtu/hr) burns only natural gas. We propose to approve the determination that Waterford Units 1 and 2, and the auxiliary boiler are subject to BART. In assessing SO2 BART for Units 1 and 2, Louisiana considered the five BART factors.

    72 Note that the name of this facility is “Waterford 1 & 2” and is also has units that are referred to as “Unit 1” and “Unit 2”.

    In Step 1, SO2 control technologies of DSI, SDA, wet scrubbing, and fuel switching were identified as available controls. For gas-fired units that occasionally burn fuel oil, the BART Guidelines recommend: “For oil-fired units, regardless of size, you should evaluate limiting the sulfur content of the fuel oil burned to 1 percent or less by weight.” 73 The Waterford units have only burned residual fuel oil (No. 6). Entergy states that these units are only physically capable of burning No. 6 fuel oil when not burning natural gas and evaluated switching to 0.5% sulfur No. 6 fuel oil, the lowest sulfur specification No. 6 fuel oil available.

    73 70 FR 39103, 39171 (July 6, 2005) [40 CFR 51, App. Y].

    In Step 2, Louisiana eliminated all controls as technically infeasible with the exception of fuel switching. We are aware, however, of instances, although not at any facility in the U.S., in which FGDs of various types have been installed or otherwise deemed feasible on a boiler that burns oil.74 Consequently, we have supplemented Louisiana's analysis with our own. We propose from our analysis, that even if the LDEQ included analyses of these other control options, the State's BART conclusion for Waterford would still be reasonable.75

    74 Crespi, M. “Design of the FLOWPAC WFGD System for the Amager Power Plant.” Power-Gen FGD Operating Experience, November 29, 2006, Orlando, FL; Babcock and Wilcox. “Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Systems Advanced Multi-Pollutant Control Technology.” See Page 4: “We have also provided systems for heavy oil and Orimulsion fuels.” DePriest, W; Gaikwad, R. “Economics of Lime and Limestone for Control of Sulfur Dioxide.” See page 7: “A CFB unit, in Austria, is on a 275 MW size oil-fired boiler burning 1.0-2.0% sulfur oil.”

    75 See the TSD for our analysis of these other control options. We believe that the installation of any of these other add-on control options, such as a scrubber, on any of these gas-fired units that occasionally burn oil results in very high cost-effectiveness values.

    In addition, Louisiana evaluated switching from a 1% sulfur fuel oil, which is approximately equal to the maximum sulfur content of the fuel oil these units have burned, to a 0.5% sulfur fuel oil for Units 1 and 2. In addition to the Entergy BART report which Louisiana relied upon, we have included our own fuel oil cost assessment in the TSD.

    For Step 3, the technically feasible controls are ranked by control effectiveness. The control effectiveness of switching from a higher sulfur fuel oil to a lower sulfur fuel oil depends on the reduction in sulfur emissions. Entergy states that these units are only physically capable of burning No. 6 fuel oil when not burning natural gas and evaluated switching to 0.5% sulfur No. 6 fuel oil, the lowest sulfur specification No. 6 fuel oil available. We believe it is likely the units could be modified to burn distillate fuel oils, with even lower sulfur content, at low cost. We welcome the facility owner, Entergy, to provide a cost estimate for the modification to burn distillate fuel oils should it have concerns with this assumption.

    Because we believe it likely that the facility could be modified to burn distillate fuels at low cost, in addition to our consideration of 0.5% No. 6 fuel oil, we also considered No. 2 fuel oils with 0.3% sulfur and ultra-low sulfur diesel, which has a sulfur content of 0.0015%.

    In evaluating energy and non-air quality impacts, the BART analysis in the 2017 SIP submittal states that there are no such impacts associated with fuel switching. It also states that remaining useful life does not impact the BART analysis. We believe Louisiana's assessment of the impacts from fuel switching are reasonable.

    Aside from our conclusion that modifications necessary to burn distillate fuel oil are relatively minor, the cost-effectiveness of fuel oil switching depends only on the cost of the lower sulfur fuel oil relative to the baseline fuel oil. Information from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) indicates that fuel oil of varying sulfur contents is widely available across the U.S. EIA reports the prices for various refinery petroleum products on a monthly and annual basis. See the TSD for additional information on fuel oil prices utilized in our analysis. In Table 9, we present the results of our calculations: 76

    76 See the file, “LA BART Fuel Oil Cost Analysis.xlsx” for the calculations and supporting data for these figures.

    Table 9—Control Cost Analysis for Fuel Oil Switching From Residual Fuel Oil Baseline Baseline: Residual Fuel Oil <=1% Cost for
  • 1,000 barrels
  • ($/yr)
  • Tons reduced
  • per 1,000
  • barrels
  • Cost
  • effectiveness
  • ($/ton)
  • Business as usual (Residual fuel oil @1% S and $0.971/gal) $40,782 Moderate control (No. 2 fuel oil @0.3% S and $1.565/gal) 65,730 2.40 $10,385 High control (ULSD @0.0015% S and $1.667/gal) 70,014 3.29 8,878

    In assessing the visibility benefits of fuel switching, Louisiana submitted CALPUFF modeling for 1% sulfur and 0.5% sulfur fuel oil. We performed additional CALPUFF modeling to correct for errors in the modeling and to evaluate the visibility benefits of additional fuel types. See the CALPUFF Modeling TSD for additional information on modeling inputs and results. The visibility benefits from fuel switching are summarized in Table 10.

    Table 10—Visibility Benefits of Fuel Switching at Waterford [CALPUFF, 98th percentile] Class I area Baseline
  • impact (dv)
  • Visibility
  • benefit (dv)
  • of 0.5% S
  • Visibility
  • benefit (dv)
  • of 0.3% S
  • Visibility
  • benefit (dv)
  • of 0.0015% S
  • Unit 1 Breton 2.704 0.883 1.348 1.744 Unit 2 Breton 2.378 0.798 1.207 1.601

    The cost-effectiveness of switching to a lower sulfur fuel oil is less attractive (higher $/ton) than other controls we have typically required under BART. While the visibility benefits of switching fuel types are significant, the cost-effectiveness in terms of $/ton is in excess of $8,000/ton for the most stringent control option. We also note that the facility primarily operates by burning natural gas and the visibility benefits presented in Table 10 represent benefits only for those periods when fuel oil is burned and would not occur during natural gas operation. As discussed above, over the 2011-2015 period, the highest annual emissions for SO2 reported for a unit at the facility is only 69 tons/year. Considering this, we propose to agree with the LDEQ's determination that no additional controls or fuel switching are necessary to satisfy BART. The LDEQ and Entergy have entered into an AOC limiting fuel oil sulfur content to 1% or less. This enforceable limit is consistent with past practice, the baseline level utilized in the BART analysis, and the minimum recommendation in the BART Guidelines. We encourage Louisiana and Entergy to reconsider switching to a lower sulfur fuel when assessing controls under reasonable progress for future planning periods.

    For PM BART for Units 1 and 2, Louisiana evaluated wet ESP, wet scrubber, cyclones, and switching fuels to 0.5% S fuel oil. In evaluating energy and non-air quality impacts, Louisiana identified energy impacts associated with energy usage for ESPs and scrubbers. In addition, ESPs and scrubbers generate wastewater streams and the resulting wastewater treatment will generate filter cake, requiring land-filling. Louisiana did not identify any impacts regarding remaining useful life. The costs of compliance for these control options are very high compared to their anticipated visibility benefits. Modeled baseline visibility impacts from PM emissions are very low. Modeled visibility impairment from baseline PM emissions are less than 5% of the total modeled impact from the source. Entergy's modeled visibility benefits of add-on controls are very small and range from 0 dv to 0.06 dv for cyclone, wet scrubber, and wet ESP for each unit. The BART analyses in the 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP demonstrate that the cost of retrofitting Units 1 and 2 with add-on PM controls would be extremely high compared to the visibility benefits for any of the units.77 LDEQ concluded that the costs of add-on PM controls do not justify the minimal expected improvement in visibility for these units. LDEQ included an analysis of fuel switching for PM BART in its SO2 BART analysis, as PM reductions from fuel switching were also included in the assessment of benefits from fuel switching. Accordingly, we are proposing to agree with the determination in the 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP that the fuel content limits for oil burning contained in the AOC that were determined to meet SO2 BART also satisfy PM BART.

    77 See TSD for summary of PM control cost analysis.

    The 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP narrative does not include a BART determination for the auxiliary boiler, but the BART analysis in Appendix D of the 2017 SIP submittal does address the auxiliary boiler and concludes that no additional controls are necessary for BART. The auxiliary boiler only burns natural gas. We note that SO2 and PM emissions for gas-only units are inherently low,78 so the installation of any additional PM or SO2 controls on such units would likely achieve very low emissions reductions and minimal visibility benefits. As there are no appropriate add-on controls, and the status quo reflects the most stringent controls, we propose to agree with Louisiana that SO2 and PM BART is no additional controls for the Waterford auxiliary boiler.

    78 AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1, Chapter 1: External Sources, Section 1.4, Natural Gas Combustion, available here: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/final/c01s04.pdf.

    III. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve Louisiana's Regional Haze SIP revision submitted on February 10, 2017, with the exception of the portion related to the Entergy Nelson facility. We propose to approve the BART determination for Michoud based on the draft permit, and note that we expect the proposed permit removing Units 2 and 3 to be final before we take final action to approve this portion of the 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP. Alternatively, LDEQ could submit another enforceable document to ensure that Units 2 and 3 cannot restart without a BART analysis and emission limits, or demonstrate the units have been deconstructed to the point that they cannot restart without obtaining a new NSR permit, making them not operational during the timeframe for BART eligibility. Additionally, final approval of Louisiana's reliance on CSAPR to satisfy NOX BART for EGUs is contingent upon our finalization of the separate rulemaking, proposed on November 10, 2016 (81 FR 78954), that proposed to find that CSAPR continues to be better than BART. Once we take final action on our proposed approval of Louisiana's 2016 SIP revision addressing non-EGU BART,79 this proposal, and a future proposed action to address SO2 and PM BART for the Entergy Nelson facility, we will have fulfilled all outstanding obligations with respect to the Louisiana regional haze program for the first planning period.

    79 81 FR 74750 (October 27, 2016).

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 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 it does not involve technical standards; and

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

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

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxides, Visibility, Interstate transport of pollution, Regional haze, Best available control technology.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 1, 2017. Samuel Coleman, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10108 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 147 [EPA-HQ-OW-2013-0280; FRL-9962-68-OW] State of North Dakota Underground Injection Control Program; Class VI Primacy Approval AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to issue a rule approving an application from the state of North Dakota under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to implement an underground injection control (UIC) program for Class VI injection wells located within the state, except those on Indian lands.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2013-0280, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. 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:

    Lisa McWhirter, Drinking Water Protection Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (4606M), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2317; fax number: (202) 564-3754; email address: [email protected] or Douglas Minter, Underground Injection Control Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, MSC 8WP-SUI, Denver, Colorado 80202; telephone number: (303) 312-6079; fax number: (303) 312-7084; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Introduction

    The state of North Dakota received primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for Class I, III, IV and V injection wells under SDWA section 1422 on October 5, 1984, and Class II injection wells under SDWA section 1425 on September 24, 1983. The state of North Dakota has applied to the EPA under SDWA section 1422, 42 U.S.C. sections 300h-1, for primacy for Class VI injection wells, except those located on Indian lands. This action is based on a legal and technical review of the state of North Dakota's application as directed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR part 145. As a result of this review, EPA is proposing that the state of North Dakota's application meets all applicable requirements for approval under SDWA section 1422, and the state is capable of administering a Class VI UIC program in a manner consistent with the terms and purposes of SDWA and all applicable regulations.

    II. Legal Authorities

    These regulations are being promulgated under authority of SDWA sections 1422 and 1450, 42 U.S.C. 300h-1 and 300j-9.

    Requirements for State UIC Programs

    SDWA Section 1421 requires the Administrator of the EPA to promulgate minimum requirements for effective state UIC programs to prevent underground injection activities that endanger underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). SDWA Section 1422 establishes requirements for states seeking EPA approval of state UIC programs.

    For states that seek approval for UIC programs under SDWA section 1422, the EPA has promulgated a regulation setting forth the applicable procedures and substantive requirements, codified in 40 CFR part 145. It includes requirements for state permitting programs (by reference to certain provisions of 40 CFR parts 124 and 144), compliance evaluation programs, enforcement authority, and information sharing.

    III. North Dakota's Application A. Background

    On June 21, 2013, the state of North Dakota submitted a program revision application to add Class VI injection wells to its SDWA section 1422 UIC program. The EPA reviewed the application and published a Federal Register document of North Dakota's Underground Injection Control Program Revision Application on August 9, 2013 (78 FR 48639), which sought public comments and provided an opportunity to request a public hearing. Public notice of North Dakota's application was also published in the Bismarck Tribune on August 9, 2013.

    B. Public Participation Activities Conducted by the State of North Dakota

    The state of North Dakota held two public hearings with public comment periods on the state's intent to adopt its Class VI UIC regulations. The first public hearing was held on April 24, 2012, and the public comment period closed on June 8, 2012. The second public hearing was held on October 22, 2012, and the public comment period closed on November 1, 2012. Both public hearings were held in Bismarck, North Dakota, and no public comments were received during the two public comment periods.

    C. Public Participation Activities Conducted by the EPA

    On August 9, 2013, a document announcing North Dakota's Underground Injection Control Program Revision was published in the Federal Register (78 FR 48639) and in the Bismarck Tribune. This document provided that a public hearing would be held if requested. The agency did not receive any requests for a public hearing and received five written comments. Two comments were outside the scope of the state's application and three comments were focused on the Memorandum of Agreement between Region 8 and the North Dakota Industrial Commission. The EPA worked with the Commission to address these comments and revise the Memorandum of Agreement.

    IV. EPA's Proposed Action

    In this action, the EPA is proposing that the state of North Dakota's Class VI UIC program will assume primary enforcement authority (primacy) for regulating Class VI injection wells in the state, except for those located on Indian lands. Support of this action is part of the public record in EPA's Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2013-0280. When finalized, this action will amend 40 CFR part 147 and incorporate by reference the EPA-approved state statutes and regulations. The EPA will continue to administer its UIC program for Class I, II, III, IV, V and VI injection wells on Indian lands.

    The provisions of the state of North Dakota's Code that contain standards, requirements, and procedures applicable to owners or operators of Class VI UIC wells will be incorporated by reference into 40 CFR 147.1751. Provisions of the state of North Dakota's Code that contain standards, requirements, and procedures applicable to owners or operators of Class I, III, IV and V injection wells have already been incorporated by reference into 40 CFR 147.1751. Any provisions incorporated by reference, as well as all permit conditions or permit denials issued pursuant to such provisions, will be enforceable by the EPA pursuant to SDWA section 1423 and 40 CFR 147.1(e).

    In order to better serve the public, the EPA is reformatting the codification of the EPA-approved North Dakota SDWA section 1422 Underground Injection Control Program Statutes and Regulations for Well Classes I, III, IV, V and VI. Instead of codifying the North Dakota Statutes and Regulations as separate paragraphs, the EPA is now codifying a binder that contains the EPA-approved North Dakota Statutes and Regulations for Well Classes I, III, IV, V and VI. This binder will be incorporated by reference into part 147. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    The EPA will continue to oversee the state of North Dakota's administration of the SDWA Class VI program. Part of the EPA's oversight responsibility will require quarterly reports of non-compliance and annual UIC performance reports pursuant to 40 CFR144.8. The Memorandum of Agreement between the EPA and the state of North Dakota, signed by the Regional Administrator on October 28, 2013, provides the EPA with the opportunity to review and comment on all permits.

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

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

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2040-0042. Reporting or record-keeping requirements will be based on the state of North Dakota UIC Regulations, and the state of North Dakota is not subject to the PRA.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This rule does not impose any requirements on small entities as this rule approves a state program. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. EPA's approval of the state of North Dakota's program will not constitute a federal mandate because there is no requirement that a state establish UIC regulatory programs and because the program is a state, rather than a federal program.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action contains no federal mandates for tribal governments and does not impose any enforceable duties on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

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

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

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA has determined that this action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This action will simply provide that the state of North Dakota has primacy under SDWA for the Class VI UIC program, pursuant to which the state of North Dakota will be implementing and enforcing a state regulatory program that is as stringent as the existing federal program.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 147

    Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Indian-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Water supply.

    Dated: May 8, 2017. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 40 chapter 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 147—STATE, TRIBAL, AND EPA-ADMINISTERED UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAMS 1. The authority citation for part 147 is amended to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 300h et seq.; and 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.

    2. Amend § 147.1751 by revising the section heading, introductory text and paragraph (a) and adding paragraphs (e) through (h) to read as follows:
    § 147.1751 State-administered program—Class I, III, IV, V and VI wells.

    The UIC program for Class I, III, IV, and V wells in the state of North Dakota, except those located on Indian lands, is the program administered by the North Dakota Department of Health, approved by EPA pursuant to SDWA section 1422. Notice of this approval was published in the Federal Register on September 21, 1984; the effective date of this program is October 5, 1984. The UIC Program for Class VI wells in the state of North Dakota, except those located on Indian lands, is the program administered by the North Dakota Industrial Commission, approved by the EPA pursuant to SDWA section 1422. Notice of this approval was published in the Federal Register on [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]; the effective date of this program is [DATE 90 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. This program consists of the following elements, as submitted to the EPA in the state's program revision application.

    (a) Incorporation by reference. The requirements set forth in the state statutes and regulations cited in the binder entitled “EPA-Approved North Dakota SDWA § 1422 Underground Injection Control Program Statutes and Regulations for Well Classes I, III, IV, V and VI”, dated December 2013, and Table 1 to paragraph (a) of this section are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of the applicable UIC program under SDWA for the state of North Dakota. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the North Dakota regulations that are incorporated by reference in paragraph (a) of this section may be inspected at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Library 2nd Floor, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202; Water Docket, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). If you wish to obtain materials from the EPA Regional Office, please call (303) 312-1226; for materials from a docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, please call the Water Docket at (202) 566-2426. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. Table 1 to Paragraph (a) EPA-Approved North Dakota SDWA § 1422 Underground Injection Control Program Statutes and Regulations for Well Classes I, III, IV, V and VI State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date 1 North Dakota Century Code Sections 38-12-01—38-12-03 Regulation, Development and Production of Subsurface Minerals 1980 September 21, 1984, 49 FR 37066. North Dakota Century Code Sections 61-28-02 and 61-28-06 Control, Prevention and Abatement of Pollution of Surface Waters 1989 March 6, 1991, 56 FR 9418. North Dakota Administrative Code Sections 33-25-01-01—33-25-01-18 Underground Injection Control Program 1983 September 21, 1984, 49 FR 37066. North Dakota Administrative Code Sections 43-02-02-01—43-02-02-50 Subsurface Mineral Exploration and Development 1986 March 6, 1991, 56 FR 9418. North Dakota Administrative Code Sections 43-02-02.1-01—43-02-02.2-19 Underground Injection Control Program 1984 September 21, 1984, 49 FR 37066. North Dakota Century Code Sections 38-22-01—38-22-23 Carbon Dioxide Underground Storage 2009 [Insert new FR date and #]. North Dakota Administrative Code Sections 38-08-16—38-08-17 Control of Oil and Gas Resources 2013 [Insert new FR date and #]. North Dakota Administrative Code Sections 43-05-01-01—43-05-01-20 Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide 2013 [Insert new FR date and #]. 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. (e) The Memorandum of Agreement between EPA Region VIII and the North Dakota Industrial Commission, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator on October 28, 2013. (f) The Memorandum of Understanding between the North Dakota Industrial Commission, Department of Mineral Resources, Oil and Gas Division and the North Dakota Department of Health, Water Quality Division, Related to the Underground Injection Control Program signed on June 19, 2013. (g) Statement of Legal Authority: “Class VI Underground Injection Control Program, Attorney General's Statement,” signed by the Attorney General of North Dakota on January 22, 2013. (h) The Class VI Program Description and any other materials submitted as part of the program revision or as supplements thereto.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10001 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    82 96 Friday, May 19, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 16, 2017.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by June 19, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Rural Utilities Service

    Title: 7 CFR part 1744, subpart B, Lien Accommodations and Subordination Policy.

    OMB Control Number: 0572-0126.

    Summary of Collection: Recent changes in the telecommunications industry, including deregulation and technological developments, have caused Rural Utilities Service (RUS) borrowers and other organizations providing telecommunications services to consider undertaking projects that provide new telecommunications services and other telecommunications services not ordinarily financed by RUS. The RUS telecommunication program provides loans to borrowers at interest rates and on terms that are more favorable than those generally available from the private sector. To facilitate the financing, RUS will consider accommodating the Federal Government's lien on telecommunications borrowers' systems in an expedited manner based on the financial strength of the borrowers operations as authorized by the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (RE Act). This collection of information is to ensure that the criteria for fast track lien accommodation are met.

    Need and Use of the Information: In order to facilitate supplemental financing for telecommunications services projects, RUS provides fast track lien accommodations to private lenders who propose to lend to RUS borrowers who meet certain financial strength evaluations. Depending on the purposes for which a lien accommodation is sought, RUS will use the information to provide “automatic” approval for borrowers that meet the financial tests. The tests are designed to ensure that the financial strength of the borrower is more than sufficient to protect the government's loan security interests; hence, the lien accommodations will not adversely affect the government's financial interests.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Not for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents: 1.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 1.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10141 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Commodity Credit Corporation Notice of Funds Availability: Inviting Applications for the Quality Samples Program SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) announces it is inviting proposals for the 2018 Quality Samples Program (QSP). The intended effect of this notice is to solicit proposals from eligible applicants for fiscal year 2018 and to set out the criteria for the awarding of funds under the program. The QSP is administered by personnel of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS).

    DATES:

    To be considered for funding, applications must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, August 15, 2017. Any applications received after this time will be considered only if funds remain available.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Applicants needing assistance should contact Curt Alt in the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service by courier: Room 6512, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250, or by phone: (202) 720-4327, or by fax: (202) 720-9361, or by e-mail: [email protected] Information is also available on the FAS Web site at http://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/quality-samples-program-qsp.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Funding Opportunity Description

    Announcement Type: New.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 10.605.

    Authority: The QSP is authorized under Section 5(f) of the CCC Charter Act, 15 U.S.C. 714c(f).

    Purpose: The QSP is designed to encourage the development and expansion of export markets for U.S. agricultural commodities by assisting U.S. entities in providing commodity samples to potential foreign importers to promote a better understanding and appreciation for the high quality of U.S. agricultural commodities.

    QSP participants will be responsible for procuring (or arranging for the procurement of) commodity samples, exporting the samples, and providing the on-site technical assistance necessary to facilitate successful use of the samples by importers. Participants that are funded under this announcement may seek reimbursement from CCC for the sample purchase price and for the cost of transporting the samples domestically to the port of export and then to the foreign port or point of entry. Transportation costs from the foreign port or point of entry to the final destination are not eligible for reimbursement. CCC will not reimburse the costs incidental to purchasing and transporting samples, such as: Inspection or documentation fees, certificates of any kind, tariffs, etc. Although providing technical assistance is required for all projects, the costs of providing such technical assistance are not reimbursable under the program. A QSP participant will be reimbursed after CCC reviews its reimbursement claim and determines that the claim is complete.

    General Scope of QSP Projects: QSP projects encompass the activities undertaken by a QSP participant to provide an appropriate sample of a U.S. agricultural commodity to a foreign importer, or a group of foreign importers, in a given market. The purpose of these projects is to provide information to the target audience regarding the attributes, characteristics, and proper use of the U.S. commodity. A QSP project addresses a single market/commodity combination.

    As a general matter, QSP projects should conform to the following guidelines:

    • Projects should benefit the represented U.S. industry and not a specific company or brand;

    • Projects should develop a new market for a U.S. product, promote a new U.S. product, or promote a new use for a U.S. product rather than promote the substitution of one established U.S. product for another;

    • Commodities provided under a QSP project must be available on a commercial basis and in sufficient supply;

    • The QSP project must either subject the commodity sample to further processing or substantial transformation in the importing country, or the sample must be used in technical seminars in the importing country designed to demonstrate the proper preparation or use of the sample in the creation of an end product;

    • Samples provided in a QSP project shall not be directly used as part of a retail promotion or supplied directly to consumers. However, the end product (that is, the product resulting from further processing, substantial transformation, or a technical preparation seminar) may be provided to end-use consumers to demonstrate the consumer preference for that end product to importers;

    • Samples shall be in quantities less than a typical commercial sale and limited to the amount sufficient to achieve the project goal (e.g., not more than a full commercial mill run in the destination country); and

    • Projects should be completed within one year of CCC approval.

    QSP projects shall target foreign importers and audiences who:

    • Have not previously purchased the U.S. commodity that will be supplied under QSP;

    • Are unfamiliar with the variety, quality attributes, or end-use characteristics of the U.S. commodity;

    • Have been unsuccessful in previous attempts to import, process, or market the U.S. commodity (e.g., because of improper specification, blending, formulation, sanitary, or phytosanitary issues);

    • Are interested in testing or demonstrating the benefits of the U.S. commodity; or

    • Need technical assistance in processing or using the U.S. commodity.

    B. Award Information

    Under this announcement, the number of projects per participant will not be limited. However, individual projects that include further processing or substantial transformation of the sample will be limited to $75,000 of QSP reimbursement, while projects comprised only of technical preparation seminars will be limited to $15,000 of QSP reimbursement due to the need for smaller samples. Financial assistance will be made available on a reimbursement basis only; cash advances will not be made available to any QSP participant.

    All proposals will be reviewed against the evaluation criteria contained herein and funds will be awarded on a competitive basis. Funding for successful proposals will be provided through specific agreements between the applicant and CCC. These agreements will incorporate the proposal as approved by FAS. FAS must approve in advance any subsequent changes to the project.

    C. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Organizations: Any United States private or government entity with a demonstrated role or interest in exporting U.S. agricultural commodities may apply to the program. Government organizations consist of Federal, State, and local agencies. Private organizations include non-profit trade associations, universities, agricultural cooperatives, state regional trade groups, and profit-making entities.

    2. Cost Sharing: FAS considers the applicant's willingness to contribute resources towards the project, including cash, goods, and services of the U.S. industry and foreign third parties, when determining which proposals to approve for funding.

    3. Other: Proposals should include a justification for funding assistance from the program—an explanation as to what specifically could not be accomplished without Federal funding assistance and why the participating organization(s) would be unlikely to carry out the project without such assistance. Applicants may submit more than one proposal.

    D. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Submit Application Package: Organizations must submit their QSP proposals to FAS through the web-based Uniform Export Strategy (UES) system. The UES allows applicants to submit a single consolidated and strategically coordinated proposal that incorporates requests for funding for all of the FAS market development programs. The suggested UES format encourages applicants to examine the constraints or barriers to trade that they face, identify activities that would help overcome such impediments, consider the entire pool of complementary marketing tools and program resources, and establish realistic export goals.

    Applicants must contact FAS' Program Operations Division to obtain UES Web site access information. The Internet-based application may be found at the following URL address: https://www.fas.usda.gov/ues/webapp/.

    Applicants experiencing difficulty or otherwise needing assistance applying to the program should contact the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service by courier: Room 6512, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250, or by phone: (202) 720-4327, or by fax: (202) 720-9361, or by email: [email protected].

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission: To be considered for the QSP, an applicant must submit to FAS, via the UES, the information detailed in this notice. Additionally, in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget's policy directive (68 FR 38402 (June 27, 2003)) regarding the need to identify entities that are receiving government awards, all applicants must submit a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. An applicant may request a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line at (866) 705-5711.

    In addition, in accordance with 2 CFR part 25, each entity that applies to the QSP and does not qualify for an exemption under 2 CFR 25.110 must:

    (i) Provide a valid DUNS number in each application it submits to CCC;

    (ii) Be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to submitting an application; and

    (iii) Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application under consideration by CCC.

    FAS may not make an award to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable unique entity identifier and SAM requirements, and, if an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time FAS is ready to make the award, FAS may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive the award and use that determination as a basis for making an award to another applicant.

    Similarly, in accordance with 2 CFR part 170, each entity that applies to the QSP and does not qualify for an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b) must ensure it has the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the applicable reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170 should it receive QSP funding.

    Incomplete proposals or proposals that do not otherwise conform to this announcement will not be accepted for review.

    Proposals should contain, at a minimum, the following:

    (a) Organizational information, including:

    • Organization's name, address, Chief Executive Officer (or designee), Federal Tax Identification Number (TIN), and DUNS number;

    • Type of organization;

    • Name, telephone number, fax number, and email address of the primary contact person;

    • A description of the organization and its membership;

    • A description of the organization's prior export promotion experience; and

    • A description of the organization's ability to implement the required trade/technical assistance component.

    (b) Market information, including:

    • An assessment of the market;

    • A long-term strategy in the market; and

    • U.S. export value/volume and market share (historic and goals) for 2011-2017

    (c) Project information, including:

    • A brief project title;

    • The amount of funding requested;

    • The beginning and end dates for the proposed project;

    • A brief description of the specific market development trade constraint or opportunity to be addressed by the project;

    • A description of the activities planned to address the constraint or opportunity, including how the sample will be used in the end-use performance trial, the attributes of the sample to be demonstrated and its end-use benefit, and details of the trade/technical servicing component (including who will provide and fund this component);

    • The performance measures that will be used to benchmark performance and measure the effectiveness of the project, the long-term sales to the market, and the benefits to the represented industry;

    • A description of the sample to be provided (i.e., commodity, quantity, quality, type, and grade), including a justification for why a sample with such characteristics is needed (this justification should explain why the project would not be effective with a smaller sample);

    • An itemized list of all estimated costs associated with the project for which reimbursement will be sought;

    • The importer's role in the project regarding handling and processing the commodity sample; and

    • An explanation as to what specifically could not be accomplished without Federal funding assistance and why the participating organization(s) would be unlikely to carry out the project without such assistance;

    (d) Information indicating all funding sources and the amounts to be contributed by each entity in support of the proposed project. This may include the organization that submitted the proposal, private industry entities, host governments, foreign third parties, CCC, FAS, or other Federal agencies. Contributed resources may include cash, goods, or services.

    3. Submission Dates and Times: QSP applications are reviewed on a rolling basis during the fiscal year as long as QSP funding is available as set forth below:

    • Proposals received by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, August 15, 2017, will be considered for funding with other proposals received by that date;

    • Proposals not approved for funding during the initial review period will be reconsidered for funding after the review period only if the applicant specifically requests such reconsideration in writing and only if funding remains available;

    • Proposals received after 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, August 15, 2017, will be considered for funding in the order received only if funding remains available.

    4. Funding Restrictions: Proposals that request more than $75,000 of CCC funding for individual projects will not be considered. Projects comprised only of technical preparation seminars will be limited to $15,000 in QSP funding. CCC will not reimburse unreasonable expenditures or expenditures made prior to the approval of a proposal.

    E. Application Review Information

    1. Criteria and Review Process: FAS will use the following criteria in evaluating QSP proposals, each weighted at 10%:

    • The income, population, or market share growth potential in the proposed market;

    • Whether the benefits of the project would accrue to the entire industry;

    • The appropriateness of the proposed sample size for the project;

    • The ability of the organization to provide an experienced staff with the requisite technical and trade experience to execute the proposal;

    • The extent to which the proposal is targeted to a market in which the United States is generally competitive;

    • The potential for expanding commercial sales in the proposed market;

    • The nature of the specific market constraint or opportunity identified and how well it is addressed by the proposal;

    • The extent to which the importer's contribution in terms of handling and processing enhances the potential outcome of the project;

    • The amount of reimbursement requested and the organization's willingness to contribute resources towards the project, including cash, goods, and services of the U.S. industry and foreign third parties; and

    • How well the proposed technical assistance component assures that performance trials will effectively demonstrate the intended end-use benefit.

    FAS will also review and evaluate how well the following unweighted criteria are addressed in the proposal:

    • The quality of the performance measures and how effective they will be in demonstrating the impact of the project;

    • The assessment of the market;

    • The long-term strategy in the market; and

    • Export goals in each country.

    2. Review and Selection Process: Proposals will be evaluated by the appropriate Commodity Branch in FAS' Cooperator Programs Division. The Commodity Branches will review each proposal against the factors described above. The purpose of this review is to identify meritorious proposals, recommend an appropriate funding level for each proposal based upon these factors, and submit the proposals and funding recommendations to the Deputy Administrator, Office of Trade Programs.

    In addition, FAS, prior to making a Federal award with a total amount of Federal share greater than the simplified acquisition threshold, is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently FAPIIS) (see 41 U.S.C. 2313). An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through SAM and comment on any information about itself that a Federal awarding agency previously entered and is currently in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM. FAS will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to the other information in the designated integrity and performance system, 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 2 CFR 200.205 “Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants.”

    F. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: FAS will notify each applicant in writing of the final disposition of the submitted application. FAS will send an approval letter and agreement to each approved applicant. The approval letter and agreement will specify the terms and conditions applicable to the project, including the levels of QSP funding and any cost-share contribution requirements.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: The agreements will incorporate the details of each project as approved by FAS. Each agreement will identify the terms and conditions pursuant to which CCC will reimburse certain costs of each project. Agreements will also outline the responsibilities of the participant, including, but not limited to, procurement (or arranging for procurement) of the commodity sample at a fair market price, arranging for transportation of the commodity sample within the time limit specified in the agreement (organizations should endeavor to ship commodities within 6 months of the effective date of the agreement), compliance with cargo preference requirements (shipment on United States flag vessels, as required), compliance with the Fly America Act requirements (shipment on United States air carriers, as required), timely and effective implementation of technical assistance, and submission of a written evaluation report within 90 days of expiration or termination of the agreement.

    QSP projects are subject to review and verification by FAS' Compliance, Security, and Emergency Planning Division. Upon request, a QSP participant shall provide to CCC the original documents that support the participant's reimbursement claims. CCC may deny a claim for reimbursement if the claim is not supported by adequate documentation.

    3. Reporting: A written evaluation report must be submitted via the UES within 90 days of the expiration or termination of each participant's QSP agreement. Evaluation reports should address all performance measures that were presented in the proposal.

    G. Agency Contact(s)

    For additional information and assistance, contact the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture by courier: Room 6512, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250, or by phone: (202) 720-4327, or by fax: (202) 720-9361, or by email: [email protected]

    Signed at Washington, DC, on May 12, 2017. Holly Higgins, Acting Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service, and Acting Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10096 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Commodity Credit Corporation Notice of Funds Availability: Inviting Applications for the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) announces that it is inviting proposals for the 2018 Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) program. The intended effect of this notice is to solicit proposals from the private sector and from government agencies for fiscal year 2018 and to set out the criteria for the awarding of funds under the program. The TASC program is administered by personnel of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS).

    DATES:

    To be considered for funding, proposals must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, June 19, 2017. Any proposals received after this time will be considered only if funds remain available.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Applicants needing assistance should contact Curt Alt in the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service by courier: Room 6512, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250, or by phone: (202) 720-4327, or by fax: (202) 720-9361, or by email: [email protected] Information is also available on the FAS Web site at http://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/technical-assistance-specialty-crops-tasc.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Funding Opportunity Description

    Announcement Type: New.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 10.604.

    Authority: The TASC program is authorized by section 3205 of Public Law 107-171. The TASC regulations appear at 7 CFR part 1487.

    Purpose: The TASC program is designed to assist U.S. organizations by providing funding for projects that address sanitary, phytosanitary, or technical barriers that prohibit or threaten the export of U.S. specialty crops. U.S. specialty crops, for the purpose of the TASC program, are defined to include all cultivated plants, or the products thereof, produced in the United States except wheat, feed grains, oilseeds, cotton, rice, peanuts, sugar, and tobacco.

    As a general matter, TASC proposals should be designed to address the following criteria:

    • Projects should identify and address a clear sanitary, phytosanitary, or technical barrier that prohibits or threatens the export of U.S. specialty crops;

    • Projects should demonstrably benefit the represented industry rather than a specific company or brand;

    • Projects must address barriers to exports of commercially-available U.S. specialty crops;

    • Projects should include an explanation as to what specifically could not be accomplished without Federal funding assistance and why the eligible organization(s) would be unlikely to carry out the project without such assistance; and

    • Projects should include performance measures for quantifying progress and demonstrating results. In the development of performance measures, FAS believes the measures should meet the following criteria:

    ○ Aligned: The indicator should, as closely as possible, measure exactly the relevant result.

    ○ Clear: The indicator should be precise and unambiguous about what is being measured and how. There should be no doubt on how to measure or interpret the indicator.

    ○ Quantifiable: The indicator(s) should sufficiently capture all of the elements of a result.

    ○ Include an identified methodology: The data can be obtained to inform the indicator in a timely and efficient manner and the data are of high-quality.

    The full set of indicators selected to monitor project performance should be sufficient to inform project management and oversight.

    Examples of project expenses that CCC may agree to reimburse under the TASC program include, but are not limited to: Initial pre-clearance programs, export protocol and work plan support, seminars and workshops, study tours, field surveys, development of pest lists, pest, disease, and fumigant research, reasonable logistical and administrative support, and travel and per diem expenses.

    B. Award Information

    In general, all qualified proposals received before the submission deadline will compete for funding. The limited funds available and the wide range of barriers affecting the exports of U.S. specialty crops worldwide preclude CCC from approving large budgets for individual projects. Proposals requesting more than $500,000 in any given year will not be considered. Additionally, funding will not be provided for projects that have received TASC funding for five years. The five years do not have to be consecutive. Eligible organizations may submit multi-year proposals. Funding in such cases may, at FAS' discretion, be provided one year at a time with commitments beyond the first year subject to interim evaluations and funding availability. In order to validate funding eligibility, proposals must specify previous years of TASC funding for each proposed activity/title/market/constraint combination. Government entities are not eligible for multi-year funding.

    Applicants may submit more than one proposal, and applicants with previously approved TASC proposals may apply for additional funding. However, the maximum number of approved projects that a TASC participant can have underway at any given time is five. Please see 7 CFR part 1487 for additional restrictions. FAS will review all proposals against the evaluation criteria contained in the program regulations.

    Funding for successful proposals will be provided through specific agreements. These agreements will incorporate the proposal as approved by FAS. FAS must approve in advance any subsequent changes to the agreement. FAS or another Federal agency may be involved in the implementation of approved agreements.

    C. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Organizations: Any U.S. organization, private or government, with a demonstrated role or interest in exporting U.S. agricultural specialty crops may apply to the program. Government organizations consist of Federal, State, and local agencies. Private organizations may include non-profit trade associations, universities, agricultural cooperatives, state regional trade groups, and private companies.

    Foreign organizations, whether government or private, may participate as third parties in activities carried out by eligible organizations, but are not eligible for direct funding assistance through the program.

    2. Cost-Sharing or Matching: FAS considers the applicant's willingness to contribute resources towards the project, including cash, goods, and services of the U.S. industry and foreign third parties, when determining which proposals are approved for funding.

    3. Funding Justification: Proposals should include a justification for funding assistance from the program—an explanation as to what specifically could not be accomplished without Federal funding assistance and why the participating organization(s) would be unlikely to carry out the project without such assistance.

    D. Application and Submission Information

    1. Application through the Unified Export Strategy (UES) System: Organizations are strongly encouraged to submit their applications to FAS through the web-based UES application. Using the UES application process reduces paperwork and expedites FAS' processing and review cycle. Applicants planning to use the UES system must first contact FAS' Program Operations Division to obtain site access information, including a user ID and password. The UES Internet-based application may be found at the following URL address: https://www.fas.usda.gov/ues/webapp/.

    Although FAS highly recommends applying via the web-based UES, applicants have the option of submitting an application to FAS via email at [email protected]

    Applicants experiencing difficulty or otherwise needing assistance applying to the program should contact the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service by courier: Room 6512, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250, or by phone: (202) 720-4327, or by fax: (202) 720-9361, or by email: [email protected]

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission: All TASC proposals must contain complete information about the proposed projects as described in § 1487.5(b) of the TASC program regulations. In addition, in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget's policy directive (68 FR 38402 (June 27, 2003)) regarding the need to identify entities that are receiving government awards, all applicants must submit a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. An applicant may request a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line at (866) 705-5711.

    In addition, in accordance with 2 CFR part 25, each eligible organization that applies to the TASC and does not qualify for an exemption under 2 CFR 25.110 must:

    (i) Provide a valid DUNS number in each application it submits to CCC;

    (ii) Be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to submitting an application; and

    (iii) Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application under consideration by CCC.

    FAS may not make an award to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable unique entity identifier and SAM requirements, and, if an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time FAS is ready to make the award, FAS may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive the award and use that determination as a basis for making an award to another applicant.

    Similarly, in accordance with 2 CFR part 170, each eligible organization that applies to the TASC program and does not qualify for an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b) must ensure it has the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the applicable reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170 should it receive TASC funding.

    Incomplete proposals or proposals that do not otherwise conform to this announcement will not be accepted for review.

    3. Submission Dates and Times: TASC proposals are reviewed on a rolling basis during the fiscal year as long as TASC funding is available as set forth below:

    • Proposals received by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, June 19, 2017, will be considered for funding with other proposals received by that date;

    • Proposals not approved for funding during the initial review period will be reconsidered for funding after the review period only if the applicant specifically requests such reconsideration in writing and only if funding remains available;

    • Proposals received after 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, June 19, 2017, will be considered for funding in the order received only if funding remains available.

    FAS will track the time and date of receipt of all proposals.

    4. Funding Restrictions: Although funded projects may take place in the United States or abroad, all eligible projects must specifically address sanitary, phytosanitary, or technical barriers to the export of U.S. specialty crops.

    Certain types of expenses are not eligible for reimbursement by the program, such as the costs of market research, advertising, or other promotional expenses, and will be set forth in the written program agreement between CCC and the participant. CCC will also not reimburse unreasonable expenditures or any expenditure made prior to the approval of a proposal.

    5. Other Submission Requirements: All applications submitted through the UES must be received by 5 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, June 19, 2017, in order to be considered for funding; late submissions received after the deadline will be considered only if funding remains available. All applications submitted by email must be received at [email protected] by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, June 19, 2017, in order to receive the same consideration.

    E. Application Review Information

    1. Criteria: FAS follows the evaluation criteria set forth in § 1487.6 of the TASC regulations. Reviewers will evaluate according to the following criteria:

    (1) The nature of the specific export barrier and the extent to which the proposal is likely to successfully remove, resolve, or mitigate that barrier (12.5%);

    (2) The potential trade impact of the proposed project on market retention, market access, and market expansion, including the potential for expanding commercial sales in the targeted market (12.5%);

    (3) The completeness and viability of the proposal. Among other things, this can include the cost of the project and the amount of other resources dedicated to the project, including cash, goods, and services of the U.S. industry and foreign third parties (15%);

    (4) The ability of the organization to provide an experienced staff with the requisite technical and trade experience to execute the proposal (15%);

    (5) The extent to which the proposal is targeted to a market in which the United States is generally competitive (17.5%);

    (6) The degree to which time is essential to addressing specific export barriers (5%);

    (7) The ability of the applicant to provide a broad base of producer representation (12.5%); and

    (8) The effectiveness of the performance measures and potential of the performance measures to measure project results (10%).

    2. Review and Selection Process: FAS will review proposals for eligibility and will evaluate each proposal against the criteria referred to above. The purpose of this review is to identify meritorious proposals, recommend an appropriate funding level for each proposal based upon these factors, and submit the proposals and funding recommendations to the Deputy Administrator, Office of Trade Programs. FAS may, when appropriate, request the assistance of other U.S. government subject area experts in evaluating the merits of a proposal.

    In addition, FAS, prior to making a Federal award with a total amount of Federal share greater than the simplified acquisition threshold, is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently FAPIIS) (see 41 U.S.C. 2313). An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through SAM and comment on any information about itself that a Federal awarding agency previously entered and is currently in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM. FAS will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to the other information in the designated integrity and performance system, 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 2 CFR 200.205 “Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants.”

    F. Award Administration Information

    1. Federal Award Notices: FAS will notify each applicant in writing of the final disposition of the submitted application. FAS will send an approval letter and agreement to each approved applicant. The approval letter and agreement will specify the terms and conditions applicable to the project, including levels of funding, timelines for implementation, and reporting requirements.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: The agreements will incorporate the details of each project as approved by FAS. Each agreement will identify terms and conditions pursuant to which CCC will reimburse certain costs of each project. Agreements will also outline the responsibilities of the participant. Interested parties should review the TASC program regulations found at 7 CFR part 1487 in addition to this announcement. TASC program regulations are available at the following URL address: http://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/technical-assistance-specialty-crops-tasc.

    3. Reporting: TASC participants will be required to submit annual interim reports and a final performance report, each of which evaluate the TASC project using the performance measures presented in the approved proposal, as set forth in the written program agreement.

    G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact

    For additional information and assistance, contact the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture by courier: Room 6512, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250, or by phone: (202) 720-4327, or by fax: (202) 720-9361, or by email: [email protected]

    Signed at Washington, DC, on the 12th of May 2017. Holly Higgins, Acting Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service, and Acting Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10106 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Commodity Credit Corporation Notice of Funds Availability: Inviting Applications for the Emerging Markets Program SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) announces that it is inviting proposals for the 2018 Emerging Markets Program (EMP). The intended effect of this notice is to solicit proposals from the private sector and from government agencies for fiscal year 2018 and to set out the criteria for the awarding of funds under the program. The EMP is administered by personnel of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS).

    DATES:

    To be considered for funding, proposals must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, August 15, 2017. Any applications received after this time will be considered only if funds remain available.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Applicants needing assistance should contact Curt Alt in the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service by courier: Room 6512, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250, or by phone: (202) 720-4327, or by fax: (202) 720-9361, or by email: [email protected] Information is also available on the Foreign Agricultural Service Web site at http://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/emerging-markets-program-emp.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Funding Opportunity Description

    Announcement Type: New.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 10.603.

    Authority: The EMP is authorized by section 1542(d)(1) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, as amended. The EMP regulations appear at 7 CFR part 1486.

    1. Purpose. The EMP assists U.S. entities in developing, maintaining, or expanding exports of U.S. agricultural commodities and products by funding activities that enhance emerging markets' food and rural business systems, including reducing trade barriers. The EMP is intended primarily to support export market development efforts of the private sector, but EMP resources may also be used to assist public organizations.

    All U.S. agricultural commodities, except tobacco, are eligible for consideration. Agricultural product(s) should be comprised of at least 50 percent U.S. origin content by weight, exclusive of added water, to be eligible for funding. Proposals that seek support for multiple commodities are also eligible. EMP funding may only be used for generic activities intended to develop, maintain, or expand emerging markets for U.S. agricultural commodities and products. EMP funding may not be used to support the export of another country's products to the United States, or to promote the development of a foreign economy as a primary objective.

    2. Appropriate Activities. All EMP projects must fall into at least one of the following four categories:

    (a) Assistance to teams consisting primarily of U.S. individuals expert in assessing the food and rural business systems of other countries. This type of EMP project must include all three of the following:

    • Conduct an assessment of the food and rural business system needs of an emerging market;

    • Make recommendations on measures necessary to enhance the effectiveness of those systems; and

    • Identify opportunities and projects to enhance the effectiveness of the emerging market's food and rural business systems in order to grow U.S. exports.

    To be eligible, such proposals must clearly demonstrate that experts are primarily agricultural consultants, farmers, other persons from the private sector, or government officials and that they have expertise in assessing the food and rural business systems of other countries.

    (b) Assistance to enable individuals from emerging markets to travel to the United States so that these individuals can, for the purpose of enhancing the food and rural business systems in their countries, consult with food and rural business system experts in the United States.

    (c) Assistance to enable U.S. agricultural producers and other individuals knowledgeable in agricultural and agribusiness matters to travel to emerging markets to assist in transferring their knowledge and expertise to entities in the emerging market to enhance the market's rural and food business systems in support of U.S. exports. Such travel must be to emerging markets. Travel to developed markets is not eligible under the program even if the targeted market is an emerging market.

    (d) Technical assistance to implement the recommendations or to carry out projects and/or opportunities identified under 2(a) above. Technical assistance that does not implement the recommendations, projects, and/or opportunities identified under 2(a) above is not eligible under the EMP.

    Proposals that do not fall into one or more of the four categories above, regardless of previous guidance provided regarding the EMP, are not eligible for consideration under the program.

    EMP funds may not be used to support normal operating costs of individual organizations, nor as a source to recover pre-award costs or prior expenses from previous or ongoing projects. Proposals that counter national strategies or duplicate activities planned or already underway by U.S. non-profit agricultural commodity or trade associations will not be considered. Other ineligible expenditures include: Branded product promotions (e.g., in-store, restaurant advertising, labeling, etc.); advertising; administrative and operational expenses for trade shows; Web site development; equipment purchases; and the preparation and printing of brochures, flyers, and posters (except in connection with specific technical assistance activities such as training seminars). For a more complete description of ineligible expenditures, please refer to the EMP regulations.

    3. Eligible Markets. Because EMP funds are limited and the range of potential emerging market countries is broad, consideration will be given only to proposals that target countries or regional groups classified below the World Bank's threshold for upper middle-income economies. World Bank income limits and country classifications can change from year to year, with the result that a given country may qualify under the legislative and administrative criteria one year, but not the next. Therefore, applicants should consult the current World Bank country classification list for guidance.

    A few countries technically qualify as emerging markets but may require a separate determination before funding can be considered because of political sensitivities.

    B. Award Information

    In general, all qualified proposals received before the application deadline will compete for EMP funding. The applicant's willingness to contribute resources towards the project, including cash, goods, and services, will be a critical factor in determining which proposals are funded under the EMP. Each proposal will also be judged on the potential benefits to the industry represented by the applicant and the degree to which the proposal demonstrates industry support.

    The limited funds available and the wide range of eligible emerging markets worldwide generally preclude CCC from approving large budgets for individual projects. While there is no minimum or maximum amount set for EMP-funded projects, most projects are funded at a level of less than $500,000 and for a duration of one year. Private entities may submit multi-year proposals requesting higher levels of funding, although funding in such cases is generally limited to three years and provided one year at a time with commitments beyond the first year subject to interim evaluations and funding availability. Proposals from government entities are not eligible for multi-year funding.

    Funding for successful proposals will be provided through specific agreements. The CCC, through FAS, will be kept informed of the implementation of approved projects through interim progress reports and final performance reports. Changes in the original project timelines and adjustments within project budgets must be approved in advance by FAS.

    Note:

    EMP funds awarded to government agencies must be expended or otherwise obligated by close of business September 30, 2018.

    C. Eligibility and Qualification Information

    1. Eligible Organizations: Any U.S. private or government entity (e.g., universities, trade associations, agricultural cooperatives, state regional trade groups, state departments of agriculture, federal agencies, for-profit entities, and consulting businesses) with a demonstrated role or interest in the export of U.S. agricultural commodities or products may apply to the program. Proposals from research and consulting organizations will be considered if they provide evidence of substantial participation by and financial support from the U.S. industry. For-profit entities may not use program funds to conduct private business, promote private self-interests, supplement the costs of normal sales activities, or promote their own products or services beyond specific uses approved by CCC in a given project. Foreign organizations, whether government or private, may participate as third parties in activities carried out by U.S. organizations but are not eligible for direct funding assistance through the program.

    2. Cost Sharing: No private sector proposal will be considered without a cost-share element from the applicant and/or U.S. partners. The EMP is intended to complement, not supplant, the efforts of the U.S. private sector. There is no minimum or maximum amount of cost-share, though the degree of commitment to a proposed project, represented by the amount and type of private funding, is one factor used in determining which proposals will be approved for funding. Cost-share may be actual cash invested or professional time of staff assigned to the project. Proposals for which private industry is willing to commit cash, rather than in-kind contributions such as staff resources, will be given priority consideration.

    Cost-sharing is not required for proposals from government agencies, but is mandatory for all other eligible entities, even when they may be party to a joint proposal with a government agency. Contributions from USDA or other government agencies or programs may not be counted as cost-share by other applicants. Similarly, contributions from foreign (non-U.S.) organizations may not be counted toward the cost-share requirement, but may be counted in the total cost of the project.

    3. Other: Proposals should include a justification for funding assistance from the program—an explanation as to what specifically could not be accomplished without Federal funding assistance and why the participating organization(s) would be unlikely to carry out the project without such assistance. Applicants may submit more than one proposal.

    D. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Submit Application Package: EMP applicants have the opportunity to utilize the Unified Export Strategy (UES) application process, an online system that provides a means for interested applicants to submit a consolidated and strategically coordinated single proposal that incorporates funding requests for all of the market development programs administered by FAS.

    Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit their applications to FAS through the web-based UES application. The Internet-based format reduces paperwork and expedites FAS' processing and review cycle. Applicants planning to use the on-line UES system must first contact the Program Operations Division to obtain site access information. The Internet-based application is located at the following URL address: https://www.fas.usda.gov/ues/webapp/.

    Although FAS highly recommends applying via the UES, applicants also have the option of submitting an electronic application to FAS via email to [email protected]

    Applicants experiencing difficulty or otherwise needing assistance applying to the program should contact the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service by courier: Room 6512, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250, or by phone: (202) 720-4327, or by fax: (202) 720-9361, or by email: [email protected]

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission: To be considered for the EMP, an applicant must submit to FAS information required by this Notice of Funds Availability and the EMP regulations at 7 CFR part 1486. EMP regulations and additional information are available at the following URL address: http://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/emerging-markets-program-emp.

    In addition, in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget's issuance of a final policy (68 FR 38402 (June 27, 2003)) regarding the need to identify entities that are receiving government awards, all applicants must submit a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. An applicant may request a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line at (866) 705-5711.

    In addition, in accordance with 2 CFR part 25, each entity that applies to the EMP and does not qualify for an exemption under 2 CFR 25.110 must:

    (i) Provide a valid DUNS number in each application it submits to CCC;

    (ii) Be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to submitting an application; and

    (iii) Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application under consideration by CCC.

    FAS may not make an award to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable unique entity identifier and SAM requirements, and, if an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time FAS is ready to make the award, FAS may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive the award and use that determination as a basis for making an award to another applicant.

    Similarly, in accordance with 2 CFR part 170, each entity that applies to the EMP and does not qualify for an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b) must ensure it has the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the applicable reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170 should it receive EMP funding.

    Applications should be no longer than ten (10) pages and include the following information:

    (a) Date of proposal;

    (b) Name of organization submitting proposal;

    (c) Organization address, telephone, and fax;

    (d) Tax ID number;

    (e) DUNS number;

    (f) Primary contact person;

    (g) Full title of proposal;

    (h) Target market(s);

    (i) Specific description of activity/activities to be undertaken;

    (j) Clear demonstration that successful implementation will enhance the emerging market's food and rural business system and/or reduce trade barriers, and will benefit the industry as a whole and not just the applicant(s);

    (k) Current conditions and market analysis (production, supply, demand, import competition, U.S. trade) in the target market(s) affecting the commodity or product;

    (l) Description of the need to assess the food and rural business systems of the emerging market, or of the recommendations, projects, and/or opportunities previously identified by an approved EMP assessment that are to be addressed by the project;

    (m) Project objectives;

    (n) Performance measures for quantifying progress and demonstrating results. In the development of performance measures, FAS believes the measures should meet the following criteria:

    • Aligned: The indicator should, as closely as possible, measure exactly the relevant result.

    • Clear: The indicator should be precise and unambiguous about what is being measured and how. There should be no doubt on how to measure or interpret the indicator.

    • Quantifiable: The indicator(s) should sufficiently capture all of the elements of a result.

    • Include an identified methodology: The data can be obtained to inform the indicator in a timely and efficient manner and the data are of high-quality.

    The full set of indicators selected to monitor project performance should be sufficient to inform project management and oversight.

    (o) Explanation of the underlying reasons for the project proposal and its approach, the anticipated benefits, and any additional pertinent analysis;

    (p) Explanation as to what specifically could not be accomplished without Federal funding assistance and why the participating organization(s) would be unlikely to carry out the project without such assistance;

    (q) Timeline(s) for implementation of activity, including start and end dates;

    (r) Information on whether similar activities are or have previously been funded with USDA resources in the target country or countries (e.g., under the MAP and/or Cooperator programs);

    (s) Detailed line item activity budgets:

    • Cost items should be allocated separately to each participating organization;

    • Costs for consultant fees should show the calculation of the daily rate and the number of days;

    • Costs for travel expenses should show the number of trips and the destination, number of travelers, cost, and objective for each trip;

    • Individual expense line items (e.g., salaries, travel expenses, consultant fees, administrative costs, etc.) should be listed on separate lines, each clearly indicating:

    (1) Which items are to be covered by EMP funding;

    (2) Which are to be covered by the participating U.S. organization(s); and

    (3) Which are to be covered by foreign third parties (if applicable); and

    (t) Qualifications of applicant(s) should be included as an attachment.

    3. Funding Restrictions: Certain types of expenses are not eligible for reimbursement by the program, and there are limits on other categories of expenses, such as indirect overhead charges, travel expenses, and consulting fees. CCC will also not reimburse unreasonable expenditures or expenditures made prior to approval of a proposal. Full details of the funding restrictions are available in the EMP regulations.

    4. Submission Dates and Times: EMP proposals are reviewed on a rolling basis during the fiscal year as long as EMP funding is available as set forth below:

    • Proposals received by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, August 15, 2017, will be considered for funding with other proposals received by that date;

    • Proposals not approved for funding during the initial review period will be reconsidered for funding after the review period only if the applicant specifically requests such reconsideration in writing and only if funding remains available;

    • Proposals received after 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, August 15, 2017, will be considered for funding in the order received only if funding remains available.

    5. Other Submission Requirements: All Internet-based applications must be properly submitted by 5 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, August 15, 2017, in order to be considered for funding; late submissions received after the deadline will be considered only if funding remains available. All applications submitted by email must be received at [email protected] by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, August 15, 2017, in order to receive the same consideration. After August 15, 2017, proposals will continue to be accepted on a rolling basis as long as funding remains.

    E. Application Review Information

    1. Evaluation criteria. FAS will consider a number of factors when reviewing proposals, including:

    • Appropriateness of the Activity, which will vary based on the type of proposal but will include: For assessment proposals: Does the proposal present a methodology that is likely to result in the needed recommendations and identification of specific opportunities and projects? Is the assessment team comprised of credible U.S. experts with experience in assessing food and rural business systems? For travel proposals: Is the exchange of knowledge and expertise clearly described in terms of enhancements to the emerging market's food and rural business systems? Do we understand how travelers are selected? For technical assistance proposals: Are the proposed activities identified in the supporting assessment? Is the potential for the proposed activities to enhance the effectiveness of the emerging market's food and rural business systems sufficiently justified? (30%);

    • Market Impact, including the degree to which the proposed project is likely to contribute to the development, maintenance, or expansion of U.S. agricultural exports to emerging markets; the conditions or constraints affecting the level of U.S. exports and market share for the agricultural commodity/product; demonstration of how a proposed project will benefit the industry as a whole; and the quality of the project's proposed performance measures and the ability of the performance measures to measure outcomes (impact) and not just outputs. (50%); and

    • Completeness and Viability of the proposal, including evidence that the organization has the knowledge, expertise, ability, and resources to successfully implement the project, the entity's willingness to contribute resources to the project, and the applicant's reported past EMP results and evaluations, if applicable. (20%).

    2. Review and Selection Process: All proposals will undergo a multi-phase review within FAS, by appropriate FAS field offices, and, as needed, by the private sector Advisory Committee on Emerging Markets to rate the qualifications, quality, and appropriateness of projects and the reasonableness of project budgets.

    In addition, FAS, prior to making a Federal award with a total amount of Federal share greater than the simplified acquisition threshold, is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently FAPIIS) (see 41 U.S.C. 2313). An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through SAM and comment on any information about itself that a Federal awarding agency previously entered and is currently in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM. FAS will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to the other information in the designated integrity and performance system, 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 2 CFR 200.205 “Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants.”

    F. Federal Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: FAS will notify each applicant in writing of the final disposition of the submitted proposal. FAS will send an approval letter and project agreement to each approved applicant. The approval letter and agreement will specify the terms and conditions applicable to the project, including the levels of EMP funding and cost-share contribution requirements.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: Interested parties should review the EMP regulations, which are available at the following URL address: http://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/emerging-markets-program-emp.

    3. Reporting. Program reporting requirements are detailed in 7 CFR part 1486 and are provided in the Project Agreement.

    G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact(s)

    For additional information and assistance, contact the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture by courier: Room 6512, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250, or by phone: (202) 720-4327, or by fax: (202) 720-9361, or by email: [email protected]

    Signed at Washington, DC, on May 12, 2017. Holly Higgins, Acting Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service, and Acting Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10105 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Commodity Credit Corporation Notice of Funds Availability: Inviting Applications for the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) announces that it is inviting proposals for the 2018 Foreign Market Development Cooperator (Cooperator) program. The intended effect of this notice is to solicit applications from eligible applicants for fiscal year 2018 and to set out criteria for the awarding of funds under the program. The Cooperator program is administered by personnel of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS).

    DATES:

    All applications must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, June 19, 2017. Applications received after this date will not be considered.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Applicants needing assistance should contact Curt Alt in the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service by courier: Room 6512, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250, or by phone: (202) 720-4327, or by fax: (202) 720-9361, or by email: [email protected] Information is also available on the FAS Web site at the following URL address: http://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/foreign-market-development-program-fmd.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Funding Opportunity Description

    Announcement Type: New.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 10.600.

    Authority: The Cooperator program is authorized by Title VII of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as amended. Cooperator program regulations appear at 7 CFR part 1484.

    Purpose: The Cooperator program is designed to create, expand, and maintain foreign markets for U.S. agricultural commodities and products through cost-share assistance. Financial assistance under the Cooperator program will be made available on a competitive basis and applications will be reviewed against the evaluation criteria contained herein and in the Cooperator program regulations. All U.S. agricultural commodities, except tobacco, are eligible for consideration.

    FAS allocates funds in a manner that effectively supports the strategic decision-making initiatives of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993. In deciding whether a proposed project will contribute to the effective creation, expansion, or maintenance of foreign markets, FAS considers whether the applicant provides a clear, long-term agricultural trade strategy and an effective program time line against which results can be measured at specific intervals using quantifiable product or country goals. FAS also considers the extent to which a proposed project targets markets with the greatest growth potential. These factors are part of the FAS resource allocation strategy to fund applicants who can demonstrate performance and address the objectives of the GPRA.

    Funding Available: The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as amended, provides up to $34.5 million annually for the Cooperator program. Actual funding available in FY 2018 may be different due to sequestration or other Congressional action.

    B. Award Information

    Under the Cooperator program, CCC enters into agreements with eligible nonprofit U.S. trade organizations to share the cost of certain overseas marketing and promotion activities. Funding priority is given to organizations that have the broadest possible producer representation of the commodity being promoted and that are nationwide in membership and scope. Cooperators may receive assistance only for generic activities that do not involve promotions targeted directly to consumers purchasing in their individual capacity. The Cooperator program generally operates on a reimbursement basis.

    C. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Organizations: To participate in the Cooperator program, an applicant must be a nonprofit U.S. agricultural trade organization.

    2. Cost-Sharing: To participate in the Cooperator program, an applicant must agree to contribute resources to its proposed promotional activities. The Cooperator program is intended to supplement, not supplant, the efforts of the U.S. private sector. The contribution must be at least 50 percent of the value of resources provided by CCC for activities conducted under the project agreement.

    The degree of commitment of an applicant to the promotional strategies contained in its application, as represented by the cost-share contributions specified therein, is considered by FAS when determining which applications will be approved for funding. Cost-share may be actual cash invested or in-kind contributions, such as professional staff time spent on the design and implementation of activities. The Cooperator program regulations, including §§ 1484.50 and 1484.51, provide detailed discussion of eligible and ineligible cost-share contributions.

    3. Other: Applications should include a justification for funding assistance from the program—an explanation as to what specifically could not be accomplished without federal funding assistance and why participating organization(s) are unlikely to carry out the project without such assistance.

    D. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Submit Application Package: Organizations should submit their Cooperator program applications to FAS through the web-based Unified Export Strategy (UES) system. The UES allows applicants to submit a single consolidated and strategically coordinated proposal that incorporates requests for funding under all of the FAS market development programs. The suggested UES format encourages applicants to examine the constraints or barriers to trade that they face, identify activities that would help overcome such impediments, consider the entire pool of complementary marketing tools and program resources, and establish realistic export goals. Applicants planning to use the UES must first contact FAS' Program Operations Division to obtain site access information. The web-based application may be found at the following URL address: https://www.fas.usda.gov/ues/webapp/.

    Applicants experiencing difficulty or otherwise needing assistance applying to the program should contact the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service by courier: Room 6512, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250, or by phone: (202) 720-4327, or by fax: (202) 720-9361, or by email: [email protected]

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission: To be considered for the Cooperator program, an applicant must submit to FAS information required by § 1484.20 of the Cooperator program regulations. In addition, in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget's policy (68 FR 38402 (June 27, 2003)) regarding the need to identify entities that are receiving government awards, all applicants must submit a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. An applicant may request a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line at (866) 705-5711.

    In addition, in accordance with 2 CFR part 25, each entity that applies to the Cooperator program and does not qualify for an exemption under 2 CFR 25.110 must:

    (i) Provide a valid DUNS number in each application;

    (ii) Be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to submitting an application; and

    (iii) Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application under consideration by CCC.

    FAS may not make an award to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable unique entity identifier and SAM requirements, and, if an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time FAS is ready to make the award, FAS may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive the award and use that determination as a basis for making an award to another applicant.

    Similarly, in accordance with 2 CFR part 170, each entity that applies to the Cooperator program and does not qualify for an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b) must ensure it has the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the applicable reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170 should it receive funding under the Cooperator program.

    Incomplete applications or applications that do not otherwise conform to this announcement or the Cooperator program regulations will not be accepted for review.

    3. Submission Dates and Times: All applications must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, June 19, 2017. By the application deadline, all Cooperator program applicants must also submit to FAS a signed certification statement as specified in 7 CFR 1484.20(a)(14). The completed certification statements can be sent via courier/delivery service to the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 6512, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250. Applicants can also send a scanned copy of the signed certification statement via email to: [email protected] Applications or certifications received after the deadline will not be considered.

    4. Funding Restrictions: Certain types of expenses are not eligible for reimbursement by the program, and there are limits on other categories of expenses. CCC also will not reimburse unreasonable expenditures or expenditures made prior to approval. Full details are available in §§ 1484.54 and 1484.55 of the Cooperator program regulations.

    E. Application Review Information

    1. Criteria and Review and Selection Process: A description of the FAS process for reviewing applications and the criteria for allocating available Cooperator program funds is as follows:

    (1) Phase 1—Sufficiency Review and FAS Divisional Review

    Applications received by the closing date will be reviewed by FAS to determine the eligibility of the applicants and the completeness of the applications. These requirements appear in §§ 1484.14 and 1484.20 of the Cooperator program regulations as well as in this Notice. Applications that meet the requirements will be further evaluated by the appropriate Commodity Branch office of FAS' Cooperator Programs Division. The Commodity Branch will review each application against the criteria listed in § 1484.21 of the Cooperator program regulations. The purpose of this review is to identify meritorious proposals. The Commodity Branch then recommends an appropriate funding level for each application for consideration by the Office of the Deputy Administrator, Office of Trade Programs.

    (2) Phase 2—Competitive Review

    Meritorious applications are passed on to the Office of the Deputy Administrator, Office of Trade Programs, for the purpose of allocating available funds among those applicants. Applicants will compete for funds on the basis of the following allocation criteria as appropriate (the number in parentheses represents the percentage weight factor):

    (a) Applicant's Contribution Level (40): The applicant's 6-year average share (2013-2018) of all contributions under the Cooperator program compared to the applicant's 6-year average share (2013-2018) of the funding level for all Cooperator program participants.

    (b) Past U.S. Export Performance (20): The 6-year average share (2012-2017) of the value of U.S. exports promoted by the applicant compared to the applicant's 6-year average share (2012-2017) of the funding level for all Cooperator participants plus, for those groups participating in the MAP program, the 6-year average share (2012-2017) of all MAP budgets.

    (c) Past Demand Expansion Performance (20): The 6-year average share (2012-2017) of the total value of world trade of the commodities promoted by the applicant compared to the applicant's 6-year average share (2012-2017) of all Cooperator program expenditures plus, for those groups participating in the MAP program, a 6-year average share (2012-2017) of all MAP expenditures.

    (d) Future Demand Expansion Goals (10): The total dollar value of projected world trade of the commodities being promoted by the applicant for the year 2023 compared to the applicant's requested funding level.

    (e) Accuracy of Past Demand Expansion Projections (10): The actual dollar value share of world trade of the commodities being promoted by the applicant for the year 2016 as reported in the 2018 Cooperator program application compared to the projection of world trade of the commodities being promoted by the applicant for 2016 as specified in the applicant's 2013 Cooperator program application.

    The Commodity Branches' recommended funding levels for each applicant are adjusted by each weight factor as described above to determine the amount of funds allocated to each applicant.

    In addition, FAS, prior to making a Federal award with a total amount of Federal share greater than the simplified acquisition threshold, is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently FAPIIS) (see 41 U.S.C. 2313). An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through SAM and comment on any information about itself that a Federal awarding agency previously entered and is currently in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM. FAS will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to the other information in the designated integrity and performance system, 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 2 CFR 200.205 “Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants.”

    2. Anticipated Announcement Date: Announcements of funding decisions for the Cooperator program are anticipated during October 2017.

    F. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: FAS will notify each applicant in writing of the final disposition of its application. FAS will send an approval letter and project agreement to each approved applicant. The approval letter and project agreement will specify the terms and conditions applicable to the project, including the levels of Cooperator program funding and cost-share contribution requirements.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: Interested parties should review the Cooperator program regulations, which are available at the following URL address: http://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/foreign-market-development-program-fmd.

    3. Reporting: FAS requires various reports and evaluations from Cooperators. Reporting requirements are detailed in the Cooperator program regulations in §§ 1484.53, 1484.70, and 1484.72.

    G. Agency Contact(s)

    For additional information and assistance, contact the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture by courier: Room 6512, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250, or by phone: (202) 720-4327, or by fax: (202) 720-9361, or by email: [email protected]

    Signed at Washington, DC, on May 12, 2017. Holly Higgins, Acting Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service, and Acting Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10097 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Commodity Credit Corporation Notice of Funds Availability: Inviting Applications for the Market Access Program SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) announces that it is inviting applications for the 2018 Market Access Program (MAP). The intended effect of this notice is to solicit proposals from eligible applicants for fiscal year 2018 and to set out the criteria for the awarding of funds under the program. The MAP is administered by personnel of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS).

    DATES:

    All applications must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, June 19, 2017. Applications received after this date will not be considered.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Applicants needing assistance should contact Curt Alt in the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service by courier: Room 6512, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250, or by phone: (202) 720-4327, or by fax: (202) 720-9361, or by email: [email protected] Information is also available on the FAS Web site at the following URL address: http://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/market-access-program-map.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Funding Opportunity Description

    Announcement Type: New.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 10.601.

    Authority: The MAP is authorized under Section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as amended. MAP regulations appear at 7 CFR part 1485.

    Purpose: The MAP is designed to create, expand, and maintain foreign markets for U.S. agricultural commodities and products through cost-share assistance. Financial assistance under the MAP is made available on a competitive basis, and applications are reviewed against the evaluation criteria contained herein and in the MAP regulations. All U.S. agricultural commodities, except tobacco, are eligible for consideration.

    FAS allocates funds in a manner that effectively supports the strategic decision-making initiatives of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993. In deciding whether a proposed project will contribute to the effective creation, expansion, or maintenance of foreign markets, FAS considers whether the applicant provides a clear, long-term agricultural trade strategy and an effective program time line against which results can be measured at specific intervals using quantifiable product or country goals. FAS also considers the extent to which a proposed project targets markets with the greatest growth potential. These factors are part of the FAS resource allocation strategy to fund applicants who can best demonstrate performance and address the objectives of the GPRA.

    Funding Available: The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as amended, provides up to $200 million annually for MAP. Actual funding available in FY 2018 may be different due to sequestration or other Congressional action.

    B. Award Information

    Under the MAP, CCC enters into agreements with eligible Participants to share the cost of certain overseas marketing and promotion activities. MAP Participants may receive assistance for generic or brand promotion activities. For generic activities, funding priority is given to organizations that have the broadest possible producer representation of the commodity being promoted and that are nationwide in membership and scope. For branded activities, only nonprofit U.S. agricultural trade organizations, nonprofit state regional trade groups (SRTGs), U.S. agricultural cooperatives, and state government agencies can participate directly in the brand program. The MAP generally operates on a reimbursement basis.

    C. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Organizations: To participate in the MAP, an applicant must be a nonprofit U.S. agricultural trade organization, a nonprofit state regional trade group, a U.S. agricultural cooperative, or a state government agency. Small-sized private U.S. commercial entities may participate in a branded program through a MAP Participant.

    2. Cost-Sharing: To participate in the MAP, an applicant must agree to contribute resources towards its proposed promotional activities. The MAP is intended to supplement, not supplant, the efforts of the U.S. private sector. In the case of generic promotion, the contribution must be at least 10 percent of the value of resources provided by CCC for such generic promotion. In the case of branded promotion, the contribution must be at least 50 percent of the total cost of such brand promotion.

    The degree of commitment of an applicant to the promotional strategies contained in its application, as represented by the cost-share contributions specified therein, is considered by FAS when determining which applications will be approved for funding. Cost-share may be actual cash invested or in-kind contributions, such as professional staff time spent on the design and implementation of activities. The MAP regulations, in § 1485.16, provide a detailed discussion of eligible and ineligible cost-share contributions.

    3. Other: Applications should include a justification for funding assistance from the program—an explanation as to what specifically could not be accomplished without federal funding assistance and why participating organizations are unlikely to carry out the project without such assistance.

    D. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Submit Application Package: Organizations should submit their MAP applications to FAS through the web-based Unified Export Strategy (UES) system. The UES allows interested applicants to submit a single consolidated and strategically coordinated proposal that incorporates requests for funding under all of the FAS market development programs. The suggested UES format encourages applicants to examine the constraints or barriers to trade that they face, identify activities that would help overcome such impediments, consider the entire pool of complementary marketing tools and program resources, and establish realistic export goals. Applicants planning to use the UES must first contact FAS' Program Operations Division to obtain site access information. The web-based application may be found at the following URL address: https://www.fas.usda.gov/ues/webapp/.

    Applicants experiencing difficulty or otherwise needing assistance applying to the program should contact the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service by courier: Room 6512, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250, or by phone: (202) 720-4327, or by fax: (202) 720-9361, or by email: [email protected]

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission: To be considered for the MAP, an applicant must submit to FAS the information required by § 1485.13 of the MAP regulations. In addition, in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget's policy (68 FR 38402 (June 27, 2003)) regarding the need to identify entities that are receiving government awards, all applicants must submit a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. An applicant may request a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line at (866) 705-5711.

    In addition, in accordance with 2 CFR part 25, each entity that applies to the MAP and does not qualify for an exemption under 2 CFR 25.110 must:

    (i) Provide a valid DUNS number in each application;

    (ii) Be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to submitting an application; and

    (iii) Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application under consideration by CCC.

    FAS may not make an award to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable unique entity identifier and SAM requirements, and, if an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time FAS is ready to make the award, FAS may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive the award and use that determination as a basis for making an award to another applicant.

    Similarly, in accordance with 2 CFR part 170, each entity that applies to MAP and does not qualify for an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b) must ensure it has the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the applicable reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170 should it receive MAP funding.

    Incomplete applications or applications that do not otherwise conform to this announcement and the MAP regulations will not be accepted for review.

    3. Submission Dates and Times: All applications must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, June 19, 2017. By the application deadline, all MAP applicants must also submit to FAS a signed certification statement as specified in 7 CFR 1485.13(a)(2)(i)(E). The completed certification statements can be sent via courier/delivery service to the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 6512, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250. Applicants can also email a scanned copy of the signed certification statement to: [email protected] Applications or certifications received after the deadline will not be considered.

    4. Funding Restrictions: Certain types of expenses are not eligible for reimbursement by the program, and there are limits on other categories of expenses. CCC also will not reimburse unreasonable expenditures or expenditures made prior to approval. Full details are available in the MAP regulations in § 1485.17.

    E. Application Review Information

    1. Criteria and Review Process: A description of the FAS process for reviewing applications and the criteria for allocating available MAP funds is as follows:

    (1) Phase 1—Sufficiency Review and FAS Divisional Review

    Applications received by the closing date will be reviewed by FAS to determine the eligibility of the applicants and the completeness of the applications. These requirements appear in §§ 1485.12 and 1485.13 of the MAP regulations. Applications that meet the requirements will then be further evaluated by the appropriate Commodity Branch office of FAS' Cooperator Programs Division. The Commodity Branches will review each application against the criteria listed in § 1485.14(b) and (c) of the MAP regulations as well as in this Notice. The purpose of this review is to identify meritorious proposals and to recommend an appropriate funding level for each application based upon these criteria.

    (2) Phase 2—Competitive Review

    Meritorious applications then will be passed on to the Office of the Deputy Administrator, Office of Trade Programs, for the purpose of allocating available funds among the applicants. Applicants will compete for funds on the basis of the following allocation criteria as applicable (the number in parentheses represents the percentage weight factor):

    (a) Applicant's Contribution Level (40): The applicant's 4-year average share (2015-2018) of all contributions under the MAP compared to the applicant's 4-year average share (2015-2018) of the funding level for all MAP Participants.

    (b) Past U.S. Export Performance (30): The 3-year average share (2014-2016) of the value of U.S. exports promoted by the applicant compared to the applicant's 2-year average share (2016-2017) of the funding level for all MAP Participants plus, for those groups participating in the Cooperator program, the 2-year average share (2016-2017) of all Cooperator program budgets.

    (c) Projected U.S. Export Goals (15): The total dollar value of projected U.S. exports of the commodities being promoted by the applicant for the year 2018 compared to the applicant's requested funding level.

    (d) Accuracy of Past U.S. Export Projections (15): The actual dollar value share of U.S. exports of the commodities being promoted by the applicant for the year 2016 as reported in the 2018 MAP application compared to the projection of U.S. exports for 2016 as specified in the 2016 MAP application.

    The Commodity Branches' recommended funding levels for each applicant are adjusted by each weight factor as described above to determine the amount of funds allocated to each applicant.

    In addition, FAS, prior to making a Federal award with a total amount of Federal share greater than the simplified acquisition threshold, is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently FAPIIS) (see 41 U.S.C. 2313). An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through SAM and comment on any information about itself that a Federal awarding agency previously entered and is currently in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM. FAS will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to the other information in the designated integrity and performance system, 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 2 CFR 200.205 “Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants.”

    2. Anticipated Announcement Date: Announcements of funding decisions for the MAP are anticipated during October 2017.

    F. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: FAS will notify each applicant in writing of the final disposition of its application. FAS will send an approval letter and program agreement to each approved applicant. The approval letter and program agreement will specify the terms and conditions applicable to the project, including the levels of MAP funding and cost-share contribution requirements.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: Interested parties should review the MAP regulations, which are available at the following URL address: http://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/market-access-program-map.

    3. Reporting: FAS requires various reports and evaluations from MAP Participants. Reporting requirements are detailed in §§ 1485.22 and 1485.23 of the MAP regulations.

    G. Agency Contact(s)

    For additional information and assistance, contact the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture by courier: Room 6512, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250, or by phone: (202) 720-4327, or by fax: (202) 720-9361, or by email: [email protected]

    Signed at Washington, DC, on the 12th of May, 2017. Holly Higgins, Acting Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service, and Acting Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10107 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection: Proposed Collection; Comments Request Study of Third Party Processor Services, Fees, and Business Practices AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) invites public comment on a proposed collection of information that the USDA is developing for submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The goal of the study is to understand the business practices of Third Party Processors (TPPs) and independent sales organizations (ISOs) that provide Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) processing services and equipment to authorized retailers participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before July 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    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.

    Written comments may be sent to Rosemarie Downer, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via email to Rosemarie Downer at [email protected] or by fax to the attention of Rosemarie Downer at (703) 305-2576. Alternatively, comments will be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically.

    All written comments will be open for public inspection at the Office of Food and Nutrition Service during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, Virginia 22302.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of information collection instruments and instructions should be directed to Rosemarie Downer at (703) 305-2129 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Study of Third Party Processor Services, Fees, and Business Practices.

    OMB Number: 0584—NEW.

    Expiration Date: Not yet determined.

    Type of Request: New collection.

    Abstract: This study seeks to understand the business practices of TPPs and ISOs that provide EBT processing services and equipment to SNAP retailers to (1) assess retailers' satisfaction with EBT products and services needed to participate in the SNAP program; and (2) develop a set of best practices to inform FNS's guidance for retailers on what to consider when selecting, contracting with, and working with EBT vendors (TPPs and ISOs). The study results will also provide FNS with the information needed to inform future FNS policies regarding requirements for vendors providing EBT equipment and services to authorized retailers and TPP services-related guidance for retailers.

    The study relies on two data sources: (1) A survey of SNAP retailers regarding their business relations with EBT vendors as well as satisfaction with the equipment and services acquired, and (2) interviews with TPPs and ISOs about their business practices with SNAP retailers, products and services, including costs and recommendations for retailers seeking to acquire EBT products and services.

    SNAP Retailer Satisfaction Survey: The survey will use a nationally representative sample of SNAP retailers, stratified by retail sales levels and urban/rural locations. The survey sample will include non-exempt retailers 1 that must pay 100% of the cost for EBT equipment and services. The retailer survey sample will exclude retailers that operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

    1 Retailers that are not exempt from the 2014 Farm Bill mandate and must pay 100% for EBT equipment and services includes Convenience Stores, Combination Grocery/Other, Super Store, Supermarket, Smaller Grocery Store, Medium Grocery Store, Large Grocery Store, Meat/Poultry Specialty, Bakery Specialty, Seafood Specialty, and Fruits/Vegetables Specialty. Retailers that are exempt from the 2014 Farm Bill mandate may continue to qualify for free EBT equipment and services until further notice.

    An invitation to participate in the national survey will be mailed to sampled retailers. The target audience for this survey will be store managers or operations managers. Participants will have the option to respond either online or through an interactive voice response system. Participants who do not start the survey after 10 business days, will receive a mail reminder. The study will follow up with non-respondents via telephone 10 business days after the reminder mail drop. Telephone follow-ups will include five attempts to each number in the sample at different times of the day and days of the week.

    TPP and ISO Telephone Interviews: Telephone interviews with TPPs and ISOs will follow a telephone interview protocol. Participants will receive an interview guide and an invitation letter describing the purpose of the study and how the data will be used. As the number and identity of TPPs and ISOs is not known, the study will use a snowball sampling approach to identify interviewees. Snowball sampling operates as a participant recruitment method in which research participants are asked to assist in identifying other potential respondents. Preliminary research estimates that there are 5 to 10 TPPs and 50 to 55 ISOs supporting the EBT market.

    Affected Public: The study will include three respondent groups: Non-exempt SNAP retailers, TPPs and ISOs in the EBT products and services market.

    Estimated number of respondents: 1,500 SNAP retailers and up to 55 TPPs and ISOs.

    Estimated Frequency of Response per Respondent: This is a one-time data collection for each respondent.

    Estimated Time per Response: The completed SNAP Retailer Survey response burden is estimated at 15 minutes per respondent. Each TPP or ISO interview is estimated to take a total of 1 hour and 30 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: The total public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated at 415 hours and approximately 1,565 responses. Table 1 below details the estimated burden for each type of respondent.

    EN19MY17.008 Dated: April 24, 2017. Jessica Shahin, Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10112 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Minnesota Advisory Committee To Review and Discuss Testimony Regarding Civil Rights and Policing Practices in Minnesota AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Minnesota Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Monday, June 05, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. CST for the purpose of reviewing and discussing public testimony regarding civil rights and policing practices in Minnesota.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday, June 05, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. CST.

    ADDRESSES:

    Public call information: Dial: 888-339-3466, Conference ID: 9169652.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-339-3466, conference ID: 9169652. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

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

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Minnesota Advisory Committee link (http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=256). Click on “meeting details” and then “documents” to download. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Roll Call Discussion of Testimony: Civil Rights and Policing Practices in Minnesota Public Comment Future Plans and Actions Adjournment Dated: May 15, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10114 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board: Meeting of the United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of an open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board (Board or TTAB) will hold a meeting on Monday, June 5, 2017. The Board advises the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to the U.S. travel and tourism industry. The purpose of the meeting is for Board members to discuss and deliberate on recommendations being developed by the four TTAB Working Groups related to the importance of international travel and tourism to the United States. The final agenda will be posted on the Department of Commerce Web site for the Board at http://trade.gov/ttab at least one week in advance of the meeting.

    DATES:

    Monday, June 5, 2017, 10:30 a.m.-12 p.m. EDT. The deadline for members of the public to register, including requests to make comments during the meeting and for auxiliary aids, or to submit written comments for dissemination prior to the meeting, is 5 p.m. EDT on Monday, May 29, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in Washington, DC. The exact location will be provided by email to registrants.

    Requests to register (including to speak or for auxiliary aids) and any written comments should be submitted to: National Travel and Tourism Office, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 10003, Washington, DC 20230 or by email to [email protected] Members of the public are encouraged to submit registration requests and written comments via email to ensure timely receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Beall, the United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, National Travel and Tourism Office, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 10003, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-5634; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The Board advises the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to the U.S. travel and tourism industry.

    Public Participation: The meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible to people with disabilities. Any member of the public requesting to join the meeting is asked to register in advance by the deadline identified under the DATES caption. Requests for auxiliary aids must be submitted by the registration deadline. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may not be possible to fill. There will be fifteen (15) minutes allotted for oral comments from members of the public joining the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments may be limited to three (3) minutes per person. Members of the public wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must submit a request at the time of registration, as well as the name and address of the proposed speaker. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, the International Trade Administration may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Speakers are requested to submit a written copy of their prepared remarks by 5 p.m. EDT on Monday, May 29, 2017, for inclusion in the meeting records and for circulation to the members of the Board.

    In addition, any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the Board's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to Brian Beall at the contact information indicated above. To be considered during the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. EDT on Monday, May 29, 2017, to ensure transmission to the Board prior to the meeting. Comments received after that date and time will be distributed to the members but may not be considered during the meeting. Copies of Board meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.

    Dated: May 11, 2017. Brian Beall, Executive Secretary, United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10232 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-810] Welded ASTM A-312 Stainless Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on Welded ASTM A-312 Stainless Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea (Korea) do not differ from the Preliminary Results. The period of review (POR) is December 1, 2014, through November 30, 2015. The review covers SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH) and LS Metal Co., Ltd. (LS Metal).

    DATES:

    Effective May 19, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lingjun Wang, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2316.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On January 7, 2016, the Department of Commerce (Department) published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Results.1 For a history of events that have occurred since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 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 is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://trade.gov/login.aspx. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Welded ASTM A-312 Stainless Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 96435 (December 30, 2016) (Preliminary Results).

    2See “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Welded ASTM A-312 Stainless Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea; 2014-2015” (Issues and Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order is welded austenitic stainless steel pipe that meets the standards and specifications set forth by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) for the welded form of chromium-nickel pipe designated ASTM A-312. The merchandise covered by the scope of the order also includes austenitic welded stainless steel pipes made according to the standards of other nations which are comparable to ASTM A-312.

    Imports of welded ASTM A-312 stainless steel pipe are currently classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5015, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062, 7306.40.5064, and 7306.40.5085. Although these subheadings include both pipes and tubes, the scope of the antidumping duty order is limited to welded austenitic stainless steel pipes. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. However, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.3

    3See Issues and Decision Memorandum for a full description of the scope of order.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of issues raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix.

    Final Determination of No Shipments

    The Department preliminarily found that LS Metal had no shipments and, therefore, no reviewable transactions during the POR. The Department received no further comments or information that refute this finding. Thus, the Department continues to find that LS Metal had no reviewable transactions during the POR.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, and for the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we have made no change to SeAH's margin calculation.

    Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period December 1, 2014, through November 30, 2015.

    Producer or exporter Weighted-
  • average dumping
  • margin
  • SeAH Steel Corporation 1.91
    Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise, in accordance with the final results of this review.

    The Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of merchandise produced and/or exported by the aforementioned companies, and intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review.

    Where the respondent (i.e., SeAH) reported the entered value for its sales, the Department calculates importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales.4 However, where the respondent did not report the entered value for its sales, the Department calculates importer-specific per-unit duty assessment rates.

    4See 19 CFR 351.212(b).

    The Department's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the respondent who did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States (i.e., LS Metal). In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.5

    5See Antidumping And Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2013).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of Welded ASTM A-312 Stainless Steel Pipe from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the company under review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, then the cash deposit rate will be zero); (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the completed segment for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation (LTFV), but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the completed segment for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any other completed segment of this proceeding, then the cash deposit rate will continue to be 7.00 percent, the “all others” rate made effective by the LTFV investigation.6 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    6See Notice of Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea, 60 FR 10064 (February 23, 1995).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Notifications to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    The Department is issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

    Dated: May 15, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Summary Background Scope of the Order Discussion of the Issues

    1. Model-Match Characteristics

    2. Home Market Inland Freights

    3. U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses

    4. Differential Pricing Analysis

    [FR Doc. 2017-10203 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Addition and Deletion AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Addition to and deletion from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds a product to the Procurement List that will be furnished by the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes a service from the Procurement List previously provided by such agency.

    DATES:

    Effective June 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Addition

    On 4/14/2017 (82 FR 17978), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed addition to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of a qualified nonprofit agency to provide the product and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the product listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will furnish the product to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing a small entity to furnish the product to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following product is added to the Procurement List:

    Product NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 10744—Container, Snack, Pigout, Includes Shipper 20744 Mandatory for: The requirements of military commissaries and exchanges in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations 41 CFR 51-6.4. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Inc., Winston-Salem, NC Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency Distribution: C-List Deletion

    On 4/28/2017 (82 FR 19662-19663), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletion from the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the service listed below is no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. The action may result in authorizing a small entity to provide the service to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the service deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following service is deleted from the Procurement List:

    Service Service Type: Customization & Distribution of NRPM Service Mandatory for: Department of the Navy, FISC Norfolk: Detachment 1322 Patterson Ave. SE., Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI Contracting Activity: Dept of Defense/Department of the Navy Amy B. Jensen, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10211 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to delete products and services from the Procurement List that were previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Deletions

    The following products and services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 5340-00-NSH-0008—Loop, Kevlar 5340-00-NSH-0009—Link, Quick Release Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Community Option Resource Enterprises, Inc. (COR Enterprises), Billings, MT Contracting Activity: NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support Services Service Type: Custodial Service Mandatory for: GSA, Parking Lot: 12th & C Streets SW., Washington, DC Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Anchor Mental Health Association, Washington, DC Contracting Activity: Public Buildings Service, WPHBD—West Repair & Alterations Contracts Branch Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Mandatory for: Federal Supply Service Depot: 4100 West 76th Street, Chicago, IL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Lester and Rosalie ANIXTER CENTER, Chicago, IL Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FPDS Agency Coordinator Service Type: Switchboard Operation Service Mandatory for: Eglin Air Force Base: East of Memorial Trail (excluding the airfield), Eglin, FL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Lakeview Center, Inc., Pensacola, FL Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA2823 AFTC PZIO Amy B. Jensen, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10210 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting Notice TIME AND DATE:

    Wednesday, May 24, 2017; 10:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.

    STATUS:

    Closed to the Public.

    MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED:

    Compliance Matters: The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of various compliance matters.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: May 17, 2017. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10338 Filed 5-17-17; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request AGENCY:

    Corporation for National and Community Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted an amended public information collection request (ICR) entitled The Civic Engagement and Volunteering Supplement for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The original public information collection request was published on May 11, 2017. It did not include the disposition of public comments received that is included in this amended Notice. Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Anthony Nerino, at 202-606-3913 or email to [email protected] Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    DATES:

    Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, within June 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register:

    (1) By fax to: 202-395-6974, Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; or

    (2) By email to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments

    CNCS published a Notice in the Federal Register on February 8, 2017, FR Doc. 2017-02527—Vol. 82, No. 25, pp. 9726-9727, inviting public comment on our plans to submit this request. We received six requests for additional information and sixteen comments in response to the Notice. All letters and comments are listed in the attached doc. In summary, of the sixteen comments, 14 raised concerns regarding proposed changes to the volunteer questions. Many of the comments were from volunteer commissions and organizations that represent multiple users.

    Primarily the respondents objected to a reduction in the number of questions regarding volunteer activity (organization types, activity types). Four respondents commented on the reduced capacity to track longitudinal rates and possible changes in the volunteer rate over the previous 14 year period. Fifteen respondents indicated that the previous instrument should be re-instated.

    In considering these comments CNCS offers the following response. The re-designed supplement is intended to focus on the broader concept of civic engagement, of which volunteerism is one component. The re-designed supplement incorporates many of the recommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences, as well as recommendations made by experts in the field of civic engagement, social capital and volunteering. The Civic Engagement and Volunteering supplement more accurately reflects the mission of the CNCS, building stronger communities and promoting active citizenship through service. The proposed instrument does include some measures that will allow for limited continuity with the previous supplement, however the advantage of a combined supplement is that it will allow the user to assess overall civic activity conditioned by volunteering.

    However in response to the comments requesting greater continuity and because the time burden on the new supplement is shorter, CNCS is adding back some original questions regarding volunteer activity and organizations.

    Description: This information collection will be used to generate civic health reports at the National, State, and Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) levels and to disseminate these data to various stakeholders including state and local government offices, researchers, students and civic groups for strategic planning, grant writing purposes and research.

    Type of Review: New.

    Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

    Title: Civic Engagement and Volunteering Supplement.

    OMB Number: TBD.

    Agency Number: None.

    Affected Public: U.S. Residents 16 years of age and older.

    Total Respondents: Approximately U.S. 90,000 residents.

    Frequency: Bi-annually.

    Average Time per Response: 5.26 Minutes.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 7,890 Hours

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

    Dated: May 16, 2017. Mary Hyde, Director, Office of Evaluation and Research.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10237 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2017-ICCD-0069] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Application Forms and Instructions for the National Resource Centers (NRC) Program and the Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) Fellowship Program AGENCY:

    Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 19, 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-0069. 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 224-84, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Cheryl Gibbs, 202-453-5690.

    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: Application Forms and Instructions for the National Resource Centers (NRC) Program and the Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) Fellowship Program.

    OMB Control Number: 1840-0807.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 165.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 17,325.

    Abstract: This information collection (OMB 1840-0807) includes application instructions and forms for the National Resource Centers (NRC) Program (CFDA Number 84.015A) and the Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) Fellowships Program (CFDA Number 84.015B), authorized under Title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. Section 1122). The type of collection is an extension of a previously-approved information collection (application).

    The NRC Program provides grants to institutions of higher education (IHE) or consortia of IHEs to establish, strengthen, and operate comprehensive and undergraduate foreign language and area or international studies centers. These centers serve as centers of excellence for world language training and teaching, research, and instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding of areas, regions, or countries where the languages are commonly used.

    The FLAS Fellowship Program awards allocations of fellowships, through institutions of higher education, to meritorious students enrolled in programs that offer performance-based instruction in world languages in combination with area studies, international studies, or the international aspects of professional studies.

    Together, these programs respond to the ongoing national need for individuals with expertise and competence in world languages and area or international studies; advance national security by developing a pipeline of highly proficient linguists and experts in critical world regions; and contribute to developing a globally competent workforce able to engage with a multilingual/multicultural clientele at home and abroad.

    Approval of this collection is necessary in order to conduct fiscal year (FY) 18 program competitions.

    Dated: May 16, 2017 Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10192 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2017-ICCD-0014] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Financial Status and Program Performance Final Report for State and Partnership for the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) AGENCY:

    Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 19, 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-0014. 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 224-84, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Karmon Simms-Coates, 202-453-7917.

    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: Financial Status and Program Performance Final Report for State and Partnership for the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP).

    OMB Control Number: 1840-0782.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 134.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 6,030.

    Abstract: The purpose of this information collection is to determine whether recipients of Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) have made substantial progress towards meeting the objectives of their respective projects, as outlined in their grant applications and/or subsequent work plans. In addition, the final report will enable the Department to evaluate each grant project's fiscal operations for the entire grant performance period, and compare total expenditures relative to federal funds awarded, and actual cost-share/matching relative to the total amount in the approved grant application. This report is a means for grantees to share the overall experience of their projects and document achievements and concerns, and describe effects of their projects on participants being served; project barriers and major accomplishments; and evidence of sustainability. The report will be GEAR UP's primary method to collect/analyze data on students' high school graduation and immediate college enrollment rates.

    Dated: May 16, 2017. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10190 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities—Model Demonstration Projects To Improve Algebraic Reasoning for Students With Disabilities in Middle and High School AGENCY:

    Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for a new award for fiscal year (FY) 2017 for Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities—Model Demonstration Projects to Improve Algebraic Reasoning for Students with Disabilities in Middle and High School.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.326M.

    DATES:

    Applications Available: May 19, 2017.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 3, 2017.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: September 1, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paula Maccini, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5142, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5108. Telephone: (202) 245-8012.

    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:

    Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities program is to promote academic achievement and to improve results for children with disabilities by providing technical assistance (TA), supporting model demonstration projects, disseminating useful information, and implementing activities that are supported by scientifically based research.

    Priorities: This competition has one absolute priority. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), the absolute priority is from allowable activities specified in the statute or otherwise authorized in the statute (see sections 663 and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1463, 1481(d)).

    Absolute Priority: For FY 2017 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.

    This priority is:

    Model Demonstration Projects To Improve Algebraic Reasoning for Students With Disabilities in Middle and High School. Background

    Model demonstrations to improve early intervention, educational, or transitional results for students with disabilities have been authorized under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) since the mid-1970s. For the purposes of this priority, a model is a set of existing interventions supported by evidence and implementation strategies (i.e., core model components) that research suggests will improve child, teacher, or system outcomes when implemented with fidelity (Hughes, Powell, Lembke, & Riley-Tillman, 2016). Model demonstrations involve investigating the degree to which a model can be implemented, and sustained in typical settings, by staff employed in those settings, while achieving outcomes similar to those attained under research conditions.

    The purpose of this priority is to fund three cooperative agreements to establish and operate model demonstration projects that will assess how models can: (a) improve algebraic reasoning for students with disabilities in middle and high schools; and (b) be implemented and sustained by educators in general and special education settings. These proposed models will be the first to focus on mathematics for adolescents with disabilities, a critical area of need.

    Algebraic reasoning (as defined in this notice) is a critical component of success in mathematics and is applied to topics within number operations, number systems, measurement and data, geometry, rational numbers, ratios and proportional relationships, expressions and equations, and functions (Van De Walle, Karp, & Bay-Williams, 2013). Algebra is a gateway to advanced coursework, graduation, and future earnings (National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMAP), 2008); therefore, it is imperative to address the achievement gap in mathematics that exists between students with disabilities (SWD) and students without disabilities.

    The most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress report (NAEP; 2015) indicates that more than 70 percent of 8th grade SWD, excluding those with a 504 plan, performed below the basic level on the mathematics assessment compared to 24 percent of students without disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). For 12th graders, the disparity is greater, as 81 percent of SWD scored below basic level on the math assessment compared with 34 percent of students without disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2015).

    The average algebra scaled score for 8th graders with disabilities was 247 in a range of 0-500 points, compared to 293 for 8th graders without disabilities. For 12th graders with disabilities, the average scaled score was 117 in a range of 0-300 points, compared to 157 for 12th graders without disabilities. The discrepancies in algebra scores between SWD and those without disabilities in both 8th and 12th grade are statistically significant (NAEP; 2015).

    There is a need to focus on meeting the specific needs of SWD in algebra (Witzel, 2016; Hughes, Witzel, Riccomini, Fries, & Kanyongo, 2014). Certain learner characteristics of SWD may impede their performance in algebra (Allsopp, van Igen, Simsek, & Haley, 2016). Difficulties SWD experience in algebra include understanding algebraic representations, which may be due to difficulties with cognitive processing; recalling multi-step procedures because of memory difficulties; and problem solving strategies due to metacognitive difficulties. These difficulties may cumulatively affect students in algebra and their subsequent performance in mathematics (Allsopp et al., 2016).

    Students with mathematical learning disabilities (MLD) 1 comprise about seven percent of school-age learners (Geary, 2011). Students with MLD may exhibit difficulties with language-based tasks and struggle to conceptualize abstract algebraic concepts and solve problems involving algebraic reasoning. To address these difficulties, and to ensure that students with MLD receive appropriate services and supports as guaranteed in IDEA, educators must be trained in using practices supported by evidence in teaching mathematics and algebraic reasoning. This competition aims to fund model demonstration projects that will investigate ways to train educators to successfully implement these practices. These three proposed model demonstration projects must be based on current research and make use of practices supported by evidence.2

    1 Participants must have math goals on their Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and can be classified under any of the IDEA disability categories.

    2 The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identifies a number of practices supported by evidence in the following two practice guides: Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for Elementary and Middle Schools (Gersten et al., 2009); and Teaching Strategies for Improving Algebra Knowledge in Middle and High School (Star et al., 2015). Each practice guide was developed by a panel of researchers and practitioners with expertise in various dimensions of math and special education. We mention the guides for information only; use of the practices contained in them is permitted, but not required, in this competition.

    Priority

    The purpose of this priority is to fund three cooperative agreements to establish and operate model demonstration projects that will assess how models can: (a) Improve algebraic reasoning for SWD in middle and high schools and (b) be implemented and sustained by educators in general and special education settings. Applicants must propose models that meet the following requirements:

    (a) The model's core intervention components (e.g., services, assessments, processes, data collection instruments) must include:

    (1) A framework that includes, at a minimum, universal screening, progress monitoring, and core instructional practices supported by evidence and based on current research;

    (2) Core instructional practices for improving algebraic reasoning supported by evidence and based on current research that meet the needs of students with disabilities in middle and high school;

    (3) Standardized measures of students' algebraic reasoning, individual instructor (e.g., teacher, paraprofessional, specialist), and system-level outcomes, when appropriate;

    (4) Procedures to refine the model based on the ongoing assessment of students' performance on algebraic reasoning; and

    (5) Measures of the model's social validity, i.e., measures of educators', parents', and students' 3 satisfaction with the model components, processes, and outcomes.

    3 Applicants must ensure the confidentiality of individual data, consistent with the requirements of section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g), commonly known as the “Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act” (FERPA), and State laws or regulations concerning the confidentiality of individual records. Final FERPA regulatory changes became effective January 3, 2012, and include requirements for data sharing. Applicants are encouraged to review the final FERPA regulations published on December 2, 2011 (76 FR 75604). Questions can be sent to the Family Policy Compliance Office (www.ed.gov/fpco) at (202) 260-3887 or [email protected]

    (b) The model's core implementation components must include:

    (1) Criteria and strategies for selecting 4 and recruiting sites, including approaches to introducing the model to, and promoting the model among, site participants,5 with consideration given to the following criteria:

    4 For factors to consider when selecting model demonstration sites, the applicant should refer to Assessing Sites for Model Demonstration: Lessons Learned for OSEP Grantees at http://mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_Site_Assessment_Brief_09-30-11.pdf. The document also contains a site assessment tool.

    5 For factors to consider while preparing for model demonstration implementation, the applicant should refer to Preparing for Model Demonstration Implementation at http://mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_PreparationStage_Brief_Apr2013.pdf.

    (i) Each project must include at least three middle or at least three high schools.

    (ii) In each of the schools, all of the identified SWD in middle and high school participating in the model demonstration projects must have math goals on their Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and can be classified under any of the IDEA disability categories.

    (2) A lag site implementation design, which allows for model development and refinement at the first site in year one of the project period, with sites two and three implementing a revised model based on data from the first site beginning in year two;

    (3) A professional development component that includes a coaching strategy supported by evidence to enable staff (e.g., teacher, paraprofessional, specialist) to implement the interventions with fidelity; and

    (4) Measures of the results of the professional development (e.g., improvements in teachers'/service providers' instructional delivery and knowledge) required by paragraph (b)(3) of this section, including measures of the fidelity of implementation.

    (c) The core strategies for sustaining the model must include:

    (1) Documentation that permits current and future practitioners to replicate and tailor the model at other sites; 6 and

    6 For a guide on documenting model demonstration sustainment and replication, the applicant should refer to Planning for Replication and Dissemination From the Start: Guidelines for Model Demonstration Projects at http://mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_ReplicationBrief_SEP2013.pdf.

    (2) A dissemination plan that includes strategies and measurable goals for the grantee to disseminate or sustain the model, such as developing easily accessible training materials or coordinating with TA providers who might serve as future trainers.

    To be considered for funding under this absolute priority, applicants must meet the application requirements contained in this priority. Each project funded under this absolute priority also must meet the programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the priority.

    Application Requirements

    An applicant must include in its application—

    (a) A detailed review of the literature indicating that the proposed model is supported by evidence meeting at least the conditions set out in the definition of strong theory (as defined in this notice) and that supports the promise of the proposed model, its components, and processes to improve algebraic reasoning for SWD in middle and high school;

    (b) A logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed model demonstration project. A logic model used in connection with this priority communicates how a project will achieve its outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project;

    (c) Include, in Appendix A, a logic model, a conceptual framework for the project, and person-loading charts and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative.

    Note:

    The following Web sites provide examples for constructing logic models: www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework and www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel.

    (d) A description of the activities and measures to be incorporated into the proposed model demonstration project to improve algebraic reasoning for SWD, including a timeline of how and when the components are introduced within the model. A detailed and complete description must include the following:

    (1) All the intervention components, including, at a minimum, those components listed in paragraph (a) under the heading Priority.

    (2) The existing and proposed child, teacher, and system outcome measures and social validity measures. The measures should be described as completely as possible, referenced as appropriate, and included, when available, in Appendix A.

    (3) All the implementation components, including, at a minimum, those listed in paragraph (b) under the heading Priority. The existing or proposed implementation fidelity measures, including those measuring the fidelity of the professional development strategy, should be described as completely as possible, referenced as appropriate, and included, when available, in Appendix A. In addition, this description should include:

    (i) Demographics, including, at a minimum, ethnicity, gender, grade level, and age for all SWD at all implementation sites that have been identified and successfully recruited for the purposes of this application using the selection and recruitment strategies described in paragraph (b)(1) under the heading Priority;

    (ii) Whether the implementation sites are high-need,7 high-poverty,8 low-performing,9 rural, urban, or suburban local education agencies (LEAs) or schools; and

    7 For the purposes of this priority, the term “high-need school” refers to a public elementary or secondary school that is a “high-poverty” or “low-performing” school as defined in footnotes 8 and 9, respectively.

    8 For the purposes of this priority, the term “high-poverty school” means a school that is in the highest two quartiles of schools served by a local educational agency, based on the percentage of enrolled students from low-income families as defined in section 1113(a)(5) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA).

    9 For the purpose of this priority, the term “low-performing school” means a school receiving assistance through Title I of the ESEA that, at the time of submission of an application under this competition, is (1) identified as a school in need of corrective action or restructuring under section 1116 of the ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB); or (2) identified as a priority or focus school in a State that implemented ESEA flexibility. The inclusion of these schools as “low-performing schools” reflects the fact that the 2016−2017 school year is a year of transition between requirements of the ESEA as amended by NCLB and the ESEA as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act.

    Note:

    Applicants are encouraged to identify, to the extent possible, the sites willing to participate in the applicant's model demonstration. Final site selection will be determined in consultation with the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) project officer following the kick-off meeting described in paragraph (e)(1) of these application requirements.

    (iii) The lag design for implementation consistent with the requirements in paragraph (b)(2) under the heading Priority.

    (4) All the strategies to promote sustaining and replicating the model, including, at a minimum, those listed in paragraph (c) under the heading Priority.

    (e) A description of the evaluation activities and measures to be incorporated into the proposed model demonstration project. A detailed and complete description must include:

    (1) A formative evaluation plan, consistent with the project's logic model, that includes evaluation questions, source(s) of data, a timeline for data collection, and analysis plans. The plan must show how the outcome (e.g., child measures, social validity) and implementation data (e.g., fidelity) will be used separately or in combination to improve the project during the performance period. The plan also must outline how these data will be reviewed by project staff, when they will be reviewed, and how they will be used during the course of the project to adjust the model or its implementation to increase the model's usefulness, generalizability, and potential for sustainability; and

    (2) A summative evaluation plan, including a timeline, to collect and analyze data on changes to child, teacher, and systems outcome measures over time or relative to comparison groups that can be reasonably attributable to project activities. The plan must show how the child or system outcome and implementation data collected by the project will be used separately or in combination to demonstrate the promise of the model.

    (f) A budget for attendance at the following:

    (1) A one and one half-day kick-off meeting to be held in Washington, DC, after receipt of the award;

    (2) A three-day Project Directors' Conference in Washington, DC, occurring each year during the project performance period; and

    (3) Four travel days spread across years two through four of the project period to attend planning meetings, Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP, to be held in Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer.

    Other Project Activities

    To meet the requirements of this priority, each project, at a minimum, must:

    (a) Communicate and collaborate on an ongoing basis with other relevant Department-funded projects, including, at minimum, OSEP-funded TA centers (see www.osepideasthatwork.org/find-center-or-grant/find-a-center) that might disseminate information on the model or support the scale-up efforts of a promising model;

    (b) Maintain ongoing telephone and email communication with the OSEP project officer and the other model demonstration projects funded under this priority; and

    (c) If the project maintains a Web site, include relevant information about the model, the intervention, and the demonstration activities that meets government- or industry-recognized standards for accessibility.

    Competitive Preference Priority

    Within this absolute priority, we give competitive preference to applications that address the following priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award an additional two points to an application that meets this priority.

    The priority is:

    Evidence of Promise Supporting the Proposed Model (Two Points).

    Projects that are supported by evidence that meets the conditions set out in the definition of “evidence of promise” (as defined in this notice). The proposed project must include:

    A literature review, as required under paragraph (a) under the heading Application Requirements, that includes research that meets at least the evidence of promise standard supporting the promise of the proposed model, its components, and processes to improve algebraic reasoning in middle and high schools.

    Note:

    An applicant addressing this competitive preference priority must identify up to two study citations that meet this standard and clearly mark them in the reference list of the proposal.

    References Allsopp, D.H., van Ingen, S., Simsek, O., & Haley, K.C. (2016). Building to algebra: Big ideas, barriers, and effective practices. In B.S. Witzel (Ed.), Bridging the gap between arithmetic & algebra (pp.21-50). Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Geary, D.C. (2011). Consequences, characteristics, and causes of mathematical learning disabilities and persistent low achievement in mathematics. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 32(3), 250-263. Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J.R., & Witzel, B. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools (NCEE 2009-4060). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguide/. Hughes, E.M., Powell, S.R., Lembke, E.S., & Riley-Tillman, T.C. (2016). Taking the guesswork out of locating evidence-based mathematics practices for diverse learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31(3), 130-141. Hughes, E.M., Witzel, B.S., Riccomini, P.J., Fries, K.M., & Kanyongo, G.Y. (2014). A meta-analysis of algebra interventions for learners with disabilities and struggling learning. The Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 15(1), 36-47. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Public Law 108-446. (2004). 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMAP). (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the national advisory panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2013). PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Mathematics, Reading, Science, Problem Solving and Financial Literacy. Paris: OECD Publishing. Star, J.R., Caronongan, P., Foegen, A., Furgeson, J., Keating, B., Larson, M.R., & Zbiek, R.M. (2015). Teaching strategies for improving algebra knowledge in middle and high school students (NCEE 2014-4333). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE Web site: http://whatworks.ed.gov. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). National Assessment of Educational Progress Reading and Mathematics Assessments (NAEP), 2015, 2013, Mathematics Assessments. Accessed through the NAEP Data Explorer at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/. Van De Walle, J.A., Karp, K.S., & Bay-Williams, J.M. (2013). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally. Boston, MA: Pearson. Witzel, B. (2016). Students with math difficulties and the arithmetic to algebra gap. In B.S. Witzel (Ed.), Bridging the gap between arithmetic & algebra (pp.7-20). Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Definitions

    The following definitions apply to the priority:

    Algebraic reasoning means “forming generalizations from experiences with number and computation, formalizing these ideas with the use of a meaningful symbol system, and exploring the concepts of pattern and function” (Van De Walle, Karp, & Bay-Williams, 2013, p. 258).

    The definitions of the following terms are from 34 CFR 77.1: “evidence of promise,” “logic model,” “quasi-experimental design study,” “randomized controlled trial”, “relevant outcome,” “strong theory,” and “What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards.”

    Evidence of promise means there is empirical research to support the theoretical linkage(s) between at least one critical component and at least one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice. Specifically, evidence of promise means the conditions in both paragraphs (i) and (ii) of this definition are met:

    (i) There is at least one study that is a—

    (A) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias;

    (B) Quasi-experimental design study that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations; or

    (C) Randomized controlled trial that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations.

    (ii) The study referenced in paragraph (i) of this definition found a statistically significant or substantively important (defined as a difference of 0.25 standard deviations or larger) favorable association between at least one critical component and one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice.

    Logic model (also referred to as theory of action) means a well-specified conceptual framework that identifies key components of the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice (i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the relationships among the key components and outcomes, theoretically and operationally.

    Mathematical literacy refers to, “an individual's capacity to formulate, employ, and interpret mathematics in a variety of contexts. It includes reasoning mathematically and using mathematical concepts, procedures, facts and tools to describe, explain and predict phenomena. It assists individuals to recognize the role that mathematics plays in the world and to make the well-founded judgments and decisions needed by constructive, engaged and reflective citizens” (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2013, p. 25).

    Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental design by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations (but not What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations).

    Randomized controlled trial means a study that employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, schools, or districts to receive the intervention being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the intervention (the control group). The estimated effectiveness of the intervention is the difference between the average outcomes for the treatment group and for the control group. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations.

    Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) (or the ultimate outcome if not related to students) the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice is designed to improve; consistent with the specific goals of a program.

    Strong theory means a rationale for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice that includes a logic model.

    What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards means the standards set forth in the What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 3.0, March 2014), which can be found at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.

    Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities and other requirements. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the APA inapplicable to the absolute priority and related definitions in this notice.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481.

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474.

    Note:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian Tribes.

    Note:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.

    II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Cooperative agreements.

    Estimated Available Funds: The Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017, would provide $54,345,000 for the Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities program for FY 2017, of which we intend to use an estimated $1,200,000 for this competition (per year divided between the three new projects). The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. However, we are inviting applications to allow enough time to complete the grant process if Congress appropriates funds for this program.

    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2018 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

    Estimated Range of Awards: $375,000 to $400,000 per year.

    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $400,000 per year.

    Maximum Award: We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding $400,000 for a single budget period of 12 months.

    Estimated Number of Awards: 3.

    Note:

    The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

    Project Period: Up to 48 months.

    Evaluation Period: In August 2013, the Department amended the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) to authorize the awarding of an evaluation period after the end of the approved project period. Under 34 CFR 75.250(b) the Secretary has the authority to make data collection/analysis awards. By the terms of that section, the awards can only go to current grantees, may only be used for data collection, analysis and reporting and do not have to go through a formal competitive process.

    III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: State educational agencies (SEAs); LEAs, including public charter schools that are considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; outlying areas; freely associated States; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.

    3. Eligible Subgrantees: (a) Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c) a grantee may award subgrants—to directly carry out project activities described in its application—to the following types of entities: IHEs and private nonprofit organizations suitable to carry out the activities proposed in the application.

    (b) The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application.

    4. Other General Requirements:

    (a) Recipients of funding under this competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).

    (b) Each applicant for, and recipient of, funding must, with respect to the aspects of their proposed project relating to the absolute priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Request Application Package: You can obtain an application package via the internet or from the Education Publications Center (ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the internet, use the following address: www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/grantapps/index.html. To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call: ED Pubs, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (703) 605-6794. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734.

    You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: www.EDPubs.gov or at its email address: [email protected]

    If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.326M.

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the person or team listed under Accessible Format in section VII of this notice.

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content and form of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition.

    Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you—(1) limit Part III to no more than 50 pages, and (2) use the following standards:

    • A “page” is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

    • Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

    • Use a font that is 12 point or larger.

    • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

    The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of Part III, the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

    3. Submission Dates and Times:

    Applications Available: May 19, 2017.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 3, 2017.

    Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to Other Submission Requirements in section IV of this notice.

    We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.

    Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: September 1, 2017.

    4. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition.

    5. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the Department of Education, you must—

    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);

    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;

    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and

    d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.

    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site: http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.

    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.

    The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.

    Note:

    Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through, Grants.gov.

    If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.

    Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at: www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.

    In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.

    7. Other Submission Requirements: Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.

    a. Electronic Submission of Applications.

    Applications for grants under the Model Demonstration Projects to Improve Algebraic Reasoning for Students with Disabilities in Middle and High School competition, CFDA number 84.326M, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.

    We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.

    You may access the electronic grant application for the Model Demonstration Projects to Improve Algebraic Reasoning for Students with Disabilities in Middle and High School competition at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.326, not 84.326M).

    Please note the following:

    • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.

    • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.

    • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.

    • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at www.G5.gov. In addition, for specific guidance and procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov, please refer to the Grants.gov Web site at: www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/apply-for-grants.html.

    • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.

    • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.

    • You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only PDF (e.g., Word, Excel, WordPerfect, etc.) or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Please note that this could result in your application not being considered for funding because the material in question—for example, the application narrative—is critical to a meaningful review of your proposal. For that reason it is important to allow yourself adequate time to upload all material as PDF files. The Department will not convert material from other formats to PDF. Additional, detailed information on how to attach files is in the application instructions.

    • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department. Grants.gov will also notify you automatically by email if your application met all the Grants.gov validation requirements or if there were any errors (such as submission of your application by someone other than a registered Authorized Organization Representative, or inclusion of an attachment with a file name that contains special characters). You will be given an opportunity to correct any errors and resubmit, but you must still meet the deadline for submission of applications.

    Once your application is successfully validated by Grants.gov, the Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you an email with a unique PR/Award number for your application.

    These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by Grants.gov, it must also meet the Department's application requirements as specified in this notice and in the application instructions. Disqualifying errors could include, for instance, failure to upload attachments in a read-only PDF; failure to submit a required part of the application; or failure to meet applicant eligibility requirements. It is your responsibility to ensure that your submitted application has met all of the Department's requirements.

    • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.

    Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System: If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.

    If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.

    If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that the problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We will contact you after we determine whether your application will be accepted.

    Note:

    The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.

    Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because—

    • You do not have access to the internet; or

    • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;

    and

    • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the internet to submit your application.

    If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.

    Address and mail or fax your statement to: Paula Maccini, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5142, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5108. FAX: (202) 245-7590.

    Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand-delivery instructions described in this notice.

    b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.326M), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.

    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

    (1) A private metered postmark.

    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

    Note:

    The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.

    We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.

    c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.326M), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

    Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:

    If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

    (1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and

    (2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

    V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are listed in the application package.

    (a) Significance (15 points).

    (1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.

    (2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (i) The extent to which the proposed project involves a high-quality review of the relevant literature and the demonstration of promising strategies that build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies that address the needs of the target population.

    (ii) The potential contribution of the proposed project to increase knowledge or understanding of problems, issues, or effective strategies in improving results for children with disabilities.

    (iii) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand and sustain services that address the needs of the target population.

    Note:

    Under the “Significance” criterion, reviewers are looking for a thorough review of the literature that (a) substantiates the inclusion of existing interventions supported by evidence and implementation strategies (i.e., core model components) that research suggests will improve child, teacher, or system outcomes when implemented with fidelity; and (b) the efficacy of this model to address the issue or problem identified as a need in the priority. Reviewers will also be considering the breadth and adequacy of the applicant's proposed approaches to site staff training and strategies for sustainment of the model as part of this criterion.

    (b) Quality of the project design (35 points).

    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project.

    (2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (i) The extent to which a coherent model that includes site selection, practices supported by evidence, implementation and sustainment components is clearly articulated.

    (ii) The extent to which the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable, as depicted in a logic model.

    (iii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes a thorough, high-quality plan for project implementation, and the use of appropriate methodological tools to ensure successful achievement of project outcomes.

    (iv) The extent to which the training or professional development to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services.

    (v) The quality of the proposed project design and procedures for documenting project activities, implementation, and outcomes (e.g., a manual).

    (vi) The likelihood that the proposed project will result in system change or improvement through articulated strategies to sustain implementation, and detailed documentation that would allow replication in other locations as well as ambitious goals for disseminating the information to relevant stakeholders.

    Note:

    Under the “Quality of Project Design” criterion, the reviewers are looking for: (a) A description of model site selection and preparation, to include the criteria for site selection and how the model will be introduced to major stakeholders at the site(s); (b) a clear and thorough description of the core intervention components of the model, to include the child, teacher, and system outcomes to be measured, along with proposed measures of social validity; (c) a clear and thorough description of the implementation components of the model, to include at minimum how and when site staff training will occur and the content of the training, how trainer remediation is addressed, staff coaching strategies, and how implementation fidelity will be measured; (d) a logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes of the model; and (e) a clear and thorough description of the applicant's proposed sustainment strategies, to include how the information contained in the manual for the model will be compiled. In order to put these components in context, the reviewers also will be looking for a general timeline or flow of activities for the project that illustrates when these components are introduced in each site (i.e., lag design) and how and when the measures are taken and analyzed in support of the project evaluation activities.

    (c) Adequacy of project resources and management plan (25 points).

    (1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project and the quality of its management plan.

    (2) In determining the adequacy of resources and the management plan, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.

    (3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel (i.e., project director, project staff, and project consultants or subcontractors).

    (ii) The adequacy of support, including the time commitments of the project director, project staff, and project consultants or subcontractors and the type and quality of facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources from the applicant organization and key partners.

    (iii) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served and to the anticipated outcomes and benefits.

    (iv) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed model on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.

    (v) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project.

    (d) Quality of the project evaluation (25 points).

    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.

    (2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward effective implementation of the proposed project and achieving intended child and system outcomes.

    (ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for examining the effectiveness of model intervention, implementation, and sustainment strategies.

    (iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, activities, and outcomes of the proposed model.

    (iv) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other settings.

    Note:

    Under the “Quality of the Project Evaluation” criterion, the reviewers are looking for: (a) A clear description of each of the proposed measures (it is recommended that the applicant attach the actual measures proposed; a description of the actual or proposed measures; or an example of a measure that closely approximates the proposed measure in an appendix); and (b) a clear indication of when these measures will be applied and how they will be analyzed and used for formative evaluation purposes (i.e., for making improvements to the model during the grant period) and for summative evaluation purposes (i.e., for determining the effectiveness and acceptability of the processes and outcomes attributable to the model).

    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past, the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The standing panel requirements under section 682(b) of IDEA also have placed additional constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department has determined that for some discretionary grant competitions, applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness of the review process, while permitting panel members to review applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also have submitted applications.

    4. Risk Assessment and Special Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under this competition the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose special conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

    5. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2), we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through SAM. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

    Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

    VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

    3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

    4. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), the Department has established a set of performance measures, including long-term measures, that are designed to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities program. We will use these measures to evaluate the extent to which projects provide high-quality products and services, the relevance of project products and services to educational and early intervention policy and practice, and the use of products and services to improve educational and early intervention policy and practice.

    Projects funded under this competition are required to submit data on these measures as directed by OSEP.

    Grantees will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual and final performance reports to the Department (34 CFR 75.590).

    5. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

    In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    VII. Other Information

    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) by contacting the Management Support Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5113, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2500. Telephone: (202) 245-7363. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    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 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: May 16, 2017. Ruth E. Ryder, Deputy Director, Office of Special Education Programs, delegated the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10249 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2017-ICCD-0029] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Veterans Upward Bound (VUB) Program Annual Performance Report AGENCY:

    Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 19, 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-0029. 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 224-84, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kenneth Foushee, 202-453-7417.

    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: Veterans Upward Bound (VUB) Program Annual Performance Report.

    OMB Control Number: 1840-0832.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 49.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 833.

    Abstract: The purpose of the Veterans Upward Bound (VUB) Program is to prepare, motivate, and assist military veterans in the development of academic and other skills necessary for acceptance into and success in a program of postsecondary education. Authority for this program is contained in Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2, Chapter 1, Section 402C of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. Eligible applicants include institutions of higher education, public or private agencies or organizations, including community-based organizations with experience in serving disadvantaged youth, secondary schools, and combinations of institutions, agencies, organizations, and secondary schools. Upward Bound Program participants must be potential first-generation college students, low-income individuals, or individuals who have a high risk for academic failure, and have a need for academic support in order to pursue successfully a program of education beyond high school. Required program services include: (1) Academic tutoring; (2) advice and assistance in secondary and postsecondary course selection; (3) preparation for college entrance exams and completing the college admission applications; (4) information on federal student financial aid programs including (a) federal Pell grant awards, (b) loan forgiveness, and (c) scholarships; (5) assistance completing financial aid applications; (6) guidance on and assistance in: (a) Secondary school reentry, (b) alternative education programs for secondary school dropouts that lead to the receipt of a regular secondary school diploma, (c) entry into general educational development (GED) programs or, (d) entry into postsecondary education; (7) education or counseling services designed to improve the financial and economic literacy of students or the students' parents, including financial planning for postsecondary education; and (8) projects funded for at least two years under the program must provide instruction in mathematics through pre-calculus; laboratory science; foreign language; composition; and literature.

    Dated: May 16, 2017. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10244 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2017-ICCD-0015] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Application for Grants Under the Predominantly Black Institutions Formula Grant Program AGENCY:

    Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 19, 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-0015. 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 224-84, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Bernadette Miles, 202-453-7892.

    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: Application for Grants Under the Predominantly Black Institutions Formula Grant Program.

    OMB Control Number: 1840-0812.

    Type of Review: A reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 11.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 220.

    Abstract: The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 amended Title III, Part A of the Higher Education Act to include Section 318—the Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Program. The PBI Program makes 5-year grant awards to eligible colleges and universities to plan, develop, undertake and implement programs to enhance the institution's capacity to serve more low- and middle-income Black American students; to expand higher education opportunities for eligible students by encouraging college preparation and student persistence in secondary school and postsecondary education; and to strengthen the financial ability of the institution to serve the academic needs of these students.

    Dated: May 16, 2017 Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10191 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities—National Center To Enhance Educational Systems To Promote the Use of Practices Supported by Evidence AGENCY:

    Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2017 for Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities—National Center to Enhance Educational Systems to Promote the Use of Practices Supported by Evidence, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.326K.

    DATES:

    Applications Available: May 19, 2017.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 3, 2017.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: September 1, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Coffey, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5134, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5108. Telephone: (202) 245-7373.

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities program is to promote academic achievement and to improve results for children with disabilities by providing technical assistance (TA), supporting model demonstration projects, disseminating useful information, and implementing activities that are supported by scientifically based research.

    Priority: In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority is from allowable activities specified in the statute (see sections 663 and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); 20 U.S.C. 1463 and U.S.C. 1481).

    Absolute Priority: For FY 2017 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.

    This priority is: National Center to Enhance Educational Systems to Promote the Use of Practices Supported by Evidence.

    Background

    The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish and operate a national center to provide technical assistance (TA) directly to States, educational service agencies (ESAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), and charter management organizations in those States to help create the conditions necessary for educators to make full and sustained use of instructional and leadership practices supported by evidence (as defined in this notice). Because they are an essential part of this effort, the Center will also provide this TA to other Department-funded TA centers and to organizations that prepare district superintendents.

    Despite the increasing availability of practices supported by evidence in literacy, math, science, and behavior support, such as those found in the What Works Clearinghouse, and a significant amount of money and time spent on professional development, the progress of students with disabilities has not significantly improved over time (Burns & Darling-Hammond, 2014; Cook & Odom, 2013; TNTP, 2015; What Works Clearinghouse Publications, available at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Publication#/ContentTypeId:3).

    In 2003, 28 percent of students with disabilities scored at or above basic—this denotes partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at the grade assessed—in reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). In 2015, 30 percent of students with disabilities scored at or above basic in reading, only a 2 percent increase over a span of 12 years (U.S. Department of Education, 2015).

    Although there are pockets of excellence, the practices available from the What Works Clearinghouse and many other sources are generally not implemented as intended or broadly enough to have a major impact on the achievement of students with disabilities (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2009; Klingner, Boardman, & McMaster, 2013). Practices supported by evidence will improve results for students with disabilities only when successfully implemented and sustained.

    Successful local implementation will depend on: (1) Infrastructure, such as professional development, data systems, and implementation teams, that supports educators' acquisition and use of the necessary skills; and (2) alignment among national, State, and district policies (Coburn, Hill, & Spillane, 2016; Tseng, 2012).

    Strengthening infrastructure and aligning policies can be accomplished through strong leadership throughout the State education system, including at the SEA, ESA (where available), and LEA levels (Endsley et al., 2014; Fullan, Bertani, & Quinn, 2004; McIntosh, Mercer, Nese, Strickland-Cohen, & Hoselton, 2015; Sanders, 2012). Although there has been some exploration of how leaders at each level can best support the scaling up of instructional and leadership practices, more focused efforts are needed (Sanders, 2012; Tseng, 2012). Further, while there are examples of ESAs that have supported districts' efforts to implement practices supported by evidence, little is known regarding how ESAs can best assist SEAs to work with LEAs in the implementation and scaling up of practices that improve results for students with disabilities (Endsley et al., 2014; Rock et al., 2009).

    This Center is intended to address all of these needs by helping States strengthen the alignment of policy and practice and further develop States' infrastructure.

    Priority

    The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish and operate a Center to achieve, at a minimum, the following:

    (1) Increased capacity of the SEA, ESAs (where available), LEAs, and charter management organizations in selected States to build an infrastructure to support educators' implementation of instructional and leadership practices supported by evidence;

    (2) Increased capacity of OSEP-funded TA centers to support SEA, ESA, LEA, and charter management organizations' systemic change efforts to support implementation of instructional and leadership practices that lead to improved outcomes for students with disabilities;

    (3) Increased knowledge, skills, and competencies of LEA superintendents and other leaders related to identifying and supporting implementation of practices that lead to improved outcomes for students with disabilities; and

    (4) Increased body of knowledge on building an infrastructure that supports implementation of practices that lead to improved outcomes for students with disabilities.

    In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements in this priority, which are:

    (a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance of the Project,” how the proposed project will—

    (1) Address State and TA center needs related to developing infrastructure that supportsLEAs and charter management organizations' ability to implement, scale up, and sustain the use of instructional and leadership practices supported by evidence. To meet this requirement the applicant must—

    (i) Present applicable State, regional, and local data demonstrating the current needs related to building capacity to implement, scale up, and sustain the use of practices supported by evidence;

    (ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy initiatives for supporting implementation and scaling up of practices supported by evidence;

    (2) Establish partnerships with a minimum of two organizations that prepare district superintendents and one charter management organization to integrate training related to developing an infrastructure to support implementation into their preparation.

    (3) Collaborate with other OSEP-funded centers (see www.osepideasthatwork.org/find-center-or-grant/find-a-center) to support States' efforts to build infrastructure that enables States to reach their State-identified measureable results as described in their Statewide Systemic Improvement Plans.

    (b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Project Services,” how the proposed project will—

    (1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe how it will—

    (i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and information; and

    (ii) Ensure that services and products meet the needs of the intended recipients of the grant;

    (2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must provide—

    (i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and

    (ii) The logic model by which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes. A logic model used in connection with this priority communicates how a project will achieve its intended outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project;

    (3) Use a conceptual framework to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical support for this framework;

    Note:

    Rather than use the definition of “logic model” in section 77.1(c) of EDGAR, OSEP uses the definition in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of these application requirements. This definition, unlike the definition in 34 CFR 77.1(c), differentiates between logic models and conceptual frameworks. The following Web sites provide more information on logic models: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel and www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework.

    (4) Be based on current research and make use of practices supported by evidence. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe—

    (i) The current research on infrastructure development that builds capacity in SEAs and LEAs to implement, scale up, and sustain the use of practices supported by evidence;

    (ii) The current research about adult learning principles and implementation or improvement science that will inform the proposed TA; and

    (iii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and practices supported by evidence in the development and delivery of its products and services;

    (5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

    (i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base;

    (ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,1 which must identify the intended recipients of the products and services under this approach;

    1 “Universal, general TA” means TA and information provided to independent users through their own initiative, resulting in minimal interaction with TA center staff and including one-time, invited or offered conference presentations by TA center staff. This category of TA also includes information or products, such as newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the TA center's Web site by independent users. Brief communications by TA center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also considered universal, general TA.

    (iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,2 which must identify—

    2 “Targeted, specialized TA” means TA services based on needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively individualized. A relationship is established between the TA recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating strategic planning or hosting regional or national conferences. It can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events that extend over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of conference calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around the needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can also be considered targeted, specialized TA.

    (A) The intended recipients of the products and services under this approach; and

    (B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the local level; and

    (iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,3 which must identify—

    3 “Intensive, sustained TA” means TA services often provided on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the TA center staff and the TA recipient. “TA services” are defined as negotiated series of activities designed to reach a valued outcome. This category of TA should result in changes to policy, program, practice, or operations that support increased recipient capacity or improved outcomes at one or more systems levels.

    (A) The intended recipients of the products and services under this approach;

    (B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of the SEAs, ESAs, and LEAs to work with the project, including their commitment to the initiative, alignment of the initiative to their needs, current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the local level;

    (C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs to build or enhance training systems that include professional development based on adult learning principles and coaching; and

    (D) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the education system (e.g., SEAs, ESAs, districts, schools, families) to ensure that there is communication between each level and that there are systems in place to support implementation of practices supported by evidence;

    (6) Develop products and implement services that maximize efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

    (i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the intended project outcomes;

    (ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the intended outcomes of this collaboration; and

    (iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to achieve the intended project outcomes.

    (c) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” include an evaluation plan for the project. The evaluation plan must describe: measures of progress in implementation, including the criteria for determining the extent to which the project's products and services have reached its target population; measures of intended outcomes or results of the project's activities in order to evaluate those activities; and a plan for determining how well the goals or objectives of the proposed project, as described in its logic model, have been met.

    (d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of Project Resources,” how—

    (1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate;

    (2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;

    (3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities; and

    (4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits.

    (e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Management Plan,” how—

    (1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

    (i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and

    (ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;

    (2) Allocation of key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;

    (3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to recipients; and

    (4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers, researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and operation.

    (f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant must—

    (1) Include, in Appendix A, a logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed project.

    (2) Include, in Appendix A, a conceptual framework for the project;

    (3) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative;

    (4) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:

    (i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.

    Note:

    Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the grantee's project director or other authorized representative.

    (ii) A two and one-half day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, during each year of the project period;

    (iii) Two annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP; and

    (iv) A one-day intensive 3+2 review meeting in Washington, DC, during the last half of the second year of the project period;

    (5) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those needs are identified in consultation with and approved by the OSEP project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;

    (6) Maintain a Web site, with an easy-to-navigate design, that meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility; and

    (7) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the continuity of services to States during the transition to this new award period, as appropriate.

    Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project

    In deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fourth and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), as well as—

    (a) The recommendation of a 3+2 review team consisting of experts selected by the Secretary. This review will be conducted during a one-day intensive meeting that will be held during the last half of the second year of the project period;

    (b) The timeliness and assessment of how well the requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the project; and

    (c) The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the project's products and services and the extent to which the project's products and services are aligned with the project's objectives and likely to result in the project achieving its intended outcomes.

    References Burns, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Teaching around the world: What can TALIS tell us? Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Burns, M.K., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2009). Reported prevalence of evidence-based instructional practices in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 43(1), 3-11. Coburn, C.E., Hill, H.C., & Spillane, J. P. (2016). Alignment and accountability in policy design and implementation: The Common Core State Standards and implementation research. Educational Researcher, 45(4), 243-251. doi: 10.3102/0013189X16651080. Cook, B.G., & Odom, S.L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79(2), 135-144. Endsley, M., Speth, T., Akey, T., Krasnoff, B., Barton, R., Singh, M., Fantz, T. (2014). Coordination of instructional services by Washington State's Educational Service Districts (REL 2015-041). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs. Fullan, M., Bertani, A., & Quinn, J. (2004). New lessons for districtwide reform. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 42. Klingner, J.K., Boardman, A.G., & McMaster, K.L. (2013). What does it take to scale up and sustain eevidence-based practices? Exceptional Children, 79(2), 195-211. McIntosh, K., Mercer, S.H., Nese, R.N., Strickland-Cohen, M.K., & Hoselton, R. (2015). Predictors of sistained Implementation of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18(4). doi: 10.1177/1098300715599737. Rock, M.L., Gregg, M., Howard, P.W., Ploessl, D.M., Maughn, S., Gable, R.A., & Zigmond, N.P. (2009). See me, hear me, coach me. Journal of Staff Development, 30(3), 24. Sanders, M.G. (2012). Achieving scale at the district level: A longitudinal multiple case study of a partnership reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(1), 154-186. TNTP. (2015). The mirage: Confronting the hard truth about our quest for teacher development. Washington, DC. Tseng, V. (2012). The uses of research in policy and practice. Washington, DC: Society for Research in Child Development. U.S. Department of Education. (2015). National assessment of educational progress (NAEP), 2015 Mathematics and Reading Assessments. Retrieved from http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#?grade=4. Definitions

    For the purposes of this priority:

    Strong theory means a rationale for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice that includes a logic model.

    Supported by evidence means supported by at least strong theory.

    Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the APA inapplicable to the priority in this notice.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481.

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474.

    Note:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.

    Note:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to IHEs only.

    II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Cooperative agreement.

    Estimated Available Funds: The Administration has requested $54,345,000 for the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities program for FY 2017, of which we intend to use an estimated $1,100,000 for this competition. The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. However, we are inviting applications to allow enough time to complete the grant process if Congress appropriates funds for this program.

    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2018 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

    Maximum Award: We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding $1,100,000 for a single budget period of 12 months.

    Estimated Number of Awards: 1.

    Note:

    The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

    Project Period: Up to 60 months.

    III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; LEAs, including public charter schools that operate as LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying areas; Indian tribes or tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.

    3. Eligible Subgrantees: (a) Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c) a grantee may award subgrants—to directly carry out project activities described in its application—to the following types of entities: IHEs and private nonprofit organizations suitable to carry out the activities proposed in the application.

    (b) The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application.

    4. Other General Requirements:

    (a) Recipients of funding under this competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of the IDEA).

    (b) Each applicant for, and recipient of, funding must, with respect to the aspects of their proposed project relating to the absolute priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of the IDEA).

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Request Application Package: You can obtain an application package via the internet or from the Education Publications Center (ED Pubs).

    To obtain a copy via the internet, use the following address: www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/grantapps/index.html.

    To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call: ED Pubs, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (703) 605-6794. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734.

    You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: www.EDPubs.gov or at its email address: [email protected]

    If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.326K.

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the person or team listed under Accessible Format in section VIII of this notice.

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content and form of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition.

    Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you—(1) limit Part III to no more than 70 pages, and (2) use the following standards:

    • A “page” is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

    • Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

    • Use a font that is 12 point or larger.

    • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

    The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of Part III, the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

    3. Submission Dates and Times:

    Applications Available: May 19, 2017.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 3, 2017.

    Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to Other Submission Requirements in section IV of this notice.

    We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.

    Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: September 1, 2017.

    4. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition.

    5. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the Department of Education, you must—

    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);

    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;

    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and

    d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.

    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site: http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.

    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.

    The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.

    Note:

    Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through, Grants.gov.

    If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.

    Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at: www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.

    In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.

    7. Other Submission Requirements: Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.

    a. Electronic Submission of Applications.

    Applications for grants under the National Center to Enhance Educational Systems to Promote the Use of Practices Supported by Evidence competition, CFDA number 84.326K, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.

    We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.

    You may access the electronic grant application for the National Center to Enhance Educational Systems to Promote the Use of Practices Supported by Evidence competition at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.326, not 84.326K).

    Please note the following:

    • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.

    • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.

    • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.

    • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at www.G5.gov. In addition, for specific guidance and procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov, please refer to the Grants.gov Web site at: www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/apply-for-grants.html.

    • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.

    • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.

    • You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only PDF (e.g., Word, Excel, WordPerfect, etc.) or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Please note that this could result in your application not being considered for funding because the material in question—for example, the application narrative—is critical to a meaningful review of your proposal. For that reason it is important to allow yourself adequate time to upload all material as PDF files. The Department will not convert material from other formats to PDF. Additional, detailed information on how to attach files is in the application instructions.

    • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department. Grants.gov will also notify you automatically by email if your application met all the Grants.gov validation requirements or if there were any errors (such as submission of your application by someone other than a registered Authorized Organization Representative, or inclusion of an attachment with a file name that contains special characters). You will be given an opportunity to correct any errors and resubmit, but you must still meet the deadline for submission of applications.

    Once your application is successfully validated by Grants.gov, the Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you an email with a unique PR/Award number for your application.

    These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by Grants.gov, it must also meet the Department's application requirements as specified in this notice and in the application instructions. Disqualifying errors could include, for instance, failure to upload attachments in a read-only PDF; failure to submit a required part of the application; or failure to meet applicant eligibility requirements. It is your responsibility to ensure that your submitted application has met all of the Department's requirements.

    • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.

    Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System: If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.

    If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.

    If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that the problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We will contact you after we determine whether your application will be accepted.

    Note:

    The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.

    Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because--

    • You do not have access to the internet; or

    • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;

    and

    • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the internet to submit your application.

    If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.

    Address and mail or fax your statement to: Jennifer Coffey, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5134, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5108. FAX: (202) 245-7590.

    Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand-delivery instructions described in this notice.

    b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.326K), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.

    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

    (1) A private metered postmark.

    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

    Note:

    The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.

    We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.

    c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.326K), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

    Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:

    If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

    (1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and

    (2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

    V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are listed in the application package.

    a. Significance (10 points).

    (1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.

    (2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (i) The potential contribution of the proposed project to increased knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, or effective strategies;

    (ii) The likelihood that the proposed project will result in system change or improvement;

    (iii) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the needs of the target population;

    (iv) The likely utility of the products (such as information, materials, processes, or techniques) that will result from the proposed project, including the potential for their being used effectively in a variety of other settings; and

    (v) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project.

    b. Quality of project services (25 points).

    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project.

    (2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.

    (3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (i) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are appropriate to the needs of the intended recipients or beneficiaries of those services;

    (ii) The extent to which entities that are to be served by the proposed technical assistance project demonstrate support for the project;

    (iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice;

    (iv) The likely impact of the services to be provided by the proposed project on the intended recipients of those services;

    (v) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services; and

    (vi) The extent to which the technical assistance services to be provided by the proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the use of technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-project resources.

    c. Quality of project personnel (20 points).

    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project.

    (2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.

    (3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel; and

    (ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.

    d. Adequacy of resources (10 points).

    (1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project.

    (2) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization;

    (ii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project; and

    (iii) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and benefits.

    e. Quality of the management plan (15 points).

    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.

    (2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks;

    (ii) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project;

    (iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project;

    (iv) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project; and

    (v) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate.

    f. Quality of project evaluation (20 points).

    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.

    (2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project;

    (ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes;

    (iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide timely guidance for quality assurance;

    (iv) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other settings;

    (v) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies; and

    (vi) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible.

    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past, the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The standing panel requirements under section 682(b) of IDEA also have placed additional constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department has determined that for some discretionary grant competitions, applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness of the review process, while permitting panel members to review applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also have submitted applications.

    4. Risk Assessment and Special Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under this competition the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose special conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

    5. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2), we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through SAM. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

    Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

    VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

    3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

    4. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the Department has established a set of performance measures, including long-term measures, that are designed to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities program. For purposes of this priority, the Center will use these measures, which focus on the extent to which projects provide high-quality products and services, the relevance of project products and services to educational and early intervention policy and practice, and the use of products and services to improve educational and early intervention policy and practice.

    Projects funded under this competition are required to submit data on these measures as directed by OSEP.

    Grantees will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual and final performance reports to the Department (34 CFR 75.590).

    5. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

    In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    VII. Other Information

    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) by contacting the Management Support Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 5113, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2500. Telephone: (202) 245-7363. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    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 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: May 16, 2017. Ruth E. Ryder, Deputy Director, Office of Special Education Programs, delegated the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10248 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC17-116-000.

    Applicants: Verde Energy USA Inc., Verde Energy USA New York, LLC, Verde Energy USA Trading, LLC.

    Description: Application of Verde Energy USA Inc., et. al. for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Requests for Waivers, Confidential Treatment and Expedited Action.

    Filed Date: 5/12/17.

    Accession Number: 20170512-5167.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER17-105-003; ER17-104-003.

    Applicants: Broadview Energy JN, LLC, Broadview Energy KW, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Broadview Energy JN, LLC, ET AL.

    Filed Date: 5/12/17.

    Accession Number: 20170512-5131.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1589-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., Vermont Transco, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Vermont Transco LLC Request for Approval of Updated Depreciation Rates to be effective 7/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/12/17.

    Accession Number: 20170512-5111.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1590-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to OA Schedule 1 and OATT Att K-Appx RE Operating Reserve Demand Curve to be effective 7/12/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/12/17.

    Accession Number: 20170512-5125.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1591-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Service Agreement No. 1442; Queue No. NQ123 to be effective 6/2/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/12/17.

    Accession Number: 20170512-5134.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1592-000.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Rate Schedule No. 45 of Arizona Public Service Company.

    Filed Date: 5/12/17.

    Accession Number: 20170512-5140.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1593-000.

    Applicants: Combined Locks Energy Center, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of Market Based Rate Tariff to be effective 5/13/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/12/17.

    Accession Number: 20170512-5172.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1594-000.

    Applicants: Archer Energy, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based Rate Authority to be effective 7/15/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/12/17.

    Accession Number: 20170512-5173.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 12, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10121 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM93-11-000] Revisions to Oil Pipeline Regulations Pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 1992; Notice of Annual Change in the Producer Price Index for Finished Goods

    The Commission's regulations include a methodology for oil pipelines to change their rates through use of an index system that establishes ceiling levels for such rates. The Commission bases the index system, found at 18 CFR 342.3, on the annual change in the Producer Price Index for Finished Goods (PPI-FG), plus one point two three percent (PPI-FG + 1.23). The Commission determined in an Order Establishing Index Level, 1 issued December 17, 2015, that PPI-FG + 1.23 is the appropriate oil pricing index factor for pipelines to use for the five-year period commencing July 1, 2016.

    1 153 FERC 61,312 at P 52 (2015).

    The regulations provide that the Commission will publish annually, an index figure reflecting the final change in the PPI-FG, after the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes the final PPI-FG in May of each calendar year. The annual average PPI-FG index figures were 193.9 for 2015 and 191.9 for 2016.2 Thus, the percent change (expressed as a decimal) in the annual average PPI-FG from 2015 to 2016, plus 1.23 percent, is positive 0.001985.3 Oil pipelines must multiply their July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017, index ceiling levels by positive 1.001985 4 to compute their index ceiling levels for July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018, in accordance with 18 CFR 342.3(d). For guidance in calculating the ceiling levels for each 12 month period beginning January 1, l995,5 see Explorer Pipeline Company, 71 FERC 61,416 at n.6 (1995).

    2 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes the final figure in mid-May of each year. This figure is publicly available from the Division of Industrial Prices and Price Indexes of the BLS, at 202-691-7705, and in print in August in Table 1 of the annual data supplement to the BLS publication Producer Price Indexes via the Internet at http://www.bls.gov/ppi/home.htm. To obtain the BLS data, scroll down to PPI Databases and click on Top Picks of the Commodity Data including headline FD-ID indexes (Producer Price Index—PPI). At the next screen, under the heading PPI Commodity Data, select the box, Finished goods—WPUFD49207, then scroll to the bottom of this screen and click on Retrieve data.

    3 [191.9-193.9]/193.9 = −0.010315 + 0.0123 = +0.001985.

    4 1 + 0.001985 = 1.001985.

    5 For a listing of all prior multipliers issued by the Commission, see the Commission's Web site, http://www.ferc.gov/industries/oil/gen-info/pipeline-index.asp.

    In addition to publishing the full text of this Notice in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print this Notice via the Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. The full text of this Notice is available on FERC's Home Page at the eLibrary link. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field and follow other directions on the search page.

    User assistance is available for eLibrary and other aspects of FERC's Web site during normal business hours. For assistance, please contact the Commission's Online Support at 1-866-208-3676 (toll free) or 202-502-6652 (email at [email protected]), or the Public Reference Room at 202-502-8371, TTY 202-502-8659. E-Mail the Public Reference Room at [email protected]

    Dated: May 12, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10125 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP17-28-000] Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed 2017 Expansion Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the 2017 Expansion Project, proposed by Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company (Eastern Shore) in the above-referenced docket. Eastern Shore requests authorization to construct and operate pipeline facilities in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware. These facilities would include six pipeline loop segments totaling 22.7 miles; one 16.9-mile-long mainline extension; upgrades to an existing meter and regulator station; installation of an additional 3,750 horsepower (hp) compressor unit at an existing compressor station; and the addition of two pressure control stations.

    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the 2017 Expansion Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EA. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis.

    The proposed 2017 Expansion Project includes constructing and operating the following facilities:

    • Pipeline loop segments (10-, 16-, and 24-inch-diameter) totaling 22.7 miles in the states of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware;

    • One 10-inch-diameter 16.9-mile-long mainline extension in Sussex County, Delaware;

    • Upgrades to an existing meter and regulator station and lateral piping at the existing interconnect with Texas Eastern in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania;

    • Installation of an additional 3,750 horsepower (hp) compressor unit at the existing Daleville Compressor Station in Chester County, Pennsylvania; and

    • Addition of two pressure control stations in Sussex County, Delaware.

    The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups.

    In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8371.

    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before June 12, 2017.

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP17-28-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected]

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” You must select the type of filing you are making. If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing”; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).1 Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. The Commission grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.

    1 See the previous discussion on the methods for filing comments.

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search,” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP17-28). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: May 12, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10124 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP15-554-000; CP15-554-001; Docket No. CP15-555-000] Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC; Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Revised Schedule for Environmental Review of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project

    This notice identifies the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff's revised schedule for the completion of the environmental impact statement (EIS) for Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC's (Atlantic) Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Dominion Transmission, Inc.'s (DTI) Supply Header Project. The first notice of schedule, issued on August 12, 2016, identified a final EIS date of June 30, 2017. However, in response to comments on the draft EIS (which had a comment closing date of April 6, 2017), staff sent an environmental information request to Atlantic and DTI in April 2017, and only recently received the information necessary for us to complete our environmental review. As a result, staff has revised the schedule for issuance of the final EIS.

    Schedule for Environmental Review

    Issuance of Notice of Availability of the final EIS—July 21, 2017.

    90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline—October 19, 2017.

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, an additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the project's progress.

    Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the final EIS and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp).

    Dated: May 12, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10122 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC17-115-000.

    Applicants: Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC.

    Description: Application of Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC For Authorization under Federal Power Act Section 203.

    Filed Date: 5/11/17.

    Accession Number: 20170511-5191.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4050-005.

    Applicants: Cogentrix of Alamosa, LLC.

    Description: Notice of non-material change in status of Cogentrix of Alamosa, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/11/17.

    Accession Number: 20170511-5192.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-157-002.

    Applicants: Moapa Southern Paiute Solar, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Moapa Southern Paiute Solar, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/11/17.

    Accession Number: 20170511-5193.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-927-002.

    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Second Amendment to Assignment—Ancillary Services & Wholesale Dist. Agmt. to be effective 2/4/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/12/17.

    Accession Number: 20170512-5051.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1002-001.

    Applicants: Optimum Power Investments, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Deficiency to 1 to be effective 3/31/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/11/17.

    Accession Number: 20170511-5179.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1191-001.

    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Extend Time for Action to be effective 7/30/2010.

    Filed Date: 5/11/17.

    Accession Number: 20170511-5184.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1192-001.

    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Extend Time for Action to be effective 7/30/2010.

    Filed Date: 5/11/17.

    Accession Number: 20170511-5183.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1583-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Termination of Tri-State E&P Agreement Monolith Tap to be effective 7/24/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/11/17.

    Accession Number: 20170511-5181.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1584-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: UAMPS Price Construction Agmt to be effective 7/12/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/11/17.

    Accession Number: 20170511-5182.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1585-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 3324 KPP/Sunflower Meter Agent Agr; Cancellation of 2826R1 to be effective 6/30/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/12/17.

    Accession Number: 20170512-5032.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1586-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Clean-up of OATT, Sch. 12-Appx A (NTD)—removes Transource baseline upgrades to be effective 11/30/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/12/17.

    Accession Number: 20170512-5048.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1587-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA, Service Agreement No. 4699, Queue No. AB1-065 to be effective 4/13/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/12/17.

    Accession Number: 20170512-5054.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1588-000.

    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: WVPA IA Supplement to be effective 5/18/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/12/17.

    Accession Number: 20170512-5055.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 12, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10123 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9033-2] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) Filed 05/08/2017 Through 05/12/2017 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9 Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

    EIS No. 20170080, Final, USAF, OR, Proposed Establishment and Modification of Oregon Military Training Airspace, Review Period Ends: 06/19/2017, Contact: Kevin Marek 240-612-8855 EIS No. 20170081, Final, USDA, ID, Middle Fork Weiser River Landscape Restoration Project, Review Period Ends: 06/19/2017, Contact: Greg Lesch 208-253-0101 EIS No. 20170082, Final, NPS, CA, Scorpion Pier Replacement, Review Period Ends: 06/19/2017, Contact: Russell Galipeau 805-658-5108 EIS No. 20170083, Final, USFS, CA, Littlerock Reservoir Sediment Removal Project, Review Period Ends: 06/19/2017, Contact: Chinling Chen 626-574-5255 Amended Notices EIS No. 20170061, Draft, APHIS, NAT, Determination of Non-regulated Status for Freeze Tolerant Eucalyptus Lines FTE 427 and FTE 435, Comment Period Ends: 07/05/2017, Contact: Cindy Eck 301-851-3892 Revision to FR Notice Published 04/21/2017; Extending the Comment Period from 06/05/2017 to 07/05/2017 Dated: May 16, 2017. Dawn Roberts, Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10235 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-XXXX] Information Collection 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) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. 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 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before July 18, 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 contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), 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.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.

    Title: Connect America Phase II Auction Waiver Post-Selection Review.

    Form Number: FCC Form 5625.

    Type of Review: New collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 50 respondents; 150 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours-4 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Annual reporting requirements, one-time reporting requirement and recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 214, and 254.

    Total Annual Burden: 500 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There are no assurances of confidentiality. However, the Commission intends to keep the information private to the extent permitted by law. Also, respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission believed confidential to be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the FCC's rules.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission is requesting approval for this new information collection. On January 26, 2017, the Commission released Connect America Fund; ETC Annual Reports and Certifications, WC Docket Nos. 10-90 and 14-58, Order, FCC 17-2 (New York Auction Order), which granted New York waiver of the Phase II auction program rules, subject to certain conditions. Specifically, the Commission made an amount up to the amount of Connect America Phase II model-based support that Verizon declined in New York—$170.4 million—available to applicants selected in New York's New NY Broadband Program in accordance with the framework adopted in the New York Auction Order.

    This information collection addresses the eligibility requirements that New York winning bidders must meet before the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) will authorize them to receive Connect America Phase II support. For each New York winning bid that includes Connect America-eligible areas, the Commission will authorize Connect America support up to the total reserve prices of all of the Connect America Phase II auction eligible census blocks that are included in the bid, provided that New York has committed, at a minimum, the same dollar amount of New York support to the Connect America-eligible areas in that bid. Before Connect America Phase II support is authorized, the Bureau will closely review the winning bidders to ensure that they have met the eligibility requirements adopted by the Commission and that they are technically and financially qualified to meet the terms and conditions of Connect America support. To aid in collecting this information regarding New York State's winning bidders and the applicants' ability to meet the terms and conditions of Connect America Phase II support in a uniform fashion, the Commission has created the proposed new FCC Form 5625, which parties should use in their submissions with the FCC.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10101 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0390 and 3060-0850] Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget 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) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. 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 Commission 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 19, 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 listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page <http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain>, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. 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: 3060-0390.

    Title: Broadcast Station Annual Employment Report, FCC Form 395-B.

    Form Number: FCC 395-B.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business and other for-profit entities; not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 14,000 respondents, 14,000 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

    Frequency of Response: Annual reporting requirement.

    Total Annual Burden: 14,000 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: None.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority of this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i) and 334 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: FCC Form 395-B, the “Broadcast Station Annual Employment Report,” is a data collection device used by the Commission to assess industry employment trends and provide reports to Congress. By the form, broadcast licensees and permittees identify employees by gender and race/ethnicity in ten specified major job categories in the form.

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0850.

    Title: Quick-Form Application for Authorization in the Ship, Aircraft, Amateur, Restricted and Commercial Operator, and General Mobile Radio Services, FCC Form 605.

    Form No.: FCC Form 605.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Individuals or households; business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; state, local or tribal government.

    Number of Respondents/Responses: 130,000 respondents; 130,000 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.17 hours-0.44 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; third party disclosure requirement, recordkeeping and other (5 and 10 years).

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 CFR 1.913(a)(4).

    Total Annual Burden: 57,218 hours.

    Total Respondent Cost: $2,676,700.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Yes.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general there is no need for confidentiality. The Commission is required to withhold from disclosure certain information about the individual such as date of birth or telephone number.

    Needs and Uses: FCC 605 application is a consolidated application form for Ship, Aircraft, Amateur, Restricted and Commercial Radio Operators, and General Mobile Radio Services and is used to collect licensing data for the Universal Licensing System. The Commission is requesting OMB approval for an extension (no change in the reporting, recordkeeping and/or third party disclosure requirements). The Commission is making minor clarifications to the instructions on the main form and schedule B as well as a clarification to Item 3 on the main form. The data collected on this form includes the Date of Birth for Commercial Operator licensees however this information will be redacted from public view.

    The FCC uses the information in FCC Form 605 to determine whether the applicant is legally, technically, and financially qualified to obtain a license. Without such information, the Commission cannot determine whether to issue the licenses to the applicants that provide telecommunication services to the public, and therefore, to fulfill its statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    The Commission is revising the basic qualifications section of the form to include a question regarding whether an application has been convicted of a felony in any state or federal court. Applicants, answering yes must provide an explanation. This item enables the FCC to determine whether an Applicant is eligible under §§ 310(d) and 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to hold or have ownership interest in a station license.

    In addition we are seeking approval to change the ship application form require the applicant provide the official ship number. Coast Guard requests we change this question from optional to required. Obtaining the ship number is the only way to reliably link a license to a specific vessel. The Information provided on this form will also be used to update the database and to provide for proper use of the frequency spectrum as well as enforcement purposes.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10102 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0126] Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget 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) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection.

    The Commission 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 19, 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 listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page <http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain>, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. 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: 3060-0126.

    Title: Section 73.1820, Station Log.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities; not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 15,200 respondents; 15,200 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.017-0.5 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Section 154(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 15,095 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: The information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.1820 require that each licensee of an AM, FM or TV broadcast station maintain a station log. Each entry must accurately reflect the station's operation. This log should reflect adjustments to operating parameters for AM stations with directional antennas without an approved sampling system; for all stations the actual time of any observation of extinguishment or improper operation of tower lights; and entry of each test of the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) for commercial stations.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10100 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Open Commission Meeting, Thursday, May 18 2017 May 11, 2017.

    The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below on Thursday, May 18, 2017 which is scheduled to commence at 10:30 a.m. in Room TW-C305, at 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC.

    Item No. Bureau Subject 1 Public Safety & Homeland Security Presentation: The Commission will receive the Public Safety & Homeland Security Bureau's final report on its investigation into the VoLTE 911 outage AT&T Mobility experienced on March 8, 2017. 2 International Title: Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Use of Earth Stations in Motion Communicating with Geostationary Orbit Space Stations in Frequency Bands Allocated to the Fixed Satellite Service (IB Docket No. 17-95).
  • Summary: The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would both facilitate the deployment of and reduce regulatory burdens on the three types of Fixed-Satellite Service earth stations authorized to transmit while in motion: Earth Stations on Vessels, Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations, and Earth Stations Aboard Aircraft.
  • 3 Wireless Tele-Communications Title: Review of the Commission's Part 95 Personal Radio Services Rules (WT Docket No. 10-119); Petition for Rulemaking of Garmin International, Inc. (RM-10762); Petition for Rulemaking of Omnitronics, LLC (RM-10844).
  • Summary: The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would amend provisions of the Personal Radio Services located in Part 95 of the Commission's rules in order to address two Petitions for Rulemaking, update and modernize various rules to reflect current uses and technologies, remove outdated regulatory requirements, and reorganize the rules to make them easier to read and understand.
  • 4 Media Title: Commission Launches Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative (MB Docket No. 17-105).
  • Summary: The Commission will consider a Public Notice that would launch a review of the Commission's rules applicable to media entities and seek comment on what rules should be modified or repealed.
  • 5 Media Title: Elimination of Main Studio Rule (MB Docket No. 17-106).
  • Summary: The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would propose to eliminate the Commission's main studio rule, based on a tentative finding that the rule is now outdated and unnecessarily burdensome for broadcast stations.
  • 6 Wireline Competition Title: Restoring Internet Freedom (WC Docket No. 17-108).
  • Summary: The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would propose to restore the Internet to a light-touch regulatory framework by classifying broadband Internet access service as an information service and by seeking comment on the existing rules governing Internet service providers' practices.
  • 7 Wireline Competition Title: Connect America Fund (WC Docket No. 10-90)
  • Summary: The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes to eliminate a rule requiring rural telecommunications service providers receiving USF support to impose higher minimum monthly rates on their customers than the rates paid by some of their urban counterparts, or otherwise lose some USF support. The Commission will also consider a related Order that would freeze the current rate.
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * Consent Agenda The Commission will consider the following subject listed below as a consent agenda and this item will not be presented individually: 1 Media Title: Budd Broadcasting Co., Inc., Application for Renewal of License for Television Station WFXU(TV), Live Oak, Florida.
  • Summary: The Commission will consider an Order adopting a Consent Decree which resolves issues regarding potential violations of the Commission's rules and grants the license renewal application of WFXU(TV).
  • The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. In your request, include a description of the accommodation you will need and a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to: [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

    Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from the Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at www.fcc.gov/live.

    For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the Internet. To purchase these services, call (703) 993-3100 or go to www.capitolconnection.gmu.edu.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10207 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0341 and 3060-0569] Information Collections 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 of 1995 (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.

    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 July 18, 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, 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: 3060-0341.

    Title: Section 73.1680, Emergency Antennas.

    Form Number: Not applicable.

    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: 142 respondents; 142 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

    Total Annual Burden: 142 hours.

    Total Annual Costs: $42,600.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Section 154(i) 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: The information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.1680 require that licensees of AM, FM or TV stations submit an informal request to the FCC (within 24 hours of commencement of use) to continue operation with an emergency antenna. An emergency antenna is one that is erected for temporary use after the authorized main and auxiliary antennas are damaged and cannot be used. FCC staff uses the data to ensure that interference is not caused to other existing stations.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0569.

    Title: Section 76.975, Commercial leased access dispute resolution.

    Form Number: Not applicable.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit; State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 60 respondents; 60 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 4 to 40 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure requirement; On occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 154(i) and 612 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Total Annual Burden: 1,320 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $24,000.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 76.975 permits any person aggrieved by the failure or refusal of a cable operator to make commercial channel capacity available or to charge rates for such capacity in accordance with the provisions of Title VI of the Communications Act of 1934 may file a petition for relief with the Commission.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10098 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Update to Notice of Financial Institutions for Which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Has Been Appointed Either Receiver, Liquidator, or Manager AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

    ACTION:

    Update listing of financial institutions in liquidation.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Corporation) has been appointed the sole receiver for the following financial institutions effective as of the Date Closed as indicated in the listing. This list (as updated from time to time in the Federal Register) may be relied upon as “of record” notice that the Corporation has been appointed receiver for purposes of the statement of policy published in the July 2, 1992 issue of the Federal Register (57 FR 29491). For further information concerning the identification of any institutions which have been placed in liquidation, please visit the Corporation Web site at www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html or contact the Manager of Receivership Oversight in the appropriate service center.

    Dated: May 16, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary. Institutions in Liquidation [In alphabetical order] FDIC Ref. No. Bank name City State Date closed 10527 Guaranty Bank, (d/b/a BestBank in Georgia & Michigan) Milwaukee WI 5/5/2017
    [FR Doc. 2017-10195 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission

    DATE & TIME:

    Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. and its continuation at the conclusion of the open meeting on May 25, 2017.

    PLACE:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.

    STATUS:

    This meeting will be closed to the public.

    ITEM TO BE DISCUSSED:

    Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.

    PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10287 Filed 5-17-17; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 3090-XXXX; Docket No. 2017-0001; Sequence 3] Information Collection; Ombudsman Inquiry/Request Instrument AGENCY:

    Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of the Procurement Ombudsman (OPO), General Services Administration (GSA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for comments regarding a new request for an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the OMB a request to review and approve a new information collection requirement regarding OMB Control No: 3090-XXXX; Ombudsman Inquiry/Request Instrument.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before July 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-XXXX; Inquiry/Request Instrument by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching for “Information Collection 3090-XXXX; Ombudsman Inquiry/Request Instrument.” Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 3090-XXXX; Inquiry/Request Instrument.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 3090-XXXX; Ombudsman Inquiry/Request Instrument” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 3090-XXXX; Office of the Ombudsman Inquiry/Request Instrument.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 3090-XXXX; Inquiry/Request Instrument, 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. Millisa Gary, GSA Procurement/Task & Delivery Order Ombudsman, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of the Ombudsman, GSA, at telephone 202-501-0699 or via email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose

    OPO wants to place an online intake Instrument on the GSA Ombudsman's Web page for receiving inquiries from vendors who are currently doing business with, or interested in doing business with GSA. The inquiries will be collected by the GSA Ombudsman and routed to the appropriate office for resolution and/or implementation in the case of recommendations for process or program improvements. Reporting of the data collected will help highlight thematic issues that vendors encounter with GSA acquisition programs, processes or policies, and identify areas where training is needed. The information collected will also assist in identifying and analyzing patterns and trends to help improve efficiencies and lead to improvements in current practices.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Maximum Potential Respondents: 118.

    Responses Per Respondent: 1.

    Total Maximum Potential Annual Responses: 118.

    Hours Per Response: .25.

    Total Burden Hours: 29.5.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary, 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 No. 3090-XXXX, Inquiry/Request Instrument, in all correspondence.

    Jeffrey A. Koses, Director, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10147 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-61-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS-3336-PN] Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Application From the Joint Commission for Continued CMS-Approval of Its Critical Access Hospital Accreditation Program AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice with request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposed notice acknowledges the receipt of an application from the Joint Commission for continued recognition as a national accrediting organization for critical access hospitals that wish to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs.

    DATES:

    To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on June 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-3336-PN. 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: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-3336-PN, P.O. Box 8010, Baltimore, MD 21244-8010.

    Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.

    3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-3336-PN, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.

    4. By hand or courier. Alternatively, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments ONLY to the following addresses:

    a. For delivery in Washington, DC—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.

    (Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without Federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)

    b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.

    If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, call telephone number (410) 786-9994 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.

    Comments erroneously mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.

    For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Monda Shaver, (410) 786-3410, Karena Meushaw, (410) 786-6609, or Patricia Chmielewski, (410) 786-6899.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following Web site as soon as possible after they have been received: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the search instructions on that Web site to view public comments.

    Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.

    I. Background

    Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services in a critical access hospital (CAH) provided certain requirements are met by the CAH. Section 1861(mm) of the Social Security Act (the Act), establishes distinct criteria for facilities seeking designation as a CAH. Regulations concerning provider agreements are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to activities relating to the survey and certification of facilities are at 42 CFR part 488. The regulations at 42 CFR part 485, subpart F specify the conditions that a CAH must meet to participate in the Medicare program, the scope of covered services, and the conditions for Medicare payment for CAHs.

    Generally, to enter into an agreement, a CAH must first be certified by a State survey agency as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in part 485 of our regulations. Thereafter, the CAH is subject to regular surveys by a State survey agency to determine whether it continues to meet these requirements. There is an alternative, however, to surveys by State agencies.

    Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act provides that, if a provider entity demonstrates through accreditation by an approved national accrediting organization that all applicable Medicare conditions are met or exceeded, we will deem that provider entity as having met the requirements. Accreditation from an accrediting organization is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.

    If an accrediting organization is recognized by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) as having standards for accreditation that meet or exceed Medicare requirements, any provider entity accredited by the national accrediting body's approved program would be deemed to meet the Medicare conditions. A national accrediting organization applying for approval of its accreditation program under part 488, subpart A, must provide CMS with reasonable assurance that the accrediting organization requires the accredited provider entities to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare conditions. Our regulations concerning the approval of accrediting organizations are set forth at § 488.5. The regulations at § 488.5(e)(2)(i) require an accrediting organization to reapply for continued approval of its accreditation program every 6 years or sooner, as determined by CMS. The Joint Commission's (TJC's) current term of approval for its CAH accreditation program expires November 21, 2017.

    II. Approval of Deeming Organizations

    Section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.5 require that our findings concerning review and approval of a national accrediting organization's requirements consider, among other factors, the applying accrediting organization's requirements for accreditation; survey procedures; resources for conducting required surveys; capacity to furnish information for use in enforcement activities; monitoring procedures for provider entities found not in compliance with the conditions or requirements; and ability to provide CMS with the necessary data for validation.

    Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act further requires that we publish, within 60 days of receipt of an organization's complete application, a notice identifying the national accrediting body making the request, describing the nature of the request, and providing at least a 30-day public comment period. We have 210 days from the receipt of a complete application to publish notice of approval or denial of the application.

    The purpose of this proposed notice is to inform the public of TJC's request for continued CMS-approval of its CAH accreditation program. This notice also solicits public comment on whether TJC's requirements meet or exceed the Medicare conditions of participation for CAHs.

    III. Evaluation of Deeming Authority Request

    TJC submitted all the necessary materials to enable us to make a determination concerning its request for continued approval of its CAH accreditation program. This application was determined to be complete on March 31, 2017. Under Section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at 42 CFR 488.5 (Application and re-application procedures for national accrediting organizations), our review and evaluation of TJC will be conducted in accordance with, but not necessarily limited to, the following factors:

    • The equivalency of TJC's standards for CAHs as compared with CMS' CAH conditions of participation.

    • TJC's survey process to determine the following:

    ++ The composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and the ability of the organization to provide continuing surveyor training.

    ++ The comparability of TJC's processes to those of State agencies, including survey frequency, and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities.

    ++ TJC's processes and procedures for monitoring a CAH is out of compliance with TJC's program requirements. These monitoring procedures are used only when TJC identifies noncompliance. If noncompliance is identified through validation reviews or complaint surveys, the State survey agency monitors corrections as specified at § 488.9(c).

    ++ TJC's capacity to report deficiencies to the surveyed facilities and respond to the facility's plan of correction in a timely manner.

    ++ TJC's capacity to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.

    ++ The adequacy of TJC's staff and other resources, and its financial viability.

    ++ TJC's capacity to adequately fund required surveys.

    ++ TJC's policies with respect to whether surveys are announced or unannounced, to assure that surveys are unannounced.

    ++ TJC's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as CMS may require (including corrective action plans).

    IV. Collection of Information Requirements

    This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    V. Response to Public Comments

    Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on Federal Register documents, we are not able to acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the “DATES” section of this preamble, and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the comments in the preamble to that document.

    Upon completion of our evaluation, including evaluation of comments received as a result of this notice, we will publish a final notice in the Federal Register announcing the result of our evaluation.

    Dated: April 25, 2017. Seema Verma, Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10216 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifiers: CMS-10175, CMS-10220, CMS-10471 and CMS-10495] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, and to allow a second opportunity for public comment on the notice. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, the accuracy of the estimated burden, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by June 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806 OR, Email: [email protected]

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at Web site address at https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/PaperworkReductionActof1995/PRA-Listing.html.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Parham at (410) 786-4669.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection; Title of Information Collection: Certification Statement for Electronic File Interchange Organizations; Use: Health care providers can currently obtain a National Provider Identifier (NPI) via a paper application or over the Internet through the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES). These applications must be submitted individually, on a per-provider basis. The Electronic File Interchange (EFI) process allows provider-designated organizations (EFIOs) to capture multiple providers' NPI application information on a single electronic file for submission to NPPES. This process is also referred to as bulk enumeration. To ensure that the EFIO has the authority to act on behalf of each provider and complies with other federal requirements, an authorized official of the EFIO must sign a certification statement and mail it to us. No comments were received during the 60-day comment period. Form Number: CMS-10175 (OMB Control Number: 0938-0984). Frequency: Occasionally. Affected Public: Private Sector; Number of Respondents: 25; Total Annual Responses: 25; Total Annual Hours: 75. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Kimberly McPhillips at 410-786-5374.)

    2. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved information collection; Title of Information Collection: Security Consent and Surrogate Authorization Form; Use: The primary function of the Medicare enrollment application is to obtain information about the Provider or supplier and whether they meet the Federal and/or State qualifications to participate in the Medicare program. In addition, the Medicare enrollment application gathers information regarding the provider or supplier's practice location, the identity of the owners of the enrolling organization, and information necessary to establish the correct claims payment.

    Enrollees have the option of submitting either a CMS-855 form, or submitting information via a web based process. In establishing a web based application process, we allow providers and suppliers the ability to enroll in the Medicare program, revalidate their enrollment and make changes to their enrollment information via Internet-based Provider Enrollment, Chain and Ownership System (PECOS). Individual providers/suppliers (hereinafter referred to as “Individual Providers”) log into Internet-based PECOS using their User IDs and passwords established when they applied on-line to the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) for their National Provider Identifiers (NPIs). Authorized Officials (AOs) of the provider or supplier organizations (hereinafter referred to as “Organizational Providers”) must register for a user account and authenticate their identity and connection to the organization they represent before being able to log into Internet-based PECOS. Once authenticated, AOs for Organizational Providers, receive complete access to their enrollment information via Internet-based PECOS. Individuals and AOs of Organizational Providers are not required to submit a Security Consent and Surrogate Authorization Form to enroll, revalidate or make changes to their Medicare enrollment information.

    Individual and Organizational Providers may complete their Medicare enrollment responsibilities on their own or elect to delegate this task to a Surrogate. A Surrogate is an individual or organization identified by an Individual or Organizational Provider as someone authorized to access CMS computer systems, such as Internet-based PECOS, National Provider Plan and Enumeration System (NPPES) and the Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Records (EHR) Incentive Program Registration and Attestation System (HITECH), on their behalf and to modify or view any information contained therein that the Individual or Organizational Provider may have permission or right to access in accordance with Medicare statutes, regulations, policies, and usage guidelines for any CMS system. Surrogates may consist of administrative staff, independent contractors, 3rd party consulting companies or credentialing departments. In order for an Individual or Organizational Provider to delegate the Medicare credentialing process to a Surrogate to access and update their enrollment information in the above mentioned CMS systems on their behalf, it is required that a Security Consent and Surrogate Authorization Form be completed, or Individual and Organizational Providers use an equivalent online process via the PECOS Identity and Access Management (I&A) system. The Security Consent and Surrogate Authorization form replicates business service agreements between Medicare providers, suppliers or both and Surrogates providing enrollment services.

    The form, once signed, mailed and approved, grants a Surrogate access to all current and future enrollment data for the Individual or Organization Provider. Form Number: CMS-10220 (OMB Control Number: 0938-1035); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Individuals and Private Sector; Number of Respondents: 226,100; Total Annual Responses: 226,100; Total Annual Hours: 226,100. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Kimberly McPhillips at 410-786-5374.)

    3. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection of information; Title of Information Collection: Medicare Prior Authorization of Power Mobility Devices (PMDs) Demonstration; Use: The purpose of the Medicare Prior Authorization of Power Mobility Devices Demonstration (the Demonstration) is to ensure that payments for PMDs are appropriate before the claims are paid, thereby preventing the fraud, waste, and abuse in the seven states participating in the Demonstration: California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New York, North Carolina and Texas. Additional benefits of the Demonstration include ensuring that a beneficiary's medical condition warrants their medical equipment under existing coverage guidelines and preserving their ability to receive quality products from accredited suppliers. In order to gather qualitative information for analysis, the evaluation team will use semi-structured interview guides that focus on the direct impact of the Demonstration on stakeholder groups. Stakeholders will be drawn from advocacy organizations, power mobility device supply companies, state and local government, and healthcare practitioners. This information collection request explains the research methodology and data collection strategies designed to minimize the burden placed on research participants, while effectively gathering the data needed for the evaluation of the Demonstration. Form Number: CMS-10471 (OMB Control Number: 0938-1235); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: Private sector (business or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions) and State and Local Governments; Number of Respondents: 254; Total Annual Responses: 254; Total Annual Hours: 288. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Debbie Skinner at 410-786-7480.)

    4. Type of Information Collection Request: Revisi