Vol. 82 Tuesday, No. 199 October 17, 2017

Pages 48193–48388

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER

VerDate Sep 11 2014 20:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\17OCWS.LOC 17OCWS sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with FRONT MATTER WS II Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017

The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097–6326) is published daily, SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Office PUBLIC of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Subscriptions: Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Committee of the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Assistance with public subscriptions 202–512–1806 Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 edition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC. Single copies/back copies: The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and (Toll-Free) Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions: Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Email [email protected] Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the Phone 202–741–6000 issuing agency requests earlier filing. For a list of documents currently on file for public inspection, see www.ofr.gov. The seal of the National Archives and Records Administration authenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publication established under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507, the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed. The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche. It is also available online at no charge at www.fdsys.gov, a service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office. The online edition of the Federal Register is issued under the authority of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register as the official legal equivalent of the paper and microfiche editions (44 U.S.C. 4101 and 1 CFR 5.10). It is updated by 6:00 a.m. each day the Federal Register is published and includes both text and graphics from Volume 59, 1 (January 2, 1994) forward. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800 or 866-512- 1800 (toll free). E-mail, gpocusthelp.com. The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paper edition is $749 plus postage, or $808, plus postage, for a combined Federal Register, Federal Register Index and List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA) subscription; the microfiche edition of the Federal Register including the Federal Register Index and LSA is $165, plus postage. Six month subscriptions are available for one-half the annual rate. The prevailing postal rates will be applied to orders according to the delivery method requested. The price of a single copy of the daily Federal Register, including postage, is based on the number of pages: $11 for an issue containing less than 200 pages; $22 for an issue containing 200 to 400 pages; and $33 for an issue containing more than 400 pages. Single issues of the microfiche edition may be purchased for $3 per copy, including postage. Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or charge to your GPO Deposit Account, VISA, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover. Mail to: U.S. Government Publishing Office—New Orders, P.O. Box 979050, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000; or call toll free 1-866-512-1800, DC area 202-512-1800; or go to the U.S. Government Online Bookstore site, see bookstore.gpo.gov. There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearing in the Federal Register. How To Cite This Publication: Use the volume number and the page number. Example: 82 FR 12345. Postmaster: Send address changes to the Superintendent of Documents, Federal Register, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402, along with the entire mailing label from the last issue received.

.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 20:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\17OCWS.LOC 17OCWS sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with FRONT MATTER WS III

Contents Federal Register Vol. 82, No. 199

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Agricultural Research Service Energy Department NOTICES See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Intents To Grant Exclusive Licenses; Approvals: California Table Grape Commission of Fresno, CA, 48212 Environmental Protection Agency RULES Agriculture Department Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and See Agricultural Research Service Promulgations: See National Agricultural Statistics Service Texas; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport Federal Implementation Plan, 48324–48380 Air Force Department Partial Delegations of Authority: NOTICES Vermont; New Source Performance Standards for New Exclusive Patent Licenses, 48217 Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters, and Forced-Air Furnaces, 48202–48203 Antitrust Division NOTICES NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.:, 48227 Changes Under National Cooperative Research and Meetings: Production Act: Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee, 48227 Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc., 48255 Science Advisory Board Risk and Technology Review Border Security Technology Consortium, 48267–48268 Methods Review Panel; Teleconference, 48227–48228 PXI Systems Alliance, Inc., 48255 Proposed Final Judgments and Competitive Impact Export-Import Bank Statements: NOTICES United States v. Showa Denko K.K., SGL Carbon SE, and Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, SGL GE Carbon Holding, LLC, 48255–48267 Submissions, and Approvals, 48228–48229 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Federal Aviation Administration NOTICES RULES Requests for Nominations: Special Conditions: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control ALOFT AeroArchitects, Boeing Model 737–800 Special Emphasis Panel, 48232–48233 Airplanes; Aircraft Electronic System Security Children and Families Administration Protection from Unauthorized External Access, NOTICES 48193–48194 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, NOTICES Submissions, and Approvals, 48234–48235 Petitions for Exemptions; Summaries, 48311–48312 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Federal Communications Commission Submissions, and Approvals: RULES Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Quarterly Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Services Financial Report, 48233–48234 Program, 48203–48204 Commerce Department NOTICES See International Trade Administration Filing Instructions: See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 4G LTE Coverage Data To Determine Areas Presumptively Eligible for Mobility Fund Phase II Support, 48229 Defense Department Meetings: See Air Force Department Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee, 48229– NOTICES 48230 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Affidavit of Individual Surety, 48231–48232 NOTICES Meetings: Education Department Advisory Committee on Community Banking, 48230 RULES Federal Student Aid Programs: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins NOTICES Loan Program, Federal Family Education Loan Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Program, and Federal Direct Loan Program, 48195– Submissions, and Approvals, 48226–48227 48202 Applications: NOTICES Holyoke Gas and Electric Department, 48218–48219 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Combined Filings, 48219–48221 Submissions, and Approvals: Complaints: Implementation of Title I/II-A Program Initiatives, 48217– American Electric Power Service Corp. v. Midcontinent 48218 Independent System Operator, Inc., 48221–48222

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:20 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\17OCCN.SGM 17OCCN sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with FRONT MATTER CN IV Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Contents

Xcel Energy Services Inc. v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc., Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, 48219–48220 Submissions, and Approvals: Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status: Application for Determination of Employee Stock SunE Beacon Site 2, LLC, Great Bay Solar I, LLC, Ownership Plan, 48317 Lackawanna Energy Center, LLC, et al., 48222 Methods To Determine Taxable Income in Connection Hydroelectric Applications: with Cost Sharing Arrangement, 48316–48317 Nevada Hydro Co., Inc., 48223–48224 Mortgage Credit Certificates, 48318 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Meetings: Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee, 48316 NTE Ohio, LLC, 48225–48226 Voyager Wind II, LLC, 48222 International Boundary and Water Commission, United Meetings; Sunshine Act, 48224–48225 States and Mexico Petitions for Declaratory Orders: NOTICES Bloom Energy Corp., 48220 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Requests for Waivers: Channel Maintenance Alternatives at Thurman I and II FirstEnergy Service Co., 48222–48223 Arroyos in Hatch, NM, Rio Grande Canalization Project, 48253 Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission NOTICES International Trade Administration Meetings; Sunshine Act, 48230 NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration or Reviews: NOTICES Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From India, Meetings; Sunshine Act, 48312 48213 Certain Steel Nails From Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Federal Reserve System 48213–48215 NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: International Trade Commission Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding NOTICES Company, 48231 Complaints: Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Certain Network Personal Computers and Mobile Devices, Holding Companies, 48231 48253–48254

General Services Administration Joint Board for Enrollment of Actuaries NOTICES NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Meetings: Submissions, and Approvals: Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations, 48254– Affidavit of Individual Surety, 48231–48232 48255

Health and Human Services Department Judicial Conference of the United States See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES See Children and Families Administration Public Hearings: See National Institutes of Health Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Cancellation, 48255 Homeland Security Department Justice Department NOTICES See Antitrust Division Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, NOTICES Submissions, and Approvals: Senior Executive Service Standing Performance Review EngageDHS, 48236–48237 Boards; Membership, 48268–48277 Housing and Urban Development Department National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 48237–48240 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Indian Affairs Bureau Affidavit of Individual Surety, 48231–48232 NOTICES Tribal Consultations: National Agricultural Statistics Service Bureau of Indian Education Strategic Plan, 48241 NOTICES Meetings: Interior Department Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics, 48212 See Indian Affairs Bureau See National Indian Gaming Commission National Endowment for the Arts See National Park Service NOTICES Meetings: Internal Revenue Service National Council on the Arts, 48277–48278 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Submissions, and Approvals, 48314–48319 See National Endowment for the Arts

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:20 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\17OCCN.SGM 17OCCN sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with FRONT MATTER CN Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Contents V

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Presidential Documents NOTICES PROCLAMATIONS Meetings: Special Observances: Automated Driving Systems: Voluntary Safety Self- National Energy Awareness Month (Proc. 9659), 48381– Assessments; Public Workshop, 48312–48314 48384 EXECUTIVE ORDERS Healthcare; Choice and Competition, 48385–48387 National Indian Gaming Commission PROPOSED RULES Securities and Exchange Commission Freedom of Information Act Procedures, 48205–48211 NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: National Institutes of Health Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., 48289–48296 NOTICES BOX Options Exchange, LLC, 48302–48306 Meetings: Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 48300 Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Depository Trust Co., 48287–48289 Health and Human Development, 48235–48236 NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 48301–48302 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 48296–48300 48236 NYSE Arca, Inc., 48289 Small Business Administration National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES RULES Conflicts of Interest; Exemptions: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Svoboda Capital Fund IV SBIC, LP, 48306 Sablefish in Central Regulatory Area of Gulf of Alaska, Disaster Declarations: 48204 South Carolina, 48306 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, State Department Submissions, and Approvals, 48215–48216 NOTICES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fisheries; Notice Submissions, and Approvals: That Vendor Will Provide 2018 Cage Tags, 48216 Individual, Corporate or Foundation, and Government Meetings: Donor Letter Applications, 48307–48308 Schedules for Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: and Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Caravaggio: Masterpieces From the Galleria Borghese, Identification Workshops; Correction, 48216–48217 48309–48310 Laura Owens, 48308–48309 National Park Service Murillo: The Self-Portraits, 48308 NOTICES Painted in Mexico, 1700–1790: Pinxit Mexici, 48307 Inventory Completions: The Arch of Titus—from Jerusalem to Rome, and Back, U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Health Agency, 48306–48307 National Museum of Health and Medicine, Silver Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Spring, MD, 48242–48243, 48249–48250 Borrego Pipeline Presidential Permit Application Review, Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI, 48241–48253 Webb County, TX, 48309 Meetings: Meetings: Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park Advisory Committee on International Postal and Delivery Advisory Commission; Cancellation, 48244 Services, 48307 Gettysburg National Military Park Advisory Commission; Surface Transportation Board Cancellation, 48251 NOTICES Abandonment Exemptions: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Buckeye Hammond Railroad, LLC, Lake County, IN, NOTICES 48310–48311 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Petitions for Exemptions: Submissions, and Approvals: Buckeye East Chicago Railroad LLC, Lake County, IN; Material Control and Accounting of Special Nuclear Landisville Railroad, LLC, Lake County, IN, 48310 Material, 48281–48282 Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Commission Transportation Department Programs, 48282–48283 See Federal Aviation Administration Exemptions: See Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Palisades Nuclear Plant, See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 48278–48280 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal, 48283–48285 Treasury Department Meetings; Sunshine Act, 48280–48281 See Internal Revenue Service Veterans Affairs Department Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Competitive Price Adjustment, 48286–48287 Submissions, and Approvals: Market Dominant Price Adjustment, 48285–48286 Accelerated Payment Verification of Completion, 48320

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:20 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\17OCCN.SGM 17OCCN sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with FRONT MATTER CN VI Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Contents

Statement of Dependency of Parent(s), 48319–48320 Part III Meetings: Presidential Documents, 48381–48387 Veterans Affairs New Hampshire Vision 2025 Task Force, 48320 Veterans’ Rural Health Advisory Committee, 48320– Reader Aids 48321 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. Separate Parts In This Issue 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 Part II address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or Environmental Protection Agency, 48324–48380 manage your subscription.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:52 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\17OCCN.SGM 17OCCN sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with FRONT MATTER CN Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Contents VII

CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE

A cumulative list of the parts affected this month can be found in the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue.

3 CFR Proclamations: 9659...... 48383 Executive Orders: 13813...... 48385 14 CFR 25...... 48193 25 CFR Proposed Rules: 517...... 48205 34 CFR 668...... 48195 674...... 48195 682...... 48195 685...... 48195 40 CFR 52...... 48324 60...... 48202 97...... 48324 47 CFR 64...... 48203 50 CFR 679...... 48204

VerDate Sep 11 2014 20:08 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\17OCLS.LOC 17OCLS sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with FRONT MATTER LS 48193

Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 82, No. 199

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER • Mail: Send comments to Docket and comment are unnecessary and contains regulatory documents having general Operations, M–30, U.S. Department of impracticable. applicability and legal effect, most of which Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey In addition, for the reasons stated are keyed to and codified in the Code of Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West above, the FAA finds it unnecessary to Federal Regulations, which is published under Building Ground Floor, Washington, delay the effective date and finds that 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. DC, 20590–0001. good cause exists for making these • The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by Hand Delivery or Courier: Take special conditions effective upon the Superintendent of Documents. comments to Docket Operations in publication in the Federal Register. Room W12–140 of the West Building Comments Invited Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 We invite interested people to take a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through part in this rulemaking by sending Federal Aviation Administration Friday, except Federal holidays. written comments, data, or views. The • Fax: Fax comments to Docket most helpful comments reference a 14 CFR Part 25 Operations at 202–493–2251. specific portion of the special [Docket No. FAA–2017–0580; Special Privacy: The FAA will post all conditions, explain the reason for any Conditions No. 25–701–SC] comments it receives, without change, recommended change, and include to http://www.regulations.gov/, supporting data. Special Conditions: ALOFT including any personal information the We will consider all comments we AeroArchitects, Boeing Model 737–800 commenter provides. Using the search receive by the closing date for Airplanes; Aircraft Electronic System function of the docket Web site, anyone comments. We may change these special Security Protection From Unauthorized can find and read the electronic form of conditions based on the comments we External Access all comments received into any FAA receive. AGENCY: Federal Aviation docket, including the name of the Background Administration (FAA), DOT. individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, On December 8, 2016, ALOFT applied ACTION: Final special conditions; request business, labor union, etc.). DOT’s for a supplemental type certificate for for comments. complete Privacy Act Statement can be installing a Wireless Access Point (WAP), and connection of an improved SUMMARY: These special conditions are found in the Federal Register published Wireless Quick Access Recorder issued for the Boeing Model 737–800 on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–19478). (WQAR) to the satellite communications airplane. These airplanes, as modified Docket: Background documents or (SATCOM) system, in a Boeing Model by ALOFT AeroArchitects (ALOFT), comments received may be read at 737–800 airplane. The Boeing Model will have a novel or unusual design http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. 737–800 airplane is a twin jet engine, feature when compared to the state of Follow the online instructions for short-to-medium-range passenger technology envisioned in the accessing the docket or go to Docket airplane with a maximum takeoff weight airworthiness standards for transport- Operations in Room W12–140 of the of 174,200 pounds and seating for 189 category airplanes. This design feature West Building Ground Floor at 1200 passengers. is a Wireless Access Point (WAP), and New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, connection of an improved Wireless DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday Type Certification Basis Quick Access Recorder (WQAR) to the through Friday, except Federal holidays. Under the provisions of Title 14, Code satellite communications (SATCOM) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, system, to provide in-flight access to Varun Khanna, FAA, Airplane and ALOFT must show that the Boeing information, in the WQAR, to ground Flightcrew Interface Section, AIR–671, Model 737–800, as changed, continues personnel. The applicable airworthiness Transport Standards Branch, Policy and to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations do not contain adequate or Innovation Division, Aircraft regulations listed in Type Certificate No. appropriate safety standards for this Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue A16WE or the applicable regulations in design feature. These special conditions SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; effect on the date of application for the contain the additional safety standards telephone 425–227–1298; facsimile change, except for earlier amendments that the Administrator considers 425–227–1320. as agreed upon by the FAA. necessary to establish a level of safety SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The If the Administrator finds that the equivalent to that established by the substance of these special conditions applicable airworthiness regulations existing airworthiness standards. has been subject to the notice and (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain DATES: This action is effective on comment period in several prior adequate or appropriate safety standards ALOFT on October 17, 2017. Send your instances and has been derived without for the Boeing Model 737–800 airplane comments by December 1, 2017. substantive change from those because of a novel or unusual design ADDRESSES: Send comments identified previously issued. It is unlikely that feature, special conditions are by docket number FAA–2017–0580 prior public comment would result in a prescribed under the provisions of using any of the following methods: significant change from the substance § 21.16. • Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to contained herein. Therefore, because a Special conditions are initially http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow delay would significantly affect the applicable to the model for which they the online instructions for sending your certification of the airplane, the FAA are issued. Should the applicant apply comments electronically. has determined that prior public notice for a supplemental type certificate to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:55 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES 48194 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

modify any other model included on the other malicious actions as are more Applicability same type certificate, to incorporate the widely used commercial operating As discussed above, these special same novel or unusual design feature, systems, such as Microsoft Windows, conditions are applicable to the Boeing these special conditions would also because access to the design details of Model 737–800 airplane. Should apply to the other model under § 21.101. the proprietary operating system is ALOFT apply at a later date for a In addition to the applicable limited to the system developer and supplemental type certificate to modify airworthiness regulations and special airplane integrator. Some systems any other model included on Type conditions, the Boeing Model 737–800 installed on the Boeing Model 737–800 Certificate No. A16WE to incorporate airplane must comply with the fuel-vent airplane, as modified by ALOFT, will the same novel or unusual design and exhaust-emission requirements of use operating systems that are widely feature, these special conditions would 14 CFR part 34, and the noise- used and commercially available from apply to that model as well. certification requirements of 14 CFR third-party software suppliers. The part 36. security vulnerabilities of these Conclusion The FAA issues special conditions, as operating systems may be more widely This action affects only certain novel defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance known than are the vulnerabilities of or unusual design features on one model with § 11.38, and they become part of proprietary operating systems currently series of airplanes. It is not a rule of the type certification basis under used by avionics manufacturers. The general applicability and affects only § 21.101. increased networking of systems based the applicant who applied to the FAA on these popular operating systems Novel or Unusual Design Features for approval of these features on the increases the opportunity for attack by The Boeing Model 737–800 airplane airplane. a larger community, especially those will incorporate the following novel or using scripted attacks. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 unusual design features: A Wireless Access Point (WAP), and While the FAA has developed policy Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting connection of an improved Wireless and guidance on the use and protection and recordkeeping requirements. Quick Access Recorder (WQAR) to the of certain databases and software, these The authority citation for these satellite communications (SATCOM) documents did not anticipate the special conditions is as follows: system, to provide in-flight access to potential for access to the airplane information, in the WQAR, to ground systems, networks, and software Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, personnel. components by external systems, and 44702, 44704. the resulting potential security Discussion The Special Conditions vulnerabilities from access by The applicant supplemental type unauthorized users or from the potential Accordingly, pursuant to the certificate (STC) for the Boeing Model corruption of airplane system software authority delegated to me by the 737–800 airplane design adds wired and resources (applications, databases, Administrator, the following special wireless access points to the aircraft- configuration files, etc.) by worms, conditions are issued as part of the type control domain and airline-information- viruses or other malicious entities. certification basis for Boeing Model services domain networks, which do not 737–800 airplanes modified by ALOFT. The major differences between the exist on current airplanes. The aircraft- applicant’s STC for the Boeing Model 1. The applicant must ensure airplane control domain consists of the airplane 737–800 airplane implementation and electronic system security protection electronic systems, equipment, typical implementations include: from access by unauthorized sources instruments, networks, servers, software external to the airplane, including those and hardware components, databases, 1. The electronic transmission of possibly caused by maintenance etc., which are part of the type design updates to airplane servers of databases activity. of the airplane and are installed in the and software applications using ground 2. The applicant must ensure that airplane to enable the safe operation of data networks rather than physically electronic system security threats are the airplane. These can also be referred controlled media. identified and assessed, and that to as flight-safety-related systems, and 2. The connection of external data effective electronic system security include flight controls, communication, networks or devices to airplane data protection strategies are implemented to display, monitoring, navigation, and networks of the Aircraft Control Domain protect the airplane from all adverse other systems. and the Airline Information Services impacts on safety, functionality, and The airline-information services Domain, which may use wired or continued airworthiness. domain generally consists of functions wireless connections. 3. The applicant must establish that are managed or controlled by the 3. The connection of wireless devices appropriate procedures to allow the operator, such as administrative operated by the flight crew or operator operator to ensure that continued functions and cabin-support functions. airworthiness of the aircraft is This design creates a potential for maintenance personnel to the airplane maintained, including all post type- unauthorized access to aircraft-control data networks of the Aircraft Control certification modifications that may and airline-information-services Domain, and connections between the have an impact on the approved domains, as well as security Airline Information Services Domain electronic system security safeguards. vulnerabilities related to the (including unprotected electronic flight introduction of viruses, worms, user bags and maintenance computers) and Issued in Renton, Washington, on mistakes, and intentional sabotage of the Aircraft Control Domain. September 28, 2017. airplane electronic assets such as These special conditions contain the Suzanne Masterson, networks, systems, and databases. additional safety standards that the Acting Manager, Transport Standards Historically, the operating systems for Administrator considers necessary to Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, current airplanes are proprietary. establish a level of safety equivalent to Aircraft Certification Service. Therefore, they are not as susceptible to that established by the existing [FR Doc. 2017–22415 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] corruption from worms, viruses and airworthiness standards. BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:55 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48195

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 20202. Telephone: (202) 203–9155 or by issue waivers and modifications of email: [email protected]. statutory and regulatory provisions. 34 CFR Parts 668, 674, 682, and 685 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On On December 26, 2007, the Secretary September 29, 2017 (82 FR 45465), the published a document in the Federal Federal Student Aid Programs Register (72 FR 72947) extending the (Student Assistance General Secretary published a document in the Federal Register announcing the waivers and modifications published on Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan December 12, 2003, to September 30, Program, Federal Family Education updated waivers and modifications. We are republishing this document to 2012. In that document, the Secretary Loan Program, and the Federal Direct also indicated an intent to review the Loan Program) include the definitions of certain terms used in this document. We have made waivers and modifications published on AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary no changes to the waivers and December 12, 2003, in light of statutory Education, Department of Education. modifications. and regulatory changes and to consider whether to change some or all of the ACTION: Updated waivers and In a document published in the modifications of statutory and Federal Register on December 12, 2003 published waivers and modifications. In a document in the Federal Register regulatory requirements; republication. (68 FR 69312), the Secretary exercised published on September 27, 2012 (77 FR the authority under the HEROES Act 59311), the Secretary published updated SUMMARY: On September 29, 2017, the (Pub. L. 108–76, 20 U.S.C. 1098bb(b)) waivers and modifications to reflect the Secretary published a document in the and announced waivers and results of the review. Under that Federal Register announcing the modifications of statutory and document, the updated waivers and updated waivers and modifications of regulatory provisions designed to assist modifications expire on September 30, statutory and regulatory requirements ‘‘affected individuals.’’ Under 20 U.S.C. governing the Federal student financial 2017. 1098ee(2), the term ‘‘affected The Secretary is updating the waivers aid programs under the authority of the individual’’ means an individual who: Higher Education Relief Opportunities • and modifications to reflect statutory Is serving on active duty during a and regulatory changes that have for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act). war or other military operation or We are republishing this document to occurred since the September 27, 2012, national emergency; document was published. The waivers include the definitions of certain terms • Is performing qualifying National used in this document. We have made and modifications in this document will Guard duty during a war or other no changes to the waivers and expire on September 30, 2022. With a military operation or national modifications. few limited exceptions, the waivers and emergency; modifications in this document are the DATES: • The waivers and modifications Resides or is employed in an area same waivers and modifications began on September 29, 2017. The that is declared a disaster area by any published in the September 27, 2012, waivers and modifications in this Federal, State, or local official in Federal Register document. However, document expire on September 30, connection with a national emergency; the 2012 waivers and modifications 2022. or have been updated in the following • FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Suffered direct economic hardship areas: provisions related to the title IV loan as a direct result of a war or other (1) The Secretary updated the need programs (Federal Perkins Loan military operation or national analysis modification to reflect the Program, Federal Family Education emergency, as determined by the change in which tax year’s information Loan (FFEL) Program, and Federal Secretary. is collected on the Free Application for Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program): Please note that these waivers and Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and used Barbara Hoblitzell, U.S. Department of modifications do not apply to an to calculate the applicant’s expected Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., individual who resides or is employed family contribution (EFC). Previously Room 6W253, Washington, DC 20202. in an area declared a disaster area by when completing a FAFSA, a student Telephone: (202) 453–7583 or by email: any Federal, State, or local official provided income information from the [email protected] or Brian unless that declaration has been made most recently completed tax year prior Smith, U.S. Department of Education, in connection with a national to the beginning of the financial aid 400 Maryland Ave. SW., Room 7E222, emergency. application cycle (e.g., 2015 income Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: Under the HEROES Act, the information for the 2016–2017 FAFSA). (202) 453–7440 or by email: Secretary’s authority to provide the Beginning with the 2017–2018 FAFSA, [email protected]. For other waivers and modifications would have income information is collected from provisions: Wendy Macias, U.S. expired on September 30, 2005. one tax year earlier—referred to as the Department of Education, 400 Maryland However, Public Law 109–78, enacted ‘‘prior-prior year.’’ This change was Ave. SW., Room 6C111, Washington, DC on September 30, 2005, extended the made under the authority of section 20202. Telephone: (202) 203–9155 or by expiration date of the Secretary’s 480(a)(1)(B) of the Higher Education Act email: [email protected]. authority to September 30, 2007. of 1965, as amended (HEA). This If you use a telecommunications Accordingly, in a document in the modification was also updated to make device for the deaf (TDD) or text Federal Register published on October it consistent with the modification to telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 20, 2005 (70 FR 61037), the Secretary professional judgment included in this Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– extended the expiration of the waivers document, which provides three options 8339. and modifications published on that a financial aid administrator (FAA) Individuals with disabilities can December 12, 2003, to September 30, may use to make adjustments to the obtain this document in an accessible 2007. values of the items used to calculate the format (e.g., Braille, large print, Public Law 110–93, enacted on EFC to reflect a student’s special audiotape, or compact disc) by September 30, 2007, eliminated the circumstances. contacting Wendy Macias, U.S. September 30, 2007, expiration date of (2) For the professional judgment Department of Education, 400 Maryland the HEROES Act, thereby making modification, the Secretary clarified that Ave. SW., Room 6C111, Washington, DC permanent the Secretary’s authority to in addition to using income information

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:55 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES 48196 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

from the first or second calendar year of 1098bb(a). In accordance with the the U.S. Military Academy or U.S. Naval the award year, an institution may use HEROES Act, the Secretary is providing Academy). another annual income that more the waivers and modifications of Military operation means a accurately reflects the family’s current statutory and regulatory requirements contingency operation as that term is financial circumstances. applicable to the student financial defined in 10 U.S.C. 101(a)(13). (3) The Secretary updated the assistance programs under title IV of the National emergency means a national modifications related to verification of HEA that the Secretary believes are emergency declared by the President of adjusted gross income (AGI) and U.S. appropriate to ensure that: the United States. income tax paid so that affected • Affected individuals who are Qualifying National Guard duty individuals under this category are no recipients of student financial assistance during a war or other military operation longer required to provide a signature under title IV are not placed in a worse or national emergency means service as on the statement certifying that he or position financially in relation to that a member of the National Guard on full- she has not filed an income tax return financial assistance because they are time National Guard duty (as defined in or a request for a filing extension affected individuals; 10 U.S.C. 101(d)(5)) under a call to because he or she was called up for • Affected individuals who are active service authorized by the active duty or for qualifying National recipients of student financial assistance President or the Secretary of Defense for Guard duty during a war or other are not unduly subject to administrative a period of more than 30 consecutive military operation or national burden or inadvertent, technical days under 32 U.S.C. 502(f), in emergency; or certifying the amount of violations or defaults; connection with a war, another military AGI and U.S. income tax paid for the • Affected individuals are not operation, or a national emergency specified year. penalized when a determination of need declared by the President and supported (4) The Secretary extended the waiver for student financial assistance is by Federal funds. assisting affected individuals with calculated; Serving on active duty during a war or regard to the annual reevaluation • Affected individuals are not other military operation or national requirements for FFEL and Direct Loan required to return or repay an emergency includes service by an borrowers who are repaying loans under overpayment of grant funds based on individual who is— the Income-Based Repayment (IBR) (A) A Reserve member of an Armed the HEA’s Return of Title IV Funds plan, and Direct Loan borrowers who Force ordered to active duty under 10 provision; and are repaying loans under the Income- U.S.C. 12301(a), 12301(g), 12302, 12304, • Entities that participate in the Contingent Repayment (ICR) plan to or 12306, or any retired member of an student financial assistance programs include borrowers who are repaying Armed Force ordered to active duty under title IV of the HEA and that are Direct Loans under the Pay As You Earn under 10 U.S.C. 688, for service in located in areas that are declared (PAYE) or Revised Pay As You Earn connection with a war or other military disaster areas by any Federal, State, or (REPAYE) repayment plans. operation or national emergency, local official in connection with a (5) For the fourth category of affected regardless of the location at which that national emergency, or whose individuals to which waivers and active duty service is performed; and modifications apply, as described later operations are significantly affected by (B) Any other member of an Armed in this document, the Secretary removed such a disaster, receive temporary relief Force on active duty in connection with the reference to spouses of affected from administrative requirements. any war, operation, or emergency or individuals who are serving on active In 20 U.S.C. 1098bb(b)(1), the subsequent actions or conditions who duty or performing qualifying National HEROES Act further provides that has been assigned to a duty station at a Guard duty during a war or other section 437 of the General Education location other than the location at military operation or national Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232) and which the member is normally assigned. emergency, since the waivers under this section 553 of the Administrative The following waivers and category only pertain to the dependent Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) do not modifications are grouped into four student of such affected individuals. apply to the contents of this document. categories, according to the affected (6) The Secretary updated the waiver In 20 U.S.C. 1098ee, the HEROES Act individuals to whom they apply. related to verification signature provides definitions critical to Category 1: The Secretary is waiving requirements to waive the requirement determining whether a student is an or modifying the following requirements for a parental signature on any ‘‘affected individual’’ under the act and, of title IV of the HEA and the verification documentation required for if so, to which waivers and Department of Education’s title IV eligibility for a dependent modifications the affected individual is (Department’s) regulations for ALL student because of the parent’s status as entitled. Because these definitions are affected individuals. an affected individual. located outside of the statutes and (7) The Secretary made a technical regulations administered by the Need Analysis change to the waiver related to the Department and with which financial Section 480 of the HEA provides that, section on required signatures on the aid administrators are most familiar, in the calculation of an applicant’s EFC, FAFSA, the Student Aid Report (SAR), whether a student qualifies as an the term ‘‘total income,’’ which is used and the Institutional Student ‘‘affected individual’’ is a frequent in the determination of ‘‘annual Information Record (ISIR), replacing the source of confusion. To help ensure that adjusted family income’’ and ‘‘available reference to ‘‘ISIR’’ with ‘‘or submitting the terms are not misinterpreted and income,’’ is equal to the applicant’s, the corrections electronically’’. The that affected individuals receive the applicant’s spouse’s, or the applicant’s Secretary also changed the reference to waivers and modifications to which parent’s AGI plus untaxed income and ‘‘responsible parent’’ to ‘‘relevant they are entitled under the HEROES benefits for the second preceding tax parent’’ to mean the parent whose Act, we provide these definitions below. year minus excludable income. The information is reported on the FAFSA. Active duty has the meaning given HEROES Act allows an institution to The Secretary is issuing these waivers that term in 10 U.S.C. 101(d)(1), but substitute AGI plus untaxed income and and modifications under the authority does not include active duty for training benefits received in the first calendar of the HEROES Act, 20 U.S.C. or attendance at a service school (e.g., year of the award year for which such

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:55 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48197

determination is made for any affected Return of Title IV Funds—Grant Tax Return,’’ that the individual filed individual, and for his or her spouse Overpayments Owed by the Student with the IRS for the specified year, or a and dependents, if applicable, in order Section 484B(b)(2) of the HEA and 34 copy of the IRS’s approval of an to reflect more accurately the financial CFR 668.22(h)(3)(ii) require a student to extension beyond the automatic six- condition of an affected individual and return or repay, as appropriate, month extension if the individual his or her family. The Secretary has unearned grant funds for which the requested an additional extension of the determined that an institution has the student is responsible under the Return filing time; and • A copy of each IRS Form W–2 that option of using the applicant’s original of Title IV Funds calculation. For a the individual received for the specified EFC (the EFC based on the income and student who withdraws from an year or, for a self-employed individual, tax information reported on the institution because of his or her status a statement signed by the individual FAFSA), the EFC based on the data from as an affected individual, the Secretary certifying the amount of AGI and U.S. the first calendar year of the award year, is waiving these statutory and regulatory or the EFC based on another annual income tax paid for the specified year. requirements so that a student is not The Secretary is modifying the income that more accurately reflects the required to return or repay any requirement of this provision so that the family’s current financial overpayment of grant funds based on submission of a copy of IRS Form 4868 circumstances. the Return of Title IV Funds provisions. or a copy of the IRS’s approval of an If an institution chooses to use For these students, the Secretary also extension beyond the six-month anything other than the original EFC, it waives 34 CFR 668.22(h)(4), which: • extension is not required if an affected should use the administrative Requires an institution to notify a individual has not filed an income tax professional judgment options student of a grant overpayment and the return by the filing deadline. discussed in the following section. actions the student must take to resolve For these individuals, an institution the overpayment; • must accept, in lieu of an income tax Professional Judgment Denies eligibility to a student who return for verification of AGI and U.S. owes a grant overpayment and does not income tax paid: Section 479A of the HEA specifically take an action to resolve the • gives the FAA at an institution the A statement from the individual overpayment; and certifying that he or she has not filed an authority to use professional judgment • Requires an institution to refer a to make, on a case-by-case basis, income tax return or a request for a grant overpayment to the Secretary filing extension because he or she was adjustments to the cost of attendance or under certain conditions. called up for active duty or for to the values of the items used in Therefore, an institution is not qualifying National Guard duty during a calculating the EFC to reflect a student’s required to contact the student, notify war or other military operation or special circumstances. The Secretary is the National Student Loan Data System, national emergency; and modifying this provision by removing or refer the overpayment to the • A copy of each W–2 received for the the requirement that adjustments be Secretary. However, the institution must specified year or, for a self-employed made on a case-by-case basis for affected document in the student’s file the individual, a statement by the individuals. The use of professional amount of any overpayment as part of individual certifying the amount of AGI judgment in Federal need analysis is the documentation of the application of and U.S. income tax paid for the discussed in the Federal Student Aid this waiver. specified year. Handbook available at www.ifap.ed.gov. The student is not required to return An institution may request that an The Secretary encourages FAAs to use or repay an overpayment of grant funds individual granted a filing extension professional judgment to reflect more based on the Return of Title IV Funds submit tax information using the IRS accurately the financial need of affected provision. Therefore, an institution Data Retrieval Tool, or by obtaining a individuals. To that end, the Secretary must not apply any title IV credit tax return transcript from the IRS that encourages institutions to determine an balance to the grant overpayment prior lists tax account information for the affected individual’s need using one of to: Using a credit balance to pay specified year after the income tax the options listed below: authorized charges; paying any amount return is filed. If an institution receives of the title IV credit balance to the • the tax information, it must verify the Using the AGI plus untaxed income student or parent, in the case of a parent income information of the tax filer(s). and benefits received in the first PLUS loan; or using the credit balance Category 2: The Secretary is waiving calendar year of the award year; to reduce the student’s title IV loan debt or modifying requirements in the • Using another annual income that (with the student’s authorization) as following provisions of title IV of the more accurately reflects the family’s provided in Dear Colleague Letter GEN– HEA and the Department’s regulations current financial circumstances; or 04–03 (February 2004; revised for affected individuals who are serving • Making no modifications. November 2004). on active duty or performing qualifying National Guard duty during a war or The FAA must clearly document the Verification of AGI and U.S. Income Tax Paid other military operation or national reasons for any adjustment and the facts emergency, or who reside or are supporting the decision. In almost all Pursuant to 34 CFR 668.57(a)(3)(ii), employed in a disaster area. cases, the FAA should have for an individual who is required to file documentation from a third party with a U.S. income tax return and has been Return of Title IV Funds—Post- knowledge of the student’s special granted a filing extension by the Internal Withdrawal Disbursements of Loan circumstances. As usual, any Revenue Service (IRS), an institution Funds professional judgment decisions made must accept, in lieu of an income tax Under 34 CFR 668.22(a)(6)(iii)(A)(5) by an FAA that affect a student’s return for verification of AGI or U.S. and (D), a student (or parent for a parent eligibility for a subsidized student income tax paid: PLUS loan) must be provided a post- financial assistance program must be • A copy of IRS Form 4868, withdrawal disbursement of a title IV reported to the Central Processing ‘‘Application for Automatic Extension loan if the student (or parent) responds System. of Time to File U.S. Individual Income to an institution’s notification of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:55 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES 48198 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

post-withdrawal disbursement within Treatment of Title IV Credit Balances the institution notifies the student or 14 days of the date that the institution When a Student Withdraws parent of his or her right to cancel all sent the notice, or a later deadline set by Under 34 CFR 668.164(h)(2), an or a portion of a loan or TEACH Grant, the institution. If a student or parent institution must pay any title IV credit if the institution obtains affirmative submits a late response, an institution balance to the student, or parent in the confirmation from the student under 34 may, but is not required to, make the CFR 668.165(a)(6)(i); or case of a parent PLUS loan, as soon as • post-withdrawal disbursement. possible, but no later than: 14 days after Within 30 days of the date the institution notifies the student or parent The Secretary is modifying this the balance occurred if the balance occurred after the first day of class of a of his or her right to cancel all or a requirement so that, for a student who portion of a loan, if the institution does withdraws because of his or her status payment period; or 14 days after the first day of class of a payment period if not obtain affirmative confirmation from as an affected individual in this category the student under 34 CFR and who is eligible for a post- the balance occurred on or before the first day of class of that payment period. 668.165(a)(6)(i). withdrawal disbursement, the 14-day If the student (or parent) has provided Under 34 CFR 668.165(a)(4)(iii), if an time period in which the student (or authorization, an institution may use a institution receives a loan cancellation parent) must normally respond to the title IV credit balance to reduce the request from a borrower after the period offer of the post-withdrawal borrower’s total title IV loan debt, not specified in 34 CFR 668.165(a)(4)(ii), the disbursement is extended to 45 days, or just the title IV loan debt for the period institution may, but is not required to, to a later deadline set by the institution. for which the Return of Title IV Funds comply with the request. For a student If the student or parent submits a calculation is performed. or parent who is an affected individual response after the designated period, the For students who withdraw because in this category, the Secretary is institution may, but is not required to, they are affected individuals in this modifying this requirement so that an make the post-withdrawal category, the Secretary finds that the institution must allow at least 60 days disbursement. As required under the institution has met the 14-day for the student or parent to request the current regulations, if the student or requirement under 34 CFR 668.164(h)(2) cancellation of all or a portion of a loan parent submits the timely response if, within that timeframe, the institution or TEACH Grant for which proceeds instructing the institution to make all or attempts to contact the student (or have been credited to the account at the a portion of the post-withdrawal parent) to suggest that the institution be institution. If an institution receives a disbursement, or the institution chooses authorized to return the credit balance loan or TEACH Grant cancellation to make a post-withdrawal to the loan program(s). request after the 60-day period, the disbursement based on receipt of a late Based upon the instructions of the institution may, but is not required to, response, the institution must disburse student (or parent), the institution must comply with the request. the funds within 180 days of the date of promptly return the funds to the title IV Cash Management—Student and Parent loan programs or pay the credit balance the institution’s determination that the Authorizations student withdrew. to the student (or parent). In addition, if an institution chooses Under 34 CFR 668.165(b)(1), an Leaves of Absence to attempt to contact the student (or institution must obtain a written parent) for authorization to apply the authorization from a student or parent, Under 34 CFR 668.22(d)(3)(iii)(B), a credit balance to reduce the student’s as applicable, to: student is required to provide a written, title IV loan debt, it must allow the • Use title IV funds to pay for signed, and dated request, which student (or parent) 45 days to respond. educationally related charges incurred includes the reason for that request, for If there is no response within 45 days, by the student at the institution other an approved leave of absence prior to the institution must promptly pay the than charges for tuition and fees and, as the leave of absence. However, if credit balance to the student (or parent) applicable, room and board; and • unforeseen circumstances prevent a or return the funds to the title IV Hold on behalf of the student or student from providing a prior written programs if the student (or parent) parent any title IV funds that would request, the institution may grant the cannot be located. otherwise be paid directly to the student student’s request for a leave of absence Consistent with the guidance or parent. if the institution documents its decision provided in Dear Colleague Letter GEN– The Secretary is modifying these requirements to permit an institution to and collects the written request at a later 04–03 (February 2004; revised accept an authorization provided by a date. It may be appropriate in certain November 2004), the institution may student (or parent for a parent PLUS limited cases for an institution to also choose to pay the credit balance to loan) orally, rather than in writing, if the provide an approved leave of absence to the student (or parent) without first student or parent is prevented from a student who must interrupt his or her requesting permission to apply the providing a written authorization enrollment because he or she is an credit balance to reduce the student’s title IV loan debt. because of his or her status as an affected individual in this category. affected individual in this category. The Therefore, the Secretary is waiving the Cash Management—Student or Parent institution must document the oral requirement that the student provide a Request for Loan or TEACH Grant consent or authorization. written request for affected individuals Cancellation who have difficulty providing a written Under 34 CFR 668.165(a)(4)(ii), an Satisfactory Academic Progress request as a result of being an affected institution must return loan or TEACH Institutions may, in cases where a individual in this category. The Grant proceeds, cancel the loan or student failed to meet the institution’s institution’s documentation of its TEACH Grant, or do both, if the satisfactory academic progress standards decision to grant the leave of absence institution receives a loan or TEACH as a direct result of being an affected must include, in addition to the reason Grant cancellation request from a individual in this category, apply the for the leave of absence, the reason for student or parent: exception provision of ‘‘other special waiving the requirement that the leave • By the later of the first day of a circumstances’’ contained in 34 CFR of absence be requested in writing. payment period or 14 days after the date 668.34(a)(9)(ii).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:55 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48199

Borrowers in a Grace Period Loan as a result of the extension of a forbearances that a Federal Perkins Loan Sections 428(b)(7)(D) and 464(c)(7) of borrower’s in-school status under this borrower can receive. To assist Federal the HEA and 34 CFR 674.31(b)(2)(i)(C), modification. Perkins Loan borrowers who are affected individuals in this category, the 682.209(a)(5), and 685.207(b)(2)(ii) and Borrowers in an In-School, Graduate Secretary is waiving these statutory and (c)(2)(ii) exclude from a Federal Perkins Fellowship, or Rehabilitation Training Loan, FFEL, or Direct Loan borrower’s Program Deferment regulatory requirements so that any (title IV borrower’s) initial grace period forbearance based on a borrower’s status Under sections 427(a)(2)(C)(i), as an affected individual in this category any period during which a borrower 428(b)(1)(M)(i), 428B(a)(2) and (d)(1), who is a member of an Armed Forces is excluded from the three-year 428C(b)(4)(C), 455(f)(2)(A), and cumulative limit. reserve component is called or ordered 464(c)(2)(A)(i) of the HEA and 34 CFR to active duty for a period of more than Under section 464(e) of the HEA and 674.34(b)(1), 682.210(b)(1)(i), (ii), and 34 CFR 674.33(d)(2) and (3), a school 30 days. The statutory and regulatory (iii), 682.210(s)(2), (3), and (4), provisions further require that any must receive a request and supporting 685.204(b), 685.204(d), and 685.204(e), a documentation from a Federal Perkins single excluded period may not exceed title IV borrower is eligible for a three years and must include the time Loan borrower before granting the deferment on the loan during periods borrower a forbearance, the terms of necessary for the borrower to resume after the commencement or resumption enrollment at the next available regular which must be in the form of a written of the repayment period on the loan agreement. The Secretary is waiving enrollment period. Lastly, any borrower when the borrower is enrolled and in who is in a grace period when called or these statutory and regulatory attendance as a regular student on at requirements to require an institution to ordered to active duty is entitled to least a half-time basis (or full-time, if another six- or nine-month grace period, grant forbearance based on the required by the terms of the borrower’s borrower’s status as an affected as applicable, upon completion of the promissory note) at an eligible individual in this category for a one- excluded period of service. institution; enrolled and in attendance year period, including a three-month The Secretary is modifying these as a regular student in a course of study ‘‘transition period’’ immediately statutory and regulatory requirements to that is part of a graduate fellowship following, without supporting exclude from a title IV borrower’s initial program; engaged in an eligible documentation or a written agreement, grace period, any period, not to exceed rehabilitation training program; or, for based on the written or oral request of three years, during which a borrower is Federal Perkins Loan borrowers, the borrower, a member of the an affected individual in this category. engaged in graduate or post-graduate borrower’s family, or another reliable Any excluded period must include the fellowship-supported study outside the source. The purpose of the three-month time necessary for an affected United States. The borrower’s deferment individual in this category to resume period ends when the borrower no transition period is to assist borrowers enrollment at the next available longer meets one of the above so that they will not be required to enrollment period. conditions. reenter repayment immediately after they are no longer affected individuals Borrowers in an ‘‘In-School’’ Period The Secretary is waiving the statutory and regulatory eligibility requirements in this category. In order to grant the A title IV borrower is considered to be for this deferment for title IV borrowers borrower forbearance beyond the initial in an ‘‘in-school’’ status and is not who were required to interrupt a twelve- to fifteen-month period, required to make payments on a title IV graduate fellowship or rehabilitation supporting documentation from the loan that has not entered repayment as training program deferment, or who borrower, a member of the borrower’s long as the borrower is enrolled at an were in an in-school deferment but who family, or another reliable source is eligible institution on at least a half-time left school, because of their status as an required. basis. Under sections 428(b)(7) and affected individual in this category. The Under 34 CFR 682.211(i)(1), a FFEL 464(c)(1)(A) of the HEA and 34 CFR holder of the loan is required to borrower who requests forbearance 674.31(b)(2), 682.209(a), and 685.207(b), maintain the loan in the graduate because of a military mobilization must (c), and (e)(2) and (3), when a title IV fellowship, rehabilitation training provide the loan holder with borrower ceases to be enrolled at an program, or in-school deferment status documentation showing that he or she eligible institution on at least a half-time for a period not to exceed three years is subject to a military mobilization. The basis, the borrower is obligated to begin during which the borrower is an Secretary is waiving this requirement to repayment of the loan after a six- or affected individual in this category. This allow a borrower who is not otherwise nine-month grace period, depending on period includes the time necessary for eligible for the military service the title IV loan program and the terms the borrower to resume his or her deferment under 34 CFR 682.210(t), of the borrower’s promissory note. The graduate fellowship program, resume a 685.204(h), and 674.34(h) to receive Secretary is modifying the statutory and rehabilitation training program, or forbearance at the request of the regulatory requirements that obligate an resume enrollment in the next regular borrower, a member of the borrower’s ‘‘in-school’’ borrower who has dropped enrollment period if the borrower family, or another reliable source for a below half-time status to begin returns to school. The Secretary will pay one-year period, including a three- repayment if the borrower is an affected interest that accrues on a FFEL month transition period that individual in this category, by requiring subsidized Stafford Loan or not charge immediately follows, without providing the holder of the loan to maintain the interest on a Direct subsidized Stafford the loan holder with documentation. To loan in an ‘‘in-school’’ status for a Loan as a result of extending a grant the borrower forbearance beyond period not to exceed three years, borrower’s eligibility for deferment this period, documentation supporting including the time necessary for the under this waiver. the borrower’s military mobilization borrower to resume enrollment in the must be submitted to the loan holder. next regular enrollment period, if the Forbearance The Secretary will apply the borrower is planning to go back to Under section 464(e) of the HEA and forbearance waivers and modifications school. The Secretary will pay interest 34 CFR 674.33(d)(2), there is a three- in this section to loans held by the that accrues on a subsidized Stafford year cumulative limit on the length of Department.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:55 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES 48200 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

Collection of Defaulted Loans affected individual in this category, consecutive payments to reestablish In accordance with 34 CFR part 674, including the three-month transition eligibility for title IV student financial subpart C—Due Diligence, and period. The Secretary will apply the assistance. Loan holders should not 682.410(b)(6), schools and guaranty waivers described in this paragraph to treat any payment missed during the agencies must attempt to recover loans held by the Department. time that a borrower is an affected amounts owed from defaulted Federal Rehabilitation of Defaulted Loans individual in this category as an interruption in the six consecutive, on- Perkins Loan and FFEL borrowers, A borrower of a Direct Loan or FFEL time, voluntary, full, monthly payments respectively. The Secretary is waiving Loan must make nine voluntary on- the regulatory provisions that require time, monthly payments over ten required for reestablishing title IV schools and guaranty agencies to consecutive months to rehabilitate a eligibility. If there is an arrangement or attempt collection on defaulted loans for defaulted loan in accordance with agreement in place between the the time period during which the section 428F(a) of the HEA and 34 CFR borrower and loan holder and the borrower is an affected individual in 682.405 and 685.211(f). Federal Perkins borrower makes a payment during this this category and for a three-month Loan borrowers must make nine period, the loan holder must treat the transition period. The school or consecutive, on-time monthly payments payment as an eligible payment in the guaranty agency may stop collection to rehabilitate a defaulted Federal required series of payments. When the activities upon notification by the Perkins Loan in accordance with section borrower is no longer an affected borrower, a member of the borrower’s 464(h)(1)(A) of the HEA and 34 CFR individual or in the three-month family, or another reliable source that 674.39. To assist title IV borrowers who transition period for purposes of this the borrower is an affected individual in are affected individuals in this category, document, the required sequence of this category. Collection activities must the Secretary is waiving the statutory qualifying payments may resume at the resume after the borrower has notified and regulatory requirements that point they were discontinued as a result the school or guaranty agency that he or payments made to rehabilitate a loan of the borrower’s status. The Secretary she is no longer an affected individual must be consecutive or made over no will apply the waivers described in this and the three-month transition period more than ten consecutive months. Loan has expired. The loan holder must paragraph to loans held by the holders should not treat any payment Department. document in the loan file why it has missed during the time that a borrower suspended collection activities on the is an affected individual in this Consolidation of Defaulted Loans loan, and the loan holder is not required category, or during the three-month to obtain evidence of the borrower’s transition period, as an interruption in Under the definition of ‘‘satisfactory status while collection activities have the number of monthly, on-time repayment arrangement’’ in 34 CFR been suspended. The Secretary will payments required to be made 685.102(b), a defaulted FFEL or Direct apply the waivers described in this consecutively, or the number of Loan borrower may establish eligibility paragraph to loans held by the consecutive months in which payment to consolidate a defaulted loan in the Department. is required to be made, for loan Direct Consolidation Loan Program by Loan Cancellation rehabilitation. If there is an arrangement making three consecutive, voluntary, or agreement in place between the on-time, monthly, full payments on the Depending on the loan program, borrower and loan holder and the loan. The Secretary is waiving the borrowers may qualify for loan borrower makes a payment during this regulatory requirement that such cancellation if they are employed period, the loan holder must treat the payments be consecutive. FFEL loan fulltime in specified occupations, such payment as an eligible payment in the holders should not treat any payment as teaching or in law enforcement, required series of payments. When the pursuant to sections 428J, 460(b)(1), and missed during the time that a borrower borrower is no longer an affected is an affected individual in this category 465(a)(2)(A)–(M) and (3) of the HEA, individual in this category, and the as an interruption in the three and 34 CFR 674.53, 674.55, 674.55(b), three-month transition period has consecutive, voluntary, monthly, full, 674.56, 674.57, 674.58, 674.60, 682.216, expired, the required sequence of and 685.217. Generally, to qualify for qualifying payments may resume at the on-time payments required for loan cancellation, borrowers must point they were discontinued as a result establishing eligibility to consolidate a perform uninterrupted, otherwise of the borrower’s status. The Secretary defaulted loan in the Direct qualifying service for a specified length will apply the waivers described in this Consolidation Loan Program. If there is of time (for example, one year) or for paragraph to loans held by the an arrangement or agreement in place consecutive periods of time, such as five Department. between the borrower and loan holder consecutive years. and the borrower makes a payment For borrowers who are affected Reinstatement of Title IV Eligibility during this period, the loan holder must individuals in this category, the Under sections 428F(b) and 464(h)(2) treat the payment as an eligible payment Secretary is waiving the requirements of the HEA and under the definition of in the required series of payments. that apply to the various loan ‘‘satisfactory repayment arrangement’’ When the borrower is no longer an cancellations that such periods of in 34 CFR 668.35(a)(2), 674.2(b), affected individual in this category or in service be uninterrupted or consecutive, 682.200(b), and 685.102(b), a defaulted the three-month transition period, the if the reason for the interruption is title IV borrower may make six required sequence of qualifying related to the borrower’s status as an consecutive, on-time, voluntary, full, payments may resume at the point they affected individual in this category. monthly payments to reestablish were discontinued as a result of the Therefore, the service period required eligibility for title IV student financial borrower’s status as an affected for the borrower to receive or retain a assistance. To assist title IV borrowers individual. The Secretary will apply the loan cancellation for which he or she is who are affected individuals in this waivers described in this paragraph to otherwise eligible will not be category, the Secretary is waiving loans held by the Department. considered interrupted by any period statutory and regulatory provisions that during which the borrower is an require the borrower to make

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:55 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48201

Annual Income Documentation Institutional Charges and Refunds duty or performing qualifying National Requirements for Direct Loan and FFEL The HEROES Act encourages Guard duty during a war or other Borrowers Under the IBR, PAYE, institutions to provide a full refund of military operation or national REPAYE, and ICR Plans tuition, fees, and other institutional emergency. Section 493C(c) of the HEA requires charges for the portion of a period of Verification Signature Requirements instruction that a student was unable to the Secretary to establish procedures for The Department’s regulations in 34 complete, or for which the student did annually determining a borrower’s CFR 668.57(b), (c), and (d) require not receive academic credit, because he eligibility for the IBR plan, including signatures to verify the number of or she was called up for active duty or verification of a borrower’s annual family members in the household, the for qualifying National Guard duty income and the annual amount due on number of family members enrolled in during a war or other military operation the total amount of the borrower’s loans. postsecondary institutions, or other or national emergency. Alternatively, information specified in the annual Section 455(e)(1) of the HEA provides the Secretary encourages institutions to that the Secretary may obtain such Federal Register document that provide a credit in a comparable amount announces the FAFSA information that information as is reasonably necessary against future charges. regarding the income of a borrower for an institution and an applicant may be The HEROES Act also recommends required to verify, as well as the the purpose of determining the annual that institutions consider providing easy repayment obligation of the borrower acceptable documentation for verifying and flexible reenrollment options to that FAFSA information. The Secretary under an income-contingent repayment students who are affected individuals in plan. Under 34 CFR 682.215(e), is waiving the requirement for a parent’s this category. At a minimum, an signature on any verification 685.209(a)(5), (b)(3), and (c)(4), and institution must comply with the documentation required for title IV 685.221(e), borrowers repaying under requirements of 34 CFR 668.18, which eligibility for a dependent student when the IBR, PAYE, REPAYE, or ICR plans addresses the readmission requirements no relevant parent can provide the must annually provide their loan holder for service members serving for a period required signature because of the with documentation of their income and of more than 30 consecutive days under parent’s status as an affected individual family size so that the loan holder may, certain conditions. Some institutions in this category. if necessary, adjust the borrower’s must also abide by the protections monthly payment amount based on provided by the Principles of Excellence Required Signatures on the FAFSA, changes in the borrower’s income or (Executive Order 13607, issued April SAR, or in Connection With Submitting family size. Borrowers are required to 27, 2012) to service members who are Corrections Electronically provide information about their annual absent for shorter periods of service. Generally, when a dependent income and family size to the loan Institutions agree to comply with the applicant for title IV aid submits the holder each year by a deadline specified Principles of Excellence through FAFSA or submits corrections to a by the holder. If a borrower who is arrangements with the Department of previously submitted FAFSA, at least repaying his or her loans under the IBR, Defense and the Department of Veterans one parent’s signature is required on the PAYE, or ICR plans fails to provide the Affairs. Executive Order 13607 is FAFSA, SAR, or in connection with required information by the specified available at www.whitehouse.gov/the- submitting corrections electronically. deadline, the borrower’s monthly press-office/2012/04/27/executive- The Secretary is waiving this payment amount is adjusted and is no order-establishing-principles- requirement so that an applicant need longer based on the borrower’s income. excellence-educational-instituti. not provide a parent’s signature when This adjusted monthly payment amount Of course, an institution may provide there is no relevant parent who can is generally higher than the payment such treatment to affected individuals provide the required signature because amount that was based on the other than those who are called up to of the parent’s status as an affected borrower’s income. active duty or for qualifying National individual in this category. In these The Secretary is waiving these Guard duty during a war or other situations, a student’s high school statutory and regulatory provisions to military operation or national counselor or the FAA may sign on require loan holders to maintain an emergency. behalf of the parent as long as the Before an institution makes a refund affected borrower’s payment at the most applicant provides adequate of institutional charges, it must perform recently calculated IBR, PAYE, documentation concerning the parent’s the required Return of Title IV Funds REPAYE, or ICR monthly payment inability to provide a signature due to calculations based upon the originally the parent’s status as an affected amount for up to a three-year period, assessed institutional charges. After individual in this category. including a three-month transition determining the amount that the Electronic Access to This Document: period immediately following the three- institution must return to the title IV The official version of this document is year period, if the borrower’s status as Federal student aid programs, any the document published in the Federal an affected individual in this category reduction of institutional charges may Register. Free internet access to the has prevented the borrower from take into account the funds that the official edition of the Federal Register providing documentation of updated institution is required to return. In other and the Code of Federal Regulations is income and family size by the specified words, we do not expect that an available via the Federal Digital System deadline. institution would both return funds to at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you Category 3: The Secretary is waiving the Federal programs and also provide can view this document, as well as all or modifying the following provisions of a refund of those same funds to the other documents of this Department title IV of the HEA and the Department’s student. published in the Federal Register, in regulations for affected individuals who Category 4: The Secretary is waiving text or Portable Document Format are serving on active duty or performing or modifying the following provisions of (PDF). To use PDF you must have qualifying National Guard duty during a the HEA and the Department’s Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is war or other military operation or regulations for dependents of affected available free at the site. You may also national emergency. individuals who are serving on active access documents of the Department

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:55 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES 48202 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

published in the Federal Register by Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR– implement and enforce certain provisions of using the article search feature at: 2017–0514. Copies of documents the NSPS. www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, pertaining to this action are available for Delegation Request through the advanced search feature at public inspection at our Region 1 office VT ANR requested partial delegation to this site, you can limit your search to during normal business hours. All implement and enforce the following documents published by the documents in the electronic docket are provisions of the NSPS at 40 CFR 60.539a Department. listed in the www.regulations.gov index. and 60.5482: (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Although listed in the index, some 1. Enforcement of prohibitions on the Numbers: 84.007 Federal Supplemental information is not publicly available, installation and operation of affected wood Educational Opportunity Grant Program; i.e., CBI or other information whose heaters and central heaters in a manner 84.032 Federal Family Education Loan disclosure is restricted by statute. inconsistent with the installation and Program; 84.032 Federal PLUS Program; Certain other material, such as owner’s manual; 84.033 Federal Work Study Program; 84.038 2. Enforcement of prohibitions on copyrighted material, is not placed on operation of catalytic wood heaters or central Federal Perkins Loan Program; 84.063 the Internet and will be publicly Federal Pell Grant Program; and 84.268 heaters where the catalyst has been William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan available only in hard copy form. deactivated or removed; Program.) Publicly available docket materials are 3. Enforcement of prohibitions on available either electronically in advertisement and/or sale of uncertified Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1071, 1082, www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at model lines; 1087a, 1087aa, Part F–1. the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 4. Enforcement of prohibitions on Environmental Protection Agency, EPA advertisement and/or sale of affected wood Dated: October 12, 2017. heaters and central heaters that do not have New England Regional Office, 5 Post Kathleen A. Smith, the required permanent label; Office Square, Boston, MA. EPA 5. Enforcement of proper labeling of Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary requests that if at all possible, you Education. affected wood heaters and central heaters; contact the contact listed in the FOR and [FR Doc. 2017–22489 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 6. Enforcement of compliance with other BILLING CODE 4000–01–P schedule your inspection. The Regional labeling requirements for wood heaters and Office’s official hours of business are central heaters. Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to Delegation of Authority ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 4:30 a.m., excluding legal holidays. AGENCY On December 15, 2016, VT ANR adopted FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric and amended the Vermont Air Pollution 40 CFR Part 60 Wortman, Air Permits, Toxics and Control Regulations at § 5–204 for Wood Indoor Programs Unit, Office of Stoves and Central Heaters. In the May 19, [EPA–R01–OAR–2017–0514; FRL–9969–57– Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 2017 letter, VT ANR provided copies of its Region 1] Environmental Protection Agency, EPA revised regulations and its authority to accept delegation. New England Regional Office, 5 Post Notification of Partial Delegation of The EPA has reviewed the pertinent Office Square (OEP05–2), Boston, MA Authority; Vermont; New Source regulations of the State of Vermont, and has 02109–3912, telephone number (617) Performance Standards for New determined they provide an adequate and Residential Wood Heaters, New 918–1624, fax number (617) 918–0624, effective procedure for implementation of the email [email protected]. requested NSPS provisions. Accordingly, the Residential Hydronic Heaters, and EPA hereby approves your request for partial Forced-Air Furnaces SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a letter dated May 19, 2017, the Vermont delegation of authority to implement and enforce the identified provisions of the NSPS AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency of Natural Resources (VT ANR) Agency (EPA). at 40 CFR 60.539a and 60.5482. notified the EPA that VT ANR had Please note that this partial delegation of ACTION: Notification of partial delegation adopted an amended § 5–204 of the authority is subject to the terms and of authority. Vermont Air Pollution Control conditions in the March 6, 1996 Regulation for Wood Stoves and Central Memorandum of Understanding between the SUMMARY: On September 19, 2017, the Heaters and requested partial delegation VT ANR and the EPA for delegation of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement and enforce certain Section 111 standards. In addition, the EPA sent the State of Vermont a letter provisions of the NSPS. On September is not delegating any authorities under 40 approving Vermont’s request for partial 19, 2017, the EPA sent VT ANR a letter CFR 60.539a and 60.5482 that specifically indicate they cannot be delegated. delegation of the New Source approving the request for partial Performance Standards for New Since this delegation is effectively delegation to implement and enforce the immediately, there is no need for VT ANR to Residential Wood Heaters, New NSPS as specified by VT ANR in its Residential Hydronic Heaters, and notify the EPA of its acceptance. Unless we notification to the EPA. A copy of the receive written notice of objections from VT Forced-Air Furnaces (NSPS). To inform EPA’s September 19, 2017 letter to VT ANR within ten (10) days from the date of regulated facilities and the public of ANR follows: this letter, VT ANR will be deemed to have EPA’s approval of Vermont’s request for accepted all of the terms as stated herein. We Heidi Hales, Division Director partial delegation of authority to will publish a notice of delegation of Department of Environmental Conservation implement and enforce the NSPS, the authority in the Federal Register informing One National Life Drive EPA is making available a copy of EPA’s Montpelier, VT 05620–3802 the public of this action. The EPA appreciates Vermont’s efforts to letter to Vermont through this Dear Ms. Hales: document. accept partial delegation and implement and On March 16, 2015, the EPA promulgated enforce the Wood Heater and Central Heater DATES: On September 19, 2017, EPA Standards of Performance for New NSPS delegated provisions. If you have any sent the State of Vermont a letter Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential questions regarding this matter, please don’t Hydronic Heaters, and Forced-Air Furnaces approving Vermont’s request for partial hesitate to contact Eric Wortman at (617) (NSPS) at 40 CFR part 60, subparts AAA and 918–1624. delegation of the NSPS. QQQQ. In your letter dated May 19, 2017, the ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (VT Sincerely, docket for this action under Docket ANR) requested partial delegation to Deborah A. Szaro

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:55 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48203

Acting Regional Administrator FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The total annual reporting burdens This document informs regulated Michael Scott, Disability Rights Office, and costs for the respondents are as facilities and the public of the EPA’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs follows: approval of Vermont’s request for partial Bureau, at (202) 418–1264, or email: OMB Control Number: 3060–1201. delegation of authority to implement [email protected]. OMB Approval Date: October 2, 2017. OMB Expiration Date: October 31, and enforce the NSPS. The partial SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 2020. delegation of authority was effective on document announces that, on October 2, September 19, 2017. Title: Video Relay Services, CG 2017, OMB approved, for a period of Docket Nos. 10–51 & 03–123. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 three years, the information collection Form Number: N/A. requirements contained in the Type of Review: Revision of a Environmental protection, Commission’s Report and Order, FCC Administrative practice and procedure, currently approved collection. 17–26, published at 82 FR 17754, April Respondents: Business or other for- Air pollution control, Hazardous 13, 2017. The OMB Control Number is substances, Intergovernmental relations, profit; Individuals or households; Not- 3060–1201. The Commission publishes for-profit institutions. Reporting and recordkeeping this document as an announcement of requirements. Number of Respondents and the effective date of the rules. If you Responses: 135,350 respondents; Authority: This action is issued under the have any comments on the burden 2,395,180 responses. authority of section 111 of the Clean Air Act, estimates listed below, or how the Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7412. Commission can improve the hours (30 minutes) to 300 hours. Dated: October 2, 2017. collections and reduce any burdens Frequency of Response: Annual, Deborah A. Szaro, caused thereby, please contact Cathy monthly, on-going, one-time, and Acting Regional Administrator, EPA-New Williams, Federal Communications quarterly reporting requirements; England. Commission, Room 1–C823, 445 12th Recordkeeping requirement; Third party [FR Doc. 2017–22364 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. disclosure requirement. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Please include the OMB Control Obligation to Respond: Required to Number, 3060–1201, in your obtain or retain benefits. The statutory correspondence. The Commission will authority for the information collections FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS also accept your comments via the is contained in section 225 of the COMMISSION Internet if you send them to PRA@ Communications Act. The law was fcc.gov. enacted on July 26, 1990, as Title IV of 47 CFR Part 64 To request materials in accessible the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Public Law 101–336, 104 [CG Docket Nos. 10–51 and 03–123; FCC formats for people with disabilities 17–26] (Braille, large print, electronic files, Stat. 327, 366–69. audio format), send an email to fcc504@ Total Annual Burden: 473,809 hours. Structure and Practices of the Video fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Total Annual Cost: $41,000. Relay Services Program Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: 418–0530 (voice), (844) 432–2275 Confidentiality is an issue to the extent AGENCY: Federal Communications (videophone), or (202) 418–0432 (TTY). that individuals and households Commission. provide personally identifiable ACTION: Final rule; announcement of Synopsis information, which is covered under the effective date. As required by the Paperwork FCC’s updated system of records notice (SORN), FCC/CGB–4, ‘‘Internet-based SUMMARY: Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), In this document, the Telecommunications Relay Service-User Commission announces that the Office the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on October 2, Registration Database (ITRS-URD).’’ As of Management and Budget (OMB) has required by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. approved, for a period of three years, the 2017, for the information collection requirements contained in the 552a, the Commission also published a information collection associated with SORN, FCC/CGB–4 ‘‘Internet-based rules adopted in the Commission’s Commission’s rules at §§ 64.604(b)(4)(iii) and (b)(8); Telecommunications Relay Service-User document Structure and Practices of the Registration Database (ITRS-URD),’’ in Video Relay Services Program; 64.611(a)(5), (c)(2)(i), and (g)(1)(vii); 64.615(a)(3)(i) introductory text and the Federal Register on February 9, Telecommunications Relay Services and 2015 (80 FR 6963) which became Speech-to-Speech Services for (a)(3)(i)(A); 64.630; 64.5101(b); and 64.5103(m). effective on March 23, 2015. Individuals with Hearing and Speech Privacy Impact Assessment: This Disabilities, Report and Order (Report Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency information collection affects and Order). This document is consistent may not conduct or sponsor a collection individuals or households. As required with the Report and Order, which stated of information unless it displays a by the Office of Management and that the Commission would publish a current, valid OMB Control Number. Budget Memorandum M–03–22 document in the Federal Register No person shall be subject to any (September 26, 2003), the FCC is in the announcing the effective date of those penalty for failing to comply with a process of completing the Privacy rules. collection of information subject to the Impact Assessment. DATES: 47 CFR 64.604(b)(8) and Paperwork Reduction Act that does not Needs and Uses: On March 23, 2017, 64.611(a)(5) and (g)(1)(vii); and display a current, valid OMB Control the Commission released Structure and amendments to §§ 64.604(b)(4)(iii), Number. The OMB Control Number is Practices of the Video Relay Services 64.611(c)(2)(i), 64.615(a)(3)(i) 3060–1201. Program et al., FCC 17–26, published at introductory text and (a)(3)(i)(A), The foregoing notice is required by 82 FR 17754, April 13, 2017, (2017 VRS 64.630, 64.5101(b), and 64.5103(m), the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Improvements Order), which among published at 82 FR 17754, April 13, Public Law 104–13, October 1, 1995, other things, (1) allows VRS providers to 2017, are effective October 17, 2017. and 44 U.S.C. 3507. assign TRS Numbering Directory 10-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:55 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES 48204 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

digit telephone numbers to hearing DATES: Effective 1200 hours, Alaska Program for the Central Regulatory Area individuals for the limited purpose of local time (ALT), October 12, 2017, of the GOA. making point-to-pint video calls, and (2) through 2400 hours, ALT, December 31, Classification gives VRS providers the option to 2017. participate in an at-home call handling FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh This action responds to the best pilot program, subject to certain Keaton, 907–586–7228. available information recently obtained limitations, as well as recordkeeping from the fishery. The Assistant and reporting requirements. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA manages the groundfish fishery in the Federal Communications Commission. (AA), finds good cause to waive the GOA exclusive economic zone requirement to provide prior notice and Marlene H. Dortch, according to the Fishery Management Secretary. opportunity for public comment Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 [FR Doc. 2017–22468 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is BILLING CODE 6712–01–P Pacific Fishery Management Council impracticable and contrary to the public under authority of the Magnuson- interest. This requirement is Stevens Fishery Conservation and DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE impracticable and contrary to the public Management Act. Regulations governing interest as it would prevent NMFS from National Oceanic and Atmospheric fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance responding to the most recent fisheries Administration with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 data in a timely fashion and would CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. delay prohibiting the retention of 50 CFR Part 679 The 2017 total allowable catch (TAC) sablefish by vessels using trawl gear and of sablefish by vessels using trawl gear not participating in the cooperative [Docket No. 160920866–7167–02] and not participating in the cooperative fishery of the Rockfish Program in the RIN 0648–XF756 fishery of the Rockfish Program in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is NMFS was unable to publish a notice Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 439 metric tons (mt) as established by providing time for public comment Zone Off Alaska; Sablefish in the the final 2017 and 2018 harvest because the most recent, relevant data Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of specifications for groundfish of the GOA only became available as of October 6, Alaska (82 FR 12032, February 27, 2017). 2017. AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the The AA also finds good cause to Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS waive the 30-day delay in the effective Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), (Regional Administrator), has date of this action under 5 U.S.C. Commerce. determined that the 2017 TAC of 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. sablefish by vessels using trawl gear and the reasons provided above for waiver of not participating in the cooperative prior notice and opportunity for public SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting retention fishery of the Rockfish Program in the comment. of sablefish by vessels using trawl gear Central Regulatory Area of the GOA has This action is required by § 679.20 and not participating in the cooperative been reached. Therefore, NMFS is and § 679.21 and is exempt from review fishery of the Rockfish Program in the requiring that sablefish by vessels using under Executive Order 12866. Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of trawl gear and not participating in the Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary cooperative fishery of the Rockfish because the 2017 total allowable catch Program in the Central Regulatory Area Dated: October 12, 2017. of sablefish allocated to vessels using of the GOA be treated as prohibited Alan D. Risenhoover, trawl gear and not participating in the species in accordance with § 679.21(b). Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, cooperative fishery of the Rockfish This closure does not apply to fishing National Marine Fisheries Service. Program in the Central Regulatory Area by vessels participating in the [FR Doc. 2017–22454 Filed 10–12–17; 4:15 pm] of the GOA has been reached. cooperative fishery of the Rockfish BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:55 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES 48205

Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 82, No. 199

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER by submitting such written data, views, requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) contains notices to the public of the proposed or arguments as they may desire. of the Executive Order. issuance of rules and regulations. The Comments that provide the factual basis Small Business Regulatory Enforcement purpose of these notices is to give interested supporting the views and suggestions Fairness Act persons an opportunity to participate in the presented are particularly helpful in rule making prior to the adoption of the final The proposed rule is not a major rule rules. developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement II. Background NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING Fairness Act. The proposed rule will not COMMISSION The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act result in an annual effect on the (IGRA), enacted on October 17, 1988, economy of more than $100 million per 25 CFR Part 517 established the National Indian Gaming year; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, RIN 3141–AA21 Commission. Congress enacted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or Freedom of Information Act 1966. The Commission originally significant adverse effects on Procedures adopted Freedom of Information Act procedures on August 23, 1993. These competition, employment, investment, AGENCY: National Indian Gaming procedures were subsequently amended productivity, innovation, or on the ability of U.S. based enterprises. Commission. once on April 19, 2006. Since that time, ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. the United States Congress has amended Paperwork Reduction Act the FOIA twice, the Commission has SUMMARY: The purpose of this document The proposed rule does not contain changed the location of its headquarters any information collection requirements is to propose amendments to the office and streamlined the way it procedures followed by the National for which the Office of Management and processes its FOIA requests. These Budget approval under the Paperwork Indian Gaming Commission proposed amendments serve to (Commission) when processing a Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520) incorporate the aforementioned changes would be required. request under the Freedom of into the Commission’s regulations. Information Act, as amended. These National Environmental Policy Act changes will serve to update certain III. Regulatory Matters The Commission has determined that Commission information, conform to Regulatory Flexibility Act the proposed rule does not constitute a changes made in the FOIA major Federal Action significantly Improvements Act of 2016, and The Commission certifies that the affecting the quality of the human streamline how the Commission proposed rule will not have a significant environment and that no detailed processes its Freedom of Information economic impact on a substantial statement is required pursuant to the Act requests. number of small entities under the National Environmental Policy Act of Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 DATES: Written comments on this 1969. proposed rule must be received on or et seq.). The factual basis for this before November 16, 2017. certification is as follows: This rule is Tribal Consultation ADDRESSES: You may send comments by procedural in nature and will not The National Indian Gaming any of the following methods: impose substantive requirements that Commission is committed to fulfilling • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to would be considered impacts within the its tribal consultation obligations— http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the scope of the Act. whether directed by statute or instructions for submitting comments. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act administrative action such as Executive • Email: [email protected]. Order (E.O.) 13175 (Consultation and • Fax: 202–632–7066. The Commission is an independent Coordination with Indian Tribal • Mail: National Indian Gaming regulatory agency, and, as such, is Governments)—by adhering to the Commission, 1849 C Street NW., MS exempt from the Unfunded Mandates consultation framework described in its 1621, Washington, DC 20240. Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. Consultation Policy published July 15, • Hand Delivery: National Indian Takings 2013. The NIGC’s consultation policy Gaming Commission, 90 K Street NE., specifies that it will consult with tribes Suite 200, Washington, DC 20002, In accordance with Executive Order on Commission Action with Tribal between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 12630, the Commission has determined Implications, which is defined as: Any through Friday, except Federal holidays. that this proposed rule does not have Commission regulation, rulemaking, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: significant takings implications. A policy, guidance, legislative proposal, or Jennifer Lawson at (202) 632–7003 or by takings implication assessment is not operational activity that may have a fax (202) 632–7066 (these numbers are required. substantial direct effect on an Indian not toll free). Civil Justice Reform tribe on matters including, but not SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: limited to the ability of an Indian tribe In accordance with Executive Order to regulate its Indian gaming; an Indian I. Comments Invited 12988, the Commission has determined Tribe’s formal relationship with the Interested parties are invited to that the rule does not unduly burden the Commission; or the consideration of the participate in this proposed rulemaking judicial system and meets the Commission’s trust responsibilities to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:56 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS 48206 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules

Indian tribes. The Changes proposed in § 517.3 Definitions. (f) Freedom of Information Act Officer this NPRM do not fall into any of those (a) Commercial use requester means a means the person designated by the categories. Many of the changes are requester seeking information for a use Chairman to administer the FOIA. required by law, and those that are not or purpose that furthers the commercial, (g) Non-commercial scientific are being done to improve our FOIA trade, or profit interests of himself or the institution refers to an institution that is process, which affects the public in person on whose behalf the request is not operated on a ‘‘commercial’’ basis as general. Accordingly, the Commission made, which can include furthering that term is used in paragraph (a) of this did not consult on these changes. The those interests through litigation. In section, and which is operated solely for Commission, though, requests and determining whether a request properly the purpose of conducting scientific welcomes any and all tribal comments belongs in this category, the FOIA research the results of which are not to this NPRM. Officer shall determine the use to which intended to promote any particular the requester will put the documents product or industry. To qualify for this List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 517 requested. Where the FOIA Officer has category, the requester must show that Administrative practice and reasonable cause to doubt the use to the request is authorized by and is made procedure, Freedom of information. which the requester will put the records under the auspices of a qualifying sought, or where that use is not clear institution and that the records are not ■ For the reasons set forth in the from the request itself, the FOIA Officer sought for a commercial use, but are preamble, the Commission proposes to shall contact the requester for additional sought to further scholarly research. revise 25 CFR part 517 to read as clarification before assigning the request (h) Representative of the news media follows: to a specific category. means any person or entity that gathers (b) Confidential commercial information of potential interest to a PART 517—FREEDOM OF information means records or segment of the public, uses editorial INFORMATION ACT PROCEDURES information provided to the government skills to turn the raw materials into a Sec. by a submitter that arguably contains distinct work, and distributes that work 517.1 General provisions. material exempt from disclosure under to an audience. The term ‘‘news’’ means 517.2 Public reading room. Exemption 4 of the FOIA. information that is about current events 517.3 Definitions. (c) Direct costs mean those or that would be of current interest to 517.4 Requirements for making requests. expenditures by the Commission the public. Examples of news media 517.5 Responsibility for responding to actually incurred in searching for and entities include television or radio requests. duplicating (and, in the case of stations that broadcast ‘‘news’’ to the 517.6 Timing of responses to requests. commercial use requests, reviewing) public at large and publishers of 517.7 Confidential commercial information. periodicals that disseminate ‘‘news’’ 517.8 Appeals. records in response to the FOIA request. 517.9 Fees. Direct costs include the salary of the and make their products available for employee or employees performing the purchase by or free distribution to the Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552. work (i.e., the basic rate of pay for the general public, including news § 517.1 General provisions. employee plus 16 percent of that rate to organizations that disseminate solely on cover benefits) and the cost of operating the Internet. For a ‘‘freelance journalist’’ This part contains the regulations the computers and other electronic to be regarded as working for a news National Indian Gaming Commission equipment, such as photocopiers and organization, the requester must (Commission) follows in implementing scanners. Direct costs do not include demonstrate a solid basis for expecting the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), overhead expenses, such as the cost of publication through that organization, 5 U.S.C. 552. These regulations provide space, heating, or lighting of the facility such as a publication contract. Absent procedures by which you may obtain in which the records are stored. such showing, the requester may access to records compiled, created, and (d) Duplication refers to the process of provide documentation establishing the maintained by the Commission, along making a copy of a record, or the requester’s past publication record. To with procedures the Commission must information contained in it, necessary to qualify for this category, the requester follow in response to such requests for respond to a FOIA request. Such copies must not be seeking the requested records. These regulations should be can take the form of, among other records for a commercial use. However, read together with the FOIA, which things, paper copy, microfilm, audio- a request for records supporting a news- provides additional information about visual materials, or electronic records dissemination function shall not be access to records maintained by the (e.g., compact discs or USB flash considered to be for a commercial use. Commission. Requests made by drives). The copies provided shall be in (i) Requester means any person, individuals for records about a form that is reasonably usable by the including an individual, Indian tribe, themselves under the Privacy Act of requester. partnership, corporation, association, or 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552(a), are processed in (e) Educational institution refers to a public or private organization other than accordance with the Commission’s preschool, a public or private a Federal agency, that requests access to Privacy Act regulations, 25 CFR part elementary school, an institute of records in the possession of the 515, as well as under this part. undergraduate higher education, an Commission. institute of graduate higher education, (j) Review means the process of § 517.2 Public reading room. an institute of professional education, or examining a record in response to a Records that are required to be an institute of vocational education FOIA request to determine if any maintained by the Commission shall be which operates a program of scholarly portion of that record may be withheld available for public inspection and research. To qualify for this category, under one or more of the FOIA copying at 90 K Street NE., Suite 200, the requester must show that the request Exemptions. It also includes processing Washington, DC 20002. Reading room is authorized by and is made under the any record for disclosure, for example, records created on or after November 1, auspices of a qualifying institution and redacting information that is exempt 1996, shall be made available that the records are not sought for a from disclosure under the FOIA. Review electronically via the Commission’s commercial use, but are sought to time includes time spent considering Web site. further scholarly research. any formal objection to disclosure made

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:56 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules 48207

by a business submitter under records requested with as much expected to come into existence at some § 517.7(c). Review time does not include specificity as possible to enable future time; or time spent resolving general legal or Commission employees to locate the (3) Restore records destroyed or policy issues regarding the use of FOIA information requested with a reasonable otherwise disposed of, except that the Exemptions. amount of effort. Whenever possible, the FOIA Officer must notify the requester (k) Search refers to the time spent request should describe the subject that the requested records have been looking for material that is responsive to matter of the records sought, the time destroyed or disposed. a request, including page-by-page or periods in which the records were line-by-line identification of material generated, and any tribe or tribal gaming § 517.5 Responsibility for responding to requests. within a document and also includes facility with which they were reasonable efforts to locate and retrieve associated. Before submitting a request, (a) In general. In determining which information from records maintained in requesters may contact the records are responsive to a request, the electronic form or format. The FOIA Commission’s FOIA contact or FOIA Commission ordinarily will include Officer shall ensure that searches are Public Liaison to discuss the records only records in its possession as of the conducted in the most efficient and being sought and receive assistance date it begins its search for records. If least expensive manner reasonably describing the records. If after receiving any other date is used, the FOIA Officer possible. a request the FOIA Officer determines shall inform the requester of that date. (l) Submitter means any person or that it does not reasonably describe the (b) Authority to grant or deny entity who provides information records sought, the FOIA Officer must requests. The FOIA Officer shall make directly or indirectly to the inform the requester of what additional initial determinations either to grant or Commission. The term includes, but is information is needed or why the deny in whole or in part a request for not limited to, corporations, Indian request is otherwise insufficient. records. tribal governments, state governments Requesters who are attempting to (c) Granting of requests. When the and foreign governments. reformulate or modify such a request FOIA Officer determines that the (m) Working day means a Federal may discuss their request with the requested records shall be made workday that does not include Commission’s FOIA contact or FOIA available, the FOIA Officer shall notify Saturdays, Sundays, or Federal Public Liaison. If a request does not the requester in writing and provide holidays. reasonably describe the records sought, copies of the requested records in whole the agency’s response to the request may or in part. Records disclosed in part § 517.4 Requirements for making requests. be delayed. shall be marked or annotated to show (a) How to make a FOIA request. (e) Agreement to pay fees. Requests the exemption applied to the withheld Requests for records made pursuant to shall also include a statement indicating information and the amount of the FOIA must be in writing. Requests the maximum amount of fees the information withheld unless to do so may be mailed, dropped off in person, requester is willing to pay to obtain the would harm the interest protected by an or faxed to (202) 632–7066 (not a toll requested information, or a request for applicable exemption. If a requested free number). Requests that are dropped a waiver or reduction of fees. If the record contains exempted material off in person should be made at 90 K requester is requesting a waiver or along with nonexempt material, all Street NE., Suite 200, Washington, DC reduction of fees the requester must reasonable segregable material shall be 20002 during the hours of 9 a.m. to 12 include justification for such waiver or disclosed. noon and 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. Requests that reduction (see § 517.9(c) for more (d) Adverse Determinations. If the are mailed should be sent to NIGC Attn: information). If the request for a fee FOIA Officer makes an adverse FOIA Officer, 1849 C Street NW., Mail waiver is denied, the requester will be determination denying a request in any Stop #1621, Washington, DC 20240. notified of this decision and advised respect, it must notify the requester of Requests may also be sent via electronic that fees associated with the processing that adverse determination in writing. mail addressed to FOIARequests@ of the request will be assessed. The Adverse determinations include nigc.gov or submitted through the requester must send an decisions that: The requested record is Commission’s Web site. acknowledgment to the FOIA Officer exempt from release, in whole or in (b) First person requests for records. If indicating his/her willingness to pay the part; the request does not reasonably the requester is making a request for fees. Absent such acknowledgment describe the records sought; the records about himself/herself, the within the specified time frame, the information requested is not a record requester must provide verification of request will be considered incomplete, subject to the FOIA; the requested identity. Verification requirements are no further work shall be done, and the record does not exist, cannot be located, described in 25 CFR 515.3. request will be administratively closed. or has been destroyed; or the requested (c) Requests for records about another (f) Form or format of records record is not readily reproducible in the individual. If the requester is making a requested. Requesters may specify their form or format sought by the requester; request for records about another preferred form or format (including denials involving fees or fee waiver individual, the requester may receive electronic formats) for the records matters; and denials of requests for greater access by submitting either a sought. The Commission will expedited processing. notarized authorization signed by that accommodate such requests where the (e) Content of adverse determination. individual, a declaration made in record is readily reproducible in that Any adverse determination issued by compliance with the requirements set form or format. the FOIA Officer must include: forth in 28 U.S.C. 1746 by that (g) Types of records not available. The (1) A brief statement of the reasons for individual authorizing disclosure of the FOIA does not require the Commission the adverse determination, including records to the requester or by submitting to: any FOIA exemption applied by the proof that the individual is deceased (1) Compile or create records solely agency in denying access to a record (for example, a copy of the death for the purpose of satisfying a request unless to do so would harm the interest certificate or a copy of the obituary). for records; protected by an applicable exemption; (d) Description of records sought. (2) Provide records not yet in (2) An estimate of the volume of any Requests for records shall describe the existence, even if such records may be records or information withheld, such

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:56 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS 48208 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules

as the number of pages or other (3) Coordination. The standard Public Liaison to aid in the resolution reasonable form of estimation, although referral procedure is not appropriate of any dispute arising between the such an estimate is not required if the where disclosure of the identity of the requester and the Commission as well as volume is otherwise indicated by agency to which the referral would be the requester’s right to seek dispute deletions marked on records that are made could harm an interest protected resolution services from the Office of disclosed in part or if providing an by an applicable exemption, such as the Government Information Services. estimate would harm an interest exemptions that protect personal (c) Initial determinations. (1) The protected by an applicable exemption; privacy interests. For example, if the FOIA Officer shall make an initial (3) A statement that the adverse FOIA Officer in responding to a request determination regarding access to the determination may be appealed under for records on a living third party requested information and notify the § 517.8 of this part and a description of locates records originating with a requester within twenty (20) working the appeal requirements; and criminal law enforcement agency, and if days after receipt of the request. This 20 (4) A statement notifying the requester the existence of that law enforcement day period may be extended if unusual of the assistance available from the interest in the third party was not circumstances arise. If an extension is Commission’s FOIA Public Liaison and publicly known, then to disclose that necessary, the FOIA Officer shall the dispute resolution services offered law enforcement interest could cause an promptly notify the requester of the by the Office of Government unwarranted invasion of the personal extension, briefly stating the reasons for Information Services. privacy of the third party. In such the extension, and estimating when the (f) Consultation, referral, and instances, in order to avoid harm to an FOIA Officer will respond. Unusual coordination. When reviewing records interest protected by an applicable circumstances warranting extension are: located in response to a request, the exemption, the FOIA Officer should (i) The need to search for and collect FOIA Officer will determine whether coordinate with the originating agency the requested records from field another agency of the Federal to obtain its views on whether the facilities or other establishments that are Government is better able to determine record may be disclosed. The FOIA separate from the office processing the whether the record is exempt from Officer should then convey the request; disclosure under the FOIA. As to any determination as to whether the record (ii) The need to search for, collect, record determined to be better suited for will be released to the requester. and appropriately examine a review by another Federal Government voluminous amount of records which agency, the FOIA Officer must proceed § 517.6 Timing of responses to requests. are demanded in a single request; or in one of the following ways. (a) In general. The FOIA Officer (iii) The need for consultation with (1) Consultation. When records ordinarily shall respond to requests another agency having a substantial originating with the Commission according to their order of receipt. All interest in the determination of the contain information of interest to statutory and regulatory timelines will request, which consultation shall be another Federal Government agency, the commence on the date that the request conducted with all practicable speed. FOIA Officer should typically consult is received by the Commission’s (2) If the FOIA Officer decides that an with that other entity prior to making a Headquarters FOIA Office that is initial determination cannot be reached release determination. designated to receive requests in within the time limits specified in (2) Referral. § 517.4(a). In instances of requests paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the (i) When the FOIA Officer believes misdirected to Commission field offices, FOIA Officer shall notify the requester that a different Federal Government the response time will commence on the of the reasons for the delay and include agency is best able to determine whether date that the request is received by the an estimate of when a determination to disclose the record, the FOIA Officer Commission’s Headquarters FOIA will be made. The requester will then should typically refer the responsibility Office, but in any event no later than 10 have the opportunity to modify the for responding to the request regarding working days after the request is first request or arrange for an alternative time that record to that agency. Ordinarily, received by any Commission office. frame for completion of the request. To the agency that originated the record is (b) Multitrack processing. (1) The assist in this process, the FOIA Officer presumed to be the best agency to make FOIA Officer may use multi-track shall advise the requester of the the disclosure determination. If the processing in responding to requests. availability of the Commission’s FOIA Commission and another Federal Multi-track processing means placing Public Liaison to aid in the resolution Government agency jointly agree that simple requests requiring rather limited of any disputes between the requester the agency processing the request is in review in one processing track and and the Commission, and notify the the best position to respond regarding placing more voluminous and complex requester of his or her right to seek the record, then the record may be requests in one or more other tracks. dispute resolution services from the handled as a consultation. Requests in either track are processed Office of Government Information (ii) Whenever the FOIA Officer refers on a first-in/first-out basis. Services. any part of the responsibility for (2) The FOIA Officer may provide (3) If no initial determination has responding to a request to another requesters in its slower track(s) with an been made at the end of the 20 day agency, he or she must document the opportunity to limit the scope of their period provided for in paragraph (c)(1) referral, maintain a copy of the record requests in order to qualify for faster of this section, including any extension, that it refers, and notify the requester of processing within the specified limits of the requester may appeal the action to the referral. faster track(s). The FOIA Officer will do the FOIA Appeals Officer. (iii) After the FOIA Officer refers a so either by contacting the requester by (d) Expedited processing of request. record to another Federal Government letter, telephone, electronic mail, or (1) A requester may make a request for agency, the agency receiving the referral facsimile whichever is more efficient in expedited processing at any time. shall make a disclosure determination each case. When providing a requester (2) When a request for expedited and respond directly to the requester. with the opportunity to limit the scope processing is received, the FOIA Officer The referral of a record is not an adverse of their request, the FOIA Officer shall must determine whether to grant the determination and no appeal rights also advise the requester of the request for expedited processing within accrue to the requester by this act. availability of the Commission’s FOIA ten (10) calendar days of its receipt.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:56 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules 48209

Requests will receive expedited (2) The FOIA Officer has reason to confidential commercial information, processing if one of the following believe that the information may be the FOIA Officer shall notify the compelling needs is met: protected from disclosure under requester. (i) The requester can establish that Exemption 4 of the FOIA. (g) Exceptions to the notice failure to receive the records quickly (c) Where notice is discretionary. If requirements under this section. The could reasonably be expected to pose an the FOIA Officer has reason to believe notice requirements under paragraphs imminent threat to the life or physical that information submitted to the (a) and (b) of this section shall not apply safety of an individual; or Commission may be protected from if: (ii) The requester is primarily engaged disclosure under any other exemption of (1) The FOIA Officer determines that in disseminating information and can the FOIA, the FOIA Officer may, in his the information should not be disclosed demonstrate that an urgency to inform or her discretion, provide the submitter pursuant to Exemption 4 and/or any the public concerning actual or alleged with notice and an opportunity to object other exemption of the FOIA; Federal Government activity exists. to the release of that information. (2) The information lawfully has been (d) Opportunity to object to (3) A requester who seeks expedited published or officially made available to disclosure. The FOIA Officer shall processing must submit a statement, the public; afford a submitter a reasonable period of (3) Disclosure of the information is certified to be true and correct, time to provide the FOIA Officer with required by law (other than the FOIA); explaining in detail the basis for making a detailed written statement of any (4) The information requested is not the request for expedited processing. As objection to disclosure. The statement designated by the submitter as exempt a matter of administrative discretion, shall specify all grounds for from disclosure in accordance with this the FOIA Officer may waive the formal withholding any of the information part, when the submitter had the certification requirement. under any exemption of the FOIA, and opportunity to do so at the time of (4) Administrative appeals of denials if Exemption 4 applies, shall submission of the information or within of expedited processing will be given demonstrate the reasons the submitter a reasonable time thereafter, unless the expeditious consideration. If the denial believes the information to be agency has substantial reason to believe of expedited processing is upheld by the confidential commercial information that disclosure of the information would FOIA Appeals Officer, that decision is that is exempt from disclosure. result in competitive harm; or immediately subject to judicial review Whenever possible, the submitter’s (5) The designation made by the in the appropriate Federal district court. claim of confidentiality shall be submitter in accordance with this part § 517.7 Confidential commercial supported by a statement or certification appears obviously frivolous. When the information. by an officer or authorized FOIA Officer determines that a representative of the submitter. In the submitter was frivolous in designating (a) Notice to submitters. The FOIA event a submitter fails to respond to the information as confidential, the FOIA Officer shall, to the extent permitted by notice in the time specified, the Officer must provide the submitter with law, provide a submitter who provides submitter will be considered to have no written notice of any final confidential commercial information to objection to the disclosure of the administrative disclosure determination the Commission, with prompt notice of information. Information provided by within a reasonable number of days a FOIA request or administrative appeal the submitter that is received after the prior to the specified disclosure date, encompassing the confidential disclosure decision has been made will but no opportunity to object to commercial information if the not be considered. Information provided disclosure will be offered. Commission may be required to disclose by a submitter pursuant to this the information under the FOIA. Such paragraph may itself be subject to § 517.8 Appeals. notice shall either describe the exact disclosure under the FOIA. (a) Right of appeal. The requester has nature of the information requested or (e) Notice of intent to disclose. The the right to appeal to the FOIA Appeals provide copies of the records or portions FOIA Officer shall carefully consider a Officer any adverse determination. thereof containing the confidential submitter’s objections and specific (b) Notice of Appeal. (1) Time for commercial information. The FOIA grounds for nondisclosure prior to appeal. To be considered timely, an Officer shall also notify the requester determining whether to disclose the appeal must be postmarked, or in the that notice and opportunity to object has information requested. Whenever the case of electronic submissions, been given to the submitter. FOIA Officer determines that disclosure transmitted, no later than ninety (90) (b) Where notice is required. Notice is appropriate, the FOIA Officer shall, calendar days after the date of the shall be given to a submitter when: within a reasonable number of days response or after the time limit for (1) The information has been prior to disclosure, provide the response by the FOIA Officer has designated by the submitter as submitter with written notice of the expired. Prior to submitting an appeal confidential commercial information intent to disclose which shall include a any outstanding fees associated with protected from disclosure. Submitters of statement of the reasons for which the FOIA requests must be paid in full. confidential commercial information submitter’s objections were overruled, a (2) Form of appeal. An appeal shall be shall use good faith efforts to designate, description of the information to be initiated by filing a written notice of either at the time of submission or a disclosed, and a specific disclosure appeal. The notice shall be reasonable time thereafter, those date. The FOIA Officer shall also notify accompanied by copies of the original portions of their submissions they deem the requester that the requested records request and adverse determination. To protected from disclosure under will be made available. expedite the appellate process and give Exemption 4 of the FOIA. Such (f) Notice of lawsuit. If the requester the requester an opportunity to present designation shall be deemed to have files a lawsuit seeking to compel his/her arguments, the notice should expired ten years after the date of disclosure of confidential commercial contain a brief statement of the reasons submission, unless the requester information, the FOIA Officer shall why the requester believes the adverse provides reasonable justification for a promptly notify the submitter of this determination to have been in error. designation period of greater duration; action. If a submitter files a lawsuit Requesters may submit appeals by mail, or seeking to prevent disclosure of facsimile, or electronically. Appeals

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:56 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS 48210 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules

sent by mail shall be addressed to the other media, the FOIA Officer shall the FOIA Officer, that disclosure of the National Indian Gaming Commission, charge the direct costs of producing the requested information is in the public Attn: FOIA Appeals Officer, 1849 C copy, including operator time. Where interest. Disclosure is in the public Street NW., Mailstop #1621, paper documents must be scanned in interest if it is likely to contribute Washington, DC 20240. Appeals may order to comply with a requester’s significantly to public understanding of also be submitted via electronic mail at preference to receive the records in government operations and is not [email protected] or through the electronic format, the requester must primarily for commercial purposes. NIGC’s Web site. To facilitate handling, also pay the direct costs associated with Requests for a waiver or reduction of the requester should mark both the scanning those materials. For other fees shall be considered on a case by appeal letter and envelope, or subject methods of reproduction, the FOIA case basis. In order to determine line of the electronic transmission Officer shall charge the actual direct whether the fee waiver requirement is ‘‘Freedom of Information Act Appeal.’’ costs of producing the documents. met, the FOIA Officer shall consider the (c) Final agency determinations. The (2) Searches. (i) Manual searches. following six factors: FOIA Appeals Officer shall issue a final Whenever feasible, the FOIA Officer (1) The subject of the request. written determination, stating the basis will charge at the salary rate (basic pay Whether the subject of the requested for its decision, within twenty (20) plus 16% percent for benefits) of the records concerns the operations or working days after receipt of a notice of employee or employees performing the activities of the government; appeal. If the determination is to search. However, where a homogenous (2) The informative value of the provide access to the requested records, class of personnel is used exclusively in information to be disclosed. Whether the FOIA Officer shall make those a search (e.g., all administrative/clerical the disclosure is likely to contribute to records immediately available to the or all professional/executive), the FOIA an understanding of government requester. If the determination upholds Officer shall charge $4.45 per quarter operations or activities; the adverse determination, the FOIA hour for clerical time and $7.75 per (3) The contribution to an Appeals Officer shall notify the quarter hour for professional time. understanding of the subject by the requester of the determination, the Charges for search time less than a full general public likely to result from ability to obtain mediation services hour will be in increments of quarter disclosure. Whether disclosure of the offered by the Office of Government hours. requested information will contribute to Information Services as a non-exclusive (ii) Computer searches. The FOIA public understanding; alternative to litigation, and the right to Officer will charge the actual direct (4) The significance of the obtain judicial review in the appropriate costs of conducting computer searches. contribution to public understanding. Federal district court. These direct costs shall include the cost Whether the disclosure is likely to (d) When appeal is required. Before of operating the central processing unit contribute significantly to public seeking review by a court of the FOIA for that portion of operating time that is understanding of government operations Officer’s adverse determination, a directly attributable to searching for or activities; requester generally must first submit a requested records, as well as the costs (5) The existence and magnitude of timely administrative appeal. of operator/programmer salary commercial interest. Whether the apportionable to the search. For requests requester has a commercial interest that § 517.9 Fees. that require the creation of a new would be furthered by the requested (a) In general. Fees pursuant to the computer program to locate requested disclosure; and, if so FOIA shall be assessed according to the records, the Commission will charge the (6) The primary interest in disclosure. schedule contained in paragraph (b) of direct costs associated with such Whether the magnitude of the identified this section for services rendered by the program’s creation. The FOIA Officer commercial interest of the requester is Commission in response to requests for must notify the requester of the costs sufficiently large, in comparison with records under this part. All fees shall be associated with creating such a program, the public interest in disclosure, that charged to the requester, except where and the requester must agree to pay the disclosure is primarily in the the charging of fees is limited under associated costs before the costs may be commercial interest of the requester. paragraph (d) or (e) of this section or incurred. (d) Types of requesters. There are four where a waiver or reduction of fees is (3) Review fees. Review fees shall be categories of FOIA requesters: granted under paragraph (c) of this assessed only with respect to those Commercial use requesters, educational section. Payment of fees should be by requesters who seek records for a and non-commercial scientific check or money order made payable to commercial use under paragraph (d)(1) institutional requesters; representative the Treasury of the United States.. of this section. Review fees shall be of the news media; and all other (b) Charges for responding to FOIA assessed at the same rates as those listed requesters. These terms are defined in requests. The following fees shall be under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section. § 517.3. The following specific levels of assessed in responding to requests for Review fees shall be assessed only for fees are prescribed for each of these records submitted under this part, the initial record review, for example, categories: unless a waiver or reduction of fees has review undertaken when the FOIA (1) Commercial use requesters. The been granted pursuant to paragraph (c) Officer analyzes the applicability of a FOIA Officer shall charge commercial of this section: particular exemption to a particular use requesters the full direct costs of (1) Duplication. The FOIA Officer will record or portion thereof at the initial searching for, reviewing, and honor a requester’s preference for request level. No charge shall be duplicating requested records. receiving a record in a particular form assessed at the administrative appeal (2) Educational and non-commercial or format where he or she can readily level of an exemption already applied. scientific institutions requesters. The reproduce the record in the form or (c) Statutory waiver. Documents shall FOIA Officer shall charge educational format requested. When photocopies are be furnished without charge or at a and non-commercial scientific supplied, the FOIA Officer shall charge charge below that listed in paragraph (b) institution requesters for document $0.15 per page for copies of documents of this section where it is determined, duplication only, except that the first up to 81⁄2 x 14. For copies of records based upon information provided by a 100 pages of copies shall be provided produced on tapes, compact discs, or requester or otherwise made known to without charge.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:56 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules 48211

(3) News media requesters. The FOIA (i) If the FOIA Officer determines that time, each seeking portions of a Officer shall charge news media unusual circumstances, as defined by document or documents solely in order requesters for document duplication the FOIA, apply and provides timely to avoid payment of fees. When the costs only, except that the first 100 written notice to the requester in FOIA Officer reasonably believes that a pages of paper copies shall be provided accordance with the FOIA, then a requester is attempting to divide a without charge. failure to comply with the statutory time request into a series of requests to evade (4) All other requesters. The FOIA limit shall be excused for an additional an assessment of fees, the FOIA Officer 10 days. Officer shall charge requesters who do may aggregate such request and charge (ii) If the FOIA Officer determines that accordingly. not fall into any of the categories in unusual circumstances, as defined by (h) Advance payment of fees. Fees paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this the FOIA, apply and more than 5,000 may be paid upon provision of the section fees which cover the full pages are necessary to respond to the requested records, except that payment reasonable direct costs incurred for request, then the Commission may may be required prior to that time if the searching for and reproducing records if charge search fees and duplication fees, requester has previously failed to pay that total costs exceeds $15.00, except where applicable, if the following steps fees or if the FOIA Officer determines that the first 100 pages and the first two are taken. The FOIA Officer must: hours of manual search time shall not be (A) Provide timely written notice of that total fee will exceed $250.00. When charged. To apply this term to computer unusual circumstances to the requester payment is required in advance of the searches, the FOIA Officer shall in accordance with the FOIA and processing of a request, the time limits determine the total hourly cost of (B) Discuss with the requester via prescribed in § 517.6 shall not be operating the central processing unit written mail, email, or telephone (or deemed to begin until the FOIA Officer and the operator’s salary (plus 16 made not less than three good-faith has received payment of the assessed percent for benefits). When the cost of attempts to do so) how the requester fee. the search equals the equivalent dollar could effectively limit the scope of the (i) Payment of fees. Where it is amount of two hours of the salary of the request in accordance with 5 U.S.C. anticipated that the cost of providing person performing the search, the FOIA 552(a)(6)(B)(ii). the requested record will exceed $25.00 Officer will begin assessing charges for (iii) If a court determines that after the free duplication and search the computer search. exceptional circumstances exist, as time has been calculated, and the (e) Restrictions on charging fees. (1) defined by the FOIA, then a failure to requester has not indicated in advance Ordinarily, no charges will be assessed comply with the time limits shall be a willingness to pay a fee greater than when requested records are not found or excused for the length of time provided $25.00, the FOIA Officer shall promptly when records located are withheld as by the court order. notify the requester of the amount of the (f) Charges for interest. The FOIA exempt. However, if the requester has anticipated fee or a portion thereof, Officer may assess interest charges on been notified of the estimated cost of the which can readily be estimated. The an unpaid bill, accrued under previous search time and has been advised notification shall offer the requester an FOIA request(s), starting the 31st day specifically that the requested records opportunity to confer with agency following the day on which the bill was may not exist or may be withheld as representatives for the purpose of sent to you. A fee received by the FOIA exempt, fees may be charged. reformulating the request so as to meet Officer, even if not processed will result the requester’s needs at a reduced cost. (2) If the Commission fails to comply in a stay of the accrual of interest. The with the FOIA’s time limits for Commission shall follow the provisions Dated: October 10, 2017. responding to a request, it may not of the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as Jonodev O. Chaudhuri, charge search fees or, in cases where amended, its implementing procedures, Chairman. records are not sought for commercial and the Commission’s debt collection Kathryn Isom-Clause, use and the request is made by an regulations located in 25 CFR part 513 Vice Chair. educational institution, non-commercial to recover any indebtedness owed to the scientific institution, or representative Commission. E. Sequoyah Simermeyer, of the news media, duplication fees, (g) Aggregating requests. The Associate Commissioner. except as described in paragraphs requester or a group of requesters may [FR Doc. 2017–22393 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] (e)(2)(i)–(iii) of this section. not submit multiple requests at the same BILLING CODE 7565–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:56 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS 48212

Notices Federal Register Vol. 82, No. 199

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 discuss topics including the status of contains documents other than rules or CFR 404.7. NASS programs, Census of Agriculture proposed rules that are applicable to the Mojdeh Bahar, Updates, Census of Agriculture Program public. Notices of hearings and investigations, Plans, Big Data, and the NASS Strategic committee meetings, agency decisions and Assistant Administrator. Plan. rulings, delegations of authority, filing of [FR Doc. 2017–22490 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] petitions and applications and agency BILLING CODE 3410–03–P The Committee meeting is open to the statements of organization and functions are public. The public is asked to pre- examples of documents appearing in this register for the meeting at least 10 section. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE business days prior to the meeting. Your pre-registration must state the names of National Agricultural Statistics Service DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE each person in your group, organization, Notice of the Advisory Committee on or interest represented; the number of Agricultural Research Service Agriculture Statistics Meeting people planning to give oral comments, if any; and whether anyone in your Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive AGENCY: National Agricultural Statistics group requires special accommodations. License Service, USDA. Submit registrations to Executive ACTION: Notice of public meeting. Secretary, Advisory Committee on AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, Agriculture Statistics, via eFax: 855– USDA. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the 493–0445, or email: HQOA@ ACTION: Notice of intent. National Agricultural Statistics Service nass.usda.gov. Members of the public (NASS) announces a meeting of the who request to give oral comments to SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Advisory Committee on Agriculture the Committee must arrive at the the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistics. meeting site by 8:00 a.m. on Friday, November 3, 2017. Written comments Agricultural Research Service, intends DATES: The Committee meeting will be to grant to the CALIFORNIA TABLE held from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on by attendees or other interested GRAPE COMMISSION of FRESNO, Thursday, November 2, 2017, and from stakeholders will be welcomed for the CALIFORNIA, an exclusive license to 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on Friday, public record before and up to two the variety of table grape described in November 3, 2017. There will be an weeks following the meeting. The U.S. Plant Patent Application Serial No. opportunity for public questions and public may file written comments by 15/731,420, ‘‘GRAPEVINE NAMED comments at 8:15 a.m. on Friday, mail to the Executive Director, Advisory ‘SOLBRIO,’ ’’ filed on JUNE 6, 2017. November 3, 2017. All times mentioned Committee on Agriculture Statistics, herein refer to Eastern Standard Time. U.S. Department of Agriculture, DATES: Comments must be received on National Agricultural Statistics Service, or before November 16, 2017. ADDRESSES: The Committee meeting will take place at The Brown Hotel, 335 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, W Broadway, Louisville, KY 40202. 5041–A South Building, Washington, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, Written comments may be filed before DC 20250–2000. Written comments can 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4–1174, or up to two weeks after the meeting also be sent via eFax: 855–493–0445, or Beltsville, Maryland 20705–5131. with the contact person identified email: [email protected]. All herein at: U.S. Department of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: statements will become a part of the Agriculture, National Agricultural Brian T. Nakanishi of the Office of official records of the USDA Advisory Statistics Service, 1400 Independence Technology Transfer at the Beltsville Committee on Agriculture Statistics and Avenue SW., Room 5041–A, South address given above; telephone: 301– will be kept on file for public review in Building, Washington, DC 20250–2000. 504–5989. the office of the Executive Director, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Advisory Committee on Agriculture SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Renee Picanso, Associate Administrator, Statistics, U.S. Department of Federal Government’s patent rights in National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250. THIS PLANT VARIETY are assigned to telephone: 202–720–4333, eFax: 855– the United States of America, as 493–0445, or email: HQOA@ Signed at Washington, DC, September 28, represented by the Secretary of nass.usda.gov. General information 2017. Agriculture. The prospective exclusive about the committee can also be found R. Renee Picanso, license will be royalty-bearing and will at https://www.nass.usda.gov/About_ Associate Administrator, National comply with the terms and conditions NASS/index.php. Agricultural Statistics Service. of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The [FR Doc. 2017–22491 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] prospective exclusive license may be Advisory Committee on Agriculture BILLING CODE 3410–20–P granted unless, within thirty (30) days Statistics, which consists of 20 members from the date of this published Notice, appointed from 7 categories covering a the Agricultural Research Service broad range of agricultural disciplines receives written evidence and argument and interests, has scheduled a meeting which establishes that the grant of the on November 2–3, 2017. During this license would not be consistent with the time the Advisory Committee will

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48213

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE review, in whole or in part, if a party DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE who requested the review withdraws International Trade Administration the request within 90 days of the date International Trade Administration [C–533–862] of publication of the notice of initiation [C–552–819] of the requested review. As noted above, Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Ester withdrew its request for review by Certain Steel Nails From the Socialist Resin From India: Notice of Rescission the 90-day deadline. No other party Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of of Countervailing Duty Administrative requested an administrative review of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 2015–2016 Ester. Accordingly, we are rescinding Review, and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, the administrative review of the CVD Review; 2014–2015 International Trade Administration, order on PET resin from India covering Department of Commerce. the period August 14, 2015, to AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce December 31, 2016. International Trade Administration, (the Department) is rescinding the Department of Commerce. administrative review of the Assessment SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce countervailing duty (CVD) order on The Department will instruct Customs (the Department) has completed its certain polyethylene terephthalate resin and Border Protection (CBP) to assess administrative review of the (PET resin) from India for the period CVDs on all appropriate entries at a rate countervailing duty (CVD) order on August 14, 2015, to December 31, 2016, equal to the cash deposit of estimated certain steel nails (steel nails) from the based on a timely withdrawal of the CVDs required at the time of entry, or Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) request for review. withdrawal from warehouse, for covering the period November 3, 2014, DATES: Applicable October 17, 2017. consumption, during the period August through December 31, 2015. We have FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 14, 2015, to December 31, 2016, in determined, based on adverse facts Corrigan, AD/CVD Operations, Office accordance with 19 CFR available, that the mandatory VI, Enforcement and Compliance, 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department respondents Truong Vinh Ltd. (Truong International Trade Administration, Vinh) and Rich State Inc. (Rich State) U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days received countervailable subsidies Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, during the period of review (POR). The DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–7438. after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. final net subsidy rates are listed below SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: in the section, ‘‘Final Results of Background Notification Regarding Administrative Administrative Review.’’ We are also Protective Order rescinding the review for Dicha On May 1, 2017, the Department Sombrilla Co., Ltd. (Dicha Sombrilla) as published in the Federal Register a This notice serves as a reminder to we have concluded that Dicha Sombrilla notice of opportunity to request an parties subject to administrative did not have reviewable entries during administrative review of the CVD order protective order (APO) of their the POR. on PET resin from India for the period responsibility concerning the return or DATES: August 14, 2015, to December 31, 2016.1 Applicable October 17, 2017. destruction of proprietary information FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: On May 31, 2017, the Department disclosed under an APO in accordance received a timely request, in accordance Yasmin Bordas, AD/CVD Operations, with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, written notification of the return/ 1930, as amended (the Act), from Ester International Trade Administration, Industries Ltd. (Ester), an exporter of destruction of APO materials or U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 subject merchandise, to conduct an conversion to judicial protective order is Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, administrative review of this CVD hereby requested. Failure to comply DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3813. order.2 Based upon this request, on July with the regulations and terms of an SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 6, 2017, in accordance with section APO is a violation which is subject to Background 751(a) of the Act, the Department sanction. This notice is issued and published in the Federal Register a published in accordance with sections On June 27, 2017, the Department notice of initiation of administrative 751 of the Act and 19 CFR published the Preliminary Results.1 We review for this CVD order, with respect 351.213(d)(4). invited interested parties to comment on 3 2 to Ester. On July 17, 2017, Ester timely Dated: October 10, 2017. the Preliminary Results, but received withdrew its request for an none. Accordingly, no decision administrative review.4 Gary Taverman, memorandum accompanies this Federal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping Register notice, and the final results are Rescission of Review and Countervailing Duty Operations, unchanged from the Preliminary Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the performing the non-exclusive functions and Results. Secretary will rescind an administrative duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Scope of the Order 1 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, [FR Doc. 2017–22458 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] The merchandise covered by this Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P order is certain steel nails having a to Request Administrative Review, 82 FR 20315 (May 1, 2017). nominal shaft length not exceeding 12 2 See Ester’s May 31, 2017, Request for CVD Administrative Review. 1 See Certain Steel Nails from the Socialist 3 See Initiation of Antidumping and Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and 31292 (July 6, 2017) (Initiation Notice). Intent to Rescind, in Part, 82 FR 29022 (June 27, 4 See Ester’s July 17, 2017, Withdrawal of 2017) (Steel Nails Vietnam Prelim). Administrative Review Request. 2 Id. at 29023.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48214 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

inches.3 Certain steel nails include, but (6) other seats with wooden frames While the HTSUS subheadings are are not limited to, nails made from (with the exception of seats of a kind provided for convenience and customs round wire and nails that are cut from used for aircraft or motor vehicles); (7) purposes, the written description of the flat-rolled steel. Certain steel nails may furniture (other than seats) of wood scope of this order is dispositive. consist of a one piece construction or be (with the exception of (i) medical, Partial Rescission of Administrative constructed of two or more pieces. surgical, dental or veterinary furniture; Review Certain steel nails may be produced and (ii) barbers’ chairs and similar from any type of steel, and may have chairs, having rotating as well as both We are rescinding this administrative any type of surface finish, head type, reclining and elevating movements); or review for Dicha Sombrilla. In the shank, point type and shaft diameter. (8) furniture (other than seats) of Preliminary Results, we made a Finishes include, but are not limited to, materials other than wood, metal, or preliminary determination to rescind coating in vinyl, zinc (galvanized, plastics (e.g., furniture of cane, osier, the review for Dicha Sombrilla as it did including but not limited to bamboo or similar materials). The not have reviewable entries during the 4 electroplating or hot dipping one or aforementioned imported unassembled POR. We received no comments with more times), phosphate, cement, and articles are currently classified under regard to these preliminary results, and paint. Certain steel nails may have one the following Harmonized Tariff are accordingly rescinding the review or more surface finishes. Head styles Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) for Dicha Sombrilla in accordance with include, but are not limited to, flat, subheadings: 4418.10, 4418.20, 9401.30, 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). projection, cupped, oval, brad, headless, 9401.40, 9401.51, 9401.59, 9401.61, Methodology double, countersunk, and sinker. Shank 9401.69, 9403.30, 9403.40, 9403.50, The Department conducted this styles include, but are not limited to, 9403.60, 9403.81 or 9403.89. smooth, barbed, screw threaded, ring review in accordance with section Also excluded from the scope of this 751(a)(1)(A) of the Act. For each of the shank and fluted. Screw-threaded nails order are steel nails that meet the subject to this proceeding are driven subsidy programs found specifications of Type I, Style 20 nails countervailable, we find that there is a using direct force and not by turning the as identified in Tables 29 through 33 of nail using a tool that engages with the subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by ASTM Standard F1667 (2013 revision). an ‘‘authority’’ that confers a benefit to head. Point styles include, but are not Also excluded from the scope of this limited to, diamond, needle, chisel and the recipient, and that the subsidy is order are nails suitable for use in 5 blunt or no point. Certain steel nails specific. For a full description of the powder-actuated hand tools, whether or methodology underlying our may be sold in bulk, or they may be not threaded, which are currently collated in any manner using any conclusions, including our reliance, in classified under HTSUS subheadings part, on adverse facts available pursuant material. 7317.00.20.00 and 7317.00.30.00. Excluded from the scope of this order to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, see Also excluded from the scope of this are certain steel nails packaged in the Preliminary Decision order are nails having a case hardness 6 combination with one or more non- Memorandum. greater than or equal to 50 on the subject articles, if the total number of Rockwell Hardness C scale (HRC), a Final Results of Administrative Review nails of all types, in aggregate regardless carbon content greater than or equal to of size, is less than 25. If packaged in In accordance with 19 CFR combination with one or more non- 0.5 percent, a round head, a secondary 351.221(b)(5), we find the subject articles, certain steel nails reduced-diameter raised head section, a countervailable subsidy rates for the remain subject merchandise if the total centered shank, and a smooth producers/exporters under review to be number of nails of all types, in aggregate symmetrical point, suitable for use in as follows: regardless of size, is equal to or greater gas-actuated hand tools. Also excluded from the scope of this Subsidy than 25, unless otherwise excluded Company rate based on the other exclusions below. order are corrugated nails. A corrugated (percent) Also excluded from the scope are nail is made up of a small strip of certain steel nails with a nominal shaft corrugated steel with sharp points on Truong Vinh Ltd ...... 313.97 length of one inch or less that are (a) a one side. Rich State Inc ...... 313.97 component of an unassembled article, Also excluded from the scope of this (b) the total number of nails is sixty (60) order are thumb tacks, which are Assessment Rates and Cash Deposit or less, and (c) the imported currently classified under HTSUS Requirement unassembled article falls into one of the subheading 7317.00.10.00. Consistent with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(2), following eight groupings: (1) Builders’ Certain steel nails subject to this order we intend to issue assessment joinery and carpentry of wood that are are currently classified under HTSUS instructions to U.S. Customs and Border classifiable as windows, French- subheadings 7317.00.55.02, Protection (CBP) 15 days after the date windows and their frames; (2) builders’ 7317.00.55.03, 7317.00.55.05, of these final results of review, to joinery and carpentry of wood that are 7317.00.55.07, 7317.00.55.08, liquidate shipments of subject classifiable as doors and their frames 7317.00.55.11, 7317.00.55.18, merchandise entered, or withdrawn and thresholds; (3) swivel seats with 7317.00.55.19, 7317.00.55.20, from warehouse, for consumption, on or variable height adjustment; (4) seats that 7317.00.55.30, 7317.00.55.40, after November 3, 2014, through are convertible into beds (with the 7317.00.55.50, 7317.00.55.60, December 31, 2015, at the ad valorem exception of those classifiable as garden 7317.00.55.70, 7317.00.55.80, rates listed above. seats or camping equipment); (5) seats of 7317.00.55.90, 7317.00.65.30, cane, osier, bamboo or similar materials; 7317.00.65.60 and 7317.00.75.00, 4 See Steel Nails Vietnam Prelim, at 29023. 7318.29.0000, and 7806.00.8000. Certain 5 See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act 3 The shaft length of certain steel nails with flat steel nails subject to this order also may regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) heads or parallel shoulders under the head shall be be classified under HTSUS subheading of the Act regarding benefit; and, section 771(5A) measured from under the head or shoulder to the of the Act regarding specificity. tip of the point. The shaft length of all other certain 8206.00.00.00 or other HTSUS 6 See Steel Nails Vietnam Prelim, and steel nails shall be measured overall. subheadings. accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48215

In accordance with section 751(a)(1) Average Hours per Response: 10 catches of dolphin and wahoo by of the Act, we intend to instruct CBP to minutes for cost/earnings summaries commercial and charter/headboat collect cash deposits of estimated CVDs attached to logbook reports, 30 minutes fisheries by vessels that do not possess in the amounts shown for each of the for annual expenditure forms, 12 other federal permits. Additionally, the respective companies listed above. For minutes for logbook catch trip and set HMS logbook collects data on incidental all non-reviewed firms, including Dicha reports, 2 minutes for negative logbook species, including sea turtles, which is Sombrilla, we will instruct CBP to catch reports; cost-earning trip reports necessary to evaluate the fisheries in continue to collect cash deposits at the and annual expenditure reports, 30 terms of bycatch and encounters with most-recent company-specific or all- minute each. protected species. While most HMS Burden Hours: 31,033. others rate applicable to the company, fishermen use the HMS logbook as appropriate. These cash deposit Needs and Uses: This request is for revision and extension of a current program, HMS can also be reported as requirements, when imposed, shall part of several other logbook collections remain in effect until further notice. information collection. Under the provisions of the including the Northeast Region Fishing Administrative Protective Orders Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Vessel Trip Reports (0648–0212) and This notice also serves as a reminder Conservation and Management Act (16 Southeast Region Coastal Logbook to parties subject to administrative U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), the National (0648–0016). protective order (APO) of their Oceanic and Atmospheric These data are necessary to assess the responsibility concerning the Administration’s (NOAA) National status of HMS, dolphin, and wahoo in destruction of proprietary information Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is each fishery. International stock responsible for management of the disclosed under APO in accordance assessments for tunas, swordfish, nation’s marine fisheries. In addition, with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely billfish, and some species of sharks are written notification of the return or NMFS must comply with the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975 (16 conducted through ICCAT’s Standing destruction of APO materials or Committee on Research and Statistics conversion to judicial protective order is U.S.C. 971 et seq.), under which the agency implements recommendations periodically and provide, in part, the hereby requested. Failure to comply basis for ICCAT management with the regulations and terms of an by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), recommendations which become APO is a sanctionable violation. binding on member nations. Domestic We are issuing and publishing these as necessary and appropriate. This information collection is being stock assessments for most species of results in accordance with sections revised to include modified trip sharks and for dolphin and wahoo are 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. summary and cost-earnings logbook used as the basis of managing these Dated: October 11, 2017. forms for the Atlantic Tunas General species. Gary Taverman, Category, Swordfish General Supplementary information on fishing Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping Commercial, and Atlantic Highly costs and earnings has been collected and Countervailing Duty Operations, Migratory Species (HMS) Charter/ via the HMS logbook program. This performing the non-exclusive functions and Headboat fisheries. Reporting burden duties of the Assistant Secretary for associated with logbooks for the economic information enables NMFS to Enforcement and Compliance. Atlantic Tunas General Category and assess the economic impacts of [FR Doc. 2017–22457 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] HMS Charter/Headboat fisheries has regulatory programs on small businesses BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P been authorized under previous and fishing communities, consistent versions of this information collection, with the National Environmental Policy but the reporting burden associated with Act (NEPA), Executive Order 12866, the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE the Swordfish General Commercial Regulatory Flexibility Act, and other permit is new as it was implemented domestic laws. National Oceanic and Atmospheric only in 2014, and the category has not Administration Affected Public: Business and other previously been selected for logbook for-profit organizations; individuals or Submission for OMB Review; reporting. households. Comment Request NMFS collects information via vessel logbooks to monitor the U.S. catch of Frequency: Annually and on occasion. The Department of Commerce will Atlantic swordfish, sharks, billfish, and Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. submit to the Office of Management and tunas in relation to the quotas, thereby This information collection request Budget (OMB) for clearance the ensuring that the United States complies may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow following proposal for collection of with its domestic and international the instructions to view Department of information under the provisions of the obligations. The HMS logbook program, Commerce collections currently under Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. OMB Control No. 0648–0371, was review by OMB. Chapter 35). specifically designed to collect the Agency: National Oceanic and vessel level information needed for the Written comments and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). management of Atlantic HMS, and recommendations for the proposed Title: Highly Migratory Species Vessel includes set forms, trip forms, negative information collection should be sent Logbooks and Cost-Earnings Data reports, and cost-earning requirements within 30 days of publication of this Reports. for both commercial and recreational notice to OIRA_Submission@ OMB Control Number: 0648–0371. vessels. The information supplied omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395–5806. Form Number(s): NOAA Form 88– through the HMS logbook program Dated: October 12, 2017. 191. provides the catch and effort data on a Type of Request: Regular (revision per-set or per-trip level of resolution for Sarah Brabson, and extension of a currently approved both directed and incidental species. In NOAA PRA Clearance Officer. information collection). addition to HMS fisheries, the HMS [FR Doc. 2017–22483 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Number of Respondents: 7,213. logbook program is also used to report BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48216 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE expenses, and other operational or financial data. This information is used National Oceanic and Atmospheric National Oceanic and Atmospheric to assess the economic effects of Administration Administration Amendment 80 on vessels or entities regulated by the non-AFA Trawl Submission for OMB Review; RIN 0648–XF737 Catcher/Processor Cooperative Program, Comment Request and impacts of major changes in the Fisheries of the Northeastern United The Department of Commerce will groundfish management regime, States; Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean submit to the Office of Management and including allocation of PSC species and Quahog Fisheries; Notice That Vendor Budget (OMB) for clearance the target species to harvesting Will Provide 2018 Cage Tags following proposal for collection of cooperatives. information under the provisions of the The EDR is submitted annually by AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. vessel owners and leaseholders of GOA Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Chapter 35). trawl vessels, processors receiving Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Agency: National Oceanic and deliveries from those trawl vessels, and Commerce. Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Amendment 80 catcher/processors Title: Groundfish Trawl Catcher harvesting in the GOA and BSAI. ACTION: Notice of vendor to provide Processor Economic Data Report. Submission of the EDR is mandatory. fishing year 2018 cage tags. OMB Control Number: 0648–0564. Affected Public: Business or other for- Form Number(s): None. profit organizations; individuals or SUMMARY: NMFS informs surfclam and Type of Request: Regular (extension of households. ocean quahog individual transferable a currently approved information Frequency: Annually. quota (ITQ) allocation holders that they collection). Respondent’s Obligation: Required to will be required to purchase their Number of Respondents: 30. obtain or retain a benefit. fishing year 2018 (January 1, 2018– Average Hours per Response: 22 This information collection request December 31, 2018) cage tags from the hours per report. may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow National Band and Tag Company. The Burden Hours: 660. the instructions to view Department of intent of this notice is to comply with Needs and Uses: This request is for Commerce collections currently under regulations for the Atlantic surfclam and extension of a current information review by OMB. ocean quahog fisheries and to promote collection. Written comments and efficient distribution of cage tags. The Groundfish Trawl Catcher recommendations for the proposed Processor Economic Data Report (the information collection should be sent FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EDR) collects information for the Gulf of within 30 days of publication of this Anna Macan, Fishery Management Alaska Trawl Groundfish Economic notice to OIRA_Submission@ Specialist, (978) 281–9165; fax (978) Data Report Program (GOA Trawl EDR omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395–5806. 281–9161. Program) and for Amendment 80 to the Dated: October 12, 2017. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Fishery Management Plan for Sarah Brabson, Federal Atlantic surfclam and ocean Groundfish of the Bering Sea and NOAA PRA Clearance Officer. Aleutian Islands Management Area. quahog fishery regulations at 50 CFR [FR Doc. 2017–22482 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] The GOA Trawl EDR Program 648.77(b) authorize the Regional BILLING CODE 3510–22–P evaluates the economic effects of Administrator of the Greater Atlantic current and future groundfish and Region, NMFS, to specify in the Federal prohibited species catch (PSC) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Register a vendor from whom cage tags, management measures for GOA trawl required under the Atlantic Surfclam fisheries. This program provides the National Oceanic and Atmospheric and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management National Marine Fisheries Service Administration Plan (FMP), shall be purchased. Notice (NMFS) and the North Pacific Fishery is hereby given that National Band and Management Council with baseline RIN 0648–XF417 Tag Company of Newport, Kentucky, is information on affected harvesters, Schedules for Atlantic Shark the authorized vendor of cage tags crew, processors, and communities in required for the fishing year 2018 Identification Workshops and the GOA. Protected Species Safe Handling, Federal surfclam and ocean quahog Amendment 80 to the Fishery Release, and Identification Workshops; fisheries. Detailed instructions for Management Plan for Groundfish of the Correction purchasing these cage tags will be Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands provided in a letter to ITQ allocation Management Area primarily allocates AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries holders in these fisheries from NMFS several BSAI non-pollock trawl Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and within the next several weeks. groundfish fisheries among fishing Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), sectors, and facilitates the formation of Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Commerce. harvesting cooperatives among vessels ACTION: Notice of public workshops; Dated: October 11, 2017. in the Non-American Fisheries Act correction. Emily H. Menashes, (non-AFA) Trawl Catcher/Processor Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Cooperative Program. This program SUMMARY: NMFS cancelled the Atlantic Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. established a limited access privilege Shark Identification workshop [FR Doc. 2017–22401 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] program for the non-AFA trawl catcher/ originally scheduled for September 7, processor sector. 2017, in Panama City, FL, and the BILLING CODE 3510–22–P Data collected through the EDR Protected Species Safe Handling, includes labor information, revenues Release, and Identification workshop received, capital and operational originally scheduled for September 13,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48217

2017, also in Panama City, FL. The Dated: October 11, 2017. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION workshops were cancelled due to severe Emily H. Menashes, [Docket No. ED–2017–ICCD–0124] weather and damage resulting from Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Hurricane Irma. The workshops were Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. Agency Information Collection announced in the Federal Register on [FR Doc. 2017–22441 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Activities; Comment Request; June 8, 2017. NMFS has rescheduled the BILLING CODE 3510–22–P Implementation of Title I/II–A Program Atlantic Shark Identification workshop Initiatives for November 30, 2017. NMFS has also rescheduled the Protected Species Safe AGENCY: Institute of Education Sciences Handling, Release, and Identification (IES), Department of Education (ED). DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE workshop for November 28, 2017. ACTION: Notice. DATES: The Atlantic Shark Identification Department of the Air Force SUMMARY: In accordance with the workshop originally scheduled for Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is September 7, 2017, in Panama City, FL, Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive proposing a reinstatement of a has been rescheduled to November 30, Patent License previously approved information 2017, and the Protected Species Safe collection. Handling, Release, and Identification AGENCY: Air Force Materiel Command, workshop originally scheduled for Department of the Air Force. DATES: Interested persons are invited to September 13, 2017, in Panama City, FL, submit comments on or before has been rescheduled to November 28, ACTION: Notice of intent. December 18, 2017. 2017. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ADDRESSES: To access and review all the for further details. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of documents related to the information ADDRESSES: The locations of the Part 404 of Title 37, Code of Federal collection listed in this notice, please rescheduled workshops have not Regulations, which implements Public use http://www.regulations.gov by changed. The Atlantic Shark Law 96–517, as amended; the searching the Docket ID number ED– Identification workshop and the Department of the Air Force announces 2017–ICCD–0124. Comments submitted Protected Species Safe Handling, its intention to grant Battle Sight in response to this notice should be Release, and Identification workshop Technology, LLC of Germantown, OH, a submitted electronically through the will be held in Panama City, FL. See partial exclusive license to practice the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further invention in any right, title and interest www.regulations.gov by selecting the details. the Air Force has in: U.S. Patent No. Docket ID number or via postal mail, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick 8,137,597 issued on 20 March 2012 commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Pearson by phone: (727) 824–5399, or by entitled ‘‘ONE-PART, PRESSURE Please note that comments submitted by fax: (727) 824–5398. ACTIVATED CHEMILUMINESCENT fax or email and those submitted after SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The MATERIAL,’’ by Dr. Lawrence Brott. the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for workshop schedules, registration DATES: Written Objections must be filed information or comments submitted by information, and a list of frequently no later than fifteen (15) calendar days postal mail or delivery should be asked questions regarding these after the date of the publication of this addressed to the Director of the workshops are posted on the Internet at: Notice. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/ Information Collection Clearance compliance/workshops/index.html. ADDRESSES: Submit written objections to Division, U.S. Department of Education, the Air Force Materiel Command Law 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room Correction Office, AFMCLO, 2240 B Street, Rm. 216–32, Washington, DC 20202–4537. In the Federal Register of June 8, 204, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433– FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 2017, (82 FR 26670) in FR Doc. 2017– 7109; Facsimile: (937) 255–3733. specific questions related to collection 11923, on page 26670, in the third activities, please contact Erica Johnson, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Air 202–245–7676. column, the date of the third Atlantic Force Materiel Command Law Office, Shark Identification workshop listed SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AFMCLO, 2240 B Street, Rm. 204, The under the heading ‘‘Workshop Dates, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433–7109. Department of Education (ED), in Times, and Locations’’ is corrected to accordance with the Paperwork read as follows: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3. November 30, 2017, 12 p.m.–4 Department of the Air Force intends to 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general p.m., LaQuinta Inn & Suites, 7115 grant a license for the patent and public and Federal agencies with an Coastal Palms Boulevard, Panama City, pending applications unless a written opportunity to comment on proposed, FL 32408. objection is received within fifteen (15) revised, and continuing collections of Also, in the Federal Register of June calendar days from the date of information. This helps the Department 8, 2017, (82 FR 26670) in FR Doc. 2017– publication of this Notice. Written assess the impact of its information 11923, on page 26671, in the first objection should be sent to: Air Force collection requirements and minimize column, the date of the sixth Protected Materiel Command Law Office, the public’s reporting burden. It also Species Safe Handling, Release, and AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Rm. 204, helps the public understand the Identification workshop listed under the Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433–7109; Department’s information collection heading ‘‘Workshop Dates, Times, and Facsimile: (937) 255–3733. requirements and provide the requested Locations’’ is corrected to read as data in the desired format. ED is follows: Henry Williams, soliciting comments on the proposed 6. November 28, 2017, 9 a.m.–5 p.m., Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison information collection request (ICR) that Hilton Garden Inn, 1101 North Highway Officer. is described below. The Department of 231, Panama City, FL 32405. [FR Doc. 2017–22476 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Education is especially interested in Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. BILLING CODE 5001–10–P public comment addressing the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48218 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

following issues: (1) Is this collection survey, if preferred). The survey g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power necessary to the proper functions of the respondents are described briefly below: Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)–825(r). Department; (2) will this information be State Surveys: The state survey will h. Applicant Contact: Paul Ducheney, processed and used in a timely manner; be sent to the chief state school officer Superintendent, City of Holyoke Gas (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; in each of the 50 states and the District and Electric Department, 99 Suffolk (4) how might the Department enhance of Columbia. The state surveys will be Street, Holyoke, MA 01040, (413) 536– the quality, utility, and clarity of the administered using an electronic 9340 or [email protected]. information to be collected; and (5) how instrument divided into modules i. FERC Contact: Kyle Olcott, (202) might the Department minimize the corresponding to the four core areas. 502–8963 or [email protected]. burden of this collection on the School District Surveys. The school j. Deadline for filing scoping respondents, including through the use district survey will be sent to school comments: November 9, 2017. of information technology. Please note superintendents from the same The Commission strongly encourages that written comments received in nationally representative sample of 570 electronic filing. Please file scoping response to this notice will be school districts that participated in the comments using the Commission’s considered public records. 2014 survey, as well as a new nationally eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/ Title of Collection: Implementation of representative sample of 149 charter docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can Title I/II–A Program Initiatives. school districts. The district survey will submit brief comments up to 6,000 OMB Control Number: 1850–0902. be web-based and modularized, characters, without prior registration, Type of Review: A reinstatement of a corresponding to the four core areas, to using the eComment system at http:// previously approved information allow for completion by one or multiple www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ collection. respondents. ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end Respondents/Affected Public: State, Dated: October 12, 2017. Local, and Tribal Governments. of your comments. For assistance, Total Estimated Number of Annual Stephanie Valentine, please contact FERC Online Support at Responses: 770. Acting Director, Information Collection [email protected], (866) Total Estimated Number of Annual Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy 208–3676 (toll free), or (202) 502–8659 Officer, Office of Management. Burden Hours: 821. (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please Abstract: The second round of data [FR Doc. 2017–22445 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal collection for the Implementation of BILLING CODE 4000–01–P Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 Title I/II–A Program Initiatives study First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. will continue to examine the The first page of any filing should implementation of policies promoted DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY include docket numbers P–2386–004, through the Elementary and Secondary P–2387–003, and/or P–2388–004. Education Act (ESEA) at the state and Federal Energy Regulatory The Commission’s Rules of Practice district levels, in four core areas: School Commission require all intervenors filing documents accountability and support for low- [Project No. 2386–004, Project No. 2387– with the Commission to serve a copy of performing schools, improving teacher 003, and Project No. 2388–004] that document on each person on the and leader effectiveness, state content official service list for the project. standards, and assessments. The first City of Holyoke Gas & Electric Further, if an intervenor files comments round of data collection for this study Department; Notice Soliciting Scoping or documents with the Commission was conducted in Spring and Summer Comments relating to the merits of an issue that 2014. Take notice that the following may affect the responsibilities of a The purpose of this follow-up data hydroelectric applications have been particular resource agency, they must collection is to provide policy makers filed with the Commission and are also serve a copy of the document on with detailed information on the core available for public inspection. that resource agency. policies promoted by Title I and Title a. Type of Applications: Subsequent k. These applications are not ready for II–A being implemented at the state and Licenses. environmental analysis at this time. district levels, and the resources and b. Project Nos.: 2386–004, 2387–003, l. The City 1 project consists of: (1) An supports they provide to schools and and 2388–004. intake at the wall of the First Level teachers. The timing of the data c. Date filed: August 31, 2016. Canal fed by the Canal System with two collection is critical to provide early d. Applicant: City of Holyoke Gas & 14.7-foot-tall by 24.6-foot-wide information on the implementation of Electric Department. trashrack screens with 3.5-inch clear the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) e. Names of Projects: Holyoke Number spacing; (2) two parallel 10-foot- in the 2017–18 school year. 1 Hydro Project, P–2386–004; Holyoke diameter, 36.5-foot-long penstocks; (3) a This study will rely on information Number 2 Hydro Project, P–2387–003; 50-foot-long by 38-foot-wide brick collected from existing sources, for and Holyoke Number 3 Hydro Project, powerhouse with two 240-kilowatt and which there are no respondents or P–2388–004. two 288-kilowatt turbine generator burden, and on a set of revised state and f. Locations: Holyoke Number 1 (P– units; (4) two parallel 20-foot-wide, district surveys based on the 2014 data 2386–004) and Holyoke Number 2 (P– 328.5-foot-long brick arched tailrace collection in order to address the 2387–003) are located between the first conduits discharging into the Second study’s research questions. Extant data and second level canals, and Holyoke Level Canal; and, (5) appurtenant sources include (a) the National Number 3 (P–2388–004) is located facilities. There is no transmission line Assessment of Educational Progress between the second and third level associated with the project as it is (NAEP) and (b) EDFacts data. canals on the Holyoke Canal System located adjacent to the substation of The revised surveys of states and (Canal System), adjacent to the interconnection. school districts will begin in March Connecticut River, in the city of The City 2 project consists of: (1) An 2018. All respondents will have the Holyoke in Hampden County, intake at the wall of the First Level opportunity to complete an electronic Massachusetts. The projects do not Canal fed by the Canal System with (e.g., web-based) survey (or paper occupy federal land. three trashrack screens (one 16.2-foot-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48219

tall by 26.2-foot-wide and two 14.8-foot- Copies of the SD outlining the subject Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/18/17. tall by 21.8-foot-long) with 3-inch clear areas to be addressed in the EA were Docket Numbers: RP18–26–000. spacing; (2) two 9-foot-diameter, 240- distributed to the parties on the Applicants: Dominion Energy Questar foot-long penstocks; (3) a 17-foot-high Commission’s mailing list and the Pipeline, LLC. by 10-foot-diameter surge tank; (4) a 60- applicant’s distribution list. Copies of Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: QPC foot-long by 40-foot-wide by 50-foot the SD may be viewed on the web at Tariff Part 1 ? 5 Revision to be effective high powerhouse with one 800-kilowatt http://www.ferc.gov using the 12/1/2017. vertical turbine generator unit; (5) two ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket Filed Date: 10/10/17. parallel 9-foot-wide, 10-foot-high, 120- number excluding the last three digits in Accession Number: 20171010–5022. foot-long brick arched tailrace conduits the docket number field to access the Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/17. discharging into the Second Level document. For assistance, call 1–866– The filings are accessible in the Canal; (6) an 800-foot-long, 4.8-kilovolt 208–3676 or for TTY, (202) 502–8659. Commission’s eLibrary system by transmission line; and (7) appurtenant Dated: October 10, 2017. clicking on the links or querying the facilities. Kimberly D. Bose, docket number. The City 3 project consists of: (1) A Secretary. Any person desiring to intervene or 52.3-foot-long by 14-foot-high intake protest in any of the above proceedings trashrack covering an opening in the [FR Doc. 2017–22414 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] must file in accordance with Rules 211 Second Level Canal fed by the Canal BILLING CODE 6717–01–P and 214 of the Commission’s System; (2) two 11-foot-high by 11-foot- Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and wide headgates; (3) two 85-foot-long, 93- DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern square-foot in cross section low pressure time on the specified comment date. brick penstocks; (4) a 42-foot-long by 34- Federal Energy Regulatory Protests may be considered, but foot-wide by 28-foot-high reinforced Commission intervention is necessary to become a concrete powerhouse with one 450- party to the proceeding. kilowatt turbine generator unit; (5) a Combined Notice of Filings eFiling is encouraged. More detailed 29.7-foot-wide, 10-foot-deep, 118-foot- information relating to filing long open tailrace discharging into the Take notice that the Commission has requirements, interventions, protests, Third Level Canal; and, (6) 4.8-kilovolt received the following Natural Gas service, and qualifying facilities filings generator leads that connect directly to Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/ the 4.8-kilovolt area distribution system; Filings Instituting Proceedings docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For and (7) appurtenant facilities. other information, call (866) 208–3676 Docket Numbers: RP18–22–000. m. A copy of the application is (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. Applicants: Columbia Gas available for review at the Commission Transmission, LLC. Dated: October 10, 2017. in the Public Reference Room or may be Description: Compliance filing Leach Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., viewed on the Commission’s Web site at XPress Implementation, CP15–514 to be Deputy Secretary. http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary effective 11/6/2017. link. Enter the docket number excluding [FR Doc. 2017–22416 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Filed Date: 10/6/17. the last three digits in the docket BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Accession Number: 20171006–5054. number field to address the document. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/18/17. For assistance, contact FERC Online DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Support. A copy is available for Docket Numbers: RP18–23–000. inspection and reproduction at the Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. Federal Energy Regulatory address in Item H above. Commission n. You may also register online at Description: Petition for Limited http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ Tariff Waiver Due of Iroquois Gas [Docket No. EL18–9–000] esubscription.asp to be notified via Transmission System, L.P. Xcel Energy Services Inc. v. Southwest email of new filings and issuances Filed Date: 10/6/17. Power Pool, Inc.; Notice of Complaint related to this or other pending projects. Accession Number: 20171006–5084. For assistance, contact FERC Online Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/18/17. Take notice that on October 10, 2017, Support. Docket Numbers: RP18–24–000. Xcel Energy Services Inc. o. Scoping Process Applicants: Viking Gas Transmission (Complainant), on behalf of its public The Commission staff intends to Company. utility affiliate Southwestern Public prepare a single Environmental Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Update Service Company (SPS), filed a formal Assessment (EA) for the Holyoke Non-Conforming Agreements— complaint against Southwest Power Number 1 Hydro Project, Holyoke November 2017 to be effective Pool, Inc. (SPP or Respondent) pursuant Number 2 Hydro Project, and Holyoke 11/1/2017. to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Number 3 Hydro Project in accordance Filed Date: 10/6/17. Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824(e) and with the National Environmental Policy Accession Number: 20171006–5126. 825(e), and Rule 206 of the Rules of Act. The EA will consider both site- Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/18/17. Practice and Procedure of the Federal specific and cumulative environmental Docket Numbers: RP18–25–000. Energy Regulatory Commission impacts and reasonable alternatives to Applicants: Columbia Gas (Commission), 18 CFR 385.206 (2017), the proposed action. Transmission, LLC. alleging that SPP has violated its Tariff Commission staff does not propose to Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: by assessing Attachment Z2 credit conduct any on-site scoping meetings at Negotiated & Non-Conforming Service payment obligations to SPS in a manner this time. Instead, we are soliciting Agreements—LXP to be effective that is inconsistent with the SPP Tariff, comments, recommendations, and 11/6/2017. violates the filed rate doctrine, is information on the Scoping Document Filed Date: 10/6/17. inconsistent with SPS’s network (SD) issued on October 10, 2017. Accession Number: 20171006–5138. transmission service agreements with

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48220 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

SPP, and is otherwise unjust, Federal Energy Regulatory Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time unreasonable, all as more fully Commission’s (Commission) Rules of on November 9, 2017. explained in the complaint. Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR Dated: October 11, 2017. Complainants certify that copies of 292.205(c) and 385.207 (2017), Bloom Kimberly D. Bose, the complaint were served on the Energy Corporation (Bloom) filed a Secretary. contact for Respondent, as listed on the petition for declaratory order requesting Commission’s list of Corporate Officials. that the Commission declare that certain [FR Doc. 2017–22471 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Any person desiring to intervene or to Bloom facilities, which have BILLING CODE 6717–01–P protest this filing must file in internalized the hydrogen producing accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of second-use process, meet the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Commission’s standards for Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 cogeneration units as set forth in 18 CFR Federal Energy Regulatory (2017). Protests will be considered by 292.205(a)(1)–(2) and 18 CFR 292.205(d) Commission the Commission in determining the of the Commission’s regulations, all as appropriate action to be taken, but will more fully explained in the petition. Combined Notice of Filings #1 not serve to make protestants parties to Any person desiring to intervene or to the proceeding. Any person wishing to protest in this proceeding must file in Take notice that the Commission become a party must file a notice of accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of received the following exempt intervention or motion to intervene, as the Commission’s Rules of Practice and wholesale generator filings: appropriate. The Respondent’s answer Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and Docket Numbers: EG18–6–000. and all interventions, or protests, must 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Applicants: PowerFin ASL 1, LLC. be filed on or before the comment date. time on the specified comment date. Description: Notice of Self- The Respondent’s answer, motions to Protests will be considered by the Certification of Exempt Wholesale intervene, and protests must be served Commission in determining the Generator Status of PowerFin ASL 1, on the Complainants. appropriate action to be taken, but will LLC. The Commission encourages not serve to make protestants parties to Filed Date: 10/11/17. electronic submission of protests and the proceeding. Any person wishing to Accession Number: 20171011–5088. interventions in lieu of paper using the become a party must file a notice of Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/1/17. eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. intervention or motion to intervene, as Docket Numbers: EG18–7–000. Persons unable to file electronically appropriate. Such notices, motions, or Applicants: PowerFin SolarMundo, should submit an original and 14 copies protests must be filed on or before the LLC. of the protest or intervention to the comment date. Anyone filing a motion Description: Notice of Self- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, to intervene or protest must serve a copy Certification of Exempt Wholesale 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC of that document on the Petitioner. Generator Status of PowerFin 20426. The Commission encourages SolarMundo, LLC. This filing is accessible online at electronic submission of protests and Filed Date: 10/11/17. http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary interventions in lieu of paper, using the Accession Number: 20171011–5089. link and is available for review in the FERC Online links at http:// Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/1/17. Commission’s Public Reference Room in www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic Take notice that the Commission Washington, DC. There is an service, persons with Internet access received the following electric rate eSubscription link on the Web site that who will eFile a document and/or be filings: enables subscribers to receive email listed as a contact for an intervenor Docket Numbers: ER10–2398–006; notification when a document is added must create and validate an ER10–2399–006; ER14–1933–006; to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance eRegistration account using the ER10–2406–007; ER10–2409–006; with any FERC Online service, please eRegistration link. Select the eFiling ER10–2410–006; ER10–2411–007; email [email protected], or link to log on and submit the ER10–2412–007; ER17–1315–003; call (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, intervention or protests. ER10–2414–007; ER11–2935- 008; call (202) 502–8659. Persons unable to file electronically ER16–1724–003; ER13–1816–007. Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern should submit an original and 5 copies Applicants: Blackstone Wind Farm, Time on October 30, 2017. of the intervention or protest to the LLC, Blackstone Wind Farm II LLC, Dated: October 11, 2017. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Headwaters Wind Farm LLC, High Trail Kimberly D. Bose, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC Wind Farm, LLC, Meadow Lake Wind Secretary. 20426. Farm LLC, Meadow Lake Wind Farm II The filings in the above proceeding LLC, Meadow Lake Wind Farm III LLC, [FR Doc. 2017–22470 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] are accessible in the Commission’s Meadow Lake Wind Farm IV LLC, BILLING CODE 6717–01–P eLibrary system by clicking on the Meadow Lake Wind Farm V LLC, Old appropriate link in the above list. They Trail Wind Farm, LLC, Paulding Wind DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY are also available for review in the Farm II LLC, Paulding Wind Farm III Commission’s Public Reference Room in LLC, Sustaining Power Solutions LLC. Federal Energy Regulatory Washington, DC. There is an Description: Notice of Non-Material Commission eSubscription link on the Web site that Change in Status of Blackstone Wind enables subscribers to receive email Farm, LLC, et. al. [Docket No. EL18–10–000] notification when a document is added Filed Date: 10/10/17. Accession Number: 20171010–5383. Bloom Energy Corporation; Notice of to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/31/17. Petition for Declaratory Order with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected]. or Docket Numbers: ER10–3246–008; Take notice that on October 10, 2017, call (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, ER10–2475–013; ER10–2474–013; pursuant to section 385.207 of the call (202) 502–8659. ER13–1266–008.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48221

Applicants: PacifiCorp, Nevada Power Accession Number: 20171010–5291. other information, call (866) 208–3676 Company, Sierra Pacific Power Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/31/17. (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. Company, CalEnergy, LLC. Docket Numbers: ER18–54–000. Dated: October 11, 2017. Description: Errata to June 30, 2016 Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Triennial Market Power Analysis and Company. Deputy Secretary. Supplement for the Northwest Region of Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: [FR Doc. 2017–22460 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] the BHE Northwest Companies. Balancing Accounts Update 2018 BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Filed Date: 10/6/17. (TRBAA, RSBAA, ECRBAA) to be Accession Number: 20171006–5119. effective 1/1/2018. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/17. Filed Date: 10/10/17. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Docket Numbers: ER17–2179–001. Accession Number: 20171010–5332. Applicants: California Independent Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/31/17. Federal Energy Regulatory System Operator Corporation. Docket Numbers: ER18–55–000. Commission Description: Compliance filing: 2017– Applicants: MP2 Energy LLC. [Docket No. EL18–7–000] 10–10 Remove Conceptual Statewide Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Plan Compliance to be effective 9/27/ Notice of Change in Category Seller American Electric Power Service 2017. Status to be effective 10/12/2017. Corporation v. Midcontinent Filed Date: 10/10/17. Filed Date: 10/11/17. Independent System Operator, Inc.; Accession Number: 20171010–5344. Accession Number: 20171011–5083. Notice of Complaint Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/31/17. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/1/17. Take notice that on October 10, 2017, Docket Numbers: ER17–2379–001. Docket Numbers: ER18–56–000. pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Applicants: Arizona Public Service Applicants: Midcontinent Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e), and Rule Company. Independent System Operator, Inc., 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Description: Tariff Amendment: Consumers Energy Company. Commission’s (Commission) Rules of Administrative Filing Amendment for Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, ER17–2379–000 to be effective 8/30/ 2017–10–11 Consumers Energy American Electric Power Service 2017. Company’s Transmission Depreciation Corporation on behalf of its operating Filed Date: 10/11/17. Rates Filing to be effective 1/1/2018. company affiliates that are transmission Accession Number: 20171011–5170. Filed Date: 10/11/17. owners (TOs) in the PJM Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/1/17. Accession Number: 20171011–5087. Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) (together Docket Numbers: ER18–49–000. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/1/17. AEP or Complainants) 1 filed a formal Applicants: Arizona Public Service Docket Numbers: ER18–57–000. complaint against Midcontinent Company. Applicants: MP2 Energy NE LLC. Independent System Operator, Inc. Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: (MISO or Respondent) alleging that Service Agreement Recollation to be Notice in Change in Category Seller to MISO failed to provide AEP and other effective 10/10/2017. be effective 10/12/2017. PJM TOs with more than $4.8 million of Filed Date: 10/10/17. Filed Date: 10/11/17. revenues from Seams Elimination Accession Number: 20171010–5250. Accession Number: 20171011–5091. Charge/Cost Adjustments/Assignments, Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/31/17. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/1/17. a non-bypassable surcharge designed to Docket Numbers: ER18–50–000. Docket Numbers: ER18–58–000. recover all of the revenues lost due to Applicants: Arizona Public Service Applicants: Dyon LLC. the elimination of through and out rates Company. Description: Tariff Cancellation: on December 1, 2004 in the MISO/PJM Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Notice of Cancellation to be effective region, all as more fully explained in the Administrative Filing Amendment for 10/12/2017. complaint. ER17–2379–000 to be effective 8/30/ Filed Date: 10/11/17. AEP certifies that copies of the 2017. Accession Number: 20171011–5148. complaint were served on the contacts Filed Date: 10/10/17. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/1/17. for the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. as listed on the Accession Number: 20171010–5265. The filings are accessible in the Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/31/17. Commission’s list of Corporate Officials. Commission’s eLibrary system by Any person desiring to intervene or to Docket Numbers: ER18–51–000. clicking on the links or querying the protest this filing must file in Applicants: PJM Interconnection, docket number. accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of L.L.C. Any person desiring to intervene or the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: protest in any of the above proceedings Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Interconnection Service Agreement No. must file in accordance with Rules 211 Protests will be considered by the 3808, Queue No. AB2–050 to be and 214 of the Commission’s Commission in determining the effective 9/7/2017. Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and appropriate action to be taken, but will Filed Date: 10/10/17. 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern not serve to make protestants parties to Accession Number: 20171010–5285. time on the specified comment date. the proceeding. Any person wishing to Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/31/17. Protests may be considered, but become a party must file a notice of Docket Numbers: ER18–52–000. intervention is necessary to become a intervention or motion to intervene, as Applicants: PJM Interconnection, party to the proceeding. L.L.C. eFiling is encouraged. More detailed 1 American Electric Power Service Corporation Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: information relating to filing (AEPSC) is filing this Complaint on behalf of its Original Service Agreement No. 4795; requirements, interventions, protests, following operating company affiliates: Appalachian Power Company, Indiana Michigan Queue AC2–139 (WMPA) to be effective service, and qualifying facilities filings Power Company, Kentucky Power Company, 9/8/2017. can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/ Kingsport Power Company, Ohio Power Company, Filed Date: 10/10/17. docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For and Wheeling Power Company.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48222 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

appropriate. The Respondent’s answer Dated: October 11, 2017. Public Reference Room in Washington, and all interventions, or protests must Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., DC. There is an eSubscription link on be filed on or before the comment date. Deputy Secretary. the Web site that enables subscribers to The Respondent’s answer, motions to [FR Doc. 2017–22461 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] receive email notification when a intervene, and protests must be served BILLING CODE 6717–01–P document is added to a subscribed on the Complainants. docket(s). For assistance with any FERC The Commission encourages Online service, please email electronic submission of protests and DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [email protected]. or call interventions in lieu of paper using the (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Federal Energy Regulatory (202) 502–8659. Commission Persons unable to file electronically Dated: October 11, 2017. should submit an original and 5 copies [Docket No. ER18–47–000] Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., of the protest or intervention to the Deputy Secretary. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Voyager Wind II, LLC; Supplemental 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate [FR Doc. 2017–22464 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] 20426. Filing Includes Request for Blanket BILLING CODE 6717–01–P This filing is accessible on-line at Section 204 Authorization http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link and is available for electronic This is a supplemental notice in the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY review in the Commission’s Public above-referenced proceeding of Voyager Federal Energy Regulatory Reference Room in Washington, DC. Wind II, LLC‘s application for market- Commission There is an eSubscription link on the based rate authority, with an Web site that enables subscribers to accompanying rate tariff, noting that [Docket No. EL18–6–000] receive email notification when a such application includes a request for document is added to a subscribed blanket authorization, under 18 CFR FirstEnergy Service Company; Notice docket(s). For assistance with any FERC part 34, of future issuances of securities of Waiver Request and assumptions of liability. Online service, please email Take notice that on October 6, 2017, [email protected], or call Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal pursuant to rule 207 of the Federal (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call Energy Regulatory Commission’s (202) 502–8659. Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (Commission) Rules of Practices and Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Procedures 18 CFR 385.207, FirstEnergy Time on October 30, 2017. in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice Service Company (Service Company), Dated: October 11, 2017. and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and submitted a request that the Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to Commission waive specified portions of Deputy Secretary. intervene or protest must serve a copy 18 CFR 35.39 and any other rules and [FR Doc. 2017–22462 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] of that document on the Applicant. regulations as may be necessary, to BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Notice is hereby given that the allow Service Company to establish a deadline for filing protests with regard centralized RTO interface services group to the applicant’s request for blanket to provide services to certain franchised DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of public utilities and market-regulated future issuances of securities and power sales affiliates within the Federal Energy Regulatory assumptions of liability, is October 31, FirstEnergy Corp. holding company Commission 2017. system, as more fully explained in its waiver request. Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and Any person desiring to intervene or to Wholesale Generator and Foreign protest this filing must file in Utility Company Status interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http:// accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of Docket Nos. www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic the Commission’s Rules of Practice and service, persons with Internet access Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). SunE Beacon Site 2 LLC ...... EG17–122–000 Protests will be considered by the Great Bay Solar I, LLC ...... EG17–123–000 who will eFile a document and/or be Lackawanna Energy Center LLC EG17–124–000 listed as a contact for an intervenor Commission in determining the SunE Beacon Site 5 LLC ...... EG17–125–000 must create and validate an appropriate action to be taken, but will Rattlesnake Power, LLC ...... EG17–126–000 eRegistration account using the not serve to make protestants parties to Apple Blossom Wind, LLC ...... EG17–127–000 the proceeding. Any person wishing to Stuttgart Solar, LLC ...... EG17–130–000 eRegistration link. Select the eFiling Cap Ridge Wind I, LLC ...... EG17–131–000 link to log on and submit the become a party must file a notice of Cap Ridge Wind II, LLC ...... EG17–132–000 intervention or protests. intervention or motion to intervene, as Cap Ridge Wind III, LLC ...... EG17–133–000 Persons unable to file electronically appropriate. Such notices, motions, or Cap Ridge Wind IV, LLC ...... EG17–134–000 should submit an original and 5 copies protests must be filed on or before the Cap Ridge Interconnection, LLC EG17–135–000 Aguaytia Energy del Peru SRL (I FC17–4–000 of the intervention or protest to the comment date. Anyone filing a motion Squared Capital). Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, to intervene or protest must serve a copy 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC of that document on the Applicant. Take notice that during the month of 20426. The Commission encourages September 2017, the status of the above- The filings in the above-referenced electronic submission of protests and captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale proceeding are accessible in the interventions in lieu of paper using the Generators or Foreign Utility Companies Commission’s eLibrary system by eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. became effective by operation of the clicking on the appropriate link in the Persons unable to file electronically Commission’s regulations. 18 CFR above list. They are also available for should submit an original and 5 copies 366.7(a) (2017). electronic review in the Commission’s of the protest or intervention to the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48223

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, preparation of the environmental o. The license application and 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC document should follow the associated filings are available for 20426. instructions for filing such requests review at the Commission in the Public This filing is accessible on-line at described in item m below. Cooperating Reference Room or may be viewed on http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary agencies should note the Commission’s the Commission’s Web site (http:// link and is available for review in the policy that agencies that cooperate in www.ferc.gov), using the eLibrary link. Commission’s Public Reference Room in the preparation of the environmental Enter the docket number, excluding the Washington, DC. There is an document cannot also intervene. See, 94 last three digits in the docket number ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the Web site FERC 61,076 (2001). field to access the document. For that enables subscribers to receive email k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 assistance, contact FERC Online notification when a document is added CFR of the Commission’s regulations, if Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or ferc.gov, (866) 208–3676 (toll free), or with any FERC Online service, please person believes that an additional (202) 502–8659 (TTY). A copy is also email [email protected], or scientific study should be conducted in available for inspection and call (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, order to form an adequate factual basis reproduction at the address in call (202) 502–8659. for a complete analysis of the paragraph m. application on its merit, the resource Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time Register online at http:// agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file on October 27, 2017. www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ a request for a study with the Dated: October 10, 2017. Commission not later than 60 days from esubscription.asp to be notified via Kimberly D. Bose, the date of filing of the application, and email of new filing and issuances Secretary. serve a copy of the request on the related to this or other pending projects. [FR Doc. 2017–22413 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] applicant. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for cooperating p. With this notice, we are designating agency status: December 1, 2017 Nevada Hydro, Inc. as the Commission’s DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY The Commission strongly encourages non-federal representative for carrying electronic filing. Please file additional out informal consultation pursuant to Federal Energy Regulatory study requests and requests for section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Commission cooperating agency status using the and section 305(b) of the Magnuson- [Project No. 14227–003] Commission’s eFiling system at http:// Stevens Fishery Conservation and www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For Management Act; and consultation Nevada Hydro Company, Inc.; Notice assistance, please contact FERC Online pursuant to section 106 of the National of Application Tendered for Filing With Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ Historic Preservation Act. the Commission and Soliciting ferc.gov, (866) 208–3676 (toll free), or q. Post-filing process: The major (202) 502–8659 (TTY). In lieu of Additional Study Requests milestones of the post-filing process for electronic filing, please send a paper the LEAPS Project are provided below. Take notice that the following copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy The issuance of the Ready for hydroelectric application has been filed Regulatory Commission, 888 First Environmental Analysis (REA) Notice with the Commission and is available Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The and subsequent milestones will not for public inspection. first page of any filing should include occur until the additional information a. Type of Application: Major docket number P–14227–003. Unconstructed Project. m. The application is not ready for needs of Commission staff on the final b. Project No.: P–14227–003. environmental analysis at this time. license application have been satisfied, c. Date filed: October 2, 2017. n. The proposed project would consist which may include the completion of d. Applicant: Nevada Hydro of the following: (1) A new upper any needed additional studies. The Company, Inc. reservoir (Decker Canyon) with a 200- milestones that provide opportunities e. Name of Project: Lake Elsinore foot-high main dam and a gross storage for stakeholder input are highlighted in Advanced Pumped Storage (LEAPS) volume of 5,750 acre-feet at a normal bold. Project. reservoir surface elevation of 2,792 feet • Additional study requests due f. Location: On Lake Elsinore and San above mean sea level (msl); (2) a single • Juan Creek near the town of Lake 21-foot-diameter concrete power shaft Issue Scoping Document 1 for Elsinore in Riverside and San Diego and power tunnel with two steel lined comments counties, California. The project would penstocks; (3) an underground • Public Scoping Meetings occupy about 845 acres of federal land. powerhouse with two reversible pump- • Comments on Scoping Document 1 g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR part 4 of turbine units with a total installed due the Commission’s Regulations. capacity of 500 megawatts; (4) an • Issue Scoping Document 2 (if h. Applicant Contact: Rexford Wait, existing lower reservoir (Lake Elsinore) necessary) Nevada Hydro Company, Inc., 2416 with a gross storage volume of 54,500 Cades Way Vista, California (760) 599– acre-feet at a normal reservoir surface • Issue REA Notice soliciting 1815. elevation of 1,245 feet above msl; (5) comments, recommendations, terms i. FERC Contact: Jim Fargo at (202) about 32 miles of 500-kV transmission and conditions, and prescriptions 502–6095 or email at james.fargo@ line connecting the project to an • Comments, recommendations, terms ferc.gov. existing transmission line owned by and conditions, and prescriptions j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, Southern California Edison located due local, and tribal agencies with north of the proposed project and to an • Issue updated EIS jurisdiction and/or special expertise existing San Diego Gas & Electric • with respect to environmental issues Company transmission line located to Comments on updated EIS due that wish to cooperate in the the south. • Issue final EIS (if necessary)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48224 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

Dated: October 11, 2017. government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. For a recorded message listing items Kimberly D. Bose, L. 94–409), 5 U.S.C. 552b: struck from or added to the meeting, call Secretary. AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: Federal (202) 502–8627. [FR Doc. 2017–22473 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Energy Regulatory Commission. This is a list of matters to be BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DATE AND TIME: October 19, 2017, 10:00 considered by the Commission. It does a.m. not include a listing of all documents PLACE: Room 2C, 888 First Street NE., relevant to the items on the agenda. All DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Washington, DC 20426. public documents, however, may be STATUS: Open. Federal Energy Regulatory viewed on line at the Commission’s Commission MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Agenda. Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using * Note—Items listed on the agenda may the eLibrary link, or may be examined Sunshine Act Meeting Notice be deleted without further notice. in the Commission’s Public Reference CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Room. The following notice of meeting is Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Telephone published pursuant to section 3(a) of the (202) 502–8400.

1036TH—MEETING REGULAR MEETING [October 19, 2017 10:00 a.m.]

Item No. Docket No. Company

Administrative

A–1 ...... AD18–1–000 ...... Agency Administrative Matters. A–2 ...... AD18–2–000 ...... Customer Matters, Reliability, Security and Market Operations. A–3 ...... AD06–3–000 ...... Market Update. A–4 ...... AD16–24–000 ...... Winter Operations and Market Performance in Regional Transmission Orga- nizations and Independent System Operators. ER17–1567–000, ER15–623–000, EL15–29– ODEC and Advanced Energy Management Alliance v. PJM Interconnection, 000, ER16–372–000, EL17–32–000. L.L.C. EL17–36–000 ...... ISO New England Inc. ER17–1565–000, ER16–551–003, ER13–2266– Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC. 004. RP16–618–000, ER17–1561–000, ER16–1404– New York Independent System Operator, Inc. 000, ER16–120–001 ER16–120–003. EL15–37–002, EL13–62–001 ...... Independent Power Producers of New York. EL13–62–002 ...... New York State Public Service Commission et al. EL16–92–001 ...... Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. ER17–1570–000 ...... Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. ER11–4081–000 ...... Coalition of MISO Transmission Customers v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. EL16–112–001, ER17–892–000 ...... Public Citizen, et al. v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. EL15–70–000, EL15–71–000, EL15–72–000, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. EL15–82–000. ER17–1568–000, ER17–1568–001, EL16–110– California Independent System Operator Corporation. 000, ER16–1286–000, EL17–11–000, EL17– 69–000, ER17–1575–000, ER17–1575–001, ER17–1092–000, ER17–1482–000. ER17–2312–000, ER17–2568–000, ER17– 2412–000, ER17–2402–000, ER17–2311– 000, ER17–2263–000, ER17–2237–000, ER17–1459–000, ER18–1–000.

Electric

E–1 ...... RM17–11–000 ...... Revised Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standard CIP–003–7— Cyber Security—Security Management Controls. E–2 ...... RM15–11–002 ...... Reliability Standard for Transmission System Planned Performance for Geo- magnetic Disturbance Events. E–3 ...... ER15–1809–001, EL18–12–000 ...... ATX Southwest, LLC. E–4 ...... ER15–958–003, ER15–958–004, EL18–13–000 Transource Kansas, LLC. E–5 ...... ER15–2236–001, EL18–14–000 ...... Midwest Power Transmission Arkansas, LLC. E–6 ...... EL15–2237–001, ER15–2237–003, EL18–15– Kanstar Transmission, LLC. 000. E–7 ...... ER15–2594–003, EL18–16–000, ER17–953– South Central MCN LLC. 000. E–8 ...... EL16–110–000 ...... Southwest Power Pool, Inc. E–9 ...... EL16–1286–002, EL16–110–001 ...... Southwest Power Pool, Inc. E–10 ...... EL17–11–000 ...... Alabama Power Company v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc. E–11 ...... EL17–69–000 ...... Buffalo Dunes Wind Project, LLC, Enel Green Power North America, Inc., Alabama Power Company, and Southern Company Services, Inc. v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48225

1036TH—MEETING—Continued REGULAR MEETING [October 19, 2017 10:00 a.m.]

Item No. Docket No. Company

E–12 ...... ER17–1575–000, ER17–1575–001 ...... Southwest Power Pool, Inc. E–13 ...... EL10–49–005 ...... Old Dominion Electric Cooperative and North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation v. Virginia Electric and Power Company. E–14 ...... EL10–49–004 ...... Old Dominion Electric Cooperative and North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation v. Virginia Electric and Power Company. E–15 ...... EL18–17–000 ...... Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. E–16 ...... ER16–471–001 ...... Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. E–17 ...... ER17–1000–000, ER17–1000–001, ER17– Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. 1013–000, ER17–1013–001 (not consoli- dated). E–18 ...... EL16–99–000, EL18–18–000 (consolidated) ..... Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. E–19 ...... ER16–1817–003, ER16–1346–002 ...... Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. E–20 ...... ER14–1242–006, ER14–2860–003, ER14– Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. 2862–003. E–21 ...... EL16–12–002, ER16–1817–002 ...... Internal MISO Generation v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. E–22 ...... ER17–2110–000 ...... ISO New England Inc. E–23 ...... EL16–91–000, EL18–19–000 (consolidated) ..... Southwest Power Pool, Inc. E–24 ...... ER17–998–000, EL17–61–000 ...... DATC Path 15, LLC.

Gas

G–1 ...... OMITTED. G–2 ...... RP17–397–000 ...... Dominion Transmission, Inc. G–3 ...... RP17–461–000 ...... Texas Eastern Transmission, LP. G–4 ...... OR17–13–000 ...... GT Pipeline, LLC.

Hydro

H–1 ...... PL17–3–000 ...... Policy Statement on Establishing License Terms for Hydroelectric Projects. H–2 ...... P–308–008 ...... PacifiCorp. H–3 ...... P–14760–001, P–14761–001, P–14762–001 .... Percheron Power, LLC. P–14763–001, P–14764–001 ...... NortHydro, LLC. H–4 ...... EL16–50–001 ...... Percheron Power, LLC. H–5 ...... P–2210–261 ...... Appalachian Power Company.

A free webcast of this event is Issued: October 12, 2017. Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 available through www.ferc.gov. Anyone Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, with Internet access who desires to view Deputy Secretary. in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 this event can do so by navigating to [FR Doc. 2017–22545 Filed 10–13–17; 11:15 am] of the Commission’s Rules of Practice www.ferc.gov’s Calendar of Events and BILLING CODE 6717–01–P and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and locating this event in the Calendar. 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to The event will contain a link to its intervene or protest must serve a copy webcast. The Capitol Connection DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY of that document on the Applicant. provides technical support for the free Notice is hereby given that the webcasts. It also offers access to this Federal Energy Regulatory deadline for filing protests with regard event via television in the DC area and Commission to the applicant’s request for blanket via phone bridge for a fee. If you have [Docket No. ER17–2558–000] authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of any questions, visit future issuances of securities and www.CapitolConnection.org or contact NTE Ohio, LLC; Supplemental Notice assumptions of liability, is October 31, Danelle Springer or David Reininger at That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing 2017. 703–993–3100. Includes Request for Blanket Section The Commission encourages Immediately following the conclusion 204 Authorization electronic submission of protests and of the Commission Meeting, a press This is a supplemental notice in the interventions in lieu of paper, using the briefing will be held in the Commission above-referenced proceeding NTE Ohio, FERC Online links at http:// Meeting Room. Members of the public LLC’s application for market-based rate www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic may view this briefing in the designated authority, with an accompanying rate service, persons with Internet access overflow room. This statement is tariff, noting that such application who will eFile a document and/or be intended to notify the public that the includes a request for blanket listed as a contact for an intervenor press briefings that follow Commission authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of must create and validate an meetings may now be viewed remotely future issuances of securities and eRegistration account using the at Commission headquarters, but will assumptions of liability. eRegistration link. Select the eFiling not be telecast through the Capitol Any person desiring to intervene or to link to log on and submit the Connection service. protest should file with the Federal intervention or protests.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48226 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

Persons unable to file electronically DATES: Comments on the collection of transmission information. The should submit an original and 5 copies information are due November 16, 2017. Commission believes that transmission of the intervention or protest to the ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, customers must have simultaneous Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, identified by OMB Control No. 1902– access to the same information available 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 0173, should be sent via email to the to the Transmission Provider if truly 20426. Office of Information and Regulatory nondiscriminatory transmission services The filings in the above-referenced Affairs: [email protected]. are to be a reality. proceeding are accessible in the Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory The Commission also established Commission’s eLibrary system by Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Standards of Conduct requiring that clicking on the appropriate link in the Officer may also be reached via personnel engaged in transmission above list. They are also available for telephone at 202–395–0710. system operations function electronic review in the Commission’s A copy of the comments should also independently from personnel engaged Public Reference Room in Washington, be sent to the Commission, in Docket in marketing functions. The Standards DC. There is an eSubscription link on No. IC17–13–000 by either of the of Conduct were designed to prevent the Web site that enables subscribers to following methods: employees of a public utility (or any of receive email notification when a • eFiling at Commission’s Web site: its affiliates) engaged in marketing document is added to a subscribed http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ functions from preferential access to docket(s). For assistance with any FERC efiling.asp. OASIS-related information or from Online service, please email • Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: engaging in unduly discriminatory [email protected] or call Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, business practices. Companies were (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call Secretary of the Commission, 888 First required to separate their transmission (202) 502–8659. Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. operations/reliability functions from Dated: October 11, 2017. Instructions: All submissions must be their marketing/merchant functions and formatted and filed in accordance with Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., prevent system operators from submission guidelines at: http:// providing merchant employees and Deputy Secretary. www.ferc.gov/help/submission- employees of affiliates with [FR Doc. 2017–22463 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] guide.asp. For user assistance contact transmission-related information not BILLING CODE 6717–01–P FERC Online Support by email at available to all customers at the same [email protected], or by phone time through public posting on the at: (866) 208–3676 (toll-free), or (202) OASIS. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 502–8659 for TTY. Type of Respondents: Transmission Federal Energy Regulatory Docket: Users interested in receiving Owners and Transmission Operators. Commission automatic notification of activity in this Estimate of Annual Burden: 1 The docket or in viewing/downloading Commission estimates an adjustment in comments and issuances in this docket [Docket No. IC17–13–000] the annual public reporting burden for may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs- the FERC–717. The adjustment is due to Commission Information Collection filing/docs-filing.asp. Transmission Providers being allowed Activity (FERC–717); Comment FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: to file responses jointly or individually. Request; Extension Ellen Brown may be reached by email The Transmission Provider may at [email protected], telephone delegate this responsibility to a AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory at (202) 502–8663, and fax at (202) 273– Responsible Party such as another Commission. 0873. Transmission Provider, an Independent ACTION: Comment request. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: System Operator, a Regional Title: FERC–717, Open Access Same- Transmission Group, or a Regional SUMMARY: In compliance with the Time information System and Standards Reliability Council. The number requirements of the Paperwork for Business Practices and comprise two separate entities: Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Communication Protocols. Transmission Owners and Transmission Energy Regulatory Commission OMB Control No.: 1902–0173. Operators. The responses submitted are (Commission or FERC) is submitting its Type of Request: Three-year approval our best estimate of the Transmission information collection, FERC–717, of the FERC–717 information collection Operators and remaining individual (Open Access Same-Time Information requirements with no changes to the Transmission Owners. The rationale is System and Standards for Business current reporting requirements. that some Transmission Owners have Practices and Communication Protocol) Abstract: The Commission directs all elected to turn over operational control which will be submitted to the Office of public utilities that own, control or of their collective transmission systems Management and Budget (OMB) for a operate facilities for transmitting energy to Transmission Operators, including review of the information collection in interstate commerce to provide RTOs/ISOs (as authorized in 18 CFR requirements. Any interested person certain types of information regarding 37.5). These Transmission Operators may file comments directly with OMB their transmission operations on an offer OASIS access to the collective and should address a copy of those Open Access Same-time Information systems facilitating a single OASIS comments to the Commission as System (OASIS). The Commission does transmission request serving multiple explained below. The Commission not believe that open-access transmission systems. As a result of published Notice in the Federal nondiscriminatory transmission services Register in Docket No. IC17–13–000, (82 can be completely realized until it 1 Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or FR 37580, 8/11/2017) requesting public removes real-world obstacles that financial resources expended by persons to comments. FERC received no comments prevent transmission customers from generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further in response to the Notice and is competing effectively with the explanation of what is included in the information indicating that in its submittal to the Transmission Provider. One of the collection burden, refer to 5 Code of Federal OMB. obstacles is unequal access to Regulations 1320.3.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48227

these efficiency gains, the lower our past request, we are submitting a associated with the current information respondent count is appropriate. more accurate number of respondents. collection requirements: As a result of the efficiency gains, and The estimate below reflects the work an overestimate of the respondents in

FERC–717, OPEN ACCESS SAME-TIME INFORMATION SYSTEM AND STANDARDS FOR BUSINESS PRACTICES AND COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS

Annual Total Average burden hours Total annual burden Number of number of hours and total Information collection requirements respondents responses per number of and cost per 2 annual cost respondent responses response

(1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5)

FERC–717 ...... 170 1 170 30 hrs.; $2,295 ...... 5,100 hrs.; $390,150.

Comments: Comments are invited on: on EISs are available at: https:// Washington, DC 20052. The CHPAC (1) Whether the collection of cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-nepa-public/ advises the Environmental Protection information is necessary for the proper action/eis/search. Agency on science, regulations, and performance of the functions of the EIS No. 20170198, Final, USAF, MD, other issues relating to children’s Commission, including whether the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization environmental health. information will have practical utility; Program, Joint Base Andrews-Naval DATES: November 29 and 30 at The (2) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate Air Facility, Review Period Ends: George Washington University Milken of the burden and cost of the collection 11/15/2017, Contact: Ms Jean Renolds Institute School of Public Health in of information, including the validity of 210–925–4534. Washington, DC. the methodology and assumptions used; EIS No. 20170200, Draft, FTA, PA, King ADDRESSES: 950 New Hampshire Ave. (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility of Prussia Rail Project, Comment NW., Washington, DC 20052. and clarity of the information collection; Period Ends: 12/4/2017, Contact: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and (4) ways to minimize the burden of Daniel Koenig 202–366–8224. Angela Hackel, Office of Children’s the collection of information on those EIS No. 20170201, Draft, USN, CA, Health Protection, USEPA, MC 1107T, who are to respond, including the use Hawaii-Southern Californian Training 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., of automated collection techniques or and Testing, Comment Period Ends: Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566–2977 other forms of information technology. 12/12/2017, Contact: Nora Macariola- or [email protected]. Dated: October 11, 2017. See 808–472–1402. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Kimberly D. Bose, EIS No. 20170202, Draft, USFS, CO, CP meetings of the CHPAC are open to the Secretary. District-wide Salvage, Comment public. An agenda will be posted to Period Ends: 11/30/2017, Contact: [FR Doc. 2017–22472 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] epa.gov/children. Mike Tooley 719–274–6321. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Access and Accommodations: For Dated: October 9, 2017. information on access or services for Kelly Knight, individuals with disabilities, please ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office contact Angela Hackel at 202–5566– AGENCY of Federal Activities. 2977. [FR Doc. 2017–22165 Filed 10–13–17; 12:00 pm] Dated: October 2, 2017. [ER–FRL–9035–6] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Angela Hackel, Environmental Impact Statements; Designated Federal Official. Notice of Availability [FR Doc. 2017–22498 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Responsible Agency: Office of Federal AGENCY Activities, General Information (202) [FRL–9969–52–OA] 564–7146 or http://www2.epa.gov/ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION nepa/. Notice of Meeting of the EPA AGENCY Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Children’s Health Protection Advisory [FRL–9969–71–OA] Statements (EIS) Committee (CHPAC) Filed 10/02/2017 through 10/06/2017 Notification of a Public Teleconference Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). of the Science Advisory Board Risk Notice and Technology Review (RTR) ACTION: Notice of meeting. Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act Methods Review Panel requires that EPA make public its SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of AGENCY: Environmental Protection comments on EISs issued by other the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Agency (EPA). Federal agencies. EPA’s comment letters notice is hereby given that the next ACTION: Notice. meeting of the Children’s Health 2 The Commission staff thinks that the average Protection Advisory Committee SUMMARY: The EPA Science Advisory respondent for this collection is similarly situated (CHPAC) will be held November 29 and Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a to the Commission, in terms of salary plus benefits. Based upon FERC’s 2017 annual average of 30 at The George Washington University public teleconference meeting of the $158,754 (for salary plus benefits), the average Milken Institute School of Public Health Science Advisory Board (SAB) Risk and hourly cost is $76.50/hour. 950 New Hampshire Ave. NW., Technology Review (RTR) Methods

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48228 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

Panel to discuss the draft Panel report pollutants (HAPs) on public health and documents with signatures on its Web in response to the Agency request to the environment. The RTR Methods sites. Members of the public should be peer review EPA’s draft Screening Review Panel convened a public face-to- aware that their personal contact Methodologies to Support Risk and face meeting on June 29–30, 2017, to information, if included in any written Technology Reviews (RTR) (External deliberate on the peer review charge comments, may be posted to the SAB Review Draft May, 2017). questions. The Panel will meet via a Web site. Copyrighted material will not DATES: The public teleconference will public teleconference to discuss the be posted without explicit permission of be held on Tuesday, December 5, 2017, draft report developed by the Panel and the copyright holder. from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (Eastern to hear and consider public comments. Accessibility: For information on time). Availability of Meeting Materials: access or services for individuals with Prior to the meeting(s), the review ADDRESSES: The public teleconference disabilities, please contact Dr. Bloomer documents, meeting agendas and other will be held by telephone only. at the phone number or email address supporting materials (if applicable) will noted above, preferably at least ten days FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any be accessible on the meeting page at this prior to the meeting, to give the EPA as member of the public who wants further URL http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/ much time as possible to process your information concerning this meeting sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/ request. notice may contact Dr. Bryan J. Bloomer, RTR%20Screening%20Methods% Designated Federal Officer (DFO), via 20Review?OpenDocument. Dated: October 5, 2017. phone at (202) 564–4222, or email at Procedures for Providing Public Input: Khanna Johnston, [email protected]. General Public comment for consideration by Acting Deputy Director, EPA Science information about the SAB, as well as EPA’s federal advisory committees and Advisory Board Staff Office. updates concerning the meeting panels has a different purpose from [FR Doc. 2017–22496 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] announced in this notice, may be found public comment provided to EPA BILLING CODE 6560–50–P on the EPA Web site at http:// program offices. Therefore, the process www.epa.gov/sab. for submitting comments to a federal Technical Contact for EPA’s Draft advisory committee is different from the EXPORT-IMPORT BANK Reports: Any technical questions process used to submit comments to an [Public Notice: 2017–6012] concerning EPA’s draft Screening EPA program office. Federal advisory Methodologies to Support Risk and committees and panels, including Technology Reviews (RTR) (External Agency Information Collection scientific advisory committees, provide Activities: Comment Request Review Draft May, 2017), should be independent advice to the EPA. directed to Chris Sarsony, EPA Office of Members of the public can submit AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality relevant comments pertaining to the United States. Planning and Standards, at (919) 541– EPA’s charge, meeting materials, or the ACTION: Submission for OMB review and 4843 or [email protected]. group providing advice. Input from the comments request. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: public to the SAB will have the most Background: The SAB was impact if it provides specific scientific SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank of established pursuant to the or technical information or analysis for the United States (EXIM), as a part of its Environmental Research, Development, the SAB to consider or if it relates to the continuing effort to reduce paperwork and Demonstration Authorization Act clarity or accuracy of the technical and respondent burden, invites the (ERDAA) codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to information. Members of the public general public and other Federal provide independent scientific and wishing to provide comment should Agencies to comment on the proposed technical advice to the Administrator on follow the instructions below to submit information collection, as required by the technical basis for Agency positions comments. the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. and regulations. The SAB is a Federal Oral Statements: In general, The collection provides EXIM staff Advisory Committee chartered under individuals or groups requesting to with the information necessary to the Federal Advisory Committee Act make an oral presentation will be monitor the borrower’s payments for (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. The SAB will limited to three minutes during a public exported goods covered under its short comply with the provisions of FACA teleconference. Interested parties and medium-term export credit and all appropriate SAB Staff Office wishing to provide comments should insurance policies. It also alerts EXIM procedural policies. Pursuant to FACA contact Dr. Bloomer (preferably via staff of defaults, so they can manage the and EPA policy, notice is hereby given email), at the contact information noted portfolio in an informed manner. that the SAB RTR Methods Panel will above by November 28, 2017, to be DATES: Comments must be received on hold a public teleconference to discuss placed on the list of public speakers for or before December 18, 2017 to be its draft report regarding the EPA’s draft the teleconference. assured of consideration. Screening Methodologies to Support Written Statements: Written ADDRESSES: Comments may be Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR) statements will be accepted throughout submitted electronically on (External Review Draft May, 2017). The the advisory process; however, for WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV or by mail Panel will provide their advice to the timely consideration by SAB members, to Mia Johnson, Export-Import Bank of Administrator through the chartered statements should be supplied to the the United States, 811 Vermont Ave. SAB. DFO (preferably via email) at the contact EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning information noted above by November NW., Washington, DC 20571 Form can and Standards (OAQPS) requested that 28, 2017. It is the SAB Staff Office be viewed at https://www.exim.gov/ the SAB conduct a review of the general policy to post written comments sites/default/files/pub/pending/eib92- methods for conducting Risk and on the Web page for the advisory 29.pdf Technology Review Assessments meeting teleconference. Submitters are SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: required by the Clean Air Act. These requested to provide an unsigned Title and Form Number: EIB 92–29 assessments evaluate the effects of version of each document because the Export-Import Bank Report of Premiums industrial emissions of hazardous air SAB Staff Office does not publish Payable for Exporters Only.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48229

OMB Number: 3048–0017. the Wireline Competition and the data that the Commission will use, in Type of Review: Regular. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau conjunction with subsidy data, to Need and Use: The ‘‘Report of (Bureaus), provide instructions for filing establish the map of areas Premiums Payable for Exporters Only’’ 4G Long Term Evolution (LTE) coverage presumptively eligible for MF–II form is used by exporters to report and data pursuant to the MF–II Challenge support. The instructions attached to pay premiums on insured shipments to Process Order, announce that the the 4G LTE Coverage Data Collection various foreign buyers under the terms Commission has published a notice of Public Notice fulfill the directive in the of the policy and to certify that the Office of Management and Budget’s MF–II Challenge Process Order that the premiums have been correctly (OMB) approval of this information Bureaus provide filing instructions, computed and remitted. Individual collection in the Federal Register, and including data specifications, formatting transactions that an exporter may have announce the deadlines by which information, and any other necessary with the same foreign borrower can be subject entities must submit contact technical parameters for the collection, sub-totaled and entered as a single line information and file responses to this and provide the detailed information item for the specific month provided the information collection. filers will need to generate and submit length of payment term is identical. The DATES: Contact information due by their 4G LTE coverage data— use of sub-totals reduces the October 23, 2017; responses to specifically, who must file, what must administrative burden on the exporter. information collection due by January 4, be filed, when to file, and how to file. The ‘Report of Premiums Payable for 2018. The provider-specific information Exporters Only’ is used by the Bank to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken submitted as part of the data collection determine the eligibility of the Lynch at (202) 418–7356 or Ben will be treated as confidential. shipment(s) and to calculate the Freeman at (202) 418–0628, or email Entities subject to this information premium due to Ex-Im Bank for its [email protected]. collection must submit contact support of the shipment(s) under its SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a information for this collection using the insurance program. summary of the Public Notice, template posted at https://www.fcc.gov/ Affected Public: This form affects Instructions for Filing 4G LTE Coverage MF2-LTE-Collection by October 23, entities involved in the export of U.S. Data to Determine Areas Presumptively 2017. Such entities must collect and goods and services. submit their responses to this Annual Number of Respondents: Eligible for Mobility Fund II Support (4G LTE Coverage Data Instructions Public information collection using the process 2,600. and format described in the instructions Estimated Time per Respondent: 15 Notice), WC Docket No. 10–90, WT Docket No. 10–208, DA 17–926, released attached to the 4G LTE Coverage Data minutes. Collection Public Notice no later than Annual Burden Hours: 650 hours. on September 22, 2017, and the Public Frequency of Reporting or Use: Notice, Responses to the Mobility Fund January 4, 2018, which is 90 days after Monthly. Phase II Data Collection Are Due the date on which the Commission January 4, 2018, WC Docket No. 10–90, published notice in the Federal Register Government Expenses WT Docket No. 10–208, DA 17–975 of the Office of Management and Reviewing Time per Year: 1,950 released October 6, 2017. The complete Budget’s approval of this information hours. text of these documents is available for collection (see 82 FR 46494 (Oct. 5, Average Wages per Hour: $42.50. public inspection and copying during 2017)). Average Cost per Year: $82,875. normal business hours in the FCC Additional information about this Benefits and Overhead: 20%. Reference Information Center, 445 12th data collection can be found on the Total Government Cost: $99,450. Street SW., Room CY–A257, Commission’s MF–II 4G LTE Data Bassam Doughman, Washington, DC 20554, or by Collection Web page at www.fcc.gov/ MF2-LTE-Collection. IT Specialist. downloading the text from the Federal [FR Doc. 2017–22451 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Communications Commission’s Federal Communications Commission. (Commission) Web site at http:// William Huber, BILLING CODE 6690–01–P _ _ transition.fcc.gov/Daily Releases/Daily Associate Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Business/2017/db0926/DA-17- Access Division, WTB. 926A1.pdf and http://transition.fcc.gov/ FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS [FR Doc. 2017–22453 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/ COMMISSION BILLING CODE 6712–01–P db1006/DA-17-975A1.pdf. Alternative [WC Docket No. 10–90, WT Docket No. 10– formats are available to persons with 208; DA 17–926; DA 17–975] disabilities (Braille, large print, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS electronic files, audio format) by COMMISSION Instructions for Filing 4G LTE sending an email to [email protected] or Coverage Data To Determine Areas by calling the Consumer & [GN Docket No. 17–83] Presumptively Eligible for Mobility Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) Fund Phase II Support; Contact 418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 Information Due by October 23, 2017; Third Meeting of the Broadband (TTY). Deployment Advisory Committee Responses Due by January 4, 2018 On August 3, 2017, the Commission AGENCY: Federal Communications adopted the MF–II Challenge Process AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. Order (FCC 17–102), which established Commission. ACTION: Notification of filing the procedures for a robust challenge ACTION: Notice. instructions; deadlines for filing process to ensure that the Commission responses and providing contact targets Mobility Fund Phase II (MF–II) SUMMARY: In this document, the information. support to areas that lack unsubsidized Commission announces and provides an 4G LTE service. The MF–II Challenge agenda for the third meeting of SUMMARY: In these documents, the Rural Process Order adopted parameters for a Broadband Deployment Advisory Broadband Auctions Task Force, and one-time collection of 4G LTE coverage Committee (BDAC).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48230 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

DATES: Thursday, November 9, 2017, modified at the discretion of the BDAC meeting to make necessary 9:30 a.m. Chair and the DFO. arrangements. Written statements may ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission. be filed with the committee before or Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room Marilyn Jones, after the meeting. This Community Banking Advisory Committee meeting TW–C305, Washington, DC 20554. Senior Counsel for Number Administration, will be Webcast live via the Internet FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau. http://fdic.windrosemedia.com. Brian Hurley, Designated Federal Questions or troubleshooting help can [FR Doc. 2017–22469 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Officer (DFO), at (202) 418–2220 or be found at the same link. For optimal BILLING CODE 6712–01–P [email protected]; or Paul D’Ari, viewing, a high speed internet Deputy DFO, at (202) 418–1550 or connection is recommended. The [email protected]. The TTY number is: Community Banking meeting videos are (202) 418–0484. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE made available on-demand CORPORATION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This approximately two weeks after the meeting is open to members of the FDIC Advisory Committee on event. general public. The FCC will Community Banking; Notice of Meeting Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. accommodate as many participants as Dated: October 12, 2017. possible; however, admittance will be AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance limited to seating availability. The Corporation (FDIC). Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary. Commission will also provide audio ACTION: Notice of open meeting. and/or video coverage of the meeting [FR Doc. 2017–22421 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] over the Internet from the FCC’s Web SUMMARY: In accordance with the BILLING CODE 6714–01–P page at www.fcc.gov/live. Oral Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public statements at the meeting by parties or Law 92–463 (Oct. 6, 1972), notice is entities not represented on the BDAC hereby given of a meeting of the FDIC will be permitted to the extent time Advisory Committee on Community FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH permits, at the discretion of the BDAC Banking, which will be held in REVIEW COMMISSION Chair and the DFO. Members of the Washington, DC. The Advisory Sunshine Act Notice public may submit comments to the Committee will provide advice and BDAC in the FCC’s Electronic Comment recommendations on a broad range of October 13, 2017. Filing System, ECFS, at www.fcc.gov/ policy issues that have particular impact on small community banks throughout TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, ecfs. Comments to the BDAC should be October 26, 2017. filed in Docket 17–83. the United States and the local PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Open captioning will be provided for communities they serve, with a focus on Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania this event. Other reasonable rural areas. Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 accommodations for people with DATES: Wednesday, November 1, 2017, (enter from F Street entrance). disabilities are available upon request. from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Requests for such accommodations ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in STATUS: Open. should be submitted via email to the FDIC Board Room on the sixth floor MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The [email protected] or by calling the of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Commission will consider and act upon Consumer & Governmental Affairs Street NW., Washington, DC. the following in open session: Secretary Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of Labor on behalf of McGary et al. v. 418–0432 (TTY). Such requests should Requests for further information The Marshall County Coal Company et include a detailed description of the concerning the meeting may be directed al., Docket Nos. WEVA 2015–583–D et accommodation needed. In addition, to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Committee al. (Issues include whether the Judge please include a way for the FCC to Management Officer of the FDIC, at erred in requiring the operators’ Chief contact the requester if more (202) 898–7043. Executive Officer to personally read a information is needed to fill the request. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: prepared statement at the mines in Please allow at least five days’ advance Agenda: The agenda will include a question.) notice; last minute requests will be discussion of current issues affecting Any person attending this meeting accepted but may not be possible to community banking. The agenda is who requires special accessibility accommodate. subject to change. Any changes to the features and/or auxiliary aids, such as Proposed Agenda: At this meeting, agenda will be announced at the sign language interpreters, must inform the BDAC will consider initial beginning of the meeting. the Commission in advance of those recommendations from its Model Code Type of Meeting: The meeting will be needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) for Municipalities, Model Code for open to the public, limited only by the and 2706.160(d). States, Competitive Access to space available on a first-come, first- CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Broadband Infrastructure, and served basis. For security reasons, Emogene Johnson (202) 434–9935/(202) Removing State and Local Regulatory members of the public will be subject to 708–9300 for TDD Relay/1–800–877– Barriers Working Groups. The BDAC security screening procedures and must 8339 for toll free. will also consider and discuss an initial present a valid photo identification to PHONE NUMBER FOR LISTENING TO report from its Streamlining Federal enter the building. The FDIC will MEETING: 1 (866) 867–4769, Passcode: Siting Working Group. In addition, the provide attendees with auxiliary aids 678–100. BDAC will continue its discussions on (e.g., sign language interpretation) how to accelerate the deployment of required for this meeting. Those Sarah L. Stewart, broadband by reducing and/or removing attendees needing such assistance Deputy General Counsel. regulatory barriers to infrastructure should call (703) 562–6067 (Voice or [FR Doc. 2017–22591 Filed 10–13–17; 4:15 pm] investment. This agenda may be TTY) at least two days before the BILLING CODE 6735–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48231

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Change in Bank Control Notices; GENERAL SERVICES Mergers of Bank Holding Companies Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or ADMINISTRATION Bank Holding Company The companies listed in this notice NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND have applied to the Board for approval, The notificants listed below have SPACE ADMINISTRATION pursuant to the Bank Holding Company applied under the Change in Bank [OMB Control No. 9000–0001; Docket No. Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and 2017–0053; Sequence 14] (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 225), and all other applicable statutes CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank Information Collection; Affidavit of and regulations to become a bank or bank holding company. The factors Individual Surety, Standard Form 28 holding company and/or to acquire the that are considered in acting on the AGENCY: Department of Defense (DOD), assets or the ownership of, control of, or notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of General Services Administration (GSA), the power to vote shares of a bank or the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). and National Aeronautics and Space bank holding company and all of the The notices are available for Administration (NASA). banks and nonbanking companies immediate inspection at the Federal ACTION: Notice of request for public owned by the bank holding company, Reserve Bank indicated. The notices comments regarding an extension to an including the companies listed below. also will be available for inspection at existing OMB clearance. The applications listed below, as well the offices of the Board of Governors. as other related filings required by the Interested persons may express their SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Board, are available for immediate views in writing to the Reserve Bank Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB) indicated. The applications will also be of the Board of Governors. Comments will be submitting to the Office of available for inspection at the offices of must be received not later than Management and Budget (OMB) a the Board of Governors. Interested November 2, 2017. request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved persons may express their views in A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas information collection requirement writing on the standards enumerated in (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice concerning Standard Form (SF) 28, the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Affidavit of Individual Surety. proposal also involves the acquisition of Dallas, Texas 75201–2272: DATES: a nonbanking company, the review also Submit comments on or before 1. Robert G. Good, Corrales, New December 18, 2017. includes whether the acquisition of the Mexico; and Robert G. Good, Corrales, nonbanking company complies with the ADDRESSES: Submit comments New Mexico, M. Carolyn Good, and standards in section 4 of the BHC Act identified by Information Collection Good Living Trust/Family Trust, both of (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise 9000–0001 by any of the following Los Ranchos, New Mexico, Cynthia noted, nonbanking activities will be methods: Alysce Good, and the 2005 Natalie • Regulations.gov: http:// conducted throughout the United States. Grace Good Trust, both of Andover, www.regulations.gov. Submit comments Unless otherwise noted, comments Massachusetts, Lisa Lynn Thompson, via the Federal eRulemaking portal by regarding each of these applications Lorena, Texas, Lisa Lynn Graves searching the OMB control number must be received at the Reserve Bank Heritage Trust, Thomas Cody Graves, 9000–0001. Select the link ‘‘Comment indicated or the offices of the Board of Cody Clark Graves, Cody Clark Graves Now’’ that corresponds with Governors not later than November 14, Heritage Trust, Debra Lee Bridges, Debra ‘‘Information Collection 9000–0001, SF 2017. Lee Graves Heritage Trust, all of 28, Affidavit of Individual Surety. • A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Goldthwaite, Texas, as a group acting in Mail: General Services (David L. Hubbard, Senior Manager) concert; to retain voting shares Administration, Regulatory Secretariat P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri Goldthwaite Bancshares, Inc., and Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., 63166–2034. Comments can also be sent thereby retain voting shares of Mills Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Mr. Poe/ IC 9000–0001, SF 28, Affidavit of electronically to County State Bank, both of Goldthwaite, Individual Surety. [email protected]: Texas. Instructions: Please submit comments 1. Lincoln County Bancshares, Inc., Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve only and cite OMB Control 9000–0001, and NFB Acquisitions, Inc., both of System, October 12, 2017. Affidavit of Individual Surety, SF 28, in Troy, Missouri; to acquire voting shares Ann Misback, all correspondence related to this case. of New Frontier Bancshares, Inc., St. Secretary of the Board. Comments received generally will be Charles, Missouri, and thereby [FR Doc. 2017–22485 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] posted without change to http:// indirectly acquire shares of New www.regulations.gov, including any BILLING CODE 6210–01–P Frontier Bank, St. Charles, Missouri. personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 12, 2017. receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, Ann Misback, approximately two to three days after Secretary of the Board. submission to verify posting (except [FR Doc. 2017–22484 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] allow 30 days for posting of comments BILLING CODE 6210–01–P submitted by mail). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Zenaida Delgado, Procurement Analyst,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48232 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, 202– Dated: October 11, 2017. DATES: Nominations for membership on 969–7207 or email zenaida.delgado@ Lorin S. Curit, the WTCHP SEPs must be received no gsa.gov. Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, later than December 15, 2017. Packages Office of Government-wide Acquisition received after this time will not be SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office considered for the current membership of Government-wide Policy. A. Purpose cycle; but will be kept on file for future [FR Doc. 2017–22450 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] cycles. The membership cycles are The Affidavit of Individual Surety SF BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P listed under the Advisory Council 28 is used by all executive agencies, Review on the Funding Opportunity including the Department of Defense, to Announcement, which is available at: obtain information from individuals DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa- wishing to serve as sureties to HUMAN SERVICES files/PAR-16-098.html. Government bonds. To qualify as a ADDRESSES: All nominations should be Centers for Disease Control and surety on a Government bond, the mailed to Centers for Disease Control Prevention individual must show a net worth not and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., less than the penal amount of the bond Request for Nominations of Potential Mailstop E–74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, on the SF 28. It is an elective decision Reviewers To Serve on the Disease, emailed to [email protected], or faxed on the part of the maker to use Disability, and Injury Prevention and to (404) 471–2616. individual sureties instead of other Control Special Emphasis Panel FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mia available sources of surety or sureties Wallace, Management Analyst, CDC/ for Government bonds. We are not ACTION: Notice. NIOSH/WTCHP, 1600 Clifton Road NE., aware if other formats exist for the Mailstop E–74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, SUMMARY: The Centers for Disease collection of this information. Telephone: (404) 498–2253; Email: Control and Prevention (CDC) is seeking [email protected]. The information on SF 28 is used to nominations for possible membership assist the contracting officer in on the Disease, Disability, and Injury SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. determining the acceptability of Prevention and Control Special Department of Health and Human individuals proposed as sureties. Emphasis Panel (SEP) in the National Services policy stipulates that Institute for Occupational Safety and committee membership be balanced in B. Annual Reporting Burden Health (NIOSH), World Trade Center terms of points of view represented and the committee’s function. Appointments Respondents: 500. Health Program (WTCHP). The Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and shall be made without discrimination Responses per Respondent: 1. Control Special Emphasis Panel on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, Total Responses: 500. provides advice and guidance to the gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, HIV status, disability, and Hours per Response: 0.3. Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); the Director, cultural, religious, or socioeconomic Total Burden Hours: 150. Centers for Disease Control and status. Nominees must be U.S. citizens C. Public Comments Prevention (CDC), and the appointed to serve on a CDC SEP and Administrator, Agency for Toxic can be full-time employees of the U.S. Public comments are particularly Substances and Disease Registry Government. Current participation on invited on: Whether this collection of (ATSDR) regarding the concept review, CDC federal workgroups or prior information is necessary for the proper scientific and technical merit of grant experience serving on another federal performance of functions of the FAR, and cooperative agreement assistance advisory committee does not disqualify and whether it will have practical applications, and contract proposals a reviewer. However, HHS policy is to utility; whether our estimate of the relating to the causes, prevention, and avoid excessive individual service on public burden of this collection of control of diseases, disabilities, injuries, advisory committees and multiple information is accurate, and based on and impairments of public health committee memberships. Reviewers appointed to the SEP, CDC are not valid assumptions and methodology; significance; exposure to hazardous considered Special Government ways to enhance the quality, utility, and substances in the environment; health promotion and education; and other Employees, and will not be required to clarity of the information to be file financial disclosure reports. collected; and ways in which we can related activities that promote health and well-being. Members and Chairs Nominees interested in serving as a minimize the burden of the collection of member on a WTCHP Peer Review information on those who are to shall be selected by the Secretary, HHS, or other official to whom the authority Panel should submit the following respond, through the use of appropriate items: technological collection techniques or has been delegated, on an ‘‘as needed’’ basis in response to specific • Current curriculum vitae, including other forms of information technology. applications being reviewed with complete contact information (name, Obtaining Copies of Proposals: expertise to provide advice. Members affiliation, mailing address, telephone Requesters may obtain a copy of the will be selected from authorities in the number, and email address); information collection documents from various fields of prevention and control • A statement summarizing the the General Services Administration, of diseases, disabilities, and injuries. nominee’s Areas of Expertise (include Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), Members of other chartered HHS unique experiences, skills and 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC advisory committees may serve on the knowledge the individual will bring to 20405, telephone 202–501–4755. Please panel if their expertise is required. the WTCHP), Ethnic/Racial Minority cite OMB Control No. 9000–0001, SF 28, Consideration is given to professional Status, and Citizenship; and Affidavit of Individual Surety, in all training and background, points of view • A statement confirming that the correspondence. represented, and upcoming applications nominee is not a registered federal to be reviewed by the committee. lobbyist.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48233

Background: The WTCHP is • Health services research and value- the authority to sign Federal Register administered by NIOSH. The James based care that addresses disaster- notices pertaining to announcements of Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation related injury and illness for chronic meetings and other committee Act of 2010, Public Law 111–347 disease. management activities for both the (hereafter referred to as ‘‘the Zadroga (Note: Health services research Centers for Disease Control and Act’’) was signed by President Obama examines how people get access to Prevention and the Agency for Toxic on January 2, 2011, and was re- health care, how much care costs, and Substances and Disease Registry. authorized on December 18, 2015. The what happens to patients as a result of Zadroga Act continues monitoring and this care. The main goals of health Elaine L. Baker, treatment activities and requires the services research are to identify the Director, Management Analysis and Services establishment (under Subtitle C) of a most effective ways to organize, Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. research program on health conditions manage, finance, and deliver high resulting from the September 11, 2001, quality care; reduce medical errors; and [FR Doc. 2017–22436 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] terrorist attacks. For additional improve patient safety (Agency for BILLING CODE 4163–18–P information on the program please refer Healthcare Research and Quality, 2002). to: http://www.cdc.gov/wtc. Characterizing the work-ability and The Zadroga Act lists the following occupational outcomes for those DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND broad research areas: impacted by 9/11. HUMAN SERVICES • Physical and mental health Lessons learned in recovery: • Identifying and operationalizing Administration for Children and conditions that may be related to the Families September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; key elements of psychological resilience • Diagnosing WTC-related health for disaster responders; and • Establishing comparison groups for Submission for OMB Review; conditions for which there has been Comment Request diagnostic uncertainty; and disaster-related research for key health • Treating WTC-related health indicators for first responders. (Note: Concepts of psychological Title: Form ACF–196R, ‘‘TANF conditions for which there has been resilience vary across disciplines with Quarterly Financial Report’’ treatment uncertainty. Research mentioned in the Zadroga investigations addressing various OMB No.: 0970–0446 outcomes ranging from reported levels Act includes epidemiologic and other Description: This information of stress, burnout, compassion fatigue, research studies on WTC-related health collection is authorized under Section and general indicators of well-being. conditions or emerging conditions 411(a)(3) of the Social Security Act. This Also proposed are interpersonal, among (1) enrolled WTC responders and request is for continued approval of intrapersonal and environmental factors certified-eligible WTC survivors under Form ACF–196R for quarterly financial that suggest a more stable and enduring treatment; (2) sampled populations reporting under the Temporary personality trait impacting self- outside the NYC disaster area, in Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) regulation.) Manhattan (as far north as 14th Street) Relevant diseases or conditions program. States participating in the and in Brooklyn; and (3) control include, but are not limited to, the TANF program are required by statute to populations, to identify potential for following: report financial data on a quarterly long-term adverse health effects in less basis. The forms meet the legal standard • Respiratory diseases exposed populations. • Cancer (including detection/diagnosis and provide essential data on the use of Major areas of interest include, but are of pre-malignant changes) federal TANF funds. Failure to collect not limited to, the following: • Cardiovascular Disease the data would seriously compromise Linking 9/11 exposure to health • Psychological resilience and well- ACF’s ability to monitor program conditions: expenditures, estimate funding needs, • being Cancers, multisystem or • Persistent psychiatric conditions such and to prepare budget submissions and autoimmune, cardiovascular and as posttraumatic stress, anxiety and annual reports required by Congress. neurologic disease (including age at depressive disorders Financial reporting under the TANF diagnosis); • Cognitive changes program is governed by 45 CFR part • Characterizing patterns of illness • Aging—the impacts of aging on those 265. (age, gender, comorbidities, etc.); and impacted by 9/11 illness and injury • Characterizing alterations in health • This form was first developed in 2014 Neurological Diseases to replace Form ACF–196. No changes and development for those exposed to • Aerodigestive health 9/11 as children. • Multisystem or auto-immune diseases are being proposed with this request for Characterizing established WTC- • Gastro-esophageal disorders OMB review. No comments were related diseases and comorbidities: • Gastrointestinal health received in response to the publication • Identifying phenotypes, biomarkers, • Chronic musculoskeletal conditions of the initial Federal Register Notice on epigenetics; and resulting from acute traumatic injury May 30, 2017, 82 FR 24714. • Care models that address complex and overuse disorders Respondents: State agencies co-morbidities and other modifiable The Director, Management Analysis administering the TANF program (50 factors. and Services Office, has been delegated States plus the District of Columbia)

ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES

Number of Average Instrument Number of responses per burden hours Total respondents respondent per response burden hours

ACF–196R ...... 51 4 14 2,856

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48234 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

Estimated Total Annual Burden practicable. These provisions were children where an allegation of child Hours: 2,856. retained and expanded upon in the 2010 abuse or neglect has been made. Additional Information: Copies of the reauthorization of CAPTA (Pub. L. 111– 10. For child protective service proposed collection may be obtained by 320). Item (17) below was enacted with personnel responsible for intake, writing to the Administration for the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act screening, assessment, and investigation Children and Families, Office of of 2015 (Pub. L. 114–22). The law goes of child abuse and neglect reports in the Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 into effect in 2017 and it is anticipated state— C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201, that states will begin reporting with FFY A. information on the education, Attn: Reports Clearance Officer. All 2018 data. Item (18) below was enacted qualifications, and training requests should be identified by the title with the Comprehensive Addiction and requirements established by the state for of the information collection. Email Recovery Act of 2016 (CARA) (Pub. L. child protective service professionals, address: [email protected]. 114–198). The law goes into effect in including for entry and advancement in OMB Comment: OMB is required to 2017 and it is anticipated that states will the profession, including advancement make a decision concerning the begin reporting with FFY 2018 data. to supervisory positions; collection of information between 30 Each state to which a grant is made B. data of the education, and 60 days after publication of this under this section shall annually work qualifications, and training of such document in the Federal Register. with the Secretary to provide, to the personnel; Therefore, a comment is best assured of maximum extent practicable, a report C. demographic information of the having its full effect if OMB receives it that includes the following: child protective service personnel; and within 30 days of publication. Written 1. The number of children who were D. information on caseload or comments and recommendations for the reported to the state during the year as workload requirements for such proposed information collection should victims of child abuse or neglect. personnel, including requirements for be sent directly to the following: Office 2. Of the number of children average number and maximum number of Management and Budget, Paperwork described in paragraph (1), the number of cases per child protective service Reduction Project, Email: OIRA_ with respect to whom such reports worker and supervisor. [email protected], Attn: were— 11. The number of children reunited Desk Officer for the Administration for A. substantiated; with their families or receiving family Children and Families. B. unsubstantiated; or preservation services that, within five C. determined to be false. years, result in subsequent substantiated Mary Jones, 3. Of the number of children reports of child abuse or neglect, ACF/OPRE Certifying Officer. described in paragraph (2)— including the death of the child. [FR Doc. 2017–22377 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] A. the number that did not receive 12. The number of children for whom BILLING CODE 4184–01–P services during the year under the state individuals were appointed by the court program funded under this section or an to represent the best interests of such equivalent state program; children and the average number of out DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND B. the number that received services of court contacts between such HUMAN SERVICES during the year under the state program individuals and children. 13. The annual report containing the Administration for Children and funded under this section or an summary of activities of the citizen Families equivalent state program; and C. the number that were removed review panels of the state required by Proposed Information Collection from their families during the year by subsection (c)(6). Activity; Comment Request disposition of the case. 14. The number of children under the 4. The number of families that care of the state child protection system Title: National Child Abuse and received preventive services, including who are transferred into the custody of Neglect Data System. use of differential response, from the the state juvenile justice system. OMB No.: 0970–0424. state during the year. 15. The number of children referred to Description: The Administration on 5. The number of deaths in the state a child protective services system under Children, Youth and Families in the during the year resulting from child subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii). U.S. Department of Health and Human abuse or neglect. 16. The number of children Services (HHS) established the National 6. Of the number of children determined to be eligible for referral, Child Abuse and Neglect Data System described in paragraph (5), the number and the number of children referred, (NCANDS) to respond to the 1988 and of such children who were in foster under subsection (b)(2)(B)(xxi), to 1992 amendments (Pub. L. 100–294 and care. agencies providing early intervention Pub. L. 102–295) to the Child Abuse 7. services under part C of the Individuals Prevention and Treatment Act (42 A. The number of child protective with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.), which called for the service personnel responsible for the— U.S.C. 1431 et seq.). creation of a coordinated national data i. intake of reports filed in the 17. The number of children collection and analysis program, both previous year; determined to be victims described in universal and case specific in scope, to ii. screening of such reports; subsection (b)(2)(B)(xxiv). examine standardized data on false, iii. assessment of such reports; and 18. The number of infants— unfounded, or unsubstantiated reports. iv. investigation of such reports. (A) identified under subsection In 1996, the Child Abuse Prevention B. The average caseload for the (b)(2)(B)(ii); and Treatment Act was amended by workers described in subparagraph (A). (B) for whom a plan of safe care was Public Law 104–235 to require that any 8. The agency response time with developed under subsection state receiving the Basic State Grant respect to each such report with respect (b)(2)(B)(iii); and work with the Secretary of the to initial investigation of reports of child (C) for whom a referral was made for Department of Health and Human abuse or neglect. appropriate services, including services Services (HHS) to provide specific data 9. The response time with respect to for the affected family or caregiver, on child maltreatment, to the extent the provision of services to families and under subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48235

The Children’s Bureau proposes to 26, 28, 30, 32 (Maltreatment-1 Type, field, under Section 2, Referrals and continue collecting the NCANDS data Maltreatment-2 Type, Maltreatment-3 Reports. through the two files of the Detailed Type, Maltreatment-4 Type). • 2.5. Number of screened-out Case Data Component, the Child File The reauthorization of CAPTA, referrals from healthcare providers (the case-level component of NCANDS) subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii), specifies involved in the delivery or care of and the Agency File (additional collecting the number of (A) screened- infants and who referred such infants aggregate data, which cannot be in and screened-out referrals from born with and identified as being collected at the case level). Technical healthcare providers involved in the affected by substance abuse or assistance will be provided so that all delivery or care of infants and who withdrawal symptoms resulting from states may provide the Child File and referred such infants born with and prenatal drug exposure, or a Fetal Agency File data to NCANDS. identified as being affected by substance Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. abuse or withdrawal symptoms The reauthorization of CAPTA, The Children’s Bureau proposes to resulting from prenatal drug exposure, subsection (b)(2)(B)(xxiv), specifies for modify the Child File by adding two or a Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder; ‘‘requiring identification and assessment new fields. of all reports involving children known (B) of those screened-in, for whom a • or suspected to be victims of sex plan of safe care was developed, under Field 151, Has A Safe Care Plan: trafficking (as defined in section 103(10) subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii); and (C) of those The Safe Care Plan field will establish of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act screened-in, for whom a referral was a flag as to whether a child has a safe of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102 (10)); and S. made for appropriate services, including care plan. • 178–38.’’ To comply with the new services for the affected family or Field 152, Referral to CARA-Related reporting requirements for item 17, caregiver, under subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii). Services: The Referral to CARA-related NCANDS will use a new field in the To comply with the new reporting Services field will establish a flag as to Child File. requirements for item 18, NCANDS will whether a referral was made for The Children’s Bureau proposes to use a combination of existing fields in appropriate services, including services modify the Child File by modifying the the Child File and a new field in the for the affected family or caregiver. maltreatment fields. Agency File. Respondents: State governments, the • Add a new maltreatment type code, The Children’s Bureau proposes to District of Columbia, and the 7=sex trafficked, to the existing Fields modify the Agency File by adding 1 new Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES

Number of Average Instrument Number of responses per burden hours Total burden respondents respondent per response hours

Detailed Case Data Component (Child File and Agency File) ...... 52 1 149 7,717

Estimated Total Annual Burden Desk Officer for the Administration for The meeting will be closed to the Hours: 7,717. Children and Families. public as indicated below in accordance Copies of the proposed collection may Mary Jones, with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended be obtained by writing to the ACF/OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. for the review, discussion, and Administration for Children and [FR Doc. 2017–22422 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] evaluation of individual intramural Families, Office of Planning, Research BILLING CODE 4184–29–P and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., programs and projects conducted by the Washington, DC 20201. Attention EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER Reports Clearance Officer. All requests DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD should be identified by the title of the HUMAN SERVICES HEALTH AND HUMAN information collection. Email address: DEVELOPMENT, including [email protected]. National Institutes of Health consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the OMB Comment: OMB is required to Eunice Kennedy Shriver National competence of individual investigators, make a decision concerning the Institute of Child Health and Human the disclosure of which would collection of information between 30 Development; Notice of Meeting constitute a clearly unwarranted and 60 days after publication of this invasion of personal privacy. document in the Federal Register. Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Therefore, a comment is best assured of Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Name of Committee: Board of Scientific having its full effect if OMB receives it amended, notice is hereby given of a Counselors, NICHD. within 30 days of publication. Written meeting of the Board of Scientific Date: December 1, 2017. comments and recommendations for the Counselors, NICHD. Open: 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. proposed information collection should The meeting will be open to the Agenda: A report by the Scientific Director, NICHD, on the status of the NICHD Division be sent directly to the following: Office public as indicated below, with the of Intramural Research; talks by various of Management and Budget, Paperwork attendance limited to space available. _ Individuals who plan to attend and intramural scientists, and current Reduction Project, Email: OIRA organizational structure. [email protected] Attn: need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other Place: National Institutes of Health, reasonable accommodations, should Building 31A, Conference Room 2A48, 31 notify the Contact Person listed below Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892. in advance of the meeting. Closed: 11:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48236 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

Agenda: To review and evaluate personal Agenda: FDA Pediatric Device Consortium; Contact Person: Joel Saydoff, Ph.D., qualifications and performance, and Update on Interagency Committee on Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review competence of individual investigators. Disability Research; Efforts in Cardiac and Branch NINDS/NIH/DHHS, Neuroscience Place: National Institutes of Health, Pulmonary Rehabilitation; Scientific Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3204, Building 31A, Conference Room 2A48, 31 Presentation on Outcomes Measurement in MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892–9529, (301) Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892. Rehabilitation. 496–9223, [email protected]. Contact Person: Constantine A. Stratakis, Place: NICHD Offices, 6710B Rockledge Name of Committee: National Institute of MD, D(med)Sci, Scientific Director, Eunice Drive, Room 1425/1427, Bethesda, MD Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child 20892. Emphasis Panel; Contract Review DMFP. Health and Human Development, NIH, Contact Person: Ralph M. Nitkin, Ph.D., Date: November 7, 2017. Deputy Director, National Center for Medical Building 31A, Room 2A46, 31 Center Drive, Time: 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Rehabilitation Research (NCMRR), Eunice Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–594–5984, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant [email protected]. Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child applications. Information is also available on the Health and Human Development, NIH, Place: National Institutes of Health, Institute’s/Center’s home page: https:// DHHS, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Room 2116, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive www.nichd.nih.gov/about/meetings/Pages/ MSC 7002, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 402– Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone index.aspx, where an agenda and any 4206, [email protected]. Conference Call). additional information for the meeting will Information is also available on the Contact Person: Ernie Lyons, Ph.D., be posted when available. Institute’s/Center’s home page: http:// www.nichd.nih.gov/about/advisory/nabmrr/ Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Branch, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, Neuroscience Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; Pages/index.aspx where the current roster and minutes from past meetings are posted. Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3204, 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892–9529, (301) (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation 496–4056, [email protected]. Research; 93.209, Contraception and Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Institutes of Health, HHS) 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Research; 93.209, Contraception and Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Dated: Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Biological Basis Research in the Michelle Trout, Institutes of Health, HHS) Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Dated: October 11, 2017. Committee Policy. Michelle Trout, Dated: October 11, 2017. [FR Doc. 2017–22398 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Sylvia L. Neal, BILLING CODE 4140–01–P Committee Policy. Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory [FR Doc. 2017–22399 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Committee Policy. [FR Doc. 2017–22400 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND BILLING CODE 4140–01–P BILLING CODE 4140–01–P HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Eunice Kennedy Shriver National DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Institute of Child Health and Human National Institutes of Health SECURITY Development; Notice of Meeting National Institute of Neurological [Docket No. DHS–2017–0055] Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Meetings Agency Information Collection amended, notice is hereby given of a Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Activities: EngageDHS meeting of the National Advisory Board Federal Advisory Committee Act, as AGENCY: Office of the Chief Procurement on Medical Rehabilitation Research. amended, notice is hereby given of the The meeting will be open to the following meetings. Officer, Department of Homeland public, with attendance limited to space The meetings will be closed to the Security (DHS). available. Individuals who plan to public in accordance with the ACTION: 60-Day Notice and request for attend and need special assistance, such provisions set forth in sections comments; New Collection, 1601–NEW. as sign language interpretation or other 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., SUMMARY: reasonable accommodations, should as amended. The contract proposals and The DHS Office of the Chief notify the Contact Person listed below the discussions could disclose Procurement Officer, will submit the in advance of the meeting. confidential trade secrets or commercial following Information Collection Name of Committee: National Advisory property such as patentable material, Request (ICR) to the Office of Board on Medical Rehabilitation Research. and personal information concerning Management and Budget (OMB) for Date: December 4–5, 2017. individuals associated with the contract review and clearance in accordance Time: December 4, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 proposals, the disclosure of which with the Paperwork Reduction Act of p.m. 1995. Agenda: NICHD Director’s report; Update would constitute a clearly unwarranted on Next Generation Researchers’ Initiative; invasion of personal privacy. DATES: Comments are encouraged and NIH Research Plan on Rehabilitation Annual Name of Committee: National Institute of will be accepted until December 18, Report; NCMRR Director’s Report; Clinical Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special 2017. This process is conducted in Trials update; Follow-up of past NCMRR Emphasis Panel; Medicinal Chemistry accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1 Concepts; All of Us: The Precision Medicine Contract Proposals for the BPN. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, Initiative. Date: November 6, 2017. identified by docket number DHS– Place: NICHD Offices, 6710B Rockledge Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 2017–0055, at: Drive, Room 1425/1427, Bethesda, MD Agenda: To review and evaluate grant • 20892. applications. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// Time: December 5, 2017, 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 Place: Glover Park Hotel, 2505 Wisconsin www.regulations.gov. Please follow the p.m. Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20007. instructions for submitting comments.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48237

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: it is received by DHS, this form could Number of Respondents: 750. Mike Villano, (202) 447–5446, be electronically loaded into DHS’ Estimated Time per Respondent: 0.25 [email protected]. system, called EngageDHS. (EngageDHS hours. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 41 is DHS’ implementation of Microsoft Total Burden Hours: 187.5. U.S.C. 3306, agencies are required to use Dynamics CRM.) This process makes it Dated: October 10, 2017. advance procurement planning and easier and faster for companies to send Melissa Bruce, in the form (email versus paper mail). It conduct market research. Advance Executive Director, Enterprise Business planning and market research is a also reduces the burden on DHS Management Office. means of developing the agency’s employees as they do not need to manually input the information into [FR Doc. 2017–22509 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] acquisition requirements. As part of this BILLING CODE 9110–9B–P process, companies frequently ask to EngageDHS. Performing data collection meet with DHS representatives for as discussed above would also reduce numerous reasons including: sharing the burden on the companies requesting DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND information on technologies and meetings with DHS as they would only URBAN DEVELOPMENT company capabilities or to ask how to have to fill out the form at the time of do business with DHS. DHS needs the their first meeting request. So for [Docket No. FR–6009–N–04] information being collected to prepare example, if a company over time meets for productive meetings, share with representatives from multiple DHS Privacy Act of 1974; System of information across the enterprise about Components (e.g., Transportation Records: Section 811 Project Rental touchpoints the company has had at Security Administration, Federal Assistance Evaluation—Phase II DHS, and to better track the frequency Emergency Management Agency, Coast AGENCY: Office of Policy Development and number of meetings between DHS Guard, Immigration and Customs and Research, HUD. and companies. No personal Enforcement, etc.), the company would information is being collected. only have to fill out the form once. ACTION: Notice of a New System of This is a means of improving the There is no assurance of Records. procurement process that is used to confidentiality provided to the respondents for the collection of this SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Privacy Act of support the DHS mission. The above 1974, as amended, notice is hereby statute is implemented by 48 CFR (FAR) information. The collection of information is covered by DHS/ALL/ given that the Office of Policy Part 10, Market Research. The Development and Research (PD&R), information collection method the PIA–006 DHS General Contact Lists DHS/ALL–021 Department of Homeland Department of Housing and Urban agency requests is not specifically Development (HUD), provides public mentioned in the regulation but it is Security Contractors and Consultants, October 23, 2008, 73 FR 63179. notice regarding its System of Records nonetheless permissible because it for the Section 811 Project Rental reasonable and does not request more This is a new information collection. OMB is particularly interested in Assistance Evaluation—Phase II. This information than is necessary. Under 48 evaluation will assess the CFR (FAR) 1.102–4(e), Role of the comments which: 1. Evaluate whether the proposed implementation and effectiveness of the Acquisition Team, agencies are allowed Section 811 Project Rental Assistance to implement a policy, procedure, collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the program for extremely low-income strategy or practice if it is in the interest nonelderly adults with disabilities. of the Government and is not otherwise functions of the agency, including whether the information will have Primary data collection will include prohibit. interviews with grantees and program The information is being used by DHS practical utility; 2. Evaluate the accuracy of the partners and stakeholders and surveys to help determine the department agency’s estimate of the burden of the of Section 811 Project Rental Assistance personnel who should be attending the proposed collection of information, and Project Rental Assistance Contract meetings. It is also used by DHS including the validity of the residents. Secondary (existing) datasets representatives to better prepare for the methodology and assumptions used; will include HUD administrative data, meeting, so that it is productive for both 3. Enhance the quality, utility, and Medicare and Medicaid data from the DHS and the companies It is helpful for clarity of the information to be Centers for Medicare & Medicaid DHS to know background information collected; and Services (CMS), state Medicaid data about the company as well as whether 4. Minimize the burden of the from six state Medicaid agencies, Project they have met with DHS before and collection of information on those who Rental Assistance and Project Rental whether they currently support the are to respond, including through the Assistance Contract program Department. DHS also receives inquiries use of appropriate automated, documents, and neighborhood from oversight bodies, such as Congress, electronic, mechanical, or other administrative data. A more detailed regarding with how many companies technological collection techniques or description of the proposed system of DHS has met with as well as whether other forms of information technology, records is contained in the purpose DHS has met with specific companies. e.g., permitting electronic submissions section of this notice. The meeting information provides of responses. source data for answering those DATES: inquiries in an accurate and timely Analysis Applicable Date: This notice action manner. EngageDHS is a fillable form shall become applicable November 16, Agency: Office of the Chief 2017. that will be used to collect vendor/ Procurement Officer, DHS. industry meetings with DHS. Comments Due Date: November 16, Title: Agency Information Collection 2017. Upon a request for a meeting, DHS Activities: EngageDHS. will ask companies to complete a OMB Number: 1601–NEW. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments request form and submit via email to the Frequency: Annually. by one of the following methods: DHS Industry Liaison mailbox at Affected Public: Private and Public Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// [email protected]. Once Sector. www.regulations.gov.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:21 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48238 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

Follow the instructions provided on effectiveness of this supportive housing and 4550 Montgomery Avenue, that site to submit comments model compared to other models of Bethesda, MD 20814, and the U.S. electronically. supportive housing for persons with Department of Housing and Urban Facsimile: 202–619–8365. disabilities. Development, 451 7th Street SW., Email: [email protected]. The new notice states the name and Washington, DC 20410–0001. Mail: Attention: Privacy Office, Helen location of the record system, the Goff Foster, The Executive Secretariat, authority for and manner of its SYSTEM MANAGER(S): 451 7th Street SW., Room 10139, operations, the categories of individuals Carol S. Star, Program Evaluation Washington, DC 20410–0001. that it covers, the type of records that it Division, Office of Policy Development Note: All submissions received must contains, the sources of the information and Research, Department of Housing include the agency name and docket number for the records, the routine uses made of and Urban Development, 451 7th Street for this rulemaking. All comments received the records, and the types of exemptions SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone will be posted without change to http:// in place for the records. The notice also number 202–402–6139 (this is not a toll- www.regulations.gov, including any personal includes the business address of the free number). information provided. HUD officials who will inform AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: Docket: For access to the docket to interested persons of how they may gain read background documents or access to and/or request amendments to Sec. 501 and 502 of the Housing and comments received, go to http:// records pertaining to themselves. Urban Development Act of 1970 (Pub. L. www.regulations.gov. Publication of this notice allows the 91–609), 12 U.S.C. 1701z–1, 1701z–2. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Department to provide new information PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM: Helen Goff Foster, Senior Agency about its system of records notices in a The purpose of the system is to allow Official for Privacy, at 451 7th Street clear and cohesive format. The new the Department to collect, track, and SW., Room 10139; U.S. Department of system of records will incorporate study information gathered on Section Housing and Urban Development; Federal privacy requirements and 811 Project Rental Assistance program Washington, DC 20410–0001; telephone Department’s policy requirements. The participants and to analyze the number 202–708–3054 (this is not a toll- Privacy Act places on Federal agencies effectiveness of this rental assistance free number). Individuals who are principal responsibility for compliance model compared to other supportive hearing- or speech-impaired may access with its provisions, by requiring Federal housing models for extremely low- this telephone number via TTY by agencies to safeguard an individual’s income nonelderly adults with calling the Federal Relay Service at 800– records against an invasion of personal disabilities. This is the second of a 877–8339 (this is a toll-free number). privacy; protect the records contained in multiphase evaluation. The evaluation SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The new an agency system of records from is funded by the Program Evaluation System of Records will encompass data unauthorized disclosure; ensure that the Division in PD&R. The project will collected by PD&R to evaluate the records collected are relevant, evaluate the implementation of the Section 811 HUD Project Rental necessary, current, and collected only Section 811 Project Rental Assistance Assistance program. The Section 811 for their intended use; and adequately program, its impact on residents, and Project Rental Assistance program funds safeguard the records to prevent misuse the cost-effectiveness of this new a new model of housing assistance that of such information. In addition, this housing assistance model for persons provides funding to state housing notice demonstrates the Department’s with disabilities in six states: California, agencies to work in partnership with focus on industry best practices to Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, state human services and Medicaid protect the personal privacy of the Minneapolis, and Washington. agencies to create community-based individuals covered by this SORN. Phase II of the Section 811 Project supportive housing for extremely low- Pursuant to the Privacy Act and the Rental Assistance evaluation will rely income nonelderly adults with Office of Management and Budget on both primary and secondary sources disabilities, including those who are (OMB) guidelines, a report of the of data to inform the overall evaluation. currently in or at risk for residing in amended system of records was Primary data collection includes institutions or who are currently (or at submitted to OMB, the Senate interviews with grantees and program’s risk for becoming) homeless. This study Committee on Homeland Security and partners and stakeholders, and surveys is the second phase of a multiphase Governmental Affairs, and the House of Section 811 Project Rental Assistance evaluation. Phase I documented the Committee on Oversight and and Project Rental Assistance Contract implementation experience of the first Government Reform, as instructed by residents. Secondary (existing) datasets 12 state housing agencies that were paragraph 4c of Appendix l to OMB will include HUD administrative data, awarded the first round of Project Rental Circular No. A–130, ‘‘Federal Agencies Medicare and Medicaid data from CMS, Assistance grants. In Phase II, the Responsibilities for Maintaining state Medicaid data from six state evaluation is focused on 6 states Records About Individuals,’’ November Medicaid agencies, Project Rental selected from 28 state grantees from the 28, 2000. Assistance and Project Rental first and second rounds of Section 811 System Name and Number: Assistance Contract program Project Rental Assistance funding: documents, and neighborhood California, Delaware, Louisiana, Section 811 Project Rental Assistance administrative data. Maryland, Minneapolis, and Evaluation—Phase II Primary data collection with grantees, Washington. The Phase II evaluation SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: partnering agencies, and Project Rental will continue to follow the This information will not be Assistance and Project Rental implementation of the program but will classified. Assistance Contract residents is also assess the impact of the program on necessary to describe the participants’ quality of life and care, SYSTEM LOCATION: implementation of the Project Rental housing and neighborhood, and The records are maintained at the Abt Assistance program, identify utilization and access to health services Associates (contractor) offices at 55 characteristics of successful program and supports, as well as assess the cost- Wheeler Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 strategies, and assess the impact of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48239

program on Project Rental Assistance similar state plan services, Section 811 agencies (CMS). Collection will be residents compared to residents in the housing agency grantees, and partnering brought into the dataset directly from traditional Project Rental Assistance agencies (state Medicaid agencies, CMS and state Medicaid agencies under Contract program. The collection of property owners, service providers, and a Data Use Agreement with HUD and its secondary data is necessary to identify public housing agencies). All contractor Abt Associates. Include study the outcomes of the Project Rental individuals live in the states of identifier (that can be matched to Assistance program and characteristics California, Delaware, Louisiana, individuals’ full names, dates of birth, of Project Rental Assistance residents, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington. Social Security numbers), (such as Project Rental Assistance Contract diagnoses), healthcare utilization, and CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: residents, and individuals in the costs. medical record number, and program and comparison groups, and to The data sets will contain the information pertaining to the determine the effectiveness of this new following categories of records: individuals’ medical services, medical • Responses to resident survey: model of housing assistance. information. RECORD SOURCE Include participants’ names, address, This analysis will inform HUD CATEGORIES: (1) Resident surveys telephone numbers, names and contact leadership, policymakers, and HUD collected directly from Section 811 information of proxies and/or legal partners that implement supportive Project Rental Assistance and Project guardians (if applicable), study housing programs for nonelderly adults Rental Assistance Contract residents identifier, information about their with disabilities. In addition, the who have agreed to participate in the experience with the transition to HUD- records collected through this survey; (2) Administrative interviews assisted housing, subjective assessment evaluation represent HUD’s effort to collected directly from state housing of housing quality, subjective assess and report to Congress on the agency grantees; (3) Administrative assessment of neighborhood quality, implementation and effectiveness of this interviews collected directly from information about access to supportive rental assistance approach. The data partnering agencies who have agreed to services and unmet needs, information collected for Section 811 Project Rental participate in the study; Administrative about help with supportive services, Assistance Evaluation—Phase II will be data derived from HUD’s tenant and subjective assessment of quality of life used and stored solely for research property data systems; and Non-HUD purposes, and will not be used to and community inclusion. • administrative data, such as Medicare identify individuals or make decisions Administrative interviews: Include identifying information—such as full and historical Medicaid data; and state that affect the rights, benefits, or Medicaid data. privileges of specific individuals. The name; job title; and contact information, data in this system will include location including addresses, email addresses, ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE data, which will be used to analyze the and telephone numbers—of program SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: neighborhoods in which Section 811 staff and stakeholders (grantee, Project Rental Assistance and Project Medicaid agency, property owners, To appropriate agencies, entities, and Rental Assistance Contract residents service providers, and public housing persons to the extent that such live. The data in the system will also authorities), and qualitative responses disclosures are compatible with the include information about health, about several aspects of the program purpose for which the records in this design and implementation. system were collected, as set forth by housing, and quality of life measures, • which will be used to analyze the extent HUD Administrative data: Include Appendix I1—HUD’s Library of Routine to which people’s lives are being data on individuals, households, and Uses, published in the Federal Register improved by the Section 811 Project properties available through HUD (July 17, 2012, at 77 FR 41996). Rental Assistance program. The data in administrative data. Collection will be 1. To researchers for the purpose of this system will be analyzed using brought into the dataset directly from producing a dataset to be used to statistical methods and only reported in HUD’s Tenant Rental Assistance support the Rent Reform Demonstration the aggregate. Resulting reports will not Certification System (TRACS), Public and Impact Evaluation of the Rent disclose or identify any individuals or and Indian Housing Information Center Reform Demonstration. The data sensitive personal information. The (PIC) Inventory Management System collection will specifically provide data Section 811 Project Rental Assistance (IMS), and Integrated Real Estate of the household’s characteristics to Evaluation is in direct service of the Management System (iREMS). Tenant- describe the sample and ensure that the mission of PD&R, which is to ‘‘inform level and household-level data include two study groups are random, and policy development and participants’ full names, dates of birth, provide information that allows for the implementation to improve life in addresses, phone numbers, Social initial triennial calculations to be American communities through Security numbers; information verified. 2. To appropriate agencies, entities, conducting, supporting, and sharing pertaining to the participating family and persons when: (a) HUD suspects or research, surveys, demonstrations, structure, household size, household has confirmed that the security or program evaluations, and best income, race and demographics, confidentiality of information in a practices.’’ disability status, unit characteristics; and information about participation in system of records has been CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE HUD programs. Property-level data compromised; (b) HUD has determined SYSTEM: include housing agency, property, unit that, as a result of the suspected or Data will be collected from characteristic, and financial information confirmed compromise, there is a risk of households assisted by the Section 811 and contact information for property harm to economic or property interests, Project Rental Assistance and Section owners, including full names, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the 811 Project Rental Assistance Contract addresses, phone numbers, and email security or integrity of systems or programs, other extremely low-income addresses. programs (whether maintained by HUD households including a person with a • Medicare and Medicaid data: or another agency or entity) that rely disability served by other HUD-assisted Include data on individuals available upon the compromised information; and housing programs, a sample of through the Centers for Medicare & (c) the disclosure made to such individuals receiving Medicaid or Medicaid Services and state Medicaid agencies, entities, and persons is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48240 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

reasonably necessary to assist in with HUD’s Records Disposition perjury, as a substitute for notarization. connection with HUD’s efforts to Schedule 67 PD&R, Item 6 (https:// In addition, your request should: respond to the suspected or confirmed portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/ a. Explain why you believe HUD compromise and prevent, minimize, or huddoc?id=22256x67ADMH.pdf). Abt would have information on you. remedy such harm for purposes of Associates will submit all de-identified facilitating responses and remediation data over to HUD at the end of the b. Identify which Office of HUD you efforts in the event of a data breach. contract, with the exception of the believe has the records about you. ResDAC and Medicaid data, which will POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORAGE OF c. Specify when you believe the RECORDS: not be included as per memorandum of records would have been created. understanding with these agencies. Abt Associates provides all project d. Provide any other information that staff with HIPAA Rules of the Road— ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, AND PHYSICAL will help the Freedom of Information Practical Information for Ensuring SAFEGUARDS: Act (FOIA) staff determine which HUD Compliance, IRB 101 Training, General office may have responsive records. Security Awareness Training, and The study’s approved data security If your request is seeking records Collaborative Institutional Training plan describes the safeguarding of any pertaining to another living individual, Initiative (CITI) Human Subjects hardcopy, recorded, and electronic Training. All study team members also information on human subjects that will you must include a statement from that undergo project-specific training on be a part of the study. All study team individual certifying their agreement for maintaining privacy and safe data members are aware of the project- you to access their records. Without the storage and handling procedures. All specific data regulations and best above information, the HUD FOIA study team members sign a practices associated with handling data Office may not conduct an effective nondisclosure agreement. for the study. These practices are search, and your request may be denied All study team members will be made incorporated in the study protocol and due to lack of specificity or lack of aware of the project-specific data will be detailed in training plans for compliance with regulations. regulations and best practices associated interviewers, support staff, and data with handling data for the study. These analytic staff. All staff who will have CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: practices are incorporated in the study access to the data containing PII or PHI information sign a confidentiality The Department’s rules for contesting protocol and will be detailed in training contents of records and appealing initial plans for interviewers, support staff, and agreement, per the requirements of all denials appear in 24 CFR part 16, data analytic staff. All staff who will data use agreements. Procedures for Inquiries. Additional have access to the data containing Abt will guarantee this level of personally identifiable information (PII) restricted access by only using secure assistance may be obtained by or protected health information (PHI) transfer mechanisms, such as Huddle, contacting Helen Goff Foster, Senior will sign a confidentiality agreement Abt’s FedRAMP Moderate accredited Agency Official for Privacy, at 451 7th pursuant to the requirements of all data file transfer service for moving data in Street SW., Room 10139, Department of use agreements, which will be attached and out of the system, or another SFTP Housing and Urban Development, to the data security plan. All staff will of the transferring agency’s choice. Abt Washington, DC 20410–0001, or the also receive an annual reminder of the will also only access the data through its HUD Departmental Privacy Appeals terms of the agreement. restricted access folder on the Analytic Officers; Office of General Counsel; Abt will guarantee this level of Computing Environment, ACE 3, which Department of Housing and Urban restricted access by only using secure meets NIST SP 800–53 Revision 4 Development; 451 7th Street SW., transfer mechanisms, such as Huddle, FISMA Moderate Standards and utilizes Washington, DC 20410–0001. Abt’s FedRAMP Moderate accredited FedRAMP Moderate accredited services file transfer service for moving data in from Amazon as infrastructure. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES: and out of the system, or another secure Individual wishing to determine to file transfer system (SFTP) of the RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: whether this system of records contains transferring agency’s choice. Abt will For information, assistance, or inquiry also only access the data through its about records, contact Helen Goff information about them may do so by restricted access folder on the Analytic Foster, Senior Agency Official for contacting their lending institutions or Computing Environment, ACE 3, which Privacy, at 451 7th Street SW., Room contacting HUD’s Privacy Officer or meets NIST SP 800–53, Revision 4 10139, U.S. Department of Housing and Freedom of Information Act Office at FISMA Moderate Standards and utilizes Urban Development, Washington, DC the addresses above. FedRAMP Moderate accredited services 20410–0001, telephone number 202– from Amazon as infrastructure. Abt 708–3054 (this is not a toll-free EXEMPTIONS PROMULGATED FOR THE SYSTEM: Associates will retain all data collected number). When seeking records about None. over the life of the study and any yourself from this system of records or analysis files generated with those data any other Housing and Urban HISTORY: for as long as required and only under Development (HUD) system of records, conditions specified in the study your request must conform with the None. protocol. At the end of the contract, Abt Privacy Act regulations set forth in 24 Dated: September 5, 2017. will destroy records that do not need to CFR part 16. You must first verify your Helen Goff Foster, be retained. Abt will destroy the identity, meaning that you must provide Chief Administrative Officer and Executive remainder of the files after the contract your full name, address, and date and Secretary, Senior Agency Official for Privacy. ends, as is required in the contract. The place of birth. You must sign your [FR Doc. 2017–22474 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] retention and disposal procedures are in request, and your signature must either keeping with HUD’s records be notarized or submitted under 28 BILLING CODE 4210–67–P management policies as described in 44 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits U.S.C. 3101 and 44 U.S.C. 3303 and statements to be made, under penalty of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48241

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 3315 University Drive, Bismarck, ND BIE emphasizes that it is early in the 58504 strategic planning process and views the Bureau of Indian Affairs • Tuesday December 12, 2017, on-site proposed strategic plan as a useful draft [189A2100DD/AAKC001030/ consultation session will be held at document that will assist Tribes in A0A501010.999900 253G] the National Indian Programs affording meaningful and substantive Training Center, 1011 Indian School input during the scheduled consultation Bureau of Indian Education Strategic Road NW., Albuquerque, NM 87104 sessions. BIE earnestly appreciates and Plan The draft strategic plan will be values any constructive input regarding its draft strategic plan and invites tribes, AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, available at: https://www.bie.edu/ consultation/index.htm. Send written tribal leaders, and/or their designees to Interior. consult on the proposed plan during the ACTION: Notice of tribal consultations. comments to Ms. Paulina Bell, Bureau of Indian Education, by any of the aforementioned meetings. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that following methods: (Preferred method) Dated: October 11, 2017. the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) email: [email protected]; mail, hand- Tony Dearman, will conduct a series of consultation carry or use an overnight courier service Director, Bureau of Indian Education. sessions regarding its proposed strategic to Bureau of Indian Education, ATTN: [FR Doc. 2017–22446 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] plan. The BIE will conduct five on-site Ms. Paulina Bell, RE: BIE Draft Strategic BILLING CODE 4337–15–P tribal consultation sessions and one Plan Consultation Comments, 1849 C telephonic session. The on-site Street NW., Mail Stop 3609, consultation sessions will be held at Washington, DC 20240. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR geographically diverse locations across FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. National Park Service the country to maximize Tribal input Paulina Bell, Bureau of Indian early in the process. The telephonic Education; telephone: (202) 208–3479. [NPS–WASO–NAGPRA–NPS0024109; session will be held on December 14, PPWOCRADN0–PCU00RP14.R50000] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BIE is 2017. committed to improving and enhancing Notice of Inventory Completion: DATES: The BIE will conduct the its service delivery and improving the Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, following five on-site consultation education of Indian students served by WI sessions and one telephonic BIE-funded schools. The BIE is consultation. The on-site sessions will developing a bureau-wide strategic plan AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. be held: to guide its work and service delivery to ACTION: Notice. 1. Wednesday November 15, 2017, in students, schools, and tribes. To that Salem, OR from 1:00 p.m.–5:00 p.m. end, the BIE recently engaged its staff in SUMMARY: The Wisconsin Historical PST. a process of strategic performance Society has completed an inventory of 2. Tuesday November 28, 2017, in planning with the intention of human remains in consultation with the Anadarko, OK from 1:00 p.m.–5:00 p.m. submitting the proposed draft strategic appropriate Indian Tribes or Native CST. plan for collaborative and meaningful Hawaiian organizations, and has 3. Tuesday December 5, 2017, in consultation with Tribes early in the determined that there is no cultural Bismarck, ND from 1:00 p.m.–5:00 p.m. process. affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian Tribes or MDT. On March 8, 2017, April 11, 2017, Native Hawaiian organizations. 4. Tuesday December 12, 2017, in June 14, 2017, July 18–20, 2017, and Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Albuquerque, NM from 1:00 p.m.–5:00 August 29–30, 2017, the BIE convened Native Hawaiian organization not p.m. MDT. local, regional, and central office BIE identified in this notice that wish to The last session will be held personnel in order to formulate request transfer of control of these telephonically and by webinar on proposed strategic plan vision, mission, human remains should submit a written Thursday December 14, 2017, by calling and organizational values statements as request to the Wisconsin Historical 631–992–3221 and entering the well as goals and strategies to Society. If no additional requestors passcode 759–763–471. The Web site for implement the goals in the planning come forward, transfer of control of the the webinar is https://attendee.goto process. human remains to the Indian Tribes or webinar.com/register/772775073559 In order to ensure that its strategic 5699458, and the webinar ID is 993– Native Hawaiian organizations stated in planning efforts result in a high quality, this notice may proceed. 210–731. This session can accommodate effective, and useful plan, BIE partnered DATES: 500 participants. with external subject matter expert Representatives of any Indian ADDRESSES: The on-site sessions will be organizations specializing in Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization held at the following locations: educational strategic performance not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these • Wednesday November 15, 2017, on- planning, including the Council of Chief human remains should submit a written site consultation session will be held State School Officers (CCSSO), the request with information in support of at Chemawa Indian School South Central Comprehensive Center the request to the Wisconsin Historical Auditorium, 3700 Chemawa Road located at the University of Oklahoma Society at the address in this notice by NE., Salem, OR 97305 (SC3), and the Building State Capacity November 16, 2017. • Tuesday November 28, 2017, on-site and Productivity Center (BSCPC). These consultation session will be held at organizations are providing BIE with ADDRESSES: Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Riverside Indian School, 101 valuable technical subject matter Historical Society, 816 State St., Riverside Drive, Anadarko, OK 73005 expertise and shared best practices in Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) • Tuesday December 5, 2017, on-site developing an effective, five-year 264–6434, email Jennifer.Kolb@ consultation session will be held at strategic plan proposal with which to wisconsinhistory.org. United Tribes Technical College, engage tribes in meaningful and timely SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is Lewis Goodhouse Wellness Center, consultation. here given in accordance with the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48242 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

Native American Graves Protection and burial location, archeological context, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. oral histories, and skeletal analysis. 3003, of the completion of an inventory • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the National Park Service of human remains under the control of human remains described in this notice [NPS–WASO–NAGPRA–NPS0024051; the Wisconsin Historical Society, represent the physical remains of one PPWOCRADN0–PCU00RP14.R50000] Madison, WI. The human remains were individual of Native American ancestry. removed from Pickerel Island, Vilas • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. County, WI. relationship of shared group identity Department of Defense, Defense This notice is published as part of the cannot be reasonably traced between the Health Agency, National Museum of National Park Service’s administrative Native American human remains and Health and Medicine, Silver Spring, MD responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 any present-day Indian Tribe. U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). • Treaties, Acts of Congress, or AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. The determinations in this notice are Executive Orders indicate that the land ACTION: Notice. the sole responsibility of the museum, from which the Native American human institution, or Federal agency that has remains were removed is the aboriginal SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of control of the Native American human land of the Bad River Band of the Lake Defense, Defense Health Agency, remains. The National Park Service is Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of National Museum of Health and not responsible for the determinations the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Medicine, has completed an inventory in this notice. Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake of human remains, in consultation with Superior Chippewa Indians of the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Consultation Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Hawaiian organizations, and has A detailed assessment of the human Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the determined that there is no cultural remains was made by the Wisconsin Lac du Flambeau Reservation of affiliation between the human remains Historical Society professional staff in Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of and any present-day Indian Tribes or consultation with representatives of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Native Hawaiian organizations. Forest County Potawatomi Community, Michigan; Leech Lake Band of the Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Native Hawaiian organization not Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota identified in this notice that wish to Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Red Cliff request transfer of control of these Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Band of Lake Superior Chippewa human remains should submit a written Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin; and White Earth request to the National Museum of Wisconsin; and the Upper Sioux Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Health and Medicine. If no additional Community, Minnesota. Minnesota (hereafter referred to as The requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the History and Description of the Remains Aboriginal Land Tribes). • Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian In 1991, human remains representing, disposition of the human remains may organizations stated in this notice may at minimum, one individual were be to The Aboriginal Land Tribes. proceed. removed from Pickerel Island (47–VI– DATES: Additional Requestors and Disposition Representatives of any Indian 0197) in Vilas County, WI. The human Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization remains are from multiple discoveries Representatives of any Indian Tribe or not identified in this notice that wish to and excavations but collectively Native Hawaiian organization not request transfer of control of these represent one adult male. They were identified in this notice that wish to human remains should submit a written originally found eroding out of a slope request transfer of control of these request with information in support of caused by ice expansion on the human remains should submit a written the request to the National Museum of northwestern portion of the island in request with information in support of Health and Medicine at the address in 1991 by the President of the Big St. the request to Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin this notice by November 16, 2017. Germain Lake Home Owners Historical Society, 816 State St., ADDRESSES: Mr. Brian F. Spatola, Association. In 1992, the WHS in Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) Curator of Anatomical Division, conjunction with the Wisconsin Valley 264–6434, email Jennifer.Kolb@ National Museum of Health and Improvement Company, the Mississippi wisconsinhistory.org, by November 16, Medicine, U.S. Army Garrison Forest Valley Archaeology Center, and the 2017. After that date, if no additional Glen, 2500 Linden Lane, Silver Spring, Wisconsin Department of Natural requestors have come forward, transfer MD 20910, telephone (301) 319–3353, Resources excavated the rest of the of control of the human remains to The email [email protected]. burial, which they determined to be in Aboriginal Land Tribes may proceed. a secondary burial context. The human The Wisconsin Historical Society is SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is remains were then taken to the responsible for notifying The Aboriginal here given in accordance with the Wisconsin Historical Society that same Land Tribes and the Forest County Native American Graves Protection and year. No known individuals were Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. identified. No associated funerary Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; 3003, of the completion of an inventory objects are present. Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; of human remains under the control of and the Upper Sioux Community, the National Museum of Health and Determinations Made by the Wisconsin Minnesota, that this notice has been Medicine, Silver Spring, MD. The Historical Society published. human remains were removed from the Officials of the Wisconsin Historical Moundville site (1TU500) in Hale Society have determined that: Dated: September 5, 2017. County, AL. • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the Melanie O’Brien, This notice is published as part of the human remains described in this notice Manager, National NAGPRA Program. National Park Service’s administrative are Native American based on [FR Doc. 2017–22432 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 Wisconsin Historical Society records, BILLING CODE 4312–52–P U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48243

The determinations in this notice are • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR the sole responsibility of the museum, human remains described in this notice institution, or Federal agency that has are Native American based on: National Park Service control of the Native American human Osteological evidence, collection [NPS–WASO–NAGPRA–NPS0024107; remains. The National Park Service is history, artifacts, and association with PPWOCRADN0–PCU00RP14.R50000] not responsible for the determinations prehistoric archeological sites. in this notice. Notice of Inventory Completion: • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the Consultation Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, human remains described in this notice WI A detailed assessment of the human represent the physical remains of 28 remains was made by the National individuals of Native American AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. Museum of Health and Medicine ancestry. ACTION: Notice. professional staff in consultation with • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a SUMMARY: The Wisconsin Historical representatives of the Absentee- relationship of shared group identity Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Society has completed an inventory of cannot be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas Native American human remains and (previously listed as the Alabama- objects, in consultation with the any present-day Indian Tribe. Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama- appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Quassarte Tribal Town; Cherokee • Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Hawaiian organizations, and has Nation; Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana; Executive Orders, indicate that the land determined that there is a cultural Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern from which the Native American human affiliation between the human remains Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern remains were removed is the aboriginal and associated funerary objects and Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Jena Band land of The Choctaw Nation of present-day Indian Tribes or Native of Choctaw Indians; Kialegee Tribal Oklahoma. Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Town; Mississippi Band of Choctaw • Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian Indians; Poarch Band of Creeks disposition of the human remains may (previously listed as the Poarch Band of organization not identified in this notice be to The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Creek Indians of Alabama); Seminole that wish to request transfer of control and, if joined with the Choctaw Nation Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the of these human remains and associated Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big of Oklahoma, The Muscogee (Creek) funerary objects should submit a written Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Nation. request to the Wisconsin Historical Reservations)); Shawnee Tribe; The Additional Requestors and Disposition Society. If no additional requestors Chickasaw Nation; The Choctaw Nation come forward, transfer of control of the of Oklahoma; The Muscogee (Creek) Representatives of any Indian Tribe or human remains and associated funerary Nation; The Quapaw Tribe of Indians; Native Hawaiian organization not objects to the lineal descendants, Indian The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; identified in this notice that wish to Tribes, or Native Hawaiian Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; Tunica- request transfer of control of these organizations stated in this notice may Biloxi Indian Tribe; and the United human remains should submit a written proceed. Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in request with information in support of DATES: Lineal descendants or Oklahoma (‘‘The Tribes’’). the request to Mr. Brian F. Spatola, representatives of any Indian Tribe or History and Description of the Remains Curator of Anatomical Division, Native Hawaiian organization not National Museum of Health and identified in this notice that wish to In early 1905 and late 1906, human Medicine, U.S. Army Garrison Forest request transfer of control of these remains representing, at minimum, 28 Glen, 2500 Linden Lane, Silver Spring, human remains and associated funerary individuals were removed from the MD 20910, telephone (301) 319–3353, objects should submit a written request Moundville Site (1TU500) in Hale email [email protected], by with information in support of the County, AL. The remains were removed request to the Wisconsin Historical by Clarence B. Moore during an November 16, 2017. After that date, if no additional requestors have come Society at the address in this notice by archeological investigation of burial November 16, 2017. mounds and cemeteries near forward, transfer of control of the ADDRESSES: Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Moundville, AL. Artifacts were present human remains to The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and, if joined with the Historical Museum, 816 State St., at the time of excavation, but were not Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) retained with the human remains. The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, may proceed. 264–6434, email Jennifer.Kolb@ human remains were donated to the wisconsinhistory.org. Army Medical Museum by Clarence B. The National Museum of Health and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Moore in 1906. The date of the site Medicine is responsible for notifying Notice is here given in accordance with the associated with the human remains is The Tribes that this notice has been Native American Graves Protection and approximately A.D. 700 to 1540. The published. remains consist of partial skeletons or Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. single bone elements. Age and sex could Dated: August 22, 2017. 3003, of the completion of an inventory not be identified. No known individuals Melanie O’Brien, of human remains and associated were identified. No associated funerary Manager, National NAGPRA Program. funerary objects under the control of the objects are present. [FR Doc. 2017–22435 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI. The human remains and associated BILLING CODE 4312–52–P Determinations Made by the National funerary objects were removed from the Museum of Health and Medicine Island Village site in Manitowoc Officials of the National Museum of County, WI. Health and Medicine have determined This notice is published as part of the that: National Park Service’s administrative

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48244 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 corresponds with the estimated age of Huron Band of the Potawatomi; and the U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in the associated funerary objects. Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, this notice are the sole responsibility of Determinations Made by the Wisconsin Michigan and Indiana, that this notice the museum, institution, or Federal Historical Society has been published. agency that has control of the Native American human remains and Officials of the Wisconsin Historical Dated: September 5, 2017. associated funerary objects. The Society have determined that: Melanie O’Brien, • National Park Service is not responsible Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the Manager, National NAGPRA Program. for the determinations in this notice. human remains described in this notice [FR Doc. 2017–22430 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] represent the physical remains of four BILLING CODE 4312–52–P Consultation individuals of Native American A detailed assessment of the human ancestry. • remains was made by the Wisconsin Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Historical Society professional staff in the four objects described in this notice consultation with representatives of the are reasonably believed to have been National Park Service Forest County Potawatomi Community, placed with or near individual human Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of remains at the time of death or later as [NPS–NERO–CEBE–24090; PPNECEBE00, Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of part of the death rite or ceremony. PPMPSAS1Z.Y00000] Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Cancellation of September 21, 2017, identity that can be reasonably traced Wisconsin; and the Menominee Indian Meeting of the Cedar Creek and Belle Tribe of Wisconsin. between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects Grove National Historical Park History and Description of the Remains and the Forest County Potawatomi Advisory Commission In 1989, human remains representing, Community, Wisconsin; Hannahville at minimum, four individuals were Indian Community, Michigan; Match-e- AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. removed from the Island Village site be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi ACTION: Cancellation of meeting. (47–MN–0101) in Manitowoc County, Indians of Michigan; Nottawaseppi WI. The site is located within the Kill Huron Band of the Potawatomi; and the SUMMARY: In accordance with the Snake Marsh and Wildlife Area run by Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice the Wisconsin Department of Natural Michigan and Indiana. is hereby given that the September 21, Resources (WDNR). Employees of the 2017, meeting of the Cedar Creek and WDNR found human remains and Additional Requestors and Disposition associated funerary objects brought to Lineal descendants or representatives Belle Grove National Historical Park the surface by plowing. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian Advisory Commission previously from the Wisconsin Historical Society organization not identified in this notice announced in the Federal Register, Vol. visited the site and were given the that wish to request transfer of control 82, January 19, 2017, pp. 6643, is human remains and associated funerary of these human remains and associated cancelled. objects. The human remains represent funerary objects should submit a written FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: four individuals, including one young request with information in support of Further information concerning the adult and three juveniles. No known the request to Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin individuals were identified. The four Historical Society, 816 State Street, meetings may be obtained from Karen associated funerary objects are 1 Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) Beck-Herzog, Site Manager, Cedar Creek decorated German silver brooch or hair 264–6434, email Jennifer.Kolb@ and Belle Grove National Historical plate, 1 lot of five copper bracelets, 1 wisconsinhistory.org, by November 16, Park, P.O. Box 700, Middletown, copper picture frame mat, and 1 lot of 2017. After that date, if no additional Virginia 22645, telephone (540) 868– beads. requestors have come forward, transfer 9176, or visit the park Web site: http:// The kinds of associated funerary of control of the human remains and www.nps.gov/cebe/parkmgmt/park- objects recovered suggest a historic associated funerary objects to the Forest advisory-commission.htm. period date for the human remains, County Potawatomi Community, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15- specifically the mid-1800s. Objects like Wisconsin; Hannahville Indian member Commission was designated by the silver German brooch did not come Community, Michigan; Match-e-be- Congress to provide advice to the into use in the Great Lakes until after nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Secretary of the Interior in the the 1830s. The picture frame mat was of Indians of Michigan; Nottawaseppi preparation and implementation of the the type that would have been used to Huron Band of the Potawatomi; and the frame an ambrotype or daguerreotype Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, park’s general management plan and in suggesting a post-1850 date. The Island Michigan and Indiana, may proceed. the identification of sites of significance Village site was first recorded in written The Wisconsin Historical Society is outside the park boundary (16 U.S.C. documents by archeologist Charles E. responsible for notifying the Forest 410iii–7). Brown in 1906 who stated that a Mr. County Potawatomi Community, Alma Ripps, Louis Falge identified the site as a Wisconsin; Hannahville Indian Chief, Office of Policy. Potawatomi village. Archival research Community, Michigan; Ho-Chunk conducted by the Forest County Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau [FR Doc. 2017–22378 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin, Band of Lake Superior Chippewa BILLING CODE 4312–52–P identified the location as a historic Indians of the Lac du Flambeau village site that was led by Potawatomi Reservation of Wisconsin; Match-e-be- chief Chaiconda. The site was described nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi by Falge as being occupied and under Indians of Michigan; Menominee Indian cultivation until 1864, which Tribe of Wisconsin; Nottawaseppi

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48245

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Consultation Community, Michigan; Lac Courte A detailed assessment of the human Oreilles Band of Lake Superior National Park Service remains was made by the Wisconsin Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du [NPS–WASO–NAGPRA–NPS0024111; Historical Society professional staff in Flambeau Band of Lake Superior PPWOCRADN0–PCU00RP14.R50000] consultation with representatives of the Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Forest County Potawatomi Community, Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Notice of Inventory Completion: Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Leech WI Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Tribe, Minnesota; Menominee Indian ACTION: Notice. Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Tribe of Wisconsin; Mille Lacs Band of Wisconsin; and the Upper Sioux the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, SUMMARY: The Wisconsin Historical Community, Minnesota. Minnesota; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Society has completed an inventory of History and Description of the Remains Minnesota; Red Cliff Band of Lake human remains, in consultation with Superior Chippewa Indians of the appropriate Indian tribes or Native In 1965, human remains representing, Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Hawaiian organizations, and has at minimum, one individual were Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa determined that there is no cultural removed from the Nekoosa Mound Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. affiliation between the human remains Group (47–WO–0014) in Wood County, Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, WI. Very fragmentary partially cremated and any present-day Indian tribes or Michigan; Sokaogon Chippewa human remains were collected by Native Hawaiian organizations. Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix archeologist William M. Hurley from Representatives of any Indian tribe or Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Turtle Native Hawaiian organization not Mound 4, one of the site’s conical mounds. An unknown individual Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of identified in this notice that wish to North Dakota; White Earth Band of request transfer of control of these donated the human remains to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; human remains should submit a written Wisconsin Historical Society at an and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska request to the Wisconsin Historical unknown date. No known individuals Society. If no additional requestors were identified. No associated funerary (hereafter referred to as The Aboriginal come forward, transfer of control of the objects are present. Land Tribes). • human remains to the Indian tribes or Determinations Made by the Wisconsin Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the Native Hawaiian organizations stated in Historical Society disposition of the human remains may this notice may proceed. be to The Aboriginal Land Tribes. Officials of the Wisconsin Historical DATES: Representatives of any Indian Society have determined that: Additional Requestors and Disposition tribe or Native Hawaiian organization • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the not identified in this notice that wish to human remains described in this notice Representatives of any Indian tribe or request transfer of control of these are Native American based on Native Hawaiian organization not human remains should submit a written Wisconsin Historical Society records, identified in this notice that wish to request with information in support of burial location, archeological context, request transfer of control of these the request to the Wisconsin Historical and skeletal analysis. human remains should submit a written Society at the address in this notice by • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the request with information in support of November 16, 2017. human remains described in this notice the request to Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin ADDRESSES: Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin represent the physical remains of one Historical Society, 816 State St., Historical Society, 816 State St., individual of Native American ancestry. Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a 264–6434, email Jennifer.Kolb@ 264–6434, email Jennifer.Kolb@ relationship of shared group identity wisconsinhistory.org, by November 16, wisconsinhistory.org. cannot be reasonably traced between the 2017. After that date, if no additional SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is Native American human remains and requestors have come forward, transfer here given in accordance with the any present-day Indian tribe. of control of the human remains to The Native American Graves Protection and • Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Aboriginal Land Tribes may proceed. Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. Executive Orders indicate that the land The Wisconsin Historical Society is 3003, of the completion of an inventory from which the Native American human responsible for notifying The Aboriginal of human remains under the control of remains were removed is the aboriginal Land Tribes and the Forest County the Wisconsin Historical Society, land of the Bad River Band of the Lake Madison, WI. The human remains were Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin, removed from the Nekoosa Mound the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; and the Upper Sioux Community, Group, Wood County, WI. Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Minnesota, that this notice has been This notice is published as part of the Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the published. National Park Service’s administrative Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Dated: September 5, 2017. responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Melanie O’Brien, U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). Boy’s Reservation, Montana; Fond du Manager, National NAGPRA Program. The determinations in this notice are Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa the sole responsibility of the museum, Tribe, Minnesota; Grand Portage Band [FR Doc. 2017–22433 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] institution, or Federal agency that has of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, BILLING CODE 4312–52–P control of the Native American human Minnesota; Grand Traverse Band of remains. The National Park Service is Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, not responsible for the determinations Michigan; Ho-Chunk Nation of in this notice. Wisconsin; Keweenaw Bay Indian

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48246 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR the sole responsibility of the museum, cannot be reasonably traced between the institution, or Federal agency that has Native American human remains and National Park Service control of the Native American human associated funerary object and any [NPS–WASO–NAGPRA–NPS0024102; remains and associated funerary object. present-day Indian Tribe. PPWOCRADN0–PCU00RP14.R50000] The National Park Service is not • Treaties, Acts of Congress, or responsible for the determinations in Executive Orders indicate that the land Notice of Inventory Completion: this notice. from which the Native American human Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, Consultation WI remains and associated funerary object A detailed assessment of the human were removed is the aboriginal land of AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. remains was made by the Wisconsin the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior ACTION: Notice. Historical Society professional staff in Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad consultation with representatives of the River Reservation, Wisconsin; Lac SUMMARY: The Wisconsin Historical Forest County Potawatomi Community, Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Society has completed an inventory of Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du human remains and associated funerary Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Flambeau Band of Lake Superior objects, in consultation with the Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Chippewa Indians of the Lac du appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Hawaiian organizations, and has Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior determined that there is no cultural Wisconsin; and the Upper Sioux Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Leech affiliation between the human remains Community, Minnesota. Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa and associated funerary object and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native History and Description of the Remains Tribe, Minnesota; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Mille Lacs Band of Hawaiian organizations. Representatives In 1992, human remains representing, the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian at minimum, one individual were Minnesota; Red Cliff Band of Lake organization not identified in this notice removed from the historic Water Street that wish to request transfer of control Cemetery (47–MT–0288) in Marinette Superior Chippewa Indians of of these human remains and associated County, WI. Human remains were Wisconsin; and the White Earth Band of funerary object should submit a written discovered by a construction crew Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota request to the Wisconsin Historical digging under an existing gas and sewer (hereafter referred to as The Aboriginal Society. If no additional requestors line. The human remains were taken to Land Tribes). come forward, transfer of control of the the City of Marinette Police Department, • Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the human remains and associated funerary whose personnel went to the site and disposition of the human remains and object to the Indian Tribes or Native uncovered the burial again, but did not associated funerary object may be to The Hawaiian organizations stated in this conduct further excavations. The Police Aboriginal Land Tribes. notice may proceed. Department subsequently contacted the DATES: Representatives of any Indian Wisconsin Burial Site Preservation Additional Requestors and Disposition Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization Office (BSPO). Representatives of the Representatives of any Indian Tribe or not identified in this notice that wish to BSPO and the Neville Public Museum Native Hawaiian organization not request transfer of control of these screened the back dirt and excavated the identified in this notice that wish to human remains and associated funerary area of the burial where they recovered object should submit a written request wood from a coffin and the partial request transfer of control of these with information in support of the remains of one adult male. No known human remains and associated funerary request to the Wisconsin Historical individuals were identified. The one object should submit a written request Society at the address in this notice by associated funerary object is an with information in support of the November 16, 2017. assemblage of coffin wood. request to Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State St., ADDRESSES: Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Determinations Made by the Wisconsin Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) Historical Society, 816 State St., Historical Society Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264–6434, email Jennifer.Kolb@ 264–6434, email Jennifer.Kolb@ Officials of the Wisconsin Historical wisconsinhistory.org, by November 16, wisconsinhistory.org. Society have determined that: 2017. After that date, if no additional • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the requestors have come forward, transfer SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is human remains described in this notice of control of the human remains and here given in accordance with the are Native American based on associated funerary object to The Native American Graves Protection and Wisconsin Historical Society records, Aboriginal Land Tribes may proceed. Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. burial location, archeological context, 3003, of the completion of an inventory oral histories, and skeletal analysis. The Wisconsin Historical Society is of human remains and associated • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the responsible for notifying The Aboriginal funerary objects under the control of the human remains described in this notice Land Tribes and the Forest County Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, represent the physical remains of one Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; WI. The human remains and associated individual of Native American ancestry. Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; and the funerary object were removed from the • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota, Water Street Cemetery, Marinette the one object described in this notice that this notice has been published. County, WI. is reasonably believed to have been Dated: September 5, 2017. This notice is published as part of the placed with or near individual human Melanie O’Brien, National Park Service’s administrative remains at the time of death or later as responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 part of the death rite or ceremony. Manager, National NAGPRA Program. U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a [FR Doc. 2017–22425 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] The determinations in this notice are relationship of shared group identity BILLING CODE 4312–52–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48247

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Consultation • Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the A detailed assessment of the human disposition of the human remains may National Park Service remains was made by the Wisconsin be to Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin [NPS–WASO–NAGPRA–NPS0024104; Historical Society professional staff in and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska. PPWOCRADN0–PCU00RP14.R50000] consultation with representatives of the Additional Requestors and Disposition Forest County Potawatomi Community, Notice of Inventory Completion: Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Native Hawaiian organization not Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of WI identified in this notice that wish to Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the request transfer of control of these AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. Lac du Flambeau Reservation of human remains should submit a written ACTION: Notice. Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of request with information in support of Wisconsin; and the Upper Sioux the request to Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin SUMMARY: The Wisconsin Historical Community, Minnesota. Historical Society, 816 State St., Society has completed an inventory of History and Description of the Remains Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) human remains, in consultation with 264–6434, email Jennifer.Kolb@ the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native In 1992, human remains representing, wisconsinhistory.org, by November 16, Hawaiian organizations, and has at minimum, two individuals were 2017. After that date, if no additional determined that there is no cultural removed from the Paradise Valley site requestors have come forward, transfer affiliation between the human remains (47–MO–0251) in Monroe County, WI. of control of the human remains to the and any present-day Indian Tribes or The human remains were recovered Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin and the Native Hawaiian organizations. from a cranberry bog by unknown Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska may Representatives of any Indian Tribe or individuals and reported to the proceed. Native Hawaiian organization not Wisconsin Historical Society (WHS). The Wisconsin Historical Society is identified in this notice that wish to Archeologists from the WHS took responsible for notifying the Forest request transfer of control of these possession of the human remains and County Potawatomi Community, human remains should submit a written visited the site. They found no Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of request to the Wisconsin Historical additional human remains or funerary Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Society. If no additional requestors objects that could be associated with the Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the come forward, transfer of control of the human remains. The site has since been Lac du Flambeau Reservation of human remains to the Indian Tribes or reported as destroyed by cranberry Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Native Hawaiian organizations stated in operations. No known individuals were Wisconsin; Winnebago Tribe of this notice may proceed. identified. No associated funerary Nebraska; and the Upper Sioux DATES: Representatives of any Indian objects are present. Community, Minnesota, that this notice Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization Determinations Made by the Wisconsin has been published. not identified in this notice that wish to Historical Society Dated: September 5, 2017. request transfer of control of these Officials of the Wisconsin Historical Melanie O’Brien, human remains should submit a written Society have determined that: Manager, National NAGPRA Program. request with information in support of • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the [FR Doc. 2017–22427 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] the request to the Wisconsin Historical human remains described in this notice BILLING CODE 4312–52–P Society at the address in this notice by are Native American based on November 16, 2017. Wisconsin Historical Society records, ADDRESSES: Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin burial location, archeological context, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Historical Society, 816 State St., oral histories, and skeletal analysis. Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the National Park Service 264–6434, email Jennifer.Kolb@ human remains described in this notice [NPS–WASO–NAGPRA–NPS0024103; wisconsinhistory.org. represent the physical remains of two PPWOCRADN0–PCU00RP14.R50000] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is individuals of Native American here given in accordance with the ancestry. Notice of Inventory Completion: Native American Graves Protection and • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. relationship of shared group identity WI 3003, of the completion of an inventory cannot be reasonably traced between the AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. of human remains under the control of Native American human remains and ACTION: Notice. the Wisconsin Historical Society, any present-day Indian Tribe. Madison, WI. The human remains were • According to final judgments of the SUMMARY: The Wisconsin Historical removed from the Paradise Valley site, Indian Claims Commission or the Court Society (WHS) has completed an Monroe County, WI. of Federal Claims, the land from which inventory of human remains, in This notice is published as part of the the Native American human remains consultation with the appropriate National Park Service’s administrative were removed is the aboriginal land of Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin and organizations, and has determined that U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska. there is no cultural affiliation between The determinations in this notice are • Treaties, Acts of Congress, or the human remains and any present-day the sole responsibility of the museum, Executive Orders indicate that the land Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian institution, or Federal agency that has from which the Native American human organizations. Representatives of any control of the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian remains. The National Park Service is land of the Ho-Chunk Nation of organization not identified in this notice not responsible for the determinations Wisconsin and the Winnebago Tribe of that wish to request transfer of control in this notice. Nebraska. of these human remains should submit

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48248 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

a written request to the Wisconsin June of 1939 states that the human Additional Requestors and Disposition Historical Society. If no additional remains were exhumed by a dentist Representatives of any Indian Tribe or requestors come forward, transfer of from New Lisbon at an unstated date Native Hawaiian organization not control of the human remains to the from a cultivated field. No known identified in this notice that wish to Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian individuals were identified. Charcoal request transfer of control of these organizations stated in this notice may was found with the human remains, but human remains should submit a written proceed. there is no record of it being brought to request with information in support of DATES: Representatives of any Indian the WHS. Therefore, no associated the request Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization funerary objects are present. Historical Society, 816 State St., not identified in this notice that wish to At an unknown date, human remains Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) request transfer of control of these representing, at minimum, one 264–6434, by November 16, 2017. After human remains should submit a written individual were removed from Krainik that date, if no additional requestors request with information in support of Conical site (47–JU–0203) in Juneau have come forward, transfer of control the request to the Wisconsin Historical County, WI. In 1980, Dick Robinson, a of the human remains to the Ho-Chunk Society at the address in this notice by local landowner, donated to the WHS a Nation of Wisconsin and the Winnebago November 16, 2017. box of items that he and his father had Tribe of Nebraska may proceed. ADDRESSES: Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin collected from the site over several The Wisconsin Historical Society is Historical Society, 816 State St., years. In a letter dated December of responsible for notifying the Forest Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 1980, Robinson made no mention of County Potawatomi Community, 264–6434, email Jennifer.Kolb@ having collected human remains, but Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of wisconsinhistory.org. WHS employees identified three human Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is long bone fragments representing one Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the here given in accordance with the adult of indeterminate sex. No known Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Native American Graves Protection and individuals were identified. No Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. associated funerary objects are present. Wisconsin; Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska; and the Upper Sioux 3003, of the completion of an inventory Determinations Made by the Wisconsin Community, Minnesota, that this notice of human remains under the control of Historical Society the Wisconsin Historical Society, has been published. Madison, WI. The human remains were Officials of the Wisconsin Historical Dated: September 5, 2017. removed from Dickensen Gravel Pit and Society have determined that: Melanie O’Brien, Krainik Conical site in Juneau County, • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the Manager, National NAGPRA Program. WI. human remains described in this notice [FR Doc. 2017–22426 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] This notice is published as part of the are Native American based on BILLING CODE 4312–52–P National Park Service’s administrative Wisconsin Historical Society records, responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 burial location, archeological context, U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). oral histories, and skeletal analysis. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR The determinations in this notice are • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the the sole responsibility of the museum, human remains described in this notice National Park Service institution, or Federal agency that has represent the physical remains of two [NPS–WASO–NAGPRA–NPS0024108; control of the Native American human individuals of Native American PPWOCRADN0–PCU00RP14.R50000] remains. The National Park Service is ancestry. not responsible for the determinations • Notice of Inventory Completion: in this notice. Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, relationship of shared group identity WI Consultation cannot be reasonably traced between the A detailed assessment of the human Native American human remains and AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. remains was made by the Wisconsin any present-day Indian Tribe. ACTION: Notice. Historical Society professional staff in • According to final judgments of the SUMMARY: consultation with representatives of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court The Wisconsin Historical Forest County Potawatomi Community, of Federal Claims, the land from which Society has completed an inventory of Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of the Native American human remains human remains and associated funerary Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of were removed is not the aboriginal land objects, in consultation with the Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the of any Indian Tribe, but is near the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Lac du Flambeau Reservation of judicially established aboriginal lands of Hawaiian organizations, and has Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin and determined that there is no cultural Wisconsin; and the Upper Sioux the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska. affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any Community, Minnesota. • Treaties, Acts of Congress, or present-day Indian Tribes or Native History and Description of the Remains Executive Orders indicate that the land Hawaiian organizations. Representatives At an unknown date, human remains from which the Native American human of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian representing, at minimum, one remains were removed is the aboriginal organization not identified in this notice individual were removed from land of the Ho-Chunk Nation of that wish to request transfer of control Dickensen Gravel Pit (47–JU–0101) in Wisconsin and the Winnebago Tribe of of these human remains and associated Juneau County, WI. The human remains Nebraska. funerary objects should submit a written represent a single adult of indeterminate • Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the request to the Wisconsin Historical sex and were donated to the WHS by the disposition of the human remains may Society. If no additional requestors County Coroner Clarence R. Sorenson in be to the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin come forward, transfer of control of the 1939. A letter written by John Barr in and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska. human remains and associated funerary

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48249

objects to the Indian Tribes or Native of indeterminate sex. No known Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Turtle Hawaiian organizations stated in this individuals were identified. The four Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of notice may proceed. associated funerary objects are 2 North Dakota; and the White Earth Band DATES: Representatives of any Indian ceramic sherds, 1 chert flake, and 1 lot of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization of faunal remains. Minnesota (hereafter referred to as The Aboriginal Land Tribes). not identified in this notice that wish to Determinations Made by the Wisconsin • Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the request transfer of control of these Historical Society human remains and associated funerary disposition of the human remains and objects should submit a written request Officials of the Wisconsin Historical associated funerary objects may be to with information in support of the Society have determined that: The Aboriginal Land Tribes. • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the request to the Wisconsin Historical human remains described in this notice Additional Requestors and Disposition Society at the address in this notice by are Native American based on November 16, 2017. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Wisconsin Historical Society records, Native Hawaiian organization not ADDRESSES: Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin burial location, archeological context, identified in this notice that wish to Historical Society, 816 State St., oral histories, and skeletal analysis. request transfer of control of these Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains and associated funerary 264–6434, email Jennifer.Kolb@ human remains described in this notice objects should submit a written request wisconsinhistory.org. represent the physical remains of six with information in support of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is individuals of Native American request to Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin here given in accordance with the ancestry. Historical Society, 816 State St., • Native American Graves Protection and Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. the four objects described in this notice 264–6434, email Jennifer.Kolb@ 3003, of the completion of an inventory are reasonably believed to have been wisconsinhistory.org, by November 16, of human remains and associated placed with or near individual human 2017. After that date, if no additional funerary objects under the control of the remains at the time of death or later as requestors have come forward, transfer Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, part of the death rite or ceremony. • of control of the human remains and WI. The human remains and associated Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a associated funerary objects to The funerary objects were removed from relationship of shared group identity Aboriginal Land Tribes may proceed. Potato Lake Mounds, Rusk County, WI. cannot be reasonably traced between the The Wisconsin Historical Society is This notice is published as part of the Native American human remains and responsible for notifying The Aboriginal National Park Service’s administrative associated funerary objects and any Land Tribes and the Forest County present-day Indian Tribe. responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 • Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; The determinations in this notice are Executive Orders indicate that the land Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; the sole responsibility of the museum, from which the Native American human and the Upper Sioux Community, institution, or Federal agency that has remains and associated funerary objects Minnesota, that this notice has been control of the Native American human were removed is the aboriginal land of published. the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior remains and associated funerary objects. Dated: September 5, 2017. The National Park Service is not Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad Melanie O’Brien, responsible for the determinations in River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills this notice. Indian Community, Michigan; Bois Manager, National NAGPRA Program. Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota [FR Doc. 2017–22431 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Consultation Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Chippewa BILLING CODE 4312–52–P A detailed assessment of the human Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy’s remains was made by the Wisconsin Reservation, Montana; Fond du Lac Historical Society professional staff in Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Minnesota; Grand Portage Band of the consultation with representatives of National Park Service Forest County Potawatomi Community, Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, [NPS–WASO–NAGPRA–NPS0024050; Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of PPWOCRADN0–PCU00RP14.R50000] Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Department of Defense, Defense Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Health Agency, National Museum of Wisconsin; and the Upper Sioux Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Health and Medicine, Silver Spring, MD Community, Minnesota. Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, History and Description of the Remains AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. Michigan; Leech Lake Band of the ACTION: Notice. In 1914, human remains representing, Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; at minimum, six individuals were Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of removed from Potato Lake Mounds (47– Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Minnesota Defense, Defense Health Agency, RU–0013) in Rusk County, WI. The then Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Red Cliff National Museum of Health and landowner donated the remains to the Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Medicine, has completed an inventory Wisconsin Historical Society in 1916 Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of of human remains, in consultation with and 1918, but there is no documentation Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native as to where they were found at the site. Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Hawaiian organizations, and has The human remains represent six Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa determined that there is no cultural individuals—two juveniles, one adult Indians, Michigan; Sokaogon Chippewa affiliation between the human remains female, one adult male, and two adults Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix and any present-day Indian Tribes or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48250 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

Native Hawaiian organizations. of Choctaw Indians; Kialegee Tribal may be to The Choctaw Nation of Representatives of any Indian tribe or Town; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Oklahoma. Native Hawaiian organization not Indians; Poarch Band of Creeks Additional Requestors and Disposition identified in this notice that wish to (previously listed as the Poarch Band of request transfer of control of these Creek Indians of Alabama); Seminole Representatives of any Indian tribe or human remains should submit a written Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Native Hawaiian organization not request to the National Museum of Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big identified in this notice that wish to Health and Medicine. If no additional Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa request transfer of control of these requestors come forward, transfer of Reservations)); Shawnee Tribe; The human remains should submit a written control of the human remains to the Chickasaw Nation; The Choctaw Nation request with information in support of Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian of Oklahoma; The Muscogee (Creek) the request to Mr. Brian F. Spatola, organizations stated in this notice may Nation; The Quapaw Tribe of Indians; Curator of Anatomical Division, proceed. The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; National Museum of Health and DATES: Representatives of any Indian Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; Tunica- Medicine, U.S. Army Garrison Forest tribe or Native Hawaiian organization Biloxi Indian Tribe; and the United Glen, 2500 Linden Lane, Silver Spring, not identified in this notice that wish to Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in MD 20910, telephone (301) 319–3353, request transfer of control of these Oklahoma (‘‘The Tribes’’). email [email protected], by November 16, 2017. After that date, if human remains should submit a written History and Description of the Remains request with information in support of no additional requestors have come the request to the National Museum of In 1905, human remains representing, forward, transfer of control of the Health and Medicine at the address in at minimum, one individual were human remains to The Choctaw Nation this notice by November 16, 2017. removed from the Three Rivers Landing of Oklahoma may proceed. on the Tombigbee River (site 1WN76), ADDRESSES: Mr. Brian F. Spatola, The National Museum of Health and Washington County, AL, by Clarence B. Curator of Anatomical Division, Medicine is responsible for notifying Moore, during an archeological National Museum of Health and The Tribes that this notice has been investigation of burial mounds. Artifacts Medicine, U.S. Army Garrison Forest published. were present at the time of excavation, Glen, 2500 Linden Lane, Silver Spring, Dated: August 22, 2017. but were not retained with the human MD 20910, telephone (301) 319–3353, Melanie O’Brien, remains. The human remains were email [email protected]. donated to the Army Medical Museum Manager, National NAGPRA Program. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is by Clarence B. Moore in 1905. The date [FR Doc. 2017–22434 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] here given in accordance with the of the site associated with the human BILLING CODE 4312–52–P Native American Graves Protection and remains is approximately A.D. 200 to Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 1540. The remains consist of a partial 3003, of the completion of an inventory femur and an innominate bone. Age DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR of human remains under the control of could not be identified. Sex is female National Park Service the National Museum of Health and based on morphological features of the Medicine, Silver Spring, MD. The innominate bone. No known individuals [NPS–WASO–NAGPRA–NPS0024106; human remains were removed from the were identified. No associated funerary PPWOCRADN0–PCU00RP14.R50000] Three Rivers Landing on the Tombigbee objects are present. River (site 1WN76), Washington County, Notice of Inventory Completion: AL. Determinations Made by the National Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, This notice is published as part of the Museum of Health and Medicine WI National Park Service’s administrative Officials of the National Museum of AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 Health and Medicine have determined U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). that: ACTION: Notice. The determinations in this notice are • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the SUMMARY: The Wisconsin Historical the sole responsibility of the museum, human remains described in this notice Society has completed an inventory of institution, or Federal agency that has are Native American based on: human remains, in consultation with control of the Native American human Osteological evidence, collection the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native remains. The National Park Service is history, artifacts, and association with Hawaiian organizations, and has not responsible for the determinations prehistoric archeological sites. in this notice. • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains Consultation human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one and any present-day Indian Tribes or A detailed assessment of the human individual of Native American ancestry. Native Hawaiian organizations. remains was made by the National • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Museum of Health and Medicine relationship of shared group identity Native Hawaiian organization not professional staff in consultation with cannot be reasonably traced between the identified in this notice that wish to representatives of the Absentee- Native American human remains and request transfer of control of these Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; any present-day Indian tribe. human remains should submit a written Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas • Treaties, Acts of Congress, or request to the Wisconsin Historical (previously listed as the Alabama- Executive Orders, indicate that the land Society. If no additional requestors Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama- from which the Native American human come forward, transfer of control of the Quassarte Tribal Town; Cherokee remains were removed is the aboriginal human remains to the Indian Tribes or Nation; Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana; land of The Choctaw Nation of Native Hawaiian organizations stated in Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Oklahoma. this notice may proceed. Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern • Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1)(ii), DATES: Representatives of any Indian Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Jena Band the disposition of the human remains Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48251

not identified in this notice that wish to 0289) in Marinette County, WI. A Historical Society, 816 State St., request transfer of control of these fisherman discovered a mandible from Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) human remains should submit a written an adult male off the Sea Gull sand bar. 264–6434, email Jennifer.Kolb@ request with information in support of He brought the mandible to the wisconsinhistory.org, by November 16, the request to the Wisconsin Historical Marinette City Police, who revisited the 2017. After that date, if no additional Society at the address in this notice by site the day after the discovery but did requestors have come forward, transfer November 16, 2017. not find any other human remains. The of control of the human remains to the ADDRESSES: Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Wisconsin Historical Society Burial Site Aboriginal Land Tribes may proceed. Preservation Office took possession of Historical Society, 816 State St., The Wisconsin Historical Society is Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) the remains in December of 1991. No responsible for notifying The Aboriginal 264–6434, email Jennifer.Kolb@ known individuals were identified. No Land Tribes and the Forest County wisconsinhistory.org. associated funerary objects are present. Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is Determinations Made by the Wisconsin Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; and the here given in accordance with the Historical Society Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota, Native American Graves Protection and Officials of the Wisconsin Historical that this notice has been published. Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. Society have determined that: Dated: September 5, 2017. 3003, of the completion of an inventory • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the of human remains under the control of human remains described in this notice Melanie O’Brien, the Wisconsin Historical Society, are Native American based on Manager, National NAGPRA Program. Madison, WI. The human remains were Wisconsin Historical Society records, [FR Doc. 2017–22429 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] removed from an unknown location burial location, archeological context, BILLING CODE 4312–52–P near Pembine and Red Arrow Park, oral histories, and skeletal analysis. Marinette County, WI. • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the This notice is published as part of the human remains described in this notice DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service’s administrative represent the physical remains of two responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 individuals of Native American National Park Service U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). ancestry. • The determinations in this notice are Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a [NPS–NER–GETT–24089; the sole responsibility of the museum, relationship of shared group identity PPMPSPD1Z.YM0000, PPNEGETTS1] institution, or Federal agency that has cannot be reasonably traced between the control of the Native American human Native American human remains and Cancellation of September 14, 2017, remains. The National Park Service is any present-day Indian Tribe. Meeting of the Gettysburg National • not responsible for the determinations Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Military Park Advisory Commission in this notice. Executive Orders indicate that the land from which the Native American human Consultation AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. remains were removed is the aboriginal A detailed assessment of the human land of the Bad River Band of the Lake ACTION: Cancellation of meeting. remains was made by the Wisconsin Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Historical Society professional staff in the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; SUMMARY: In accordance with the consultation with representatives of the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice Forest County Potawatomi Community, Superior Chippewa Indians of is hereby given that the September 14, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of 2017, meeting of the Gettysburg Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the National Military Park Advisory Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Commission previously announced in Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of the Federal Register, Vol. 82, January Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, 19, 2017, pp. 6641–6642, is cancelled. Wisconsin; and the Upper Sioux Michigan; Leech Lake Band of the Community, Minnesota. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Justice, Acting Superintendent and History and Description of the Remains Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Designated Federal Official, Gettysburg In 1878, human remains representing, Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Red Cliff National Military Park, 1195 Baltimore at minimum, one individual were Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Pike, Suite 100, Gettysburg, removed from an unknown location in Indians of Wisconsin; and the White Pennsylvania 17325, at (717) 334–1124 Marinette County, WI. The human Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa or via email [email protected]. remains, later identified as representing Tribe, Minnesota (hereafter referred to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The one adult female, were removed from a as The Aboriginal Land Tribes). mound containing a number of other • Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the Commission was established by Public interments near the city of Pembine. disposition of the human remains may Law 101–377 (16 U.S.C. 430g–8), to The human remains were donated by be to The Aboriginal Land Tribes. advise the Secretary of the Interior on the Milwaukee Chapter of the the coordination of the management of Wisconsin Archaeological Society to the Additional Requestors and Disposition the Gettysburg National Military Park Wisconsin Historical Society in 1908. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or and Gettysburg Battlefield Historic No known individuals were identified. Native Hawaiian organization not District with local jurisdictions. No associated funerary objects are identified in this notice that wish to Alma Ripps, present. request transfer of control of these In 1991, human remains representing, human remains should submit a written Chief, Office of Policy. at minimum, one individual were request with information in support of [FR Doc. 2017–22379 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] removed from Red Arrow Park (47–MT– the request to Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin BILLING CODE 4312–52–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48252 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Consultation cannot be reasonably traced between the A detailed assessment of the human Native American human remains and National Park Service any present-day Indian Tribe. remains was made by the Wisconsin • [NPS–WASO–NAGPRA–NPS0024105; Historical Society professional staff in Treaties, Acts of Congress, or PPWOCRADN0–PCU00RP14.R50000] consultation with representatives of the Executive Orders indicate that the land Forest County Potawatomi Community, from which the Native American human Notice of Inventory Completion: Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of remains were removed is the aboriginal Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of land of the Bad River Band of the Lake WI Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Lac du Flambeau Reservation of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; ACTION: Notice. Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and the Upper Sioux Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; SUMMARY: The Wisconsin Historical Community, Minnesota. Society has completed an inventory of Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky History and Description of the Remains human remains, in consultation with Boy’s Reservation, Montana; Fond du the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native In August of 1991, human remains Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Hawaiian organizations, and has representing, at minimum, one Tribe, Minnesota; Grand Portage Band determined that there is no cultural individual were removed from the of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, affiliation between the human remains Sikora Burial Site (47–LG–0115) in Minnesota; Grand Traverse Band of and any present-day Indian Tribes or Langlade County, WI. The human Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Native Hawaiian organizations. remains of one adult male were found Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Representatives of any Indian Tribe or during basement construction for a Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Native Hawaiian organization not cottage on the southern shore of Rolling Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of identified in this notice that wish to Stone Lake in the Township of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the request transfer of control of these Ainsworth. No associated funerary Lac du Flambeau Reservation of human remains should submit a written objects were recovered. The Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of request to the Wisconsin Historical homeowners contacted the Antigo Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Society. If no additional requestors Police Department the same day as the Michigan; Leech Lake Band of the come forward, transfer of control of the discovery, and the police subsequently Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; human remains to the Indian Tribes or contacted the Wisconsin Burial Site Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Native Hawaiian organizations stated in Preservation Office. No known Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Minnesota this notice may proceed. individuals were identified. No Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa DATES: Representatives of any Indian associated funerary objects are present. At an unknown date, human remains Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw not identified in this notice that wish to representing, at minimum, five individuals were removed from an Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; request transfer of control of these Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa human remains should submit a written unknown location near Antigo in Langlade County, WI. It is not known Indians, Michigan; Sokaogon Chippewa request with information in support of Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix the request to the Wisconsin Historical who removed the human remains, who Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Turtle Society at the address in this notice by donated them to the Wisconsin Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of November 16, 2017. Historical Society, or when they were donated. In 1996, the human remains North Dakota; and the White Earth Band ADDRESSES: Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin were discovered in a box labeled of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Historical Society, 816 State St., ‘‘unaccessioned calvarium and Minnesota (hereafter referred to as The Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) representative parts of three mandibles, Aboriginal Land Tribes). 264–6434, email Jennifer.Kolb@ mound near Antigo, Langlade Co., • Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the wisconsinhistory.org. Wisconsin.’’ They were later determined disposition of the human remains may SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is to represent two adults, two children, be to The Aboriginal Land Tribes. here given in accordance with the and a young adult. No known Additional Requestors and Disposition Native American Graves Protection and individuals were identified. No Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. associated funerary objects are present. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or 3003, of the completion of an inventory Native Hawaiian organization not of human remains under the control of Determinations Made by the Wisconsin identified in this notice that wish to the Wisconsin Historical Society, Historical Society request transfer of control of these Madison, WI. The human remains were Officials of the Wisconsin Historical human remains should submit a written removed from the Sikora Burial Site and Society have determined that: request with information in support of an unknown location near Antigo in • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the the request to Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Langlade County, WI. human remains described in this notice Historical Society, 816 State St, This notice is published as part of the are Native American based on Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) National Park Service’s administrative Wisconsin Historical Society records, 264–6434, email Jennifer.Kolb@ responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 burial location, archeological context, wisconsinhistory.org, by November 16, U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). oral histories, and skeletal analysis. 2017. After that date, if no additional The determinations in this notice are • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the requestors have come forward, transfer the sole responsibility of the museum, human remains described in this notice of control of the human remains to The institution, or Federal agency that has represent the physical remains of six Aboriginal Land Tribes may proceed. control of the Native American human individuals of Native American The Wisconsin Historical Society is remains. The National Park Service is ancestry. responsible for notifying The Aboriginal not responsible for the determinations • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a Land Tribes and the Forest County in this notice. relationship of shared group identity Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48253

Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; and the to withhold your personal identifying No Significant Impact has been Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin information from public review, we prepared for the Preferred Alternative that this notice has been published. cannot guarantee that we will be able to based on a review of the facts and Dated: September 5, 2017. do so. All submissions from analyses contained in the EA. organizations or businesses, and from Melanie O’Brien, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: individuals identifying themselves as Manager, National NAGPRA Program. Elizabeth Verdecchia, Natural Resources representatives or officials of Specialist, USIBWC, 4171 N. Mesa, [FR Doc. 2017–22428 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] organizations or businesses, will be C–100; El Paso, Texas 79902. BILLING CODE 4312–52–P made available for public disclosure in Telephone: (915) 832–4701, Fax: (915) their entirety. 493–2428, email: Elizabeth.Verdecchia@ Comments and requests for public ibwc.gov. INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND hearings should be sent to: Elizabeth Availability: The electronic version of WATER COMMISSION Verdecchia, Natural Resources the Draft EA is available from the Specialist, USIBWC, 4171 N. Mesa, USIBWC Web page: https:// United States and Mexico United C–100; El Paso, Texas 79902. www.ibwc.gov/EMD/EIS_EA_Public_ States Section; Notice of Availability of Telephone: (915) 832–4701, Fax: (915) Comment.html. a Draft Environmental Assessment and 493–2428, email: Elizabeth.Verdecchia@ Finding of No Significant Impact for ibwc.gov. Dated: October 5, 2017. Channel Maintenance Alternatives at Background: The USIBWC is Matt Myers, Thurman I and II Arroyos in Hatch, NM, considering constructing sediment Chief Legal Counsel. Rio Grande Canalization Project control projects at Thurman I and II, two [FR Doc. 2017–22475 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] ephemeral tributaries of the Rio Grande, BILLING CODE 7010–01–P AGENCY: United States Section, located within a portion of the Rio International Boundary and Water Grande Canalization Project protective Commission, United States and Mexico levee system in Hatch, Don˜ a Ana (USIBWC). INTERNATIONAL TRADE County, New Mexico. The USIBWC has COMMISSION ACTION: Notice of Availability of the the statutory authority to maintain the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA). Rio Grande (Act of June 4, 1936, 49 Stat. Notice of Receipt of Complaint; 1463, Pub. L. 648 and 22 United States Solicitation of Comments Relating to SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) Code 277). USIBWC commissioned a the Public Interest of the National Environmental Policy study in 2015 that recommended Act of 1969; the Council on AGENCY: sediment control structures be built on U.S. International Trade Environmental Quality Final Thurman I and II arroyos, among others, Commission. Regulations; and the United States to trap sediment and assist in the ACTION: Notice. Section, Operational Procedures for maintenance of the Rio Grande. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Implementing Section 102 of NEPA, The purpose is to construct sediment the U.S. International Trade published in the Federal Register control structures on Thurman I and II Commission has received a complaint September 2, 1981, (46 FR 44083); the arroyos with the following objectives: United States Section hereby gives (1) Control the inflow of sediment and motion for temporary relief entitled notice that the Draft Environmental into the Rio Grande mainstem, Certain Network Personal Computers Assessment and Finding of No (2) Conduct a pilot study for channel and Mobile Devices, DN 3265; the Significant Impact for Channel maintenance alternatives, and Commission is soliciting comments on Maintenance Alternatives at Thurman I (3) Be accessible for maintenance and any public interest issues raised by the and II Arroyos in Hatch, NM, Rio minimize operational costs. complaint or complainant’s filing Grande Canalization Project is This EA evaluates potential pursuant to the Commission’s Rules of available. An environmental impact environmental impacts of the No Action Practice and Procedure. statement will not be prepared unless Alternative and two alternatives. The FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa additional information which may affect Alternative A: No Action—Routine R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, this decision is brought to our attention Sediment Excavation does not call for U.S. International Trade Commission, within 30-days from the date of this any construction but would require 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC Notice. continued routine sediment excavation 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. The Public Comments: USIBWC will at the confluence of the arroyos and the public version of the complaint can be consider substantive comments from the Rio Grande. Alternative B: Mesh-Based accessed on the Commission’s public and stakeholders for 30 days after Sediment Traps proposes to construct Electronic Document Information the date of publication of this Notice of mesh and rebar sediment traps where System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov, Availability in the Federal Register. each mesh would trap progressively and will be available for inspection Please note all written and email smaller sediment particles. Alternative during official business hours (8:45 a.m. comments received during the comment C: Sediment Basins is the Preferred to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the period will become part of the public Alternative, and calls for the Secretary, U.S. International Trade record, including any personal construction of a sediment basin at each Commission, 500 E Street SW., information you may provide. Before arroyo with a concrete end wall. Permits Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) including your address, phone number, would be required from the U.S. Army 205–2000. email address, or other personal Corps of Engineers for dredge and fill of General information concerning the identifying information in your Waters of the United States, per the Commission may also be obtained by comment, you should be aware that Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401. accessing its Internet server at United your entire comment—including your Potential impacts on natural, cultural, States International Trade Commission personal identifying information—may and other resources were evaluated. (USITC) at https://www.usitc.gov. The be made publicly available at any time. Mitigation has been proposed for public record for this investigation may While you can ask us in your comment permits for construction. A Finding of be viewed on the Commission’s

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48254 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

Electronic Document Information desist order within a commercially government employees and contract System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. reasonable time; and personnel,2 solely for cybersecurity Hearing-impaired persons are advised (v) explain how the requested purposes. All nonconfidential written that information on this matter can be remedial orders would impact United submissions will be available for public obtained by contacting the States consumers. inspection at the Office of the Secretary Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) Written submissions must be filed no and on EDIS.3 205–1810. later than by close of business, eight This action is taken under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The calendar days after the date of authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act Commission has received a complaint, a publication of this notice in the Federal of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), motion for temporary relief, and a Register. There will be further and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the opportunities for comment on the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Commission’s Rules of Practice and public interest after the issuance of any Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)). final initial determination in this Procedure filed on behalf of Aqua By order of the Commission. Connect, Inc. on October 11, 2017. The investigation. Persons filing written submissions Issued: October 11, 2017. complaint alleges violations of section must file the original document Lisa R. Barton, 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. electronically on or before the deadlines Secretary to the Commission. 1337) in the importation into the United stated above and submit 8 true paper [FR Doc. 2017–22395 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] States, the sale for importation, and the copies to the Office of the Secretary by BILLING CODE 7020–02–P sale within the United States after noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) importation of certain network personal of the Commission’s Rules of Practice computers and mobile devices. The and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). complaint names as respondent Apple, JOINT BOARD FOR THE Submissions should refer to the docket Inc. of Cupertino, CA. The complainant ENROLLMENT OF ACTUARIES number (‘‘Docket No. 3265’’) in a requests that the Commission issue a prominent place on the cover page and/ Meeting of the Advisory Committee; limited exclusion order, a cease and or the first page. (See Handbook for Meeting desist order and impose a bond upon Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic respondent’s alleged infringing articles AGENCY: Joint Board for the Enrollment Filing Procedures).1 Persons with during the 60-day Presidential review of Actuaries. questions regarding filing should period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j). contact the Secretary (202–205–2000). ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Proposed respondent, other interested Any person desiring to submit a Committee meeting. parties, and members of the public are document to the Commission in invited to file comments, not to exceed SUMMARY: The Joint Board for the confidence must request confidential five (5) pages in length, inclusive of Enrollment of Actuaries gives notice of treatment. All such requests should be attachments, on any public interest a closed meeting of the Advisory directed to the Secretary to the issues raised by the complaint or Committee on Actuarial Examinations. Commission and must include a full § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should DATES: The meeting will be held on statement of the reasons why the address whether issuance of the relief November 3, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to Commission should grant such specifically requested by the 5:00 p.m. treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents complainant in this investigation would for which confidential treatment by the ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at affect the public health and welfare in Commission is properly sought will be Conduent, 420 Lexington Avenue, New the United States, competitive treated accordingly. All such requests York, NY 10170. conditions in the United States should be directed to the Secretary to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: economy, the production of like or the Commission and must include a full Elizabeth Van Osten, Designated Federal directly competitive articles in the statement of the reasons why the Officer, Advisory Committee on United States, or United States Commission should grant such Actuarial Examinations, at 703–414– consumers. treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents 2163. In particular, the Commission is for which confidential treatment by the interested in comments that: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Commission is properly sought will be (i) Explain how the articles Notice is hereby given that the treated accordingly. All information, potentially subject to the requested Advisory Committee on Actuarial including confidential business remedial orders are used in the United Examinations will meet at Conduent, information and documents for which States; 420 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY confidential treatment is properly (ii) identify any public health, safety, 10170, on November 3, 2017, from 8:30 sought, submitted to the Commission for or welfare concerns in the United States a.m. to 5:00 p.m. purposes of this Investigation may be relating to the requested remedial The purpose of the meeting is to disclosed to and used: (i) By the orders; discuss topics and questions that may Commission, its employees and Offices, (iii) identify like or directly be recommended for inclusion on future and contract personnel (a) for competitive articles that complainant, Joint Board examinations in actuarial developing or maintaining the records its licensees, or third parties make in the mathematics, pension law and of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in United States which could replace the methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C. internal investigations, audits, reviews, subject articles if they were to be 1242(a)(1)(B). and evaluations relating to the excluded; A determination has been made as programs, personnel, and operations of (iv) indicate whether complainant, required by section 10(d) of the Federal the Commission including under 5 complainant’s licensees, and/or third Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. party suppliers have the capacity to 2 All contract personnel will sign appropriate replace the volume of articles 1 Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures: nondisclosure agreements. potentially subject to the requested https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_ 3 Electronic Document Information System exclusion order and/or a cease and filing_procedures.pdf. (EDIS): https://edis.usitc.gov.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48255

that the subject of the meeting falls filed for the purpose of extending the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE within the exception to the open Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of meeting requirement set forth in Title 5 antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages Antitrust Division U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public under specified circumstances. Notice Pursuant to the National interest requires that such meeting be Specifically, Bosch Security Systems, closed to public participation. Cooperative Research and Production Inc., Fairport, NY; Juniper Networks, Act of 1993—PXI Systems Alliance, Dated: October 10, 2017. Sunnyvale, CA; Korean Broadcast Inc. David M. Ziegler, System, Seoul, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; Chair, Joint Board for the Enrollment of Telstra, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA; Notice is hereby given that, on Actuaries. Xytech Systems, Chatsworth, CA; and September 26, 2017, pursuant to Section [FR Doc. 2017–22479 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Yamaha Corporation, Hamamatsu, 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, BILLING CODE 4830–01–P JAPAN, have been added as parties to this venture. 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. (‘‘PXI Systems’’) Also, Digital Media Centre B.V., has filed written notifications JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE Amsterdam, NETHERLANDS; IBM, simultaneously with the Attorney UNITED STATES Somers, NY; MNC Software, Inc., San General and the Federal Trade Diego, CA; Real-Time Innovations (RTI), Hearings of the Judicial Conference Commission disclosing changes in its Sunnyvale, CA; SVT, Stockholm, Advisory Committee on the Federal membership. The notifications were Rules of Appellate Procedure SWEDEN; TransMedia Dynamics Ltd., filed for the purpose of extending the Aylesbury, UNITED KINGDOM; Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of AGENCY: Advisory Committee on the Laurence Cook (individual member), antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Portland, OR; Gabor Fogacs (individual under specified circumstances. Judicial Conference of the United States. member), Budapest, HUNGARY; Specifically, Advanced Testing ACTION: Notice of cancellation of public Laurance Hughes (individual member), Technologies, Inc., Hauppauge, NY; and hearing. Sydney, AUSTRALIA; Douglas McGee CERN, Geneva, SWITZERLAND, have (individual member), Columbus, OH; been added as parties to this venture. SUMMARY: The following public hearing Christiano Nuernberg (individual No other changes have been made in on proposed amendments to the Federal either the membership or planned member), Cambridge, MA; and Joseph Rules of Appellate Procedure has been activity of the group research project. Spillman (individual member), canceled: Appellate Rules Hearing on Membership in this group research Temecula, CA, have withdrawn as November 9, 2017, in Washington, DC. project remains open, and PXI Systems parties to this venture. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: intends to file additional written Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Rules No other changes have been made in notifications disclosing all changes in Committee Secretary, Rules Committee either the membership or planned membership. Staff, Administrative Office of the activity of the group research project. On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems United States Courts, Washington, DC Membership in this group research filed its original notification pursuant to 20544, telephone (202) 502–1820. project remains open, and Advanced Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Media Workflow Association, Inc. Federal Register pursuant to Section Announcement for this hearing was intends to file additional written 6(b) of the Act on March 8, 2001 (66 FR previously published in 82 FR 37610. notifications disclosing all changes in membership. 13971). Dated: October 12, 2017. The last notification was filed with Rebecca A. Womeldorf, On March 28, 2000, Advanced Media the Department on July 3, 2017. A Rules Committee Secretary. Workflow Association, Inc. filed its notice was published in the Federal [FR Doc. 2017–22480 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] original notification pursuant to Section Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the BILLING CODE 2210–55–P 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Act on July 25, 2017 (82 FR 34550). Justice published a notice in the Federal Patricia A. Brink, Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 29, 2000 (65 FR 40127). Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Division. The last notification was filed with [FR Doc. 2017–22439 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Antitrust Division the Department on June 26, 2017. A BILLING CODE P notice was published in the Federal Notice Pursuant to the National Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Cooperative Research and Production DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Act of 1993—Advanced Media Act on July 20, 2017 (82 FR 33516). Workflow Association, Inc. Patricia A. Brink, Antitrust Division Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Notice is hereby given that, on United States v. Showa Denko K.K., September 18, 2017, pursuant to Section Division. [FR Doc. 2017–22440 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] SGL Carbon SE, and SGL GE Carbon 6(a) of the National Cooperative Holding LLC (USA); Proposed Final BILLING CODE P Research and Production Act of 1993, Judgment and Competitive Impact 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Statement Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. has filed written notifications Notice is hereby given pursuant to the simultaneously with the Attorney Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, General and the Federal Trade 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that a proposed Commission disclosing changes in its Final Judgment, Hold Separate membership. The notifications were Stipulation and Order, and Competitive

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48256 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

Impact Statement have been filed with relief. The United States alleges as Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 25, and 28 U.S.C. the United States District Court for the follows: 1331, 1337(a), and 1345. District of Columbia in United States of 6. Defendants have consented to I. NATURE OF THE ACTION America v. Showa Denko K.K., SGL venue and personal jurisdiction in this Carbon SE, and SGL GE Carbon Holding 1. On October 20, 2016, SDK district. This court has personal LLC (USA), Civil Action No. 1:17–cv– announced an agreement to acquire SGL jurisdiction over each defendant and 1992. On September 27, 2017, the Carbon’s global graphite electrode venue is proper in this district under United States filed a Complaint alleging business for approximately $264.5 Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. that Showa Denko K.K.’s (‘‘SDK’’) million. SDK and SGL Carbon 22, and 28 U.S.C. 1391(c). proposed acquisition of the global manufacture and sell large ultra-high III. DEFENDANTS AND THE graphite electrodes business of SGL power (‘‘UHP’’) graphite electrodes, a PROPOSED ACQUISITION Carbon SE (‘‘SGL’’) would violate critical input needed to melt scrap steel Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. in electric arc furnaces (‘‘EAFs’’) at steel 7. Defendant SDK is a corporation 18. The proposed Final Judgment, filed mills. SDK and SGL Carbon are two of organized under the laws of Japan and at the same time as the Complaint, the three leading suppliers of large UHP headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. SDK is requires SDK to divest SGL’s entire U.S. graphite electrodes utilized in EAFs in one of Japan’s leading chemical graphite electrodes business. the United States and have a combined companies and graphite electrodes are a Copies of the Complaint, proposed market share of approximately 56 primary line of business. SDK, which Final Judgment, and Competitive Impact percent. operates in approximately 14 countries, Statement are available for inspection 2. The proposed acquisition would had revenues of approximately $5.8 on the Antitrust Division’s Web site at eliminate vigorous head-to-head billion in 2016. SDK’s worldwide http://www.justice.gov/atr and at the competition between SDK and SGL revenues from sales of graphite Office of the Clerk of the United States Carbon for the business of U.S. EAF electrodes in 2016 were $248 million, District Court for the District of customers. For a significant number of and its U.S. revenues from sales of Columbia. Copies of these materials may U.S. EAF steel mills, SDK and SGL graphite electrodes in 2016 were be obtained from the Antitrust Division Carbon are two of the top suppliers of approximately $85 million. upon request and payment of the large UHP graphite electrodes, and the 8. Defendant SGL Carbon is a copying fee set by Department of Justice competition between SDK and SGL publicly-owned company organized regulations. Carbon has resulted in lower prices, under the laws of Germany and Public comment is invited within 60 higher quality electrodes, and better headquartered in Wiesbaden, Germany. days of the date of this notice. Such service. Notably, SDK and SGL Carbon SGL Carbon is a leading manufacturer of comments, including the name of the are two of only three firms that operate carbon-based products, ranging from submitter, and responses thereto, will be manufacturing facilities in North carbon and graphite products to carbon posted on the Antitrust Division’s America in an industry where a local fibers and composites, and its website, filed with the Court, and, under manufacturing presence is important to operations extend to 34 countries. In certain circumstances, published in the customers to ensure reliability of supply 2016, SGL Carbon had global revenues Federal Register. Comments should be at an affordable cost. The proposed of approximately $885 million. SGL directed to Maribeth Petrizzi, Chief, acquisition likely would give SDK the Carbon’s worldwide revenues from sales Litigation II Section, Antitrust Division, ability to raise prices or decrease the of graphite electrodes in 2016 were Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street quality of delivery and service provided approximately $326.6 million, and its NW., Suite 8700, Washington, DC 20530 to these customers. U.S. revenues from sales of graphite (telephone: 202–307–0924). 3. As a result, the proposed electrodes in 2016 were approximately $58.6 million. Patricia A. Brink, acquisition likely would substantially 9. Defendant SGL GE Carbon Holding Director of Civil Enforcement. lessen competition in the manufacture and sale of large UHP graphite LLC (USA) (‘‘SGL US’’), an indirect, United States District Court for the electrodes sold to EAF steel mills in the wholly-owned subsidiary of SGL District of Columbia United States in violation of Section 7 Carbon, is a Delaware limited liability United States of America, U.S. Department of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, and company headquartered in Charlotte, of Justice, Antitrust Division, 450 Fifth Street should be enjoined. North Carolina. SGL US is the sole NW., Suite 8700, Washington, DC 20530, shareholder of SGL GE Carbon LLC, Plaintiff, v. Showa Denko K.K., 13–9 Shiba II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE which owns the assets of SGL US’s Daimon 1-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105– 4. The United States brings this action operations in the United States, 8518, Japan, SGL Carbon SE, pursuant to Section 15 of the Clayton including SGL’s Hickman and Ozark Soehnleinstrasse 8, 65201 Weisbaden, Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 25, to graphite electrode plants. Germany, and SGL GE Carbon Holding LLC prevent and restrain defendants from 10. Pursuant to an October 20, 2016 (USA), 10130 Perimeter Parkway, Suite 500, Sale and Purchase Agreement, SDK Charlotte, NC 28216, Defendants. violating Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. agreed to acquire all of the corporate Case No: 1:17–cv–01992 entities comprising SGL Carbon’s Judge: James E. Boasberg 5. Defendants manufacture and sell large UHP graphite electrodes graphite electrodes global operations, COMPLAINT throughout the United States. They are including SGL US, for approximately The United States of America, acting engaged in a regular, continuous, and $264.5 million. under the direction of the Attorney substantial flow of interstate commerce, IV. TRADE AND COMMERCE General of the United States, brings this and their activities in the manufacture Industry Background civil antitrust action to enjoin Showa and sale of large UHP graphite A. Denko K.K.’s (‘‘SDK’’) proposed electrodes have a substantial effect upon 11. Graphite electrodes are used as acquisition of SGL Carbon SE’s (‘‘SGL interstate commerce. The Court has conductors of electricity to generate Carbon’’) global graphite electrode subject matter jurisdiction over this sufficient heat to melt scrap metal in business and to obtain other equitable action pursuant to Section 15 of the EAFs or to refine steel in ladle

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48257

metallurgical furnaces. In a typical EAF their electrodes, the timeliness of manufacture and sale of large UHP operation, a series of electrodes (usually electrode delivery, the supplier’s graphite electrodes sold to EAF steel three) are attached to a crane-like device commercial business practices, and mills is a line of commerce and relevant with connecting pins to form columns ongoing technical service capabilities. product market within the meaning of that are suspended over a large bucket Many customers prefer qualified Section 7 of the Clayton Act. of scrap steel. Large amounts of suppliers with domestic manufacturing C. The Relevant Geographic Market electricity are sent through the capability (which helps ensure reliable electrodes and the resulting heat melts on-time delivery) and a robust local 19. Individual U.S. EAF customers the scrap into liquid. service operation (which enables solicit bids from large UHP graphite 12. Graphite electrodes are consumed prompt deployment of established electrode producers and these producers as they are used and continually need technical expertise and support). EAF develop individualized bids based on to be replaced with fresh electrodes. customers typically avoid suppliers that each U.S. EAF customer Request for Electrodes are designed in a range of develop a reputation for graphite Proposal (‘‘RFP’’). This bidding process sizes to fit the characteristics of each electrode breakages even when they enables large UHP graphite electrode furnace and are suited to the electrical offer electrodes at steep discounts producers to engage in ‘‘price properties of a specific EAF. In because the costs of temporarily discrimination,’’ i.e., to charge different particular, the opening through which shutting down a furnace to remove prices to different EAF customers. A electrodes are inserted into the furnace broken electrode pieces can be small but significant increase in the is only wide enough to admit electrodes significantly greater than the potential prices of large UHP graphite electrodes of a certain diameter. short-term savings from cheaper can therefore be targeted to customers in 13. Graphite electrodes are electrodes. the United States, and would not cause subdivided into three grades: low 16. Large UHP graphite electrodes are a sufficient number of these customers power, high power, and UHP, where priced by the pound, and quantities are to buy electrodes from customers grade refers to the level of current- described using metric tons. A typical outside the United States so as to make carrying capacity of the graphite U.S. EAF furnace operating at an such a price increase unprofitable. Since electrode. EAFs typically utilize large average utilization rate may spend up to the availability of domestic technical UHP graphite electrodes that are $4 million per year on electrodes for services is important to U.S. customers, between 18 and 32 inches in diameter that furnace. Electrodes usually are these customers would not buy and are characterized by an ability to ordered in advance and are expected to electrodes from customers outside the withstand high currents and significant be shipped in a timely manner by truck United States. Accordingly, the United thermal stasis. Given that they are the to each steel mill, where they are stored States is a relevant geographic market most sophisticated products used for the until used, although some customers within the meaning of Section 7 of the most demanding steelmaking have consignment arrangements with Clayton Act. applications, large UHP graphite manufacturers that keep inventories of D. Anticompetitive Effects electrodes are produced by a smaller graphite electrodes in the number of manufacturers than low manufacturers’ own warehouses. 20. SDK and SGL Carbon have market power and high power graphite shares of approximately 35 and 21 The Relevant Product Market electrodes. B. percent, respectively, in the relevant 14. EAF steel mills, which are part of 17. There are no functional substitutes market. The third major seller of large a vital U.S. industry involved in the for large UHP graphite electrodes for UHP graphite electrodes to U.S. EAF manufacture and sale of steel and steel U.S. EAF steel mills. Without large UHP customers has a market share of 22 products used for many applications, graphite electrodes, an EAF steel mill percent. The remaining competitors represent an average of 45 percent of all cannot be operated and must be idled. combined account for only 22 percent of domestic steel production. Large UHP Moreover, each EAF steel mill requires the market and are comprised of firms graphite electrodes constitute a material large UHP graphite electrodes of a based in Japan, India, Russia, and operational input cost to these EAF steel specific diameter; a customer cannot China. mills that affects their ability to compete substitute a different size graphite 21. As articulated in the Horizontal vigorously with steel made in blast electrode than that for which its EAF is Merger Guidelines issued by the furnaces both domestically and outfitted because the electrode would Department of Justice and the Federal internationally. Over the past three not fit and could not handle the level of Trade Commission (the ‘‘Horizontal years, U.S. EAF steel mills collectively current. Thus, it is likely that every Merger Guidelines’’), the Herfindahl- averaged $262 million in large UHP individual size of large UHP graphite Hirschman Index (‘‘HHI’’), discussed in graphite electrode purchases, and that electrodes is a separate relevant product Appendix A, is a widely-used measure number is expected to increase in the market. Because market participation by of market concentration. Market coming years due to a recent increase in manufacturers is similar, and potential concentration is often a useful indicator steel demand and a decrease in the anticompetitive effects likely are similar of the level of competitive vigor in a volume of steel imported into the across the entire range of sizes, all large market and the likely competitive United States. UHP graphite electrodes can be grouped effects of a merger. The more 15. Large UHP graphite electrodes are together in a single market for purposes concentrated a market, the more likely purchased through an annual bid of analysis. it is that a transaction would result in process where manufacturers are invited 18. A small but significant increase in a meaningful reduction in competition to bid for an entire year or partial year’s the price of large UHP graphite and harm consumers. Markets in which supply. Manufacturers are qualified electrodes sold to EAF steel mills would the HHI exceeds 2,500 points are through a trialing process where not cause customers of such electrodes considered highly concentrated, and graphite electrodes are evaluated based to substitute a different kind of transactions that result in highly on both commercial risks and the total electrode or any other product, or to concentrated markets and increase the cost per ton of melted steel. EAF reduce purchases of such electrodes in HHI by more than 200 points are customers evaluate electrode suppliers volumes sufficient to make such a price presumed to be likely to enhance market based on the reliability and efficiency of increase unprofitable. Accordingly, the power.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48258 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

22. In the market for the manufacture 26. For all of these reasons, the sale of large UHP graphite electrodes and sale of large UHP graphite proposed transaction likely would sold to U.S. EAF steel mills in violation electrodes used in U.S. EAF steel mills, substantially lessen competition in the of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 the pre-merger HHI is 2230 and the manufacture and sale of large UHP U.S.C. 18. post-merger HHI is 3693, representing graphite electrodes sold to U.S. EAF 31. Unless enjoined, the transaction an increase in the HHI of 1,463. Under steel mills and lead to higher prices and likely would have the following the Horizontal Merger Guidelines, the decreased quality of delivery and anticompetitive effects, among others: proposed acquisition will result in a service. a. competition between SDK and SGL highly concentrated market and is thus E. Difficulty of Entry Carbon in the market for the presumed likely to enhance market manufacture and sale of large UHP power. 27. Entry of additional competitors graphite electrodes sold to U.S. EAF 23. In addition to increasing into the manufacture and sale of large steel mills would be eliminated; and concentration, SDK’s acquisition of SGL UHP graphite electrodes sold to U.S. b. prices for large UHP graphite Carbon’s global graphite electrode EAF steel mills is unlikely to be timely, electrodes sold to U.S. EAF steel mills business would eliminate head-to-head likely, or sufficient to prevent the harm likely would be less favorable, and competition between SDK and SGL to competition caused by the quality of delivery and service likely Carbon to supply large UHP graphite elimination of SGL Carbon as an would decline. electrodes to U.S. EAF steel mills. SDK independent supplier. Over the past two VI. REQUESTED RELIEF and SGL Carbon both have a strong decades, several firms have attempted to reputation for high-quality graphite make a meaningful entry into the U.S. 32. The United States requests that electrodes, a robust local manufacturing market, notably from India and China, this Court: but have not been able to make presence, an established delivery a. adjudge and decree SDK’s proposed substantial sales or become preferred infrastructure, and superior technical acquisition of SGL Carbon’s global suppliers. service capabilities and support, graphite electrode business to be 28. Firms attempting to enter into the unlawful and in violation of Section 7 including proprietary software manufacture and sale of large UHP of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18; specifically designed to assist steel mills graphite electrodes sold to U.S. EAF b. preliminarily and permanently in the installation and efficient steel mills face significant entry barriers enjoin and restrain defendants and all maintenance of electrodes within their in terms of cost and time. First, a new persons acting on their behalf from EAFs. SDK and SGL Carbon compete entrant into this business must be able consummating the proposed acquisition directly on price, quality, delivery, and to construct a manufacturing facility, or from entering into or carrying out any technical service, and the competition which entails substantial time and contract, agreement, plan, or between them has directly benefitted expense. Second, such an entrant must understanding, the effect of which U.S. EAF customers. have the technical capabilities necessary would be to combine SGL Carbon’s 24. Only one other significant to design and manufacture high quality global graphite electrode business with competitor besides SDK and SGL graphite electrodes that meet customer the operations of SDK; Carbon sells large UHP graphite requirements for performance and c. award the United States its costs of electrodes in the U.S. and has a similar reliability. Third, both new entrants and this action; and reputation for quality, shipment and graphite electrode manufacturers who d. award the United States such other delivery logistics, and local technical do not currently participate in the U.S. and further relief as the Court deems service. The transaction is likely to lead market must typically demonstrate just and proper. to higher prices because, for most competence to EAF customers in the customers, it will reduce the number of U.S. through a lengthy qualification and Respectfully submitted, significant bidders from three to two. trial period during which the supplier FOR PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES OF 25. Although other firms have must establish a strong performance AMERICA participated in the U.S. market with record and avoid product breakages that lllllllllllllllllllll limited sales, none of these firms can cause EAF outages. Fourth, an Andrew M. Finch, individually or collectively are entrant must have a strong local Acting Assistant Attorney General. positioned to constrain a unilateral infrastructure in place to assure lllllllllllllllllllll exercise of market power by SDK after customers of reliable delivery and the Bernard A. Nigro, Jr., the acquisition. The most significant of prompt deployment of qualified Deputy Assistant Attorney General. these firms, based in Japan, has a long expertise, including technical services lllllllllllllllllllll history of sales of large UHP graphite associated with installation and Patricia A. Brink, electrodes in the United States, a good maintenance of the electrodes. Director of Civil Enforcement. reputation for quality, and an enduring 29. As a result of these barriers, entry lllllllllllllllllllll small presence in the market. However, into the market for the manufacture and it and the remaining small firms that Maribeth Petrizzi, sale of large UHP graphite electrodes Chief, Litigation II Section. have made sales to U.S. EAF steel mills sold to U.S. EAF steel mills would not D.C. Bar # 435204 are disadvantaged by their lack of be timely, likely, or sufficient to defeat lllllllllllllllllllll domestic manufacturing capability, the substantial lessening of competition limited delivery and technical service that likely would result from SDK’s David E. Altschuler, Assistant Chief, Litigation II Section. infrastructure, and high costs. Some acquisition of SGL Carbon’s global additionally are disadvantaged because graphite electrode business. D.C. Bar # 983023 of lower product quality. The response lllllllllllllllllllll of other participants in the relevant V. VIOLATION ALLEGED Bashiri Wilson,* market therefore would not be sufficient 30. The acquisition of SGL Carbon’s James K. Foster to constrain a unilateral exercise of global graphite electrode business by Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, market power by SDK after the SDK likely would substantially lessen Antitrust Division, Litigation II Section, 450 acquisition. competition for the manufacture and Fifth Street NW., Suite 8700, Washington, DC

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48259

20530, Tel.: (202) 514–8362, Fax: (202) 514– acquisition. The Complaint alleges that products, ranging from carbon and 9033, Email: [email protected]. the likely effect of this acquisition graphite products to carbon fibers and *Attorney of Record would be to lessen competition composites, with operations in 34 Dated: September 27, 2017 substantially for the manufacture and countries. SGL Carbon is a leading Appendix A sale of large ultra-high power (‘‘UHP’’) global producer of graphite electrodes, graphite electrodes sold to electric arc with worldwide graphite electrode DEFINITION OF HHI furnace (EAF) steel mills in the United revenues of approximately $326.6 The term ‘‘HHI’’ means the Herfindahl- States in violation of Section 7 of the million in 2016, including Hirschman Index, a commonly accepted Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. This loss of approximately $58.6 million from sales measure of market concentration. The HHI is competition likely would give SDK the of graphite electrodes in the United calculated by squaring the market share of ability and incentive to increase prices States. each firm competing in the market and then or decrease the quality of delivery and SGL US, an indirect, wholly-owned summing the resulting numbers. For subsidiary of SGL Carbon, is a Delaware example, for a market consisting of four firms service provided to U.S. EAF customers. with shares of 30, 30, 20, and 20 percent, the At the same time the Complaint was limited liability company headquartered HHI is 2,600 (302 + 302 + 202 + 202 = 2,600). filed, the United States also filed a Hold in Charlotte, North Carolina. SGL US is The HHI takes into account the relative size Separate Stipulation and Order (‘‘Hold the sole shareholder of SGL GE Carbon distribution of the firms in a market. It Separate’’) and proposed Final LLC, which owns the assets of SGL US’s approaches zero when a market is occupied Judgment, which are designed to operations in the United States, by a large number of firms of relatively equal eliminate the anticompetitive effects of including SGL Carbon’s Hickman and size and reaches a maximum of 10,000 points the acquisition. Under the proposed Ozark graphite electrode plants. when it is controlled by a single firm. The Pursuant to an agreement dated HHI increases both as the number of firms in Final Judgment, which is explained more fully below, defendants are October 20, 2016, SDK intends to the market decreases and as the disparity in acquire SGL Carbon’s global graphite size between those firms increases. required to divest SGL Carbon’s entire Markets in which the HHI is between 1,500 U.S. graphite electrodes business (the electrode operations, including SGL US, and 2,500 points are considered to be ‘‘Divestiture Assets’’) to Tokai Carbon for approximately $264.5 million. The moderately concentrated and markets in Co., Ltd. (‘‘Tokai’’) or to an alternate proposed acquisition, as initially agreed which the HHI is in excess of 2,500 points Acquirer approved by the United States. to by defendants, would lessen are considered to be highly concentrated. See Under the terms of the Hold Separate, competition substantially in the Horizontal Merger Guidelines § 5.3 (issued by defendants will take certain steps to manufacture and sale of large UHP the U.S. Department of Justice and the graphite electrodes to U.S. EAF Federal Trade Commission on August 19, ensure that the Divestiture Assets are operated as a competitive, independent, customers. This acquisition is the 2010). Transactions that increase the HHI by subject of the Complaint and proposed more than 200 points in highly concentrated economically viable, and ongoing markets will be presumed likely to enhance business concern, that the Divestiture Final Judgment filed today by the market power. Id. Assets will remain independent and United States. United States District Court for the uninfluenced by the consummation of B. Graphite Electrode Industry District Of Columbia the acquisition, and that competition is Overview maintained during the pendency of the United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Graphite electrodes are used to ordered divestiture. conduct electricity to generate sufficient Showa Denko K.K., SGL Carbon SE, and SGL The United States and defendants GE Carbon Holding LLC (USA), Defendants. heat to melt scrap metal in EAFs or to have stipulated that the proposed Final refine steel in ladle metallurgical Case No: 1:17–cv–01992 Judgment may be entered after Judge: James E. Boasberg furnaces. In a typical EAF operation, a compliance with the APPA. Entry of the series of electrodes are attached to a COMPETITIVE IMPACT proposed Final Judgment would steel arm with connecting pins to form STATEMENT terminate this action, except that the columns that are suspended over a large Court would retain jurisdiction to Plaintiff United States of America bucket of scrap steel. Large amounts of construe, modify, or enforce the (‘‘United States’’), pursuant to Section electricity are sent through the provisions of the proposed Final 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and electrodes and the resulting heat melts Judgment and to punish violations Penalties Act (‘‘APPA’’ or ‘‘Tunney the scrap into liquid. Graphite thereof. Act’’), 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), files this electrodes are consumed as they are Competitive Impact Statement relating II. DESCRIPTION OF THE EVENTS used and continually need to be to the proposed Final Judgment GIVING RISE TO THE ALLEGED replaced with fresh electrodes. submitted for entry in this civil antitrust VIOLATION Electrodes are designed in a range of proceeding. sizes to fit the characteristics of each A. The Defendants and the Transaction furnace and are suited to the electrical I. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE SDK, a Japanese corporation properties of a specific EAF. PROCEEDING headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, is one of Graphite electrodes are subdivided On October 20, 2016, defendants Japan’s leading chemical companies, into three grades based on their level of Showa Denko K.K. (‘‘SDK’’), SGL and had global sales of approximately current-carrying capacity: low power, Carbon SE (‘‘SGL Carbon’’), and SGL GE $5.8 billion in 2016. SDK is one of the high power, and UHP. EAFs typically Carbon Holding LLC (USA) (‘‘SGL US’’) world’s largest providers of graphite utilize UHP graphite electrodes that are entered into an agreement pursuant to electrodes, with global sales of $248 between 18 and 32 inches in diameter which SDK agreed to acquire SGL million in 2016, including and are characterized by an ability to Carbon’s global graphite electrode approximately $85 million in U.S. withstand high currents. Large UHP business for approximately $264.5 revenues from graphite electrodes sales. graphite electrodes are the most million. SGL Carbon is a German-based sophisticated products used for the most The United States filed a civil corporation headquartered in demanding steelmaking applications antitrust Complaint on September 27, Wiesbaden, Germany. SGL Carbon is a and, as a result, are produced by a 2017 seeking to enjoin the proposed leading manufacturer of carbon-based smaller number of manufacturers than

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48260 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

low power or high power graphite together in a single market for purposes the Department of Justice and the electrodes. of analysis. The Complaint alleges that Federal Trade Commission (the EAF steel mills, which are a part of a hypothetical profit-maximizing ‘‘Horizontal Merger Guidelines’’), the a vital U.S. industry involved in the monopolist of large UHP graphite pre-merger HHI is 2230 and the post- manufacture and sale of steel and steel electrodes likely would impose a small merger HHI is 3693, representing an products used for many applications, but significant non-transitory increase increase in the HHI of 1,463. As represent an average of 45 percent of all in price (‘‘SSNIP’’) that would not be discussed in the Horizontal Merger domestic steel production. Over the past defeated by substitution to a different Guidelines and alleged in the three years, U.S. EAF steel mills kind of electrode or any other product, Complaint, these HHIs indicate that the collectively averaged $262 million in or result in a reduction in purchases of proposed acquisition will result in a large UHP graphite electrode purchases, such electrodes in volumes sufficient to highly concentrated market and is and that number is expected to increase make such a price increase unprofitable. presumed likely to enhance market in the coming years due to a recent Accordingly, the manufacture and sale power. increase in steel demand and a decrease of large UHP graphite electrodes sold to In addition to increasing in the volume of steel imported into the U.S. EAF steel mills is a line of concentration, the Complaint alleges United States. commerce and relevant market within that SDK’s acquisition of SGL Carbon’s Large UHP graphite electrodes are the meaning of Section 7 of the Clayton global graphite electrode business purchased through an annual bid Act. would eliminate head-to-head process where manufacturers are invited As alleged in the Complaint, the competition between SDK and SGL to bid for an entire year or partial year’s United States is the relevant geographic Carbon in the relevant market. Both supply. EAF customers evaluate market for the manufacture and sale of SDK and SGL Carbon have a strong electrode suppliers based on the large UHP graphite electrodes sold to reputation for high-quality graphite reliability and efficiency of their U.S. EAF steel mills. In the United electrodes, a robust local manufacturing electrodes, the timeliness of electrode States, individual EAF customers solicit presence, an established delivery delivery, the supplier’s commercial bids from producers of large UHP infrastructure, and superior technical business practices, and ongoing graphite electrodes, and these producers service capabilities and support, technical service capabilities. Many U.S. develop individualized bids based on including proprietary software customers prefer suppliers that have a each customer’s Request for Proposal. specifically designed to assist steel mills domestic manufacturing capability and The bidding process enables large UHP in the installation and efficient a robust local service operation. Given graphite electrode producers to engage maintenance of electrodes within their the high costs of temporarily shutting in ‘‘price discrimination,’’ i.e., to charge EAFs. As alleged in the Complaint, SDK down a furnace to remove broken different prices to different EAF and SGL Carbon compete directly on electrode pieces, EAF customers customers. A small but significant price, quality, delivery, and technical typically avoid suppliers that develop a increase in the prices of large UHP service, and the competition between reputation for graphite electrode graphite electrodes can therefore be them has directly benefitted U.S. EAF breakages even if the supplier offers targeted to customers in the United customers. electrodes at steep discounts. Electrodes States without causing a sufficient The Complaint further alleges that the usually are ordered in advance and are number of these customers to use acquisition is likely to lead to higher expected to be shipped in a timely arbitrage to defeat the price increase, prices because there is only one other manner by truck to each steel mill, such as by buying electrodes from significant competitor with a where they are stored until used, customers outside the country so as to comparable reputation for product although some customers have make such a price increase unprofitable. quality, shipment and delivery logistics, consignment arrangements with Since the availability of domestic and local technical service, and manufacturers that keep inventories of technical services is important to U.S. therefore, for most customers, the graphite electrodes in the customers, these customers would not transaction will reduce the number of manufacturers’ own warehouses. buy electrodes from customers outside significant bidders from three to two. According to the Complaint, the C. Relevant Markets Affected by the the United States. Accordingly, the remaining market participants, each of Proposed Acquisition United States is a relevant geographic market within the meaning of Section 7 which has participated in the U.S. As alleged in the Complaint, there are of the Clayton Act. market with only limited sales, are not no functional substitutes for large UHP in a position to constrain a unilateral graphite electrodes for U.S. EAF steel D. Anticompetitive Effects exercise of market power by SDK after mills. Without large UHP graphite According to the Complaint, the the acquisition. The most significant of electrodes, EAF steel mills cannot be proposed acquisition would these firms, based in Japan, has a long operated and must be idled. Moreover, substantially increase concentration in history of sales of large UHP graphite customers cannot substitute a different the relevant market. SDK and SGL electrodes in the United States, a good size graphite electrode for use in an EAF Carbon have market shares of reputation for quality, and an enduring because the electrode size and current- approximately 35 and 21 percent, small presence in the market. However, carrying capacity is tailored to the respectively, in the relevant market; a this firm and the other remaining firms specific facility. For these reasons, the third major seller of large UHP graphite that have made limited sales to U.S. Complaint alleges that it is likely that electrodes to U.S. EAF customers has a EAF steel mills are each disadvantaged every individual size of large UHP market share of 22 percent. The by a lack of domestic manufacturing graphite electrodes is a separate relevant remaining competitors, which include capability, limited delivery and product market. Because market firms from Japan, India, Russia, and technical service infrastructure, and participation by manufacturers is China, have a combined 22 percent high costs. As a result, none of these similar, and potential anticompetitive share. Under the Herfindahl-Hirschman firms will be able to replace the effects likely are similar across the Index (‘‘HHI’’), a widely-used measure competition lost as a result of SDK’s entire range of sizes, all large UHP of market concentration utilized in the acquisition of SGL Carbon’s global graphite electrodes can be grouped Horizontal Merger Guidelines issued by graphite electrode business.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48261

E. Barriers to Entry shall cooperate with Tokai or any other period provided in the proposed Final prospective purchaser. Judgment, Paragraph V(A) provides that As alleged in the Complaint, entry of The proposed Final Judgment the Court will appoint a trustee selected additional competitors into the contains several provisions designed to by the United States to effect the manufacture and sale of large UHP facilitate the Acquirer’s immediate use divestitures. If a trustee is appointed, graphite electrodes sold to U.S. EAF of the Divestiture Assets. Paragraph IV(J) the proposed Final Judgment provides steel mills is unlikely to be timely, provides the Acquirer with the option to that defendants will pay all costs and likely, or sufficient to prevent the harm enter into a transition services expenses of the trustee. The trustee’s to competition caused by the agreement with SGL Carbon to obtain commission will be structured so as to elimination of SGL Carbon as an back office and information technology provide an incentive for the trustee independent supplier. New entrants services and support for the Divestiture based on the price obtained and the face significant entry barriers in terms of Assets for a period of up to one year. speed with which the divestiture is cost and time, including the substantial The United States, in its sole discretion, accomplished. After its appointment time and expense required to construct may approve one or more extensions of becomes effective, the trustee will file a manufacturing facility, the need to this agreement for a total of up to an monthly reports with the Court and the build technical capabilities sufficient to additional 12 months. Paragraph IV(K) United States setting forth its efforts to meet customer expectations, the provides the Acquirer with the option to accomplish the divestiture. At the end requirement that a new supplier enter into a supply contract with SDK of six months, if the divestiture has not demonstrate competence to U.S. for connecting pins sufficient to meet all been accomplished, the trustee and the customers through a lengthy or part of the Acquirer’s needs for a United States will make qualification and trialing period, and period of up to three years. Connecting recommendations to the Court, which the need to create a strong local pins are a component used to connect shall enter such orders as appropriate, infrastructure to ensure reliable and graphite electrodes in an EAF, and the in order to carry out the purpose of the prompt delivery and technical service. inclusion of a supply option in the trust, including extending the trust or III. EXPLANATION OF THE proposed Final Judgment will enable the term of the trustee’s appointment. Tokai or an alternate acquirer to devote PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT additional capacity to the manufacture IV. REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO POTENTIAL PRIVATE LITIGANTS The divestiture requirement of the of large UHP graphite electrodes if it so proposed Final Judgment will eliminate chooses. The proposed Final Judgment Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 the anticompetitive effects of the provides that the United States, in its U.S.C. 15, provides that any person who acquisition by establishing an sole discretion, may approve one or has been injured as a result of conduct independent and economically viable more extensions of this supply contract prohibited by the antitrust laws may competitor in the manufacture and sale for a total of up to an additional 12 bring suit in federal court to recover of large UHP graphite electrodes in the months. three times the damages the person has relevant market. The proposed Final Judgment also suffered, as well as costs and reasonable contains provisions intended to attorneys’ fees. Entry of the proposed Pursuant to the proposed Final facilitate the Acquirer’s efforts to hire Final Judgment will neither impair nor Judgment, defendants must divest SGL the employees involved in SGL Carbon’s assist the bringing of any private Carbon’s entire U.S. graphite electrodes U.S. graphite electrode business. antitrust damage action. Under the business, which is defined in Paragraph Paragraph IV(D) of the proposed Final provisions of Section 5(a) of the Clayton II(F) to include SGL Carbon’s Judgment requires defendants to Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(a), the proposed Final manufacturing facilities located in provide the Acquirer with organization Judgment has no prima facie effect in Ozark, Arkansas and Hickman, charts and information relating to these any subsequent private lawsuit that may Kentucky and all tangible and intangible employees and make them available for be brought against defendants. assets used in connection with SGL interviews, and provides that V. PROCEDURES AVAILABLE FOR Carbon’s U.S. graphite electrodes defendants will not interfere with any business. Among the assets to be MODIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED ® negotiations by the Acquirer to hire divested is SGL Carbon’s CEDIS EAF them. In addition, Paragraph IV(E) FINAL JUDGMENT performance monitoring system, provides that for employees who elect The United States and defendants proprietary software specifically employment with the Acquirer, have stipulated that the proposed Final designed to assist steel mills in the defendants, subject to exceptions, shall Judgment may be entered by the Court installation and efficient maintenance of waive all noncompete and after compliance with the provisions of electrodes within their EAFs. nondisclosure agreements, vest all the APPA, provided that the United Paragraph IV(A) of the proposed Final unvested pension and other equity States has not withdrawn its consent. Judgment provides that defendants must rights, and provide all benefits to which The APPA conditions entry upon the divest the Divestiture Assets to Tokai the employees would generally be Court’s determination that the proposed Carbon Co., Ltd., or to an alternative provided if transferred to a buyer of an Final Judgment is in the public interest. acquirer acceptable to the United States ongoing business. The paragraph further The APPA provides a period of at within 45 days of the Court’s signing of provides, that for a period of 12 months least sixty (60) days preceding the the Hold Separate. The Divestiture from the filing of the Complaint, effective date of the proposed Final Assets must be divested in such a way defendants may not solicit to hire, or Judgment within which any person may as to satisfy the United States, in its sole hire any such person who was hired by submit to the United States written discretion, that the operations can and the Acquirer, unless such individual is comments regarding the proposed Final will be operated by Tokai or an alternate terminated or laid off by the Acquirer or Judgment. Any person who wishes to purchaser as a viable, ongoing business the Acquirer agrees in writing that comment should do so within sixty (60) that can compete effectively in the defendants may solicit or hire that days of the date of publication of this relevant market. Defendants must take individual. Competitive Impact Statement in the all reasonable steps necessary to In the event that defendants do not Federal Register, or the last date of accomplish the divestiture quickly and accomplish the divestiture within the publication in a newspaper of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48262 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

summary of this Competitive Impact violations, provisions for enforcement and would best serve the public.’’ United Statement, whichever is later. All modification, duration of relief sought, States v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 462 comments received during this period anticipated effects of alternative remedies (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting United States v. will be considered by the United States actually considered, whether its terms are Bechtel Corp., 648 F.2d 660, 666 (9th ambiguous, and any other competitive Department of Justice, which remains considerations bearing upon the adequacy of Cir. 1981)); see also Microsoft, 56 F.3d free to withdraw its consent to the such judgment that the court deems at 1460–62; United States v. Alcoa, Inc., proposed Final Judgment at any time necessary to a determination of whether the 152 F. Supp. 2d 37, 40 (D.D.C. 2001); prior to the Court’s entry of judgment. consent judgment is in the public interest; InBev, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at The comments and the response of the and *3. Courts have held that: United States will be filed with the (B) the impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the relevant market or [t]he balancing of competing social and Court. In addition, comments will be political interests affected by a proposed posted on the Antitrust Division’s markets, upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the antitrust consent decree must be left, in the internet website and, under certain violations set forth in the complaint first instance, to the discretion of the circumstances, published in the Federal including consideration of the public benefit, Attorney General. The court’s role in Register. if any, to be derived from a determination of protecting the public interest is one of Written comments should be the issues at trial. insuring that the government has not submitted to: Maribeth Petrizzi, Chief, breached its duty to the public in consenting 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1)(A) & (B). In to the decree. The court is required to Litigation II Section, Antitrust Division, considering these statutory factors, the determine not whether a particular decree is United States Department of Justice, 450 Court’s inquiry is necessarily a limited the one that will best serve society, but Fifth Street NW., Washington, DC one as the government is entitled to whether the settlement is ‘‘within the reaches 20530. ‘‘broad discretion to settle with the of the public interest.’’ More elaborate The proposed Final Judgment requirements might undermine the defendant within the reaches of the provides that the Court retains effectiveness of antitrust enforcement by public interest.’’ United States v. jurisdiction over this action, and the consent decree. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1461 parties may apply to the Court for any (D.C. Cir. 1995); see generally United Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666 (emphasis order necessary or appropriate for the 2 States v. SBC Commc’ns, Inc., 489 F. added) (citations omitted). In modification, interpretation, or Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2007) (assessing determining whether a proposed enforcement of the Final Judgment. public interest standard under the settlement is in the public interest, a VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE Tunney Act); United States v. US district court ‘‘must accord deference to PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT Airways Group, Inc., 38 F. Supp. 3d 69, the government’s predictions about the 75 (D.D.C. 2014) (explaining that the efficacy of its remedies, and may not The United States considered, as an require that the remedies perfectly alternative to the proposed Final ‘‘court’s inquiry is limited’’ in Tunney Act settlements); United States v. InBev match the alleged violations.’’ SBC Judgment, a full trial on the merits Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17; see against defendants. The United States N.V./S.A., No. 08–1965 (JR), 2009–2 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 76,736, 2009 U.S. also US Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 75 could have continued the litigation and (noting that a court should not reject the sought preliminary and permanent Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *3, (D.D.C. Aug. 11, 2009) (noting that the court’s review proposed remedies because it believes injunctions against SDK’s acquisition of others are preferable); Microsoft, 56 F.3d SGL Carbon’s global graphite electrode of a consent judgment is limited and only inquires ‘‘into whether the at 1461 (noting the need for courts to be business. The United States is satisfied, ‘‘deferential to the government’s however, that the divestiture of assets government’s determination that the proposed remedies will cure the predictions as to the effect of the described in the proposed Final proposed remedies’’); United States v. Judgment will preserve competition for antitrust violations alleged in the complaint was reasonable, and whether Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 272 F. the manufacture and sale of large UHP Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2003) (noting that graphite electrodes sold to U.S. EAF the mechanism to enforce the final 1 the court should grant due respect to the steel mills. Thus, the proposed Final judgment are clear and manageable.’’). As the United States Court of Appeals United States’ prediction as to the effect Judgment would achieve all or of proposed remedies, its perception of substantially all of the relief the United for the District of Columbia Circuit has held, under the APPA a court considers, the market structure, and its views of States would have obtained through the nature of the case). litigation, but avoids the time, expense, among other things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the Courts have greater flexibility in and uncertainty of a full trial on the approving proposed consent decrees merits of the Complaint. specific allegations set forth in the government’s complaint, whether the than in crafting their own decrees VII. STANDARD OF REVIEW UNDER decree is sufficiently clear, whether following a finding of liability in a THE APPA FOR THE PROPOSED enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, litigated matter. ‘‘[A] proposed decree FINAL JUDGMENT and whether the decree may positively must be approved even if it falls short of the remedy the court would impose The Clayton Act, as amended by the harm third parties. See Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1458–62. With respect to the on its own, as long as it falls within the APPA, requires that proposed consent range of acceptability or is ‘within the judgments in antitrust cases brought by adequacy of the relief secured by the decree, a court may not ‘‘engage in an the United States be subject to a sixty- 2 Cf. BNS, 858 F.2d at 464 (holding that the day comment period, after which the unrestricted evaluation of what relief court’s ‘‘ultimate authority under the [APPA] is Court shall determine whether entry of limited to approving or disapproving the consent the proposed Final Judgment ‘‘is in the 1 The 2004 amendments substituted ‘‘shall’’ for decree’’); United States v. Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. ‘‘may’’ in directing relevant factors for court to 713, 716 (D. Mass. 1975) (noting that, in this way, public interest.’’ 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1). In consider and amended the list of factors to focus on the court is constrained to ‘‘look at the overall making that determination, the Court, in competitive considerations and to address picture not hypercritically, nor with a microscope, accordance with the statute as amended potentially ambiguous judgment terms. Compare 15 but with an artist’s reducing glass’’). See generally in 2004, is required to consider: U.S.C. 16(e) (2004) with 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1) (2006); Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (discussing whether ‘‘the see also SBC Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11 remedies [obtained in the decree are] so (A) the competitive impact of such (concluding that the 2004 amendments ‘‘effected inconsonant with the allegations charged as to fall judgment, including termination of alleged minimal changes’’ to Tunney Act review). outside of the ‘reaches of the public interest’ ’’).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48263

reaches of public interest.’ ’’ United intervene.’’ 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2); see also Case No: 1:17–cv–01992 States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F. US Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 76 Judge: James E. Boasberg Supp. 131, 151 (D.D.C. 1982) (citations (indicating that a court is not required PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT omitted) (quoting United States v. to hold an evidentiary hearing or to Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. 713, 716 (D. permit intervenors as part of its review WHEREAS, Plaintiff, United States of Mass. 1975)), aff’d sub nom. Maryland under the Tunney Act). The language America, filed its Complaint on v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983); wrote into the statute what Congress September 27, 2017, the United States see also US Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at intended when it enacted the Tunney and defendants, Showa Denko K.K., 76 (noting that room must be made for Act in 1974, as Senator Tunney SGL Carbon SE, and SGL GE Carbon the government to grant concessions in explained: ‘‘[t]he court is nowhere Holding LLC (USA), by their respective the negotiation process for settlements) compelled to go to trial or to engage in attorneys, have consented to the entry of (citing Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461); extended proceedings which might have this Final Judgment without trial or United States v. Alcan Aluminum Ltd., the effect of vitiating the benefits of adjudication of any issue of fact or law, 605 F. Supp. 619, 622 (W.D. Ky. 1985) prompt and less costly settlement and without this Final Judgment (approving the consent decree even through the consent decree process.’’ constituting any evidence against or though the court would have imposed a 119 Cong. Rec. 24,598 (1973) (statement admission by any party regarding any greater remedy). To meet this standard, of Sen. Tunney). Rather, the procedure issue of fact or law; the United States ‘‘need only provide a for the public interest determination is AND WHEREAS, defendants agree to factual basis for concluding that the left to the discretion of the Court, with be bound by the provisions of this Final settlements are reasonably adequate the recognition that the Court’s ‘‘scope Judgment pending its approval by the remedies for the alleged harms.’’ SBC of review remains sharply proscribed by Court; Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17. precedent and the nature of Tunney Act AND WHEREAS, the essence of this Moreover, the Court’s role under the proceedings.’’ SBC Commc’ns, 489 F. Final Judgment is the prompt and APPA is limited to reviewing the Supp. 2d at 11.3 A court can make its certain divestiture of certain rights or remedy in relationship to the violations public interest determination based on assets by the defendants to assure that that the United States has alleged in its the competitive impact statement and competition is not substantially Complaint, and does not authorize the response to public comments alone. US lessened; Court to ‘‘construct [its] own Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 76. AND WHEREAS, the United States hypothetical case and then evaluate the requires defendants to make certain decree against that case.’’ Microsoft, 56 VIII. DETERMINATIVE DOCUMENTS divestitures for the purpose of F.3d at 1459; see also US Airways, 38 There are no determinative materials remedying the loss of competition F. Supp. 3d at 75 (noting that the court or documents within the meaning of the alleged in the Complaint; must simply determine whether there is APPA that were considered by the AND WHEREAS, defendants have a factual foundation for the United States in formulating the represented to the United States that the government’s decisions such that its proposed Final Judgment. divestitures required below can and will conclusions regarding the proposed Dated: September 27, 2017 be made and that defendants will later settlements are reasonable); InBev, 2009 Respectfully submitted, raise no claim of hardship or difficulty U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *20 (‘‘the lllllllllllllllllllll as grounds for asking the Court to ‘public interest’ is not to be measured by Bashiri Wilson* modify any of the divestiture provisions comparing the violations alleged in the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust contained below; complaint against those the court Division, Litigation II Section, 450 Fifth Street NOW THEREFORE, before any believes could have, or even should NW., Suite 8700, Washington, DC 20530, testimony is taken, without trial or have, been alleged’’). Because the Tel.: (202) 598–8794, Fax: (202) 514–9033, adjudication of any issue of fact or law, ‘‘court’s authority to review the decree Email: [email protected]. and upon consent of the parties, it is depends entirely on the government’s *Attorney of Record ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND exercising its prosecutorial discretion by DECREED: bringing a case in the first place,’’ it United States District Court for the follows that ‘‘the court is only District of Columbia I. JURISDICTION authorized to review the decree itself,’’ United States of America, Plaintiff, v. This Court has jurisdiction over the and not to ‘‘effectively redraft the Showa Denko K.K., SGL Carbon SE, and SGL subject matter of and each of the parties complaint’’ to inquire into other matters GE Carbon Holding LLC (USA), to this action. The Complaint states a that the United States did not pursue. Defendants, claim upon which relief may be granted Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459–60. As this against defendants under Section 7 of 3 See United States v. Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp. the Clayton Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. Court confirmed in SBC 2d 10, 17 (D.D.C. 2000) (noting that the ‘‘Tunney Communications, courts ‘‘cannot look Act expressly allows the court to make its public 18). beyond the complaint in making the interest determination on the basis of the II. DEFINITIONS public interest determination unless the competitive impact statement and response to complaint is drafted so narrowly as to comments alone’’); United States v. Mid-Am. As used in this Final Judgment: Dairymen, Inc., No. 73–CV–681–W–1, 1977–1 Trade make a mockery of judicial power.’’ SBC Cas. (CCH) ¶ 61,508, at 71,980, *22 (W.D.Mo. 1977) A. ‘‘Acquirer’’ means Tokai or another Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 15. (‘‘Absent a showing of corrupt failure of the entity to which defendants divest the In its 2004 amendments, Congress government to discharge its duty, the Court, in Divestiture Assets. made clear its intent to preserve the making its public interest finding, should . . . B. ‘‘SDK’’ means defendant Showa carefully consider the explanations of the practical benefits of utilizing consent government in the competitive impact statement Denko K.K., a Japanese corporation decrees in antitrust enforcement, adding and its responses to comments in order to headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, its the unambiguous instruction that determine whether those explanations are successors and assigns, and its ‘‘[n]othing in this section shall be reasonable under the circumstances.’’); S. Rep. No. subsidiaries, divisions, groups, 93–298, at 6 (1973) (‘‘Where the public interest can construed to require the court to be meaningfully evaluated simply on the basis of affiliates, partnerships, and joint conduct an evidentiary hearing or to briefs and oral arguments, that is the approach that ventures, and their directors, officers, require the court to permit anyone to should be utilized.’’). managers, agents, and employees.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48264 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

C. ‘‘SGL’’ means defendant SGL Electrodes Business, including, but not period not to exceed sixty (60) calendar Carbon SE, a German corporation limited to, all patents, licenses and days in total, and shall notify the Court headquartered in Wiesbaden, Germany, sublicenses, intellectual property, in such circumstances. Defendants agree its successors and assigns, and its copyrights, trademarks, trade names, to use their best efforts to divest the subsidiaries, divisions, groups, service marks, service names (excluding Divestiture Assets as expeditiously as affiliates, partnerships, and joint any trademark, trade name, service possible. ventures, and their directors, officers, mark, or service name containing the B. In the event defendants are managers, agents, and employees, name ‘‘SGL’’), technical information, attempting to divest the Divestiture including defendant SGL GE Carbon computer software (including, but not Assets to an Acquirer other than Tokai, Holding LLC (USA), a Delaware limited limited to, SGL’s CEDIS® EAF defendants promptly shall make known, liability company that is an indirect, performance monitoring system) and by usual and customary means (to the wholly-owned subsidiary of SGL Carbon related documentation, know-how, extent defendants have not already done SE, and is headquartered in Charlotte, trade secrets, drawings, blueprints, so), the availability of the Divestiture North Carolina. designs, design protocols, specifications Assets. Defendants shall inform any D. ‘‘Tokai’’ means Tokai Carbon Co., for materials, specifications for parts person making an inquiry regarding a Ltd., a Japanese corporation and devices, safety procedures for the possible purchase of the Divestiture headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, its handling of materials and substances, Assets that they are being divested successors and assigns, and its quality assurance and control pursuant to this Final Judgment and subsidiaries, divisions, groups, procedures, design tools and simulation provide that person with a copy of this affiliates, partnerships, and joint capability, all manuals and technical Final Judgment. ventures, and their directors, officers, information SGL provides to its own C. In accomplishing the divestiture managers, agents, and employees. employees, customers, suppliers, agents, ordered by this Final Judgment, E. ‘‘Divestiture Assets’’ means SGL’s or licensees, and all research data defendants shall offer to furnish to all U.S. Graphite Electrodes Business. concerning historic and current research prospective Acquirers, subject to F. ‘‘SGL’s U.S. Graphite Electrodes and development efforts relating to customary confidentiality assurances, Business’’ means SGL GE Carbon SGL’s U.S. Graphite Electrodes all information and documents relating Holding LLC (USA), all of its Business, including, but not limited to, to the Divestiture Assets customarily subsidiaries, and all additional designs of experiments, and the results provided in a due diligence process operations of SGL related to the of successful and unsuccessful designs except such information or documents production, distribution, engineering, and experiments. subject to the attorney-client privileges development, sale, and servicing of G. ‘‘Relevant Employees’’ means all or work-product doctrine. Defendants graphite electrodes manufactured in the SGL personnel involved in the shall make available such information to United States, including, but not limited production, distribution, engineering, the United States at the same time that to: development, sale, or servicing of such information is made available to 1. The manufacturing facility located graphite electrodes for SGL’s U.S. any other person. at 3931 Carbon Plant Rd., Ozark, Graphite Electrodes Business. D. Defendants shall provide the Arkansas 72949 (the ‘‘Ozark Facility’’); Acquirer and the United States with 2. The manufacturing facility located III. APPLICABILITY organization charts and information at 2320 Myron Cory Dr., Hickman, A. This Final Judgment applies to relating to Relevant Employees, Kentucky 42050 (the ‘‘Hickman SDK and SGL, as defined above, and all including name, job title, past Facility’’); other persons in active concert or experience relating to SGL’s U.S. 3. All tangible assets used in participation with any of them who Graphite Electrodes Business, connection with SGL’s U.S. Graphite receive actual notice of this Final responsibilities, training and Electrodes Business, including research Judgment by personal service or educational history, relevant and development activities; all otherwise. certifications, and to the extent manufacturing equipment, tooling and B. If, prior to complying with Section permissible by law, job performance fixed assets, personal property, IV and Section V of this Final Judgment, evaluations, and current salary and inventory, office furniture, materials, defendants sell or otherwise dispose of benefits information, to enable the supplies, and other tangible property all or substantially all of their assets or Acquirer to make offers of employment. and all assets used exclusively in of lesser business units that include the Upon request, defendants shall make connection with SGL’s U.S. Graphite Divestiture Assets, they shall require the Relevant Employees available for Electrodes Business; all licenses, purchaser to be bound by the provisions interviews with the Acquirer during permits, and authorizations issued by of this Final Judgment. Defendants need normal business hours at a mutually any governmental organization relating not obtain such an agreement from the agreeable location and will not interfere to SGL’s U.S. Graphite Electrodes acquirers of the assets divested pursuant with any negotiations by the Acquirer to Business; all contracts, teaming to this Final Judgment. employ any Relevant Employees. arrangements, agreements, leases, Interference with respect to this commitments, certifications, and IV. DIVESTITURE paragraph includes, but is not limited understandings, including supply A. Defendants are ordered and to, offering to increase the salary or agreements relating to SGL’s U.S. directed, within 45 calendar days after benefits of Relevant Employees other Graphite Electrodes Business; all the Court’s signing of the Hold Separate than as part of a company-wide increase customer lists, contracts, accounts, and Stipulation and Order in this matter, to in salary or benefits granted in the credit records relating to SGL’s U.S. divest the Divestiture Assets in a ordinary course of business. Graphite Electrodes Business; all repair manner consistent with this Final E. For any Relevant Employees who and performance records and all other Judgment to Tokai or an alternative elect employment with the Acquirer, records relating to SGL’s U.S. Graphite Acquirer acceptable to the United defendants shall waive all noncompete Electrodes Business; and States, in its sole discretion. The United and nondisclosure agreements, vest all 4. All intangible assets used in States, in its sole discretion, may agree unvested pension and other equity connection with SGL’s U.S. Graphite to one or more extensions of this time rights, and provide all benefits to which

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48265

the Relevant Employees would States approves such an extension, it otherwise to interfere in the ability of the generally be provided if transferred to a shall so notify the Acquirer in writing Acquirer to compete effectively. buyer of an ongoing business. For a at least two (2) months prior to the date V. APPOINTMENT OF DIVESTITURE period of twelve (12) months from the the transition services contract expires. TRUSTEE filing of the Complaint in this matter, The terms and conditions of any defendants may not solicit to hire, or contractual arrangement intended to A. If defendants have not divested the hire, any such person who was hired by satisfy this provision must be Divestiture Assets within the time the Acquirer, unless (1) such individual reasonably related to the market value of period specified in Paragraph IV(A), is terminated or laid off by the Acquirer the expertise of the personnel providing defendants shall notify the United or (2) the Acquirer agrees in writing that any needed assistance. The SGL States of that fact in writing. Upon defendants may solicit or hire that employee(s) tasked with providing these application of the United States, the individual. Nothing in Paragraphs IV(D) transition services may not share any Court shall appoint a Divestiture and (E) shall prohibit defendants from competitively sensitive information of Trustee selected by the United States maintaining any reasonable restrictions the Acquirer with any other SGL or SDK and approved by the Court to effect the on the disclosure by any employee who employee. divestiture of the Divestiture Assets. accepts an offer of employment with the K. At the option of the Acquirer, SDK B. After the appointment of a Acquirer of the defendant’s proprietary shall enter into a supply contract for Divestiture Trustee becomes effective, non-public information that is (1) not connecting pins sufficient to meet all or only the Divestiture Trustee shall have otherwise required to be disclosed by part of the Acquirer’s needs for a period the right to sell the Divestiture Assets. this Final Judgment, (2) related solely to of up to three (3) years. The terms and The Divestiture Trustee shall have the defendants’ businesses and clients, and conditions of any contractual power and authority to accomplish the (3) unrelated to the Divestiture Assets. arrangement meant to satisfy this divestiture to an Acquirer acceptable to F. Defendants shall permit provision must be reasonably related to the United States at such price and on prospective Acquirers of the Divestiture market conditions for connecting pins. such terms as are then obtainable upon Assets to have reasonable access to The United States, in its sole discretion, reasonable effort by the Divestiture personnel and to make inspections of may approve one or more extensions of Trustee, subject to the provisions of the physical facilities of SGL’s U.S. this supply contract for a total of up to Sections IV, V, and VI of this Final Graphite Electrodes Business; access to an additional twelve (12) months. If the Judgment, and shall have such other any and all environmental, zoning, and Acquirer seeks an extension of the term powers as this Court deems appropriate. other permit documents and of this supply contract, it shall so notify Subject to Paragraph V(D) of this Final information; and access to any and all the United States in writing at least Judgment, the Divestiture Trustee may financial, operational, or other three (3) months prior to the date the hire at the cost and expense of documents and information customarily supply contract expires. If the United defendants any investment bankers, provided as part of a due diligence States approves such an extension, it attorneys, or other agents, who shall be process. shall so notify the Acquirer in writing solely accountable to the Divestiture G. Defendants shall warrant to the at least two (2) months prior to the date Trustee, reasonably necessary in the Acquirer that each asset will be the supply contract expires. Divestiture Trustee’s judgment to assist operational on the date of sale. L. Unless the United States otherwise in the divestiture. Any such investment H. Defendants shall not take any consents in writing, the divestiture bankers, attorneys, or other agents shall action that will impede in any way the pursuant to Section IV, or by Divestiture serve on such terms and conditions as permitting, operation, or divestiture of Trustee appointed pursuant to Section the United States approves, including the Divestiture Assets. V, of this Final Judgment, shall include confidentiality requirements and I. Defendants shall warrant to the the entire Divestiture Assets, and shall conflict of interest certifications. Acquirer that there are no material be accomplished in such a way as to C. Defendants shall not object to a sale defects in the environmental, zoning, or satisfy the United States, in its sole by the Divestiture Trustee on any other permits pertaining to the discretion, that the Divestiture Assets ground other than the Divestiture operation of each asset, and that can and will be used by the Acquirer as Trustee’s malfeasance. Any such following the sale of the Divestiture part of a viable, ongoing business of the objections by defendants must be Assets, defendants will not undertake, production, distribution, engineering, conveyed in writing to the United States directly or indirectly, any challenges to development, sale, or servicing of large and the Divestiture Trustee within ten the environmental, zoning, or other diameter ultra-high power graphite (10) calendar days after the Divestiture permits relating to the operation of the electrodes in the United States. The Trustee has provided the notice Divestiture Assets. divestitures, whether pursuant to required under Section VI. J. At the option of the Acquirer, SGL Section IV or Section V of this Final D. The Divestiture Trustee shall serve shall enter a transition services Judgment, at the cost and expense of defendants agreement to provide back office and pursuant to a written agreement, on information technology services and 1) shall be made to an Acquirer that, in the such terms and conditions as the United support for SGL’s U.S. Graphite United States’ sole judgment, has the intent States approves, including and capability (including the necessary Electrodes Business for a period of up managerial, operational, technical, and confidentiality requirements and to one (1) year. The United States, in its financial capability) of competing effectively conflict of interest certifications. The sole discretion, may approve one or in the production, distribution, engineering, Divestiture Trustee shall account for all more extensions of this agreement for a development, sale, or servicing of large monies derived from the sale of the total of up to an additional twelve (12) diameter ultra-high power graphite assets sold by the Divestiture Trustee months. If the Acquirer seeks an electrodes in the United States; and and all costs and expenses so incurred. extension of the term of this transition 2) shall be accomplished so as to satisfy the After approval by the Court of the United States, in its sole discretion, that none services agreement, it shall so notify the of the terms of any agreement between an Divestiture Trustee’s accounting, United States in writing at least three (3) Acquirer and defendants give defendants the including fees for its services yet unpaid months prior to the date the transition ability unreasonably to raise the Acquirer’s and those of any professionals and services contract expires. If the United costs, to lower the Acquirer’s efficiency, or agents retained by the Divestiture

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48266 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

Trustee, all remaining money shall be Assets, and shall describe in detail each any other third party, or the Divestiture paid to defendants and the trust shall contact with any such person. The Trustee, if applicable, additional then be terminated. The compensation Divestiture Trustee shall maintain full information concerning the proposed of the Divestiture Trustee and any records of all efforts made to divest the divestiture, the proposed Acquirer, and professionals and agents retained by the Divestiture Assets. any other potential Acquirer. Divestiture Trustee shall be reasonable G. If the Divestiture Trustee has not Defendants and the Divestiture Trustee in light of the value of the Divestiture accomplished the divestiture ordered shall furnish any additional information Assets and based on a fee arrangement under this Final Judgment within six requested within fifteen (15) calendar providing the Divestiture Trustee with months after its appointment, the days of the receipt of the request, unless an incentive based on the price and Divestiture Trustee shall promptly file the parties shall otherwise agree. terms of the divestiture and the speed with the Court a report setting forth (1) C. Within thirty (30) calendar days with which it is accomplished, but the Divestiture Trustee’s efforts to after receipt of the notice or within timeliness is paramount. If the accomplish the required divestiture, (2) twenty (20) calendar days after the Divestiture Trustee and defendants are the reasons, in the Divestiture Trustee’s United States has been provided the unable to reach agreement on the judgment, why the required divestiture additional information requested from Divestiture Trustee’s or any agents’ or has not been accomplished, and (3) the defendants, the proposed Acquirer, any consultants’ compensation or other Divestiture Trustee’s recommendations. third party, and the Divestiture Trustee, terms and conditions of engagement To the extent such reports contain whichever is later, the United States within 14 calendar days of appointment information that the Divestiture Trustee shall provide written notice to of the Divestiture Trustee, the United deems confidential, such reports shall defendants and the Divestiture Trustee, States may, in its sole discretion, take not be filed in the public docket of the if there is one, stating whether or not it appropriate action, including making a Court. The Divestiture Trustee shall at objects to the proposed divestiture. If recommendation to the Court. The the same time furnish such report to the the United States provides written Divestiture Trustee shall, within three United States which shall have the right notice that it does not object, the (3) business days of hiring any other to make additional recommendations divestiture may be consummated, professionals or agents, provide written consistent with the purpose of the trust. subject only to defendants’ limited right notice of such hiring and the rate of The Court thereafter shall enter such to object to the sale under Paragraph compensation to defendants and the orders as it shall deem appropriate to V(C) of this Final Judgment. Absent United States. carry out the purpose of the Final written notice that the United States E. Defendants shall use their best Judgment, which may, if necessary, does not object to the proposed Acquirer efforts to assist the Divestiture Trustee include extending the trust and the term or upon objection by the United States, in accomplishing the required of the Divestiture Trustee’s appointment a divestiture proposed under Section IV divestiture. The Divestiture Trustee and by a period requested by the United or Section V shall not be consummated. any consultants, accountants, attorneys, States. Upon objection by defendants under and other agents retained by the H. If the United States determines that Paragraph V(C), a divestiture proposed Divestiture Trustee shall have full and the Divestiture Trustee has ceased to act under Section V shall not be complete access to the personnel, books, or failed to act diligently or in a consummated unless approved by the records, and facilities of the business to reasonably cost-effective manner, it may Court. be divested, and defendants shall recommend the Court appoint a develop financial and other information substitute Divestiture Trustee. VII. FINANCING relevant to such business as the VI. NOTICE OF PROPOSED Defendants shall not finance all or Divestiture Trustee may reasonably DIVESTITURE any part of any purchase made pursuant request, subject to reasonable protection to Section IV or Section V of this Final for trade secret or other confidential A. In the event defendants are Judgment. research, development, or commercial divesting the Divestiture Assets to an information or any applicable Acquirer other than Tokai, within two VIII. HOLD SEPARATE privileges. Defendants shall take no (2) business days following execution of Until the divestiture required by this action to interfere with or to impede the a definitive divestiture agreement, Final Judgment has been accomplished, Divestiture Trustee’s accomplishment of defendants or the Divestiture Trustee, defendants shall take all steps necessary the divestiture. whichever is then responsible for to comply with the Hold Separate F. After its appointment, the effecting the divestiture required herein, Stipulation and Order entered by this Divestiture Trustee shall file monthly shall notify the United States of any Court. Defendants shall take no action reports with the United States and, as proposed divestiture required by that would jeopardize the divestiture appropriate, the Court setting forth the Section IV or Section V of this Final ordered by this Court. Divestiture Trustee’s efforts to Judgment. If the Divestiture Trustee is accomplish the divestiture ordered responsible, it shall similarly notify IX. AFFIDAVITS under this Final Judgment. To the extent defendants. The notice shall set forth A. Within twenty (20) calendar days such reports contain information that the details of the proposed divestiture of the filing of the Complaint in this the Divestiture Trustee deems and list the name, address, and matter, and every thirty (30) calendar confidential, such reports shall not be telephone number of each person not days thereafter until the divestiture has filed in the public docket of the Court. previously identified who offered or been completed under Section IV or Such reports shall include the name, expressed an interest in or desire to Section V, defendants shall deliver to address, and telephone number of each acquire any ownership interest in the the United States an affidavit as to the person who, during the preceding Divestiture Assets, together with full fact and manner of its compliance with month, made an offer to acquire, details of the same. Section IV or Section V of this Final expressed an interest in acquiring, B. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of Judgment. Each such affidavit shall entered into negotiations to acquire, or receipt by the United States of such include the name, address, and was contacted or made an inquiry about notice, the United States may request telephone number of each person who, acquiring, any interest in the Divestiture from defendants, the proposed Acquirer, during the preceding thirty (30)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48267

calendar days, made an offer to acquire, control of defendants, relating to any matters XIV. PUBLIC INTEREST expressed an interest in acquiring, contained in this Final Judgment; and DETERMINATION entered into negotiations to acquire, or 2) to interview, either informally or on the Entry of this Final Judgment is in the was contacted or made an inquiry about record, defendants’ officers, employees, or agents, who may have their individual public interest. The parties have acquiring, any interest in the Divestiture counsel present, regarding such matters. The complied with the requirements of the Assets, and shall describe in detail each interviews shall be subject to the reasonable Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, contact with any such person during convenience of the interviewee and without 15 U.S.C. 16, including making copies that period. Each such affidavit shall restraint or interference by defendants. available to the public of this Final also include a description of the efforts B. Upon the written request of an Judgment, the Competitive Impact defendants have taken to solicit buyers authorized representative of the Statement, and any comments thereon for the Divestiture Assets, and to Assistant Attorney General in charge of and the United States’ responses to provide required information to the Antitrust Division, defendants shall comments. Based upon the record prospective Acquirers, including the submit written reports or response to before the Court, which includes the limitations, if any, on such information. written interrogatories, under oath if Competitive Impact Statement and any Assuming the information set forth in requested, relating to any of the matters comments and response to comments the affidavit is true and complete, any contained in this Final Judgment as may filed with the Court, entry of this Final objection by the United States to be requested. Judgment is in the public interest. information provided by defendants, C. No information or documents including limitation on information, Date: obtained by the means provided in this shall be made within fourteen (14) Court approval subject to procedures of section shall be divulged by the United calendar days of receipt of such Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 States to any person other than an affidavit. U.S.C. 16. authorized representative of the B. Within twenty (20) calendar days lllllllllllllllllllll executive branch of the United States, United States District Judge of the filing of the Complaint in this except in the course of legal proceedings [FR Doc. 2017–22443 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] matter, defendants shall deliver to the to which the United States is a party BILLING CODE P United States an affidavit that describes (including grand jury proceedings), or in reasonable detail all actions for the purpose of securing compliance defendants have taken and all steps with this Final Judgment, or as DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE defendants have implemented on an otherwise required by law. ongoing basis to comply with Section D. If at the time information or Antitrust Division VIII of this Final Judgment. Defendants documents are furnished by defendants shall deliver to the United States an to the United States, defendants Notice Pursuant to the National affidavit describing any changes to the represent and identify in writing the Cooperative Research and Production efforts and actions outlined in material in any such information or Act of 1993—Border Security defendants’ earlier affidavits filed documents to which a claim of Technology Consortium pursuant to this section within fifteen protection may be asserted under Rule (15) calendar days after the change is 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Notice is hereby given that, on implemented. Procedure, and defendants mark each September 22, 2017, pursuant to Section C. Defendants shall keep all records of pertinent page of such material, 6(a) of the National Cooperative all efforts made to preserve and divest ‘‘Subject to claim of protection under Research and Production Act of 1993, the Divestiture Assets until one year Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), after such divestiture has been Civil Procedure,’’ then the United States Border Security Technology Consortium completed. shall give defendants ten (10) calendar (‘‘BSTC’’) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney X. COMPLIANCE INSPECTION days notice prior to divulging such material in any legal proceeding (other General and the Federal Trade A. For the purposes of determining or than a grand jury proceeding). Commission disclosing changes in its securing compliance with this Final membership. The notifications were Judgment, or of any related orders such XI. NO REACQUISITION filed for the purpose of extending the as any Hold Separate Stipulation and Defendants may not reacquire any Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of Order, or of determining whether the part of the Divestiture Assets during the antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages Final Judgment should be modified or term of this Final Judgment. under specified circumstances. vacated, and subject to any legally- Specifically, Michigan Technology XII. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION recognized privilege, from time to time University, Houghton, MI; and TRI–COR authorized representatives of the United This Court retains jurisdiction to Industries, Inc., Alexandria, VA, have States Department of Justice, including enable any party to this Final Judgment been added as parties to this venture. consultants and other persons retained to apply to this Court at any time for No other changes have been made in by the United States, shall, upon written further orders and directions as may be either the membership or planned request of an authorized representative necessary or appropriate to carry out or activity of the group research project. of the Assistant Attorney General in construe this Final Judgment, to modify Membership in this group research charge of the Antitrust Division, and on any of its provisions, to enforce project remains open, and BSTC intends reasonable notice to defendants, be compliance, and to punish violations of to file additional written notifications permitted: its provisions. disclosing all changes in membership. On May 30, 2012, BSTC filed its 1) access during defendants’ office hours to XIII. EXPIRATION OF FINAL original notification pursuant to Section inspect and copy, or at the option of the JUDGMENT United States, to require defendants to 6(a) of the Act. The Department of provide hard copy or electronic copies of, all Unless this Court grants an extension, Justice published a notice in the Federal books, ledgers, accounts, records, data, and this Final Judgment shall expire ten (10) Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the documents in the possession, custody, or years from the date of its entry. Act on June 18, 2012 (77 FR 36292).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48268 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

The last notification was filed with DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE impartial review of SES performance the Department on June 8, 2017. A appraisals, bonus recommendations and notice was published in the Federal Membership of the Senior Executive pay adjustments. The PRBs will make Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Service Standing Performance Review recommendations regarding the final Act on July 25, 2017 (85 FR 34551). Boards performance ratings to be assigned, SES AGENCY: Department of Justice. bonuses and/or pay adjustments to be Patricia A. Brink, awarded. ACTION: Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Notice of Department of Division. Justice’s standing members of the Senior FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Executive Service Performance Review [FR Doc. 2017–22442 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Mary A. Lamary, Director, Human Boards. Resources, Justice Management BILLING CODE P Division, Department of Justice, SUMMARY: The Department of Justice. Washington, DC 20530; (202) 514–4350. announces the membership of its 2017 Senior Executive Service (SES) Standing Lee J. Lofthus, Performance Review Boards (PRBs). The Assistant Attorney General for purpose of a PRB is to provide fair and Administration.

2017 FEDERAL REGISTER

Name Position title

Office of the Attorney General—OAG

HUNT, JODY (DETAIL) ...... CHIEF OF STAFF AND COUNSELOR. MORRISSEY, BRIAN ...... COUNSELOR TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. CUTRONA, DANIELLE ...... SENIOR COUNSELOR.

Office of the Deputy Attorney General—ODAG

HUR, ROBERT ...... PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL. SWANSON, JAMES ...... ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL. SCHOOLS, SCOTT ...... ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL. GUAHAR, TASHINA ...... ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL. CROWELL, JAMES A ...... CHIEF OF STAFF/ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL. CONNOLLY, ROBERT ...... DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION. GOLDSMITH, ANDREW ...... NATIONAL CRIMINAL DISCOVERY COORDINATOR. MICHALIC, MARK ...... EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND CRISIS RESPONSE COORDINATOR. GEISE, JOHN ...... CHIEF, PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT REVIEW UNIT.

Office of the Associate Attorney General—OASG

PANUCCIO, JESSE ...... PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL. MCARTHUR, ERIC ...... DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL. COX, STEVE ...... DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL. MURRAY, BRIAN ...... DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL. FRANCISCO, NOEL ...... SENIOR ADVISOR.

Office of the Solicitor General—OSG

WALL, JEFFREY ...... PRINCIPAL DEPUTY SOLICITOR GEN. DREEBEN, MICHAEL R ...... DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL. KNEEDLER, EDWIN S ...... DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL. STEWART, MALCOLM L ...... DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL.

Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties

WINN, PETER ...... DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES.

Antitrust Division—ATR

FINCH, ANDREW ...... PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. NIGRO, BERNARD ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. ARMINGTON, ELIZABETH J ...... CHIEF, ECONOMIC REGULATORY SECTION. BRINK, PATRICIA A ...... DIRECTOR OF CIVIL ENFORCEMENT. COHEN, SCOTT ...... EXECUTIVE OFFICER. DRENNAN, RONALD ...... CHIEF, COMPETITION POLICY SECTION. FAMILANT, NORMAN ...... CHIEF, ECONOMIC LITIGATION SECTION. FOUNTAIN, DOROTHY ...... SENIOR COUNSEL AND DIRECTOR OF RISK MANAGEMENT. GREER, TRACY ...... ATTORNEY ADVISOR. HOLLAND, CAROLINE ...... CHIEF COUNSEL FOR COMPETITION POLICY AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS. LIMARZI, KRISTEN ...... CHIEF, APPELLATE SECTION. MUCCHETTI, PETER J ...... CHIEF, LITIGATION I SECTION. MAJURE, WILLIAM ROBERT ...... DIRECTOR OF ECONOMICS. MARTINO, JEFFREY ...... CHIEF, NEW YORK FIELD OFFICE. PETRIZZI, MARIBETH ...... CHIEF, LITIGATION II SECTION.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48269

2017 FEDERAL REGISTER—Continued

Name Position title

PHELAN, LISA M ...... CHIEF, NATIONAL CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT SECTION. POTTER, ROBERT A ...... CHIEF, LEGAL POLICY SECTION. PRICE JR., MARVIN N ...... DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT. SCHEELE, SCOTT A ...... CHIEF, TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND MEDIA ENFORCEMENT SECTION. STRIMEL, MARY ...... CHIEF, WASHINGTON CRIMINAL II SECTION. VONDRAK, FRANK ...... CHIEF, CHICAGO FIELD OFFICE. KEMPF, DONALD ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. WERDEN, GREGORY J ...... ECONOMIST ADVISOR. O’NEILL, KATHLEEN S ...... CHIEF TRANSPORTATION, ENERGY AND AGRICULTURE SECTION. HOAG, AARON ...... CHIEF, NETWORKS AND TECHNOLOGY ENFORCEMENT SECTION. KENDLER, OWEN ...... CHIEF, LITIGATION III SECTION.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives—ATF

BRANDON, THOMAS E ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR. TURK, RONALD B ...... SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR (Associate Deputy Director). SMITH, CHARLES B ...... EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR. GLEYSTEEN, MICHAEL P ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FIELD OPERATIONS. CANINO, CARLOS ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FIELD OPERATIONS (PROGRAMS). CROKE, KENNETH ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FIELD OPERATIONS—EAST. KUMOR, DANIEL...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND SECURITY OPER- ATIONS. DIXIE, WAYNE ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FIELD OPERATIONS—EAST. LOMBARDO, REGINA ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FIELD OPERATIONS—CENTRAL. MCMULLAN, WILLIAM ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FIELD OPERATIONS—WEST. SWEETOW, SCOTT ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TEDAC. RICHARDSON, MARVIN ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM SERVICES. CZARNOPYS, GREGORY P ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FORENSIC SERVICES. BEASLEY, ROGER ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY/CIO. MCDERMOND, JAMES E ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF STRATEGIC INTELLIGENCE AND INFORMATION. REID, DELANO ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND SECURITY OPERATIONS. MICHALIC, VIVIAN B ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MANAGEMENT. FRANDE, FRANCIS ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MANAGEMENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER. MAGEE, JEFFREY ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCES AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT. GRAHAM, ANDREW R ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, INDUSTRY OPERATIONS. GROSS, CHARLES R ...... CHIEF COUNSEL. ROESSNER, JOEL ...... DEPUTY CHIEF COUNSEL. EPSTEIN, ERIC ...... ATTORNEY ADVISOR. MCDANIEL, MASON ...... CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER. GILBERT, CURTIS ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM AND SERVICES. CHITTUM, THOMAS ...... CHIEF, SPECIAL OPERATIONS DIVISION. DURASTANTI, JOHN ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF STRATEGIC INTELLIGENCE AND INFORMATION. SHAEFER, CHRISTOPHER ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS. BENNETT, MEGAN ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS. MILANOWSKI, JAMES ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS. BOYKIN, LISA...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCES AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (HUMAN RESOURCES). LOWREY, STUART ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCES AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT. VIDOLI, MARINO ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCES AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT. GOLD, VICTORIA ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, IT/DEPUTY CIO. ROBINSON, DONALD ...... SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, NATIONAL CENTER FOR EXPLOSIVES TRAINING AND RESEARCH (NCETR). WALKER, CARL ...... SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, ATLANTA. BOARD, DANIEL ...... SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, BALTIMORE. LEADINGHAM, MICKEY ...... SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, BOSTON. HYMAN, CHRISTOPHER ...... SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, CHARLOTTE. VELINOR, TREVOR ...... SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, COLUMBUS. TEMPLE, WILLIAM ...... SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, DALLAS. LIVINGSTON, DEBRA ...... SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, DENVER. SHOEMAKER, STEPHANIE ...... SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, DETROIT. MILANOWSKI, FREDERICK ...... SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, HOUSTON. LAUDER, GEORGE ...... SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, KANSAS CITY. HARDEN, ERIC ...... SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, LOS ANGELES. LOWREY, STUART ...... SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, LOUISVILLE. FORCELLI, PETER ...... SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, MIAMI. GERIDO, STEVE ...... SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, NASHVILLE. NICHOLS, DANA ...... SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, NEW ORLEANS. ASHAN, BENEDICT ...... SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, NEW YORK. DEVITO, JOHN ...... SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, NEWARK. RABADI, ESSAM ...... SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, PHILADELPHIA. DURASTANI, JOHN ...... SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, PHOENIX.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48270 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

2017 FEDERAL REGISTER—Continued

Name Position title

SNYDER, JILL A ...... SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, SAN FRANCISCO. PLEASANTS, DAREK ...... SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, SEATTLE. MODZELEWSKI, JAMES ...... SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, ST PAUL. MCCRARY, DARYL ...... SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, TAMPA. BOXLER, MICHAEL B ...... SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, WASHINGTON, DC.

Bureau of Prisons—BOP

KANE, THOMAS R ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR. JOSLIN, DANIEL M ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DIVISION. GRIFFITH, L. CRISTINA ...... SENIOR DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DIVISION. SIMPSON, GARY M ...... CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES. SIBAL, PHILIP J ...... SENIOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR, REENTRY SERVICES DIVISION. YEICH, KENNETH ...... SENIOR DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, INDUSTRIES, EDUCATION AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING DIVISION. GROSS, BRADLEY T ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION DIVISION. BURNS, LONERYL C ...... SENIOR DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION DIVISION. SCARANTINO, THOMAS J ...... SENIOR DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS DIVISION. LARA, FRANCISCO ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS DIVISION. AYERS, NANCY ...... CHIEF, OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS. DUNBAR, ANGELA ...... REGIONAL DIRECTOR, MIDDLE ATLANTIC REGION. KIZZIAH, GREGORY ...... WARDEN, USP, BIG SAND, KY. GARRETT, JUDITH ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, INFORMATION, POLICY AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS DIVISION. HURWITZ, HUGH J ...... SENIOR DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, INFORMATION, POLICY AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS DIVISION. THOMPSON, SONYA ...... SENIOR DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, INFORMATION, POLICY AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS DIVISION. SCHULT, DEBORAH G ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION. HYLE, KENNETH ...... SENIOR DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL. KENNEY, KATHLEEN M ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL. KENDALL, PAUL F ...... SENIOR COUNSEL, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL. RODGERS, RONALD L ...... SENIOR COUNSEL, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL. WILLS, JAMES C ...... SENIOR DEPUTY COUNSEL, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL. COSBY, JIMMY L ...... DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS. BROWN JR., ROBERT M ...... SENIOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS. DUNBAR, ANGELA P ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS DIVISION. FEATHER, MARION M ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, RE-ENTRY SERVICES DIVISION. BUTTERFIELD, PATTI ...... SENIOR DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, RE-ENTRY SERVICES DIVISION. CARAWAY, JOHN ...... REGIONAL DIRECTOR, MIDDLE ATLANTIC REGION. QUINTANA, FRANCISCO J ...... WARDEN, FMC, LEXINGTON, KY. BARNHART, JONATHAN ...... WARDEN FCI, MANCHESTER, KY. ORMOND, JOHNATHAN R ...... WARDEN, USP, MCCREARY, KY. STEWART, TIMOTHY S ...... WARDEN, FCI, CUMBERLAND, MD. HOLLAND, JAMES C ...... COMPLEX WARDEN—FMC, FCC, BUTNER, NC. MORA, STEVE B ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PROGRAM REVIEW DIVISION. LAYER, PAUL M ...... SENIOR DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PROGRAM REVIEW DIVISION. RASKIN, MINA ...... SENIOR DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PROGRAMS REVIEW DIVISION. FINLEY, SCOTT ...... SENIOR DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, RE-ENTRY SERVICES DIVISION. BATTS, MYRON T ...... WARDEN FCI, MEMPHIS, TN. WILSON, ERIC D ...... COMPLEX WARDEN, FCC, PETERSBURG, VA. SAAD, JENNIFER S ...... WARDEN, FCI, GILMER, WV. YOUNG, DAVID L ...... WARDEN, FCI, BECKLEY, WV. COAKLEY, JOSEPH D ...... WARDEN, USP, HAZELTON, WV. RAVELL, SARA M ...... REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NORTH CENTRAL REGION. MOSES, STANCIL ...... WARDEN, USP, FCC, FLORENCE, CO. FOX, JACK W ...... COMPLEX WARDEN—ADX, FCC, FLORENCE, CO. WERLICH, THOMAS ...... WARDEN, FCI, GREENVILLE, IL. KALLIS, STEVEN ...... WARDEN, FCI, PEKIN, IL. HUDSON JR., DONALD J ...... WARDEN, FCI, THOMSON, IL. KRUEGER, JEFFREY ...... COMPLEX WARDEN—USP, FCC, TERRE HAUTE, IN. ENGLISH, NICOLE ...... WARDEN, USP, LEAVENWORTH, KS. PAUL, DAVID ...... WARDEN, FMC, ROCHESTER, MN. SANDERS, LINDA L ...... WARDEN USMCFP, SPRINGFIELD, MO. CARVAJAL, MICHAEL D ...... REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NORTHEAST REGION. TATUM, ESKER L ...... WARDEN, MCC, NEW YORK, NY. VON BLANCHENSEE, BAR ...... WARDEN, FCI, OTISVILLE, NY. YOUNG, SCOTT ...... WARDEN, FCI, FAIRTON, NJ. ORTIZ, DAVID ...... WARDEN, FCI, FORT DIX, NJ. QUAY, HERMAN ...... WARDEN, MDC, BROOKLYN, NY. ODDO, LEONARD ...... WARDEN, FCC, ALLENWOOD, PA. BALTAZAR JR., JUAN ...... WARDEN, USP, CANAAN, PA. EBBERT, DAVID W ...... WARDEN USP, LEWISBURG, PA. ZUNIGA, RAFAEL ...... WARDEN, FCI, MCKEAN, PA. PERDUE, RUSSELL A ...... WARDEN, FCI, SCHUYLKILL, PA.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48271

2017 FEDERAL REGISTER—Continued

Name Position title

CARAWAY, JOHN ...... REGIONAL DIRECTOR, SOUTH CENTRAL REGION. KELLER, JEFFREY A ...... REGIONAL DIRECTOR SOUTHEAST REGION. BEASLEY, GENE ...... COMPLEX WARDEN, FCC, FOREST CITY, AR. FOX, JOHN B ...... WARDEN, FTC, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK. LARA, FRANCISCO J ...... COMPLEX WARDEN—USP, FCC, BEAUMONT, TX. UPTON, JODY R ...... WARDEN, FMC, CARSWELL, TX. HANSON, RALPH ...... WARDEN, FCI, THREE RIVERS, TX. CHANDLER, RODNEY W ...... WARDEN, FCI, FORT WORTH, TX. MARBERRY, HELEN J ...... REGIONAL DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST REGION. ROMERO, BILLY ...... WARDEN, FCI, TALLADEGA, AL. JARVIS, TAMYRA ...... COMPLEX WARDEN—USP2, FCC, COLEMAN, FL. LOCKETT, CHARLES L ...... WARDEN—USP, COLEMAN 1, COLEMAN, FL. BLACKMON, BRUCE E ...... WARDEN, FCI MARIANNA, FL. RAMIREZ, GLOVANNI ...... WARDEN, FDC, MIAMI, FL. HARMON, DARRIN ...... WARDEN, USP, ATLANTA, GA. FLOURNOY JR., JOHN V ...... WARDEN, FCI, JESUP, GA. MARTIN, MARK S ...... COMPLEX WARDEN, FCC, YAZOO CITY, MS. BRAGG, M. TRAVIS ...... WARDEN, FCI, BENNETTSVILLE, SC. MOSLEY, BONITA S ...... WARDEN, FCI, EDGEFIELD, SC. ANTONELLI, BRYAN ...... WARDEN FCI, WILLIAMSBURG, SC. VAZQUEZ, NORBAL ...... WARDEN MDC, GUAYNABO, PUERTO RICO. MITCHELL, MARY M ...... REGIONAL DIRECTOR, WESTERN REGION. LOTHROP, WILLIAMS ...... WARDEN, FCI, PHOENIX, AZ. SHARTLE, JOHN T ...... COMPLEX WARDEN—USP, FCC, TUSCON, AZ. LANGFORD, STEPHEN A ...... COMPLEX WARDEN FCC, LOMPOC, CA. MILUSNIC, LOUIS J ...... WARDEN, MDC. LOS ANGELES, CA. SHINN, DAVID C ...... COMPLEX WARDEN, FCC, VICTORVILLE, CA. MATEVOUSIAN, ANDRE V ...... WARDEN, USP, ATWATER, CA. PLUMLEY, BRUCE ...... WARDEN, FCI, MENDOTA, CA. IVES, RICHARD B ...... WARDEN FCI, SHERIDAN, OR.

Civil Division—CIV

READLER, CHAD ...... PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. ANDERSON, DANIEL R ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCH. MAO, ANDY ...... DEPTY DIRECTOR, FRAUD SECTION. FLENTJE, AUGUST ...... SPECIAL COUNSEL TO THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. LANGSAM, STEPANIE ...... INTERIM ADMINISTRATOR FOR FUNDS, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL MASTER FOR THE SEPT 11 VIC- TIM COMPENSATION FUND. GRIFFITHS, JOHN R ...... BRANCH DIRECTOR, FEDERAL PROGRAMS. COPPOLINO, ANTHONY J ...... DEPUTY BRANCH DIRECTOR. DAVIDSON, JEANNE E ...... DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCH. FARGO, JOHN J ...... DIRECTOR, IP, COMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCH. BENSON, BARRY F ...... DIRECTOR, AVIATION AND ADMIRALTY SECTION. BHATTACHARYA, RUPA ...... SPECIAL MASTER FOR THE SEPTEMBER 11 VICTIM COMPENSATION FUND (DUAL). REEVES, CATHERINE ...... DEPTY DIRECTOR, TORTS/CSTL—VACCINE. GLYNN, JOHN PATRICK ...... DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL TORT LITIGATION SECTION. EMERSON, CATHERINE V ...... DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. PEREZ, LOUIS E ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR, (OPS), OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, DISTRICT COURT. PEACHEY, WILLIAM C ...... DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, DISTRICT COURT. WARD, THOMAS ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL—TORTS. GRANSTON, MICHAEL D ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCH. MANHARDT, KIRK ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCH, CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL LITIGA- TION. DINTZER, KENNETH ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCH, NATIONAL COURTS. YAVELBERG, JAMIE ANN ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCH, FRAUD SECTION. HAUSKEN, GARY L ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY/COMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCH. BOLDEN, SCOTT ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. HUNT, JOSEPH H ...... BRANCH DIRECTOR. DAVIS, ETHAN ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCH. STEGER, JEFFREY ...... COUNSEL, CONSUMER PROTECTION BRANCH. GOLDBERG, RICHARD ...... COUNSEL, CONSUMER PROTECTION BRANCH. SHAPIRO, ELIZABETH J ...... DEPUTY BRANCH DIRECTOR. COLLETTE, MATTHEW ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR, APPELLATE STAFF. KIRSCHMAN JR., ROBERT E ...... DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCH. HOCKEY, MARTIN ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COURTS COMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCH. LETTER, DOUGLAS ...... DIRECTOR, APPELLATE STAFF. RAAB, MICHAEL APPELLATE ...... LITIGATION COUNSEL STERN, MARK B. APPELLATE LITIGATION COUNSEL. TOUHEY, JR., JAMES G ...... DIRECTOR, FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT SECTION. LIEBER, SHEILA M ...... DEPUTY BRANCH DIRECTOR. EINERSON, ROGER ...... SENIOR LEVEL TRIAL ATTORNEY. BUCKINGHAM, STEPHEN J ...... SENIOR LEVEL TRIAL ATTORNEY.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48272 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

2017 FEDERAL REGISTER—Continued

Name Position title

MOLINA, JR., ERNESTO ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, APPELLATE SECTION. MARTIN, DANA ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR, APPELLATE BRANCH. MCCONNELL, DAVID M...... DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATIO LITIGATION, APPELLATE SECTION. MCINTOSH, SCOTT R ...... SENIOR LEVEL APELLATE COUNSEL. BROWN, WALTER W ...... SENIOR PATENT ATTORNEY. CARNEY, CHRISTOPHER ...... SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY, NAT COURTS/COMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCH. O’MALLEY, BARBARA B ...... SPECIAL LITIGATION COUNSEL, AVIATION AND ADMIRALTY SECTION. RICKETTS, JENNIFER D ...... BRANCH DIRECTOR. FURMAN, JILL ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CONSUMER PROTECTION BRANCH. SCHUMATE, BRETT ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. KISOR, COLIN ...... SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY, DISTRICT COURT. FREEMAN, MARK ...... SENIOR LEVEL TRIAL ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, APPELLATE SECTION. KEENER, DONALD ...... SENIOR LEVEL TRIAL ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, APPELLATE SECTION. D’ALESSIO, JR., C.S ...... SENIOR LEVEL TRIAL ATTORNEY, CONSTITUTIONAL SECTION. LINDEMANN, MICHAEL P ...... SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY (NATIONAL SECURITY). QUINN, MICHAEL J ...... SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY. GILLIGAN, JAMES J ...... SPECIAL LITIGATION COUNSEL. HARVEY, RUTH A ...... DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCH, CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL LITIGATION. LATOUR, MICHELLE ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, APPELLATE SECTION. LIN, JEAN ...... SENIOR LEVEL TRIAL ATTORNEY, COMPLEX LITIGATION.

Civil Rights Division—CRT

GORE, JOHN ...... PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MOOSSY, ROBERT J ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. FITZGERALD, PAIGE ...... PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHIEF, CRIMINAL SECTION. KESSLER, TAMARA ...... CHIEF, CRIMINAL SECTION. SIMMONS, SHAHEENA ...... CHIEF, EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES SECTION. FRIEL, GREGORY ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. LEVITT, JUSTIN ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. HOWE, SUSAN E ...... EXECUTIVE OFFICER. TOOMEY, KATHLEEN ...... DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT. GINSBURG, JESSICA A ...... COUNSEL TO THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. KENNEBREW, DELORA ...... CHIEF, EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION SECTION. MAJEED, SAMEENA S ...... CHIEF, HOUSING AND CIVIL ENFORCEMENT SECTION. SEWARD, JON PRINCIPAL ...... DEPUTY CHIEF, HOUSING AND CIVIL ENFORCEMENT SECTION. JANG, DEEANA L ...... CHIEF, FEDERAL COORDINATION AND COMPLIANCE SECTION. HERREN JR., THOMAS C ...... CHIEF, VOTING SECTION. WERTZ, REBECCA ...... PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHIEF, VOTING SECTION. FLYNN, DIANA KATHERINE ...... CHIEF, APPELLATE SECTION. MCGOWAN, SHARON M ...... PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHIEF, APPELLATE SECTION. BOND, REBECCA B ...... CHIEF, DISABILITY RIGHTS SECTION. EMBREY, DIANA ...... CHIEF, EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL. FORAN, SHEILA ...... SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL, DISABILITY RIGHTS SECTION. BLOOMBERG, MARK ...... SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL. RUISANCHEZ, ALBERTO ...... DEPUTY SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR IMMIGRATION-RELATED UNFAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES. PRESTON, JUDITH L ...... PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHIEF, SPECIAL LITIGATION SECTION. RAISH, ANNE ...... PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHIEF, DISABILITY RIGHTS SECTION. WOODARD, KAREN ...... PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHIEF, EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION SECTION. ROSENBAUM, STEVEN H ...... CHIEF, SPECIAL LITIGATION SECTION.

Criminal Division—CRM

BLANCO, KENNETH A ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. SWARTZ, BRUCE CARLTON ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. AINSWORTH, PETER J ...... SENIOR COUNSEL, OFFICE OF OVERSEAS PROSECUTORIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING. CARROLL, OVIE ...... DIRECTOR, CYBERCRIME LABORATORY, COMPUTER CRIME AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION. RYBICKI, DAVID ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. ALEXANDRE, CARL ...... COUNSELOR FOR TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME & INTL AFFAIRS. ARY, VAUGHN ...... DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS. HO-GONZALES, WILLIAM ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS. TOLEDO, RANDY ...... DEPTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS. CONNOR, DEBORAH L ...... DEPUTY CHIEF, ASSET FORFEITURE AND MONEY LAUNDERING SECTION. HARBIN, HARRY ...... SENIOR LEGAL COUNSEL FOR ASSET FORFEITURE AND MONEY LAUNDERING. CARWILE, P. KEVIN ...... CHIEF, CAPITAL CASE UNIT. DAY, M. KENDALL ...... CHIEF, ASSET FORFEITURE AND MONEY LAUNDERING SECTION. DOWNING, RICHARD W ...... DEPUTY CHIEF, COMPUTER CRIME AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION. EHRENSTAMM, FAYE ...... DIRECTOR, OPDAT. GOODMAN, NINA ...... SENIOR COUNSEL FOR APPEALS. GROCKI, STEVEN J ...... CHIEF, CHILD EXPLOITATION AND OBSCENITY SECTION.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48273

2017 FEDERAL REGISTER—Continued

Name Position title

HODGE, JENNIFER A.H ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS. HULSER, RAYMOND ...... CHIEF, PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION. JAFFE, DAVID ...... DEPUTY CHIEF, ORGANIZED CRIME AND GANG SECTION. JONES, JOSEPH M ...... SENIOR COUNSEL FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING. MCFADDEN, TREVOR ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. KING, DAMON A ...... DEPUTY CHIEF, CHILD EXPLOITATION AND OBSCENITY SECTION. LYNCH JR., JOHN T ...... CHIEF, COMPUTER CRIME, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION. MCHENRY, TERESA L ...... CHIEF, HUMAN RIGHTS AND SPECIAL PROSECUTIONS SECTION. MELTON, TRACY ...... EXECUTIVE OFFICER. OLMSTED, MICHAEL ...... SENIOR JUSTICE FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION AND INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL MATTERS. PAINTER, CHRISTOPHER M ...... SENIOR COUNSEL FOR CYBERCRIME. RAABE, WAYNE C ...... DEPUTY CHIEF, NARCOTIC AND DANGEROUS DRUG SECTION. RODRIGUEZ, MARY D ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS. ROSENBAUM, ELI M ...... DIRECTOR, HUMAN RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY AND POLICY. STEMLER, PATTY MERKAMP ...... CHIEF, APPELLATE SECTION. TIROL, ANNALOU ...... DEPUTY CHIEF, PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION. WEISSMANN, ANDREW ...... CHIEF, FRAUD SECTION. MOSER, SANDRA ...... DEPUTY CHIEF, FRAUD SETION. WROBLEWSKI, JONATHAN J ...... DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF POLICY AND LEGISLATION. WYATT, ARTHUR G ...... CHIEF, NARCOTIC AND DANGEROUS DRUG SECTION. WYDERKO, JOSEPH ...... DEPUTY CHIEF, APPELLATE SECTION.

Environmental and Natural Resources Division—ENRD

WOOD, JEFF ...... PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. WILLIAMS, JEAN E ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. GELBER, BRUCE S ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. ALEXANDER, S. CRAIG ...... CHIEF, INDIAN RESOURCES SECTION. BARSKY, SETH ...... CHIEF, WILDLIFE AND MARINE RESOURCES. COLLIER, ANDREW ...... EXECUTIVE OFFICER. DOUGLAS, NATHANIEL ...... DEPUTY SECTION CHIEF, ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT SECTION. FERGUSON, CYNTHIA ...... SENIOR LITIGATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. GETTE, JAMES ...... DEPUTY CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES SECTION. GOLDFRANK, ANDREW M ...... CHIEF, LAND ACQUISITION SECTION. GRANT, ERIC ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. GRISHAW, LETITIA J ...... CHIEF, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE SECTION. HARRIS, DEBORAH ...... CHIEF, ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES SECTION. HOANG, ANTHONY P ...... SENIOR LITIGATION COUNSEL, NATURAL RESOURCES. KILBOURNE, JAMES C ...... CHIEF, APPELLATE SECTION. MAHAN, ELLEN M ...... DEPUTY CHIEF, ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT SECTION. MARIANI, THOMAS ...... CHIEF, ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT SECTION. DWORKIN, KAREN ...... DEPUTY CHIEF, ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT SECTION. MERGEN, ANDREW ...... DEPUTY CHIEF, APPELLATE SECTION. PASSARELLI, EDWARD ...... DEPUTY CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES SECTION. POUX,JOSEPH ...... DEPUTY CHIEF, ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES SECTION. RUSSELL, LISA L ...... CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES SECTION. HIMMELCHOCH, SARAH ...... SENIOR ATTORNEY FOR E-DISCOVERY. BRIGHTBILL, JONATHAN ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. SHILTON, DAVID ...... SENIOR LITIGATION COUNSEL. SINGER, FRANK ...... SENIOR LITIGATION COUNSEL. STEWART, HOWARD P ...... SENIOR LITIGATION COUNSEL. TENENBAUM, ALAN S ...... SENIOR LITIGATION COUNSEL. VADEN, CHRISTOPHER S ...... DEPUTY CHIEF, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE SECTION. WARDZINSKI, KAREN M ...... CHIEF, LAW AND POLICY SECTION.

Executive Office for Immigration Review—EOIR

ADKINS-BLANCH, CHARLES K .... VICE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS. CLARK, MOLLY K ...... ATTORNEY EXAMINER. COLE, PATRICIA A ...... ATTORNEY EXAMINER. CREPPY, MICHAEL ...... ATTORNEY EXAMINER. MANN, ANA ...... ATTORNEY EXAMINER. GRANT, EDWARD R ...... ATTORNEY EXAMINER. GREER, ANNE J ...... ATTORNEY EXAMINER. GUENDELSBERGER, JOHN W ..... ATTORNEY EXAMINER. JORDAN, WYEVETRA ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ADMINISTRATION. LUMHO, KEKOA (DETAIL) ...... CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER. KELLER, MARY BETH ...... CHIEF IMMIGRATION JUDGE. KING, JEAN ...... GENERAL COUNSEL. LIEBOWITZ, ELLEN ...... ATTORNEY EXAMINER. KELLY, EDWARD ...... ATTORNEY EXAMINER. MALPHRUS, GARRY D ...... ATTORNEY EXAMINER.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48274 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

2017 FEDERAL REGISTER—Continued

Name Position title

MCGOINGS, MICHAEL ...... DEPUTY CHIEF, IMMIGRATION JUDGE. MULLANE, HUGH G ...... ATTORNEY EXAMINER. NEAL, DAVID ...... CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS. O’CONNOR, BLAIR ...... ATTORNEY EXAMINER. PAULEY, ROGER ANDREW ...... ATTORNEY EXAMINER. STUTMAN, ROBIN M ...... CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER. WENDTLAND, LINDA S ...... ATTORNEY EXAMINER.

Executive Office for Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces—OCDETF

OHR, BRUCE G ...... DIRECTOR, OCDETF AND ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL. PADDEN, THOMAS W ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OCDETF. KELLY, THOMAS J ...... DIRECTOR, FUSION CENTER.

Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys—EOUSA

WILKINSON, ROBERT ‘‘MONTY’’ .. DIRECTOR. BELL, SUZANNE L ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR. PELLETIER, JONATHAN ...... CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER. FLESHMAN, JAMES MARK ...... CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER. CHANDLER, CAMERON G ...... ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF LEGAL EDUCATION. FLINN, SHAWN ...... CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER. MACKLIN, JAMES ...... GENERAL COUNSEL. SMITH, DAVID L ...... COUNSEL FOR LEGAL INITIATIVES. VILLEGAS, DANIEL A ...... COUNSEL, LEGAL PROGAMS AND POLICY. WONG, NORMAN Y ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND COUNSEL TO THE DIRECTOR.

Executive Office for U.S. Trustees—EOUST

WHITE III, CLIFFORD J ...... DIRECTOR. ELLIOTT, RAMONA D ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR, GENERAL COUNSEL.

Justice Management Division—JMD

LOFTHUS, LEE J ...... ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ADMINISTRATION. SANTANGELO, MARI BARR ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR HUMAN RESOURCES AND ADMINISTRATION (CHCO). LAMARY, MARY ...... DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCES. ALLEN, MICHAEL H ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR POLICY, MANAGEMENT, AND PLANNING, AND CHIEF OF STAFF. LAURIA JOLENE A ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL/CONTROLLER. KLIMAVICZ, JOSEPH ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INFORMATION RECOURCES MANAGEMENT AND CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER. GARY, ARTHUR ...... GENERAL COUNSEL. SHAW, CYNTHIA ...... DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENTAL ETHICS OFFICE. SELWESKI, MARK L ...... DIRECTOR, PROCUREMENT SERVICES STAFF. ALVAREZ, CHRISTOPHER C ...... DIRECTOR, FINANCE STAFF. DEELEY, KEVIN ...... DEPUTY CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER. FRONE, JAMILA ...... DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY RECRUITMENT AND MANAGEMENT. DUNLAP, JAMES L ...... DIRECTOR, SECURITY AND EMERGENCY PLANNING STAFF. SNELL, ROBERT ...... DIRECTOR, FACILITIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES STAFF. FELDT, DENNIS G ...... DIRECTOR, LIBRARY STAFF. RAYMOND, JOHN ...... DIRECTOR, IT POLICY AND PLANNING STAFF. SELWESKI, MARK L ...... DIRECTOR, PROCUREMENT SERVICES STAFF. DAUPHIN, DENNIS E ...... DIRECTOR, DEBT COLLECTION MANAGEMENT STAFF. ARNOLD, KENNETH ...... DIRECTOR, ASSET FORFEITURE MANAGEMENT STAFF. PULLEN, JEFFREY ...... SENIOR ADVISOR FOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY. FUNSTON, ROBIN S ...... DIRECTOR, BUDGET STAFF. ATTUCKS, MARK ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUDGET STAFF, OPERATIONS AND FUNDS CONTROL. KLEPPINGER, ERIC D ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUDGET STAFF, OPERATIONS AND FUNDS CONTROL. ROGERS, MELINDA ...... DIRECTOR, CYBERSECURITY SERVICES STAFF. MACKERT, TODD ...... DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR, CYBER SECURITY SERVICES STAFF. MCCRAE, DANIEL ...... DIRECTOR, SERVICE DELIVERY STAFF. ZIMMER, DAWN ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SERVICE DELIVERY STAFF. BEWTRA, ANEET K ...... CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER. RUBIN, DAVID ...... DIRECTOR, SERVICE ENGINEERING STAFF. RODGERS, JANICE M ...... DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENTAL ETHICS OFFICE. TOSCANO JR., RICHARD A ...... DIRECTOR, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY STAFF. MCCONKEY, MILTON ? ...... SENIOR ADVISOR. COOK, TERENCE L ...... SENIOR ADVISOR. ROPER, MATTHEW ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR (AUDITING), FINANCE STAFF.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48275

2017 FEDERAL REGISTER—Continued

Name Position title

National Security Division—NSD

ATKINSON, MICHAEL ...... SENIOR COUNSEL TO THE AAG. HICKEY, ADAM ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. WIEGMANN, JOHN B ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LAW AND POLICY. TOSCAS, GEORGE Z ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL (COUNTERESPIONAGE-COUNTERTERRORISM). JAYARAM, SANCHITHA ...... CHIEF, FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW STAFF. DUNNE, STEVEN M ...... CHIEF, APPELLATE UNIT. EVANS, STUART ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, FISA OPERATINS AND INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT. JENKINS, MARK A ...... EXECUTIVE OFFICER. WEINSHEIMER, G. BRADLEY ...... DIRECTOR OF RISK MANAGEMENT AND COUNSELOR. KEEGAN, MICHAEL ...... DEPUTY CHIEF, COUNTERTERRORISM SECTION. KENNEDY, J. LIONEL ...... SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR NATIONAL SECURITY. MULLANEY, MICHAEL J ...... CHIEF, COUNTERTERRORISM SECTION. O’CONNOR, KEVIN ...... CHIEF, OVERSIGHT SECTION. SANZ-REXACH, GABRIEL ...... CHIEF, OPERATIONS SECTION. HARDEE, CHRISTOPHER ...... CHIEF, POLICY—OFFICE OF LAW AND POLICY. LAUFMAN, DAVID ...... CHIEF, COUNTERINTELLIGENCE, EXPORT CONTROL AND ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE.

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services—COPS

WASHINGTON, RUSSELL C ...... PRINCIPAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR. BROWN-CUTLAR, SHANETTA ..... SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE DIRECTOR.

Office of Information Policy—OIP

PUSTAY, MELANIE ANN ...... DIRECTOR.

Office of the Inspector General—OIG

STORCH, ROBERT ...... DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL. MALMSTROM, JASON R ...... ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDIT. BLIER, WILLIAM M ...... GENERAL COUNSEL. LEE, RENE ...... SENIOR COUNSEL TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. BECKHARD, DANIEL C ...... ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR OVERSIGHT AND REVIEW. O’NEILL, MICHAEL SEAN ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR OVERSIGHT AND REVIEW. PELLETIER, NINA S ...... ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR EVALUATION AND INSPECTIONS. HAYES, MARK L ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDIT. JOHNSON, ERIC A ...... ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS. CHAWAGA, MARGARET ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR INVESTIGATIONS. PETERS, GREGORY T ...... ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING. LOWELL, CYNTHIA ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING. MITZELFELD, JAMES A ...... SENIOR COUNSEL TO THE AIG/INV. RATON, MITCH ...... CHIEF INNOVATION OFFICER. SUMNER, PATRICIA ...... SENIOR COUNSEL TO THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR OVERSIGHT AND REVIEW. LAVINSKY, JOHN ...... SENIOR COUNSEL TO THE IG.

Office of Justice Programs—OJP

HANSON, ALAN ...... PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. HENNEBERG, MAUREEN A ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT. GARRY, EILEEN M ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING, BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE. TRAUTMAN, TRACEY ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PROGRAMS, BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE. FEUCHT, THOMAS E ...... EXECUTIVE SCIENCE ADVISOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE. SPIVAK, HOWARD ...... PRINCIPAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE. MARTIN, RALPH ...... DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF AUDIT, ASSESSMENT, AND MANAGEMENT. MERKLE, PHILIP ...... DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION. MADAN, RAFAEL A ...... GENERAL COUNSEL. MAHONEY, KRISTEN ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR, POLICY MANAGEMENT, BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE. ROBERTS, MARILYN M ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME. MULROW, JERI ...... DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS. SOLOMON, AMY ...... DIRECTOR FOR POLICY MCGRATH, BRIAN ...... CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER. BENDA, BONNIE LEIGH ...... CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER. ATSATT, MARILYNN B ...... DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER. THOMAS, LATHIKA (MARY) ...... DIRECTOR FOR POLICY. BECK, ALLEN J ...... SENIOR STATISTICIAN. DARDEN, SILAS ...... DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS. JONES, CHYRL ...... DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR PROGRAMS, OJJDP.

Office of Legal Counsel—OLC

GANNON, CURTIS ...... PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LEGAL COUNSEL.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48276 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

2017 FEDERAL REGISTER—Continued

Name Position title

KOFFSKY, DANIEL L ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. WHITAKER, HENRY ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. HARRIS, SARAH ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. COLBORN, PAUL P ...... SPECIAL COUNSEL. HART, ROSEMARY A ...... SPECIAL COUNSEL. SINGDAHLSEN, JEFFREY P ...... SENIOR COUNSEL. STEWART, SCOTT ...... COUNSEL.

Office of Legal Policy—OLP

NEWMAN, RYAN ...... PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. TALLEY, BRETT ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. JONES, KEVIN ROBERT ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. THIEMANN, ROBYN L ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. ESCALONA, PRIM ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. KARP, DAVID J ...... SENIOR COUNSEL. JACOBS, JOANNA ...... SENIOR COUNSEL FOR ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

Office of Legislative Affairs—OLA

RAMER, SAMUEL ...... PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. LASSETER, DAVID ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL.

Office of Professional Responsibility—OPR

ASHTON, ROBIN ...... COUNSEL FOR PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. RAGSDALE, JEFFREY ...... DEPUTY COUNSEL ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. BIRNEY, WILLIAM ...... SENIOR ASSOCIATE COUNSEL. HURLEY, RAYMOND ...... SENIOR ASSOCIATE COUNSEL.

Office of Public Affairs—PAO

ISGUR FLORES, SARAH ...... DIRECTOR.

Office of Tribal Justice—OTJ

TOULOU, TRACY S ...... DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF TRIBAL JUSTICE. EDERHEIMER, JOSHUA ...... SENIOR ADVISOR.

Professional Responsibility Advisory Office—PRAO

LUDWIG, STACY ...... DIRECTOR.

Tax Division—TAX

HUBBERT, DAVID A ...... DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. BRUFFY, ROBERT ...... EXECUTIVE OFFICER. BALLWEG, MITCHELL ...... COUNSELOR TO THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR STRATEGIC TAX ENFORCE- MENT. WSZALEK, LARRY ...... CHIEF, CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT SECTION, WESTERN REGION. DALY, MARK ...... SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY. DAVIS, NANETTE ...... SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY. DONOHUE, DENNIS M ...... SENIOR LITIGATION COUNSEL. PINCUS, DAVID ...... CHIEF, COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS SECTION. GOLDBERG, STUART ...... SENIOR COUNSELOR TO THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. HAGLEY, JUDITH ...... SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY. HARTT III, GROVER ...... CHIEF, CIVIL TRIAL SECTION SOUTHWESTERN REGION. IHLO, JENNIFER ...... SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY. CLARKE, RUSSELL SCOTT ...... CHIEF, CIVIL TRIAL SECTION, CENTRAL REGION. JOHNSON, CORY ...... SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY. KEARNS, MICHAEL J ...... CHIEF, CIVIL TRIAL SECTION, SOUTHERN REGION. LARSON, KARI ...... SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY. LINDQUIST III, JOHN A ...... SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY. MELAND, DEBORAH ...... CHIEF, CIVIL TRIAL SECTION EASTERN REGION. REID, ANN C ...... CHIEF, OFFICE OF REVIEW. MULLARKEY, DANIEL P ...... CHIEF, CIVIL TRIAL SECTION, NORTHERN REGION. PAGUNI, ROSEMARY E ...... CHIEF, CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT SECTION, NORTHERN REGION. ROTHENBERG, GILBERT S ...... CHIEF, APPELLATE SECTION. CLARK, THOMAS J ...... DEPUTY CHIEF, APPELLATE SECTION. SALAD, BRUCE M ...... CHIEF, CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT SECTION, SOUTHERN REGION. LYONS, ROBERT ...... CHIEF, CRIMINAL APPEALS AND TAX ENFORCEMENT POLICY SECTION. SAWYER, THOMAS ...... SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY. SERGI, JOSEPH A ...... SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48277

2017 FEDERAL REGISTER—Continued

Name Position title

SHATZ, EILEEN M ...... SPECIAL LITIGATION COUNSEL. SMITH, COREY J ...... SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY. STEHLIK, NOREENE C ...... SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY. SULLIVAN, JOHN ...... SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY. WEAVER, JAMES E ...... SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY. WARD, RICHARD ...... CHIEF, CIVIL TRIAL SECTION WESTERN REGION.

U.S. Marshals Service—USMS

HARLOW, DAVID ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR. AUERBACH, GERALD ...... GENERAL COUNSEL. BROWN, SHANNON B ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, JPATS. MOHAN, KATHERINE T ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCES. DRISCOLL, DERRICK ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, INVESTIGATIVE OPERATIONS. MATHIAS, KARL ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY. BOLEN, JOHN ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, JUDICIAL SECURITY. EDWARDS, SOPHIA ...... DIRECTOR, BUSINESS STRATEGY AND NTEGRATION. MUSEL, DAVID F ...... ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION. SNELSON, WILLIAM D ...... ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, OPERATIONS. VIRTUE, TIMOTHY ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ASSET FORFEITURE. HACKMASTER, NELSON ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PRISONER OPERATIONS. DICKINSON. LISA ...... ATTORNEY ADVISOR. O’BRIEN-ROGAN, CAROLE ...... PROCUREMENT EXECUTIVE, FINANCIAL SERVICES. O’BRIEN, HOLLEY ...... CHIEF, FINANCIAL OFFICER, FINANCIAL SERVICES. O’’HEARN, DONALD ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. PAN, MAUREEN ...... (ACTING) ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MANAGEMENT SUPPORT. ANDERSON, DAVID ...... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, TRAINING.

Community Relations Service—CRS

RATIFF, GERRI ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR.

Rule of Law Office—ROL

FAIRCHILD, FORDE ...... JUSTICE ATTACHE, AFGHANISTAN.

U.S. National Central Bureau INTERPOL—USNCB

SALZGABER, WAYNE ...... DEPUTY DIRECTOR.

[FR Doc. 2017–22444 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] ADDRESSES: Russell Senate Building, reviews that are open to the public. If BILLING CODE 4410–CH–P Room #SR–485, 2 Constitution Avenue you need special accommodations due NE., Washington, DC 20002. to a disability, please contact the Office FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of Accessibility, National Endowment Victoria Hutter, Office of Public Affairs, for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE National Endowment for the Arts, 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20506, ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES Washington, DC 20506, at 202/682– 202/682–5733, Voice/T.T.Y. 202/682– 5570. 5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the National Endowment for the Arts meeting. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If, in the The upcoming meeting is: National Council on the Arts 192nd course of the open session discussion, it National Council on the Arts 192nd Meeting becomes necessary for the Council to Meeting discuss non-public commercial or This meeting will be open. AGENCY: National Endowment for the financial information of intrinsic value, Date and time: October 26, 2017; Arts, National Foundation on the Arts the Council will go into closed session 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and Humanities. pursuant to subsection (c)(4) of the From 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.— ACTION: Notice of meeting. Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 Opening remarks and voting on U.S.C. 552b, and in accordance with the recommendations for grant funding and SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of July 5, 2016 determination of the rejection, followed by updates from the the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Chairman. Additionally, discussion Chairman. There also will be the amended, notice is hereby given that a concerning purely personal information following presentations (times are meeting of the National Council on the about individuals, such as personal approximate): from 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 Arts will be held. Open to the public on biographical and salary data or medical a.m.—Presentation from Missoula a space available basis. information, may be conducted by the Children’s Theatre (Michael McGill, DATES: See the SUPPLEMENTARY Council in closed session in accordance Executive Director, Missoula Children’s INFORMATION section for meeting time with subsection (c)(6) of 5 U.S.C. 552b. Theatre); from 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 and date. The meeting is Eastern time Any interested persons may attend, as a.m.—Presentation from Appalshop and the ending time is approximate. observers, to Council discussions and (Ada Smith, Institutional Development

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48278 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

Director, Appalshop); and from 11:30 select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS during severe weather be approved as a a.m.–12:00 p.m.—Remarks from Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, minimum by a licensed senior operator Members of Congress. please contact the NRC’s Public before taking this action. Entergy Dated: October 12, 2017. Document Room (PDR) reference staff at requested an exemption from these rules to allow as a minimum either a licensed Sherry P. Hale, 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by email to [email protected]. The senior operator or a CFH to approve the Staff Assistant, National Endowment for the suspension of security measures at Arts. ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in Palisades after the certifications [FR Doc. 2017–22452 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] ADAMS) is provided the first time that required by § 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii) have BILLING CODE 7537–01–P a document is referenced. been submitted. There is no need for an • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and exemption from these rules for a purchase copies of public documents at licensed senior operator to approve the NUCLEAR REGULATORY the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One suspension of security measures COMMISSION White Flint North, 11555 Rockville because the current regulation allows [Docket No. 50–255; NRC–2017–0207] Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. this. However, the exemption is needed FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: to also allow, as a minimum, a CFH to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Scott P. Wall, Office of Nuclear Reactor provide this approval after the Palisades Nuclear Plant Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory certifications required by § 50.82(a)(1)(i) Commission, Washington, DC 20555– and (ii) have been submitted. AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 0001; telephone: 301–415–2855; email: Commission. III. Discussion [email protected]. ACTION: Exemption; issuance. The NRC’s security rules have long SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: recognized the potential need to SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory I. Background suspend security or safeguards measures Commission (NRC) is issuing an under certain conditions. Accordingly, exemption in response to a June 29, Entergy is the holder of Renewed § 50.54(x) and (y), first published in 2017, request from Entergy Nuclear Facility Operating License No. DPR–20 1983, allow a licensee to take reasonable Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the for Palisades. The license provides, actions in an emergency that depart licensee) from certain regulatory among other things, that the facility is from license conditions or technical requirements. The exemption would subject to all applicable rules, specifications when those actions are allow, as a minimum, a certified fuel regulations, and orders of the NRC now immediately ‘‘needed to protect the handler (CFH), in addition to a licensed or hereafter in effect. The Palisades public health and safety,’’ and no senior operator, to approve the facility consists of a pressurized-water actions consistent with license suspension of security measures for reactor located in Van Buren County, conditions and technical specifications Palisades Nuclear Plant (Palisades) Michigan. that can provide adequate or equivalent during certain emergency conditions or By letter dated January 4, 2017 protection are immediately apparent (48 during severe weather after the (ADAMS Accession No. ML17004A062), FR 13970; April 1, 1983). This departure certifications of permanent cessation of the licensee submitted a Notification of from license conditions or technical operations and permanent removal of Permanent Cessation of Power specifications must be approved, as a fuel from the reactor vessel are Operations for Palisades. In this letter, minimum, by a licensed senior operator. docketed. Entergy provided notification to the In 1986, in its final rule, ‘‘Miscellaneous NRC of its intent to permanently cease Amendments Concerning the Physical DATES: The exemption was issued on power operations at Palisades no later Protection of Nuclear Power Plants’’ (51 October 11, 2017. than October 1, 2018. FR 27817; August 4, 1986), the ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID In accordance with §§ 50.82(a)(1)(i) Commission issued § 73.55(a), which NRC–2017–0207 when contacting the and (ii), and 50.82(a)(2) of title 10 of the provided, in part, that, in accordance NRC about the availability of Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), with § 50.54(x) and (y), the licensee may information regarding this document. the 10 CFR part 50 license for the suspend any safeguards measures You may obtain publicly-available facility will no longer authorize reactor pursuant to § 73.55 in an emergency information related to this document operation or emplacement or retention when this action is immediately needed using any of the following methods: of fuel in the reactor vessel after to protect the public health and safety • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to certifications of permanent cessation of and no action consistent with license http://www.regulations.gov and search operations and permanent removal of conditions and technical specifications for Docket ID NRC–2017–0207. Address fuel from the reactor vessel are docketed that can provide adequate or equivalent questions about NRC dockets to Carol for Palisades. protection is immediately apparent. The Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; By letter dated August 21, 2017 regulation further requires that this email: [email protected]. For (ADAMS Accession No. ML17151A350), suspension be approved as a minimum technical questions, contact the the NRC approved the CFH Training by a licensed senior operator prior to individual listed in the FOR FURTHER and Retraining Program for Palisades. taking the action. INFORMATION CONTACT section of this In 1996, the NRC made a number of document. II. Request/Action regulatory changes to address • NRC’s Agencywide Documents By letter dated June 29, 2017 (ADAMS decommissioning. One of the changes Access and Management System Accession No. ML17180A004), the was to amend § 50.54(x) and (y) to (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- licensee requested an exemption from authorize a non-licensed operator called available documents online in the § 73.55(p)(1)(i) and (ii), pursuant to a ‘‘Certified Fuel Handler,’’ in addition ADAMS Public Documents collection at § 73.5, ‘‘Specific exemptions.’’ Section to a licensed senior operator, to approve http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 73.55(p)(1)(i) and (ii) requires, in part, such protective actions in an emergency adams.html. To begin the search, select that the suspension of security measures situation. In addressing the role of the ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then during certain emergency conditions or CFH during emergencies in § 50.54(y),

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48279

the Commission stated in the proposed conditions or during severe weather for Palisades. The NRC staff found that, rule, ‘‘Decommissioning of Nuclear after the certifications required by among other things, the program Power Reactors’’ (60 FR 37374; July 20, § 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii) have been addresses the safe conduct of 1995) that it was proposing to amend 10 submitted. The licensee’s intent with decommissioning activities, the safe CFR 50.54(y) to permit a certified fuel the requested exemption is to align the handling and storage of spent fuel, and handler at nuclear power reactors that requirements of § 73.55(p)(1)(i) and (ii) the appropriate response to plant have permanently ceased operations with the requirements of § 50.54(y). emergencies. Because a CFH at and permanently removed fuel from the Per § 73.5, the Commission may grant Palisades will be sufficiently trained reactor vessel, subject to the exemptions from the regulations in part and qualified under an NRC-approved requirements of § 50.82(a) and 73, as are authorized by law. The NRC program, the NRC staff considers the consistent with the proposed definition staff has determined that granting the CFH to have sufficient knowledge of of ‘‘Certified Fuel Handler’’ specified in licensee’s proposed exemption will not operational and safety concerns, such § 50.2, to make these evaluations and result in a violation of the Atomic that allowing the CFH to suspend judgments. The Commission stated that Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or security measures during emergencies a nuclear power reactor that has other laws. Therefore, the exemption is or severe weather will not result in permanently ceased operations and no authorized by law. undue risk to the public health and longer has fuel in the reactor vessel does B. Will Not Endanger Life or Property or safety. Finally, the exemption does not not require a licensed individual to the Common Defense and Security monitor core conditions. The reduce the overall effectiveness of the Commission noted that a certified fuel Relaxing the requirement to allow a Palisades physical security plan and has handler at a permanently shutdown and CFH, in addition to a licensed senior no adverse impacts to Entergy’s ability defueled nuclear power reactor operator, to approve the suspension of to physically secure the site or protect undergoing decommissioning is an security measures for Palisades during special nuclear material at Palisades, individual who has the requisite certain emergency conditions or during and thus would not have an effect on knowledge and experience to evaluate severe weather after the certifications the common defense and security. The plant conditions and make these required by § 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii) have NRC staff has determined that the judgments. been submitted will not endanger life or exemption would not reduce security In the final rule (61 FR 39298; July 29, property or the common defense and measures currently in place to protect 1996), the NRC added ‘‘certified fuel security for the reasons described in this against radiological sabotage. Instead, handler’’ to the definitions in § 50.2 and section. the exemption would align the defined it to mean, for a nuclear power First, § 73.55(p)(2) will continue to requirements of § 73.55(p)(1)(i) and (ii) reactor facility, a non-licensed operator require that ‘‘[s]uspended security with the existing requirements of who has qualified in accordance with a measures must be reinstated as soon as § 50.54(y). fuel handler training program approved conditions permit.’’ For these reasons, the NRC staff by the Commission. However, the Second, the suspension for non- concludes that relaxing the requirement decommissioning rule did not propose weather emergency conditions under to allow a CFH, in addition to a licensed or make parallel changes to § 73.55(a), § 73.55(p)(1)(i) will continue to be senior operator, to approve the and did not discuss the role of a non- invoked only ‘‘when this action is suspension of security measures for licensed CFH. immediately needed to protect the Palisades in an emergency or during In the final rule, ‘‘Power Reactor public health and safety and no action severe weather after the certifications Security Requirements’’ (74 FR 13926; consistent with license conditions and required by § 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii) have March 27, 2009), the NRC relocated the technical specifications that can provide been submitted will not endanger life or security suspension requirements from adequate or equivalent protection is property or the common defense and § 73.55(a) to § 73.55(p)(1)(i) and (ii). The immediately apparent.’’ Thus, the security. exemption would not prevent the role of a CFH was not discussed in this C. The Exemption Is Otherwise in the licensee from meeting the underlying rulemaking; therefore, the suspension of Public Interest security measures in accordance with purpose of § 73.55(p)(1)(i) to protect the § 73.55(p) continued to require approval public health and safety. Entergy’s proposed exemption would as a minimum by a licensed senior Third, the suspension for severe relax the current requirements by operator, even for a facility that had weather under § 73.55(p)(1)(ii) will allowing a CFH, in addition to a permanently ceased operations and continue to be used only when ‘‘the licensed senior operator, to approve the permanently defueled. suspension of affected security suspension of security measures for However, pursuant to § 73.5, the measures is immediately needed to Palisades in an emergency when Commission may, upon application of protect the personal health and safety of ‘‘immediately needed to protect the any interested person or upon its own security force personnel and no other public health and safety’’ or during initiative, grant exemptions from the immediately apparent action consistent severe weather when ‘‘immediately requirements of part 73, as it determines with the license conditions and needed to protect the personal health are authorized by law and will not technical specifications can provide and safety of security force personnel’’ endanger life or property or the common adequate or equivalent protection.’’ The after the certifications required by defense and security, and are otherwise requirement to receive input from the § 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii) have been in the public interest. security supervisor or manager will submitted. Without the exemption, the remain. Thus, the exemption would not licensee cannot implement changes to A. The Exemption Is Authorized by Law prevent the licensee from meeting the its security plan to authorize a CFH to The requested exemption from underlying purpose of § 73.55(p)(1)(ii) approve the temporary suspension of § 73.55(p)(1)(i) and (ii) would allow, as to protect the health and safety of the security measures during an emergency a minimum, a CFH, in addition to a security force. or severe weather, comparable to the licensed senior operator, to approve the Additionally, by letter dated August authority given to the CFH by the NRC suspension of security measures for 21, 2017, the NRC approved Entergy’s when it promulgated § 50.54(y). Instead, Palisades during certain emergency CFH Training and Retraining Program the regulations would continue to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48280 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

require that, as a minimum, a licensed consideration; (ii) there is no significant Therefore, the Commission hereby senior operator be available to make change in the types or significant grants the licensee’s request for an these decisions even though, after the increase in the amounts of any effluents exemption from the requirements of docketing of the certifications required that may be released offsite; (iii) there is § 73.55(p)(1)(i) and (ii), to authorize, by § 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii) and as a no significant increase in individual or after the certifications required by permanently shutdown and defueled cumulative public or occupational § 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii) have been plant, Palisades would no longer radiation exposure; (iv) there is no submitted, that the suspension of otherwise require licensed senior significant construction impact; (v) security measures for Palisades during operators. there is no significant increase in the certain emergency conditions or during This exemption is in the public potential for or consequences from severe weather must be approved as a interest for two reasons. First, the radiological accidents; and (vi) the minimum by either a licensed senior exemption would allow the licensee to requirements from which an exemption operator or a CFH before taking this make decisions pursuant to is sought involve: Safeguard plans, and action. § 73.55(p)(1)(i) and (ii) without having materials control and accounting The exemption is effective upon to maintain a staff of licensed senior inventory scheduling requirements; or receipt. operators at a nuclear power reactor that involve other requirements of an has permanently ceased operations and administrative, managerial, or Dated at Rockville, Maryland, on October permanently removed fuel from the organizational nature. 11, 2017. reactor vessel. The exemption would The NRC staff has determined that the For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. also allow the licensee to have an approval of the requested exemption Kathryn M. Brock, established procedure in place to allow involves no significant hazards Deputy Director, Division of Operating a trained CFH to suspend security consideration because allowing a CFH, Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor measures in the event of an emergency in addition to a licensed senior operator, Regulation. or severe weather after the certifications to approve the security suspension at a [FR Doc. 2017–22372 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] required by § 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii) have permanently shutdown and defueled BILLING CODE 7590–01–P been submitted. Second, the consistent power plant does not (1) involve a and efficient regulation of nuclear significant increase in the probability or power plants serves the public interest. consequences of an accident previously NUCLEAR REGULATORY This exemption would assure evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of COMMISSION consistency between the regulations in a new or different kind of accident from § 73.55(p) and § 50.54(y), and the any accident previously evaluated; or [NRC–2017–0001] requirements concerning licensed (3) involve a significant reduction in a operators in 10 CFR part 55. The NRC margin of safety. The requested Sunshine Act Meeting Notice staff has determined that granting the exemption is unrelated to any licensee’s proposed exemption would operational restriction. Accordingly, DATE: Weeks of October 16, 23, 30, allow the licensee to designate a CFH, there is no significant change in the November 6, 13, 20, 2017. with qualifications appropriate for a types or significant increase in the PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference permanently shutdown and defueled amounts of any effluents that may be Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, reactor, to approve the suspension of released offsite and no significant Maryland. security measures during an emergency increase in individual or cumulative to protect the public health and safety, public or occupational radiation STATUS: Public and Closed. and during severe weather to protect the exposure. The requested exemption is Week of October 16, 2017 personal health and safety of the not associated with construction, so security force, consistent with the there is no significant construction Monday, October 16, 2017 similar authority provided by § 50.54(y) impact. The requested exemption does 10:30 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public after the certifications required by not concern the source term (i.e., Meeting) (Tentative) § 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii) have been potential amount of radiation in an submitted. For these reasons, the accident), nor mitigation. Thus, there is Final Rule: Modified Small Quantities exemption is in the public interest. no significant increase in the potential Protocol (RIN 3150–AJ70; NRC– for, or consequences from, radiological 2015–0263) (Tentative) D. Environmental Considerations accidents. Finally, the requirement to ADDITIONAL INFORMATION By a vote of The NRC’s approval of the requested have a licensed senior operator approve 3–0 on October 10 and 11, 2017, the exemption belongs to a category of suspensions of security measures from Commission determined pursuant to actions that the Commission, by rule or which the exemption is sought involves U.S.C. 552b(e) and § 9.107(a) of the regulation, has declared to be a either safeguards, materials control, or Commission’s rules that the above categorical exclusion, after first finding managerial/organizational matters. referenced Affirmation Session be held that the category of actions does not Therefore, pursuant to § 51.22(b) and with less than one week notice to the individually or cumulatively have a (c)(25), no environmental impact public. The meeting is scheduled on significant effect on the human statement or environmental assessment October 16, 2017 environment. Specifically, the NRC’s need be prepared in connection with the Week of October 23, 2017—Tentative approval of the requested exemption is approval of this exemption request. categorically excluded from further Tuesday, October 24, 2017 environmental analysis under IV. Conclusions § 51.22(c)(25). Accordingly, the Commission has 10:00 a.m. Strategic Programmatic Under § 51.22(c)(25), the granting of determined that, pursuant to § 73.5, the Overview of the Operating Reactors an exemption from the requirements of exemption is authorized by law and will Business Line (Public) (Contact: any regulation of Chapter I to 10 CFR is not endanger life or property or the Trent Wertz: 301–415–1568) a categorical exclusion provided that: (i) common defense and security, and is This meeting will be webcast live at There is no significant hazards otherwise in the public interest. the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48281

Week of October 30, 2017—Tentative NUCLEAR REGULATORY email to [email protected]. The COMMISSION supporting statement and burden There are no meetings scheduled for spreadsheet for ‘‘Material Control and [NRC–2016–0263] the week of October 30, 2017. Accounting of Special Nuclear Week of November 6, 2017—Tentative Information Collection: Material Material,’’ is available in ADAMS under Control and Accounting of Special Accession Nos. ML17249A549 and There are no meetings scheduled for Nuclear Material ML17249A580, respectively. the week of November 6, 2017. • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory purchase copies of public documents at Week of November 13, 2017—Tentative Commission. the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One There are no meetings scheduled for ACTION: Notice of submission to the White Flint North, 11555 Rockville the week of November 13, 2017. Office of Management and Budget; Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. request for comment. • NRC’s Clearance Officer: A copy of Week of November 20, 2017—Tentative the collection of information and related SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory instructions may be obtained without There are no meetings scheduled for Commission (NRC) has recently charge by contacting NRC’s Clearance the week of November 20, 2017. submitted a request for renewal of an Officer, David Cullison, Office of the * * * * * existing collection of information to the Chief Information Office, U.S. Nuclear Office of Management and Budget The schedule for Commission Regulatory Commission, Washington, (OMB) for review. The information DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– meetings is subject to change on short collection is entitled, ‘‘Material Control notice. For more information or to verify 2084; email: INFOCOLLECTS.Resource@ and Accounting of Special Nuclear nrc.gov. the status of meetings, contact Denise Material.’’ McGovern at 301–415–0681 or via email B. Submitting Comments DATES: at [email protected]. Submit comments by December 18, 2017. The NRC cautions you not to include * * * * * ADDRESSES: Submit comments directly identifying or contact information in The NRC Commission Meeting to the OMB reviewer at: Aaron Szabo, comment submissions that you do not Schedule can be found on the Internet Desk Officer, Office of Information and want to be publicly disclosed in your at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ Regulatory Affairs (OMB approval comment submission. All comment public-meetings/schedule.html. number 3150–0123), NEOB–10202, submissions are posted at http:// www.regulations.gov and entered into * * * * * Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503; telephone: 202– ADAMS. Comment submissions are not The NRC provides reasonable 395–3621, email: oira_submission@ routinely edited to remove identifying accommodation to individuals with omb.eop.gov. or contact information. disabilities where appropriate. If you If you are requesting or aggregating FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: need a reasonable accommodation to comments from other persons for David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, participate in these public meetings, or submission to the NRC, then you should U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, need this meeting notice or the inform those persons not to include Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: transcript or other information from the identifying or contact information that 301–415–2084; email: public meetings in another format (e.g., they do not want to be publicly [email protected]. braille, large print), please notify disclosed in their comment submission. Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Your request should state that the NRC Program Manager, at 301–287–0739, by I. Obtaining Information and does not routinely edit comment videophone at 240–428–3217, or by Submitting Comments submissions to remove such information email at Kimberly.Meyer-Chambers@ before making the comment A. Obtaining Information nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for submissions available to the public or reasonable accommodation will be Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2016– entering the comment submissions into made on a case-by-case basis. 0263 when contacting the NRC about ADAMS. the availability of information for this II. Background * * * * * action. You may obtain publicly- Members of the public may request to available information related to this Under the provisions of the receive this information electronically. action by any of the following methods: Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 If you would like to be added to the • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently distribution, please contact the Nuclear http://www.regulations.gov and search submitted a request for renewal of an Regulatory Commission, Office of the for Docket ID NRC–2016–0263. existing collection of information to Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301– • NRC’s Agencywide Documents OMB for review entitled, ‘‘Material 415–1969), or email Access and Management System Control and Accounting of Special [email protected] or (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- Nuclear Material.’’ The NRC hereby [email protected]. available documents online in the informs potential respondents that an ADAMS Public Documents collection at agency may not conduct or sponsor, and Dated: October 13, 2017. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ that a person is not required to respond Denise L. McGovern, adams.html. To begin the search, select to, a collection of information unless it Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary. ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then displays a currently valid OMB control [FR Doc. 2017–22555 Filed 10–13–17; 11:15 am] select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS number. BILLING CODE 7590–01–P Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, The NRC published a Federal please contact the NRC’s Public Register notice with a 60-day comment Document Room (PDR) reference staff at period on this information collection on 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by June 21, 2017 (82 FR 28361).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48282 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

1. The title of the information ACTION: Notice of submission to the the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One collection: 10 CFR part 74, ‘‘Material Office of Management and Budget; White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Control and Accounting of Special request for comment. Pike, and Rockville, Maryland 20852. Nuclear Material.’’ • NRC’s Clearance Officer: A copy of 2. OMB approval number: 3150–0123. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory the collection of information and related 3. Type of submission: Extension. Commission (NRC) has recently instructions may be obtained without 4. The form number, if applicable: submitted a request for renewal of an charge by contacting the NRC’s Not applicable. existing collection of information to the Clearance Officer, David Cullison, 5. How often the collection is required Office of Management and Budget Office of the Chief Information Officer, or requested: Submission of (OMB) for review. The information U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, fundamental material control plans is a collection is entitled, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: one-time requirement which has been ‘‘Nondiscrimination in Federally 301–415–2084; email: completed by all current licensees as Assisted Commission Programs.’’ [email protected]. required. However, licensees may DATES: Submit comments by November submit amendments or revisions to the 17, 2017. B. Submitting Comments plans as necessary. Reports are ADDRESSES: Submit comments directly The NRC cautions you not to include submitted as events occur. to the OMB reviewer at: Aaron Szabo, identifying or contact information in 6. Who will be required or asked to Desk Officer, Office of Information and comment submissions that you do not respond: Persons licensed under part 70 Regulatory Affairs (NRC–2017–0133), want to be publicly disclosed in your of title 10 of the Code of Federal NEOB–10202, Office of Management comment submission. All comment Regulations (10 CFR), who possess and and Budget, Washington, DC 20503; submissions are posted at http:// use certain forms and quantities of telephone: 202–395–3621, email: oira_ www.regulations.gov and entered into special nuclear material (SNM). [email protected]. ADAMS. Comment submissions are not 7. The estimated number of annual routinely edited to remove identifying responses: 173 (17 reporting responses + FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, or contact information. 156 recordkeepers). If you are requesting or aggregating 8. The estimated number of annual U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: comments from other persons for respondents: 156. submission to the OMB, then you 9. The estimated number of hours 301–415–2084; email: should inform those persons not to needed annually to comply with the [email protected]. include identifying or contact information collection requirement or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: information that they do not want to be request: 8,869 (669 hours reporting + I. Obtaining Information and publicly disclosed in their comment 8,200 hours recordkeeping). Submitting Comments submission. Your request should state 10. Abstract: Part 74 establishes that the NRC does not routinely edit requirements for material control and A. Obtaining Information comment submissions to remove such accounting of SNM, and specific Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017– information before making the comment performance-based regulations for 0133 when contacting the NRC about submissions available to the public or licensees authorized to possess, use, and the availability of information for this entering the comment submissions into produce strategic SNM, and SNM of action. You may obtain publicly- ADAMS. moderate strategic significance and low available information related to this strategic significance. The information action by any of the following methods: II. Background is used by the NRC to make licensing • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to Under the provisions of the and regulatory determinations http://www.regulations.gov and search Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 concerning material accounting of SNM for Docket ID NRC–2017–0133. U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently • and to satisfy obligations of the United NRC’s Agencywide Documents submitted a request for renewal of an States to the International Atomic Access and Management System existing collection of information to Energy Agency. Submission or retention (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- OMB for review entitled, ‘‘10 CFR part of the information is mandatory for available documents online in the 4, Nondiscrimination in Federally persons subject to the requirements. ADAMS Public Documents collection at Assisted Commission Programs.’’ The Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ NRC hereby informs potential of October 2017. adams.html. To begin the search, select respondents that an agency may not For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then conduct or sponsor, and that a person is David Cullison, select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS not required to respond to, a collection NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, of information unless it displays a Information Officer. please contact the NRC’s Public currently valid OMB control number. [FR Doc. 2017–22486 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Document Room (PDR) reference staff at The NRC published a Federal BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by Register notice with a 60-day comment email to [email protected]. A copy period on this information collection on of the collection of information and June 14, 2017, (82 FR 27291). NUCLEAR REGULATORY related instructions may be obtained 1. The title of the information COMMISSION without charge by accessing ADAMS collection: ‘‘Nondiscrimination in Accession Nos. ML17215A811 and Federally Assisted Commission [NRC–2017–0133] ML17215A813, respectively. The Programs. Information Collection: supporting statement and Cumulative 2. OMB approval number: 3150–0053. Nondiscrimination in Federally Occupational Exposure History is 3. Type of submission: Extension. Assisted Commission Programs available in ADAMS under Accession 4. The form number if applicable: No. ML17215A807. NRC Form 781 and 782. AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 5. How often the collection is required Commission. purchase copies of public documents at or requested: Provisions for this

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48283

collection are covered in § 4.331 of title For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations David Cullison, this document. (10 CFR) Compliance Reviews, which NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: indicates that the NRC may conduct Information Officer. Gregory Trussell, Office of Nuclear compliance reviews and Pre-Award [FR Doc. 2017–22448 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. reviews of recipients or use other BILLING CODE 7590–01–P Nuclear Regulatory Commission, similar procedures that will permit it to Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: investigate and correct violations of the 301–415–6445; email: Gregory.Trussell@ act and these regulations. The NRC may NUCLEAR REGULATORY nrc.gov. conduct these reviews even in absence COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: of a complaint against a recipient. The [NRC–2011–0012] I. Obtaining Information and reviews may be as comprehensive as RIN 3150–AI92 Submitting Comments necessary to determine whether a violation of these regulations has Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal A. Obtaining Information occurred. Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2011– AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 0012 when contacting the NRC about 6. Who will be required or asked to Commission. respond: Recipients of Federal Financial the availability of information for this ACTION: Regulatory analysis; request for action. You may obtain publicly- Assistance provided by the NRC comment and public meeting. (including Educational Institutions, available information related to this action by any of the following methods: Other Nonprofit Organizations receiving SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to Federal Assistance, and Agreement Commission (NRC) is requesting http://www.regulations.gov and search comment on the draft regulatory States). for Docket ID NRC–2011–0012. 7. The estimated number of annual analysis, ‘‘Draft Regulatory Analysis for • NRC’s Agencywide Documents responses: 600. Final Rule: Low-Level Radioactive Access and Management System Waste Disposal,’’ and seeking specific (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- 8. The estimated number of annual cost and benefit information to better respondents: 200. available documents online in the inform the updated draft regulatory ADAMS Public Documents collection at 9. An estimate of the total number of analysis. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ hours needed annually to comply with DATES: Submit comments by November adams.html. To begin the search, select the information collection requirement 16, 2017. Comments received after this ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then or request: 3,600 (3,000 hrs. for date will be considered if it is practical select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS reporting (5 hrs. per respondent) and to do so, but the NRC is able to assure Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 600 hrs. for recordkeeping (3 hrs. per consideration only for comments please contact the NRC’s Public record keeper). received on or before this date. Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 10. Abstract: The regulations under 10 ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by CFR part 4 implement the provisions of by any of the following methods: email to [email protected]. The • the Title VI of the Civil Rights of 1964, Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to ADAMS Accession Number for each Public Law 88–352; (78 Stat. 241; 42 http://www.regulations.gov and search document referenced (if it is available in U.S.C. 2000a note), Title IV of the for Docket ID NRC–2011–0012. Address ADAMS) is provided the first time that questions about NRC dockets to Carol SUPPLEMENTARY Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, it is mentioned in the Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; INFORMATION section. Public Law 93–438, (88 stat. 1233; 42 email: [email protected]. For • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and U.S.C. 580 note), which relate to technical questions contact the purchase copies of public documents at nondiscrimination with respect to race, individual listed in the FOR FURTHER the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One color, national origin or sex in any INFORMATION CONTACT section of this White Flint North, 11555 Rockville program or activity receiving Federal document. Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Financial assistance from NRC; Section • Email comments to: B. Submitting Comments 504 or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as [email protected]. If you amended, Public Law 93–112 (87 Stat. do not receive an automatic email reply Please include Docket ID NRC–2011– 355; 29 U.S.C. 701 note), Public Law confirming receipt, then contact us at 0012 in your submission. 95–602 (92 Stat. 2955; 29 U.S.C. 701 301–415–1677. The NRC cautions you not to include note, which relates to • Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. identifying or contact information that nondiscrimination with respect to Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301– you do not want to be publicly disability in any program or activity 415–1101. disclosed in your comment submission. receiving Federal financial assistance; • Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. The NRC posts all comment and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, submissions at http:// as amended, Public Law 94–135 (89 Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: www.regulations.gov and enters the Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. comment submissions into ADAMS. Stat. 713; 42 U.S.C. 3001 note), Public • Law 95–478 (92 Stat. 1513; 42 U.S.C. Hand deliver comments to: 11555 The NRC does not routinely edit Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland comment submissions to remove 3001 note), which relates to 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. identifying or contact information. nondiscrimination on the basis of age in (Eastern Time) Federal workdays; If you are requesting or aggregating any program or activity receiving telephone: 301–415–1677. comments from other persons for Federal financial assistance. For additional direction on obtaining submission to the NRC, then you should Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day information and submitting comments, inform those persons not to include of October 2017. see ‘‘Obtaining Information and identifying or contact information that Submitting Comments’’ in the they do not want to be publicly

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48284 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

disclosed in their comment submission. Federal Register (80 FR 16082). The • Development of site-specific WAC; Your request should state that the NRC 2015 proposed rule would have and does not routinely edit comment implemented changes to require new • Implementation of current submissions to remove such information and revised site specific technical dosimetry in the technical analyses. before making the comment analyses and other requirements that As a result of the comments received submissions available to the public or would have permitted the development on the proposed rule, the NRC staff entering the comment submissions into of site-specific waste acceptance criteria drafted a final rule package for ADAMS. (WAC) based on the results of these Commission review, ‘‘SECY–16–0106, II. Background analyses. In the 2015 proposed rule, the FINAL RULE: Low-Level Radioactive NRC explained that the changes would Waste Disposal (10 CFR part 61) (RIN The NRC’s licensing requirements for better align the requirements with the disposal of commercial low-level 3150–AI92),’’ dated September 15, 2016. current health and safety standards (i.e., The draft final rule package is available radioactive waste (LLRW) in near- 10 CFR part 20) and identify any surface disposal facilities can be found for review under ADAMS Accession No. additional measures that would be ML16188A290 and includes a draft in part 61 of title 10 of the Code of prudent to implement for continued Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Federal Register notice (ADAMS disposal of radioactive LLRW at a Accession No. ML16188A371) and a ‘‘Licensing Requirements for Land particular land disposal facility. In Disposal of Radioactive Waste.’’ The draft final regulatory analysis (ADAMS summary, the 2015 proposed rule would Accession No. ML16189A050). NRC originally adopted 10 CFR part 61 have specified requirements for: on December 27, 1982 (47 FR 57446). In response to SECY–16–0106, the • Technical analyses for The existing LLRW disposal facilities Commission issued a staff requirements are located in and licensed by demonstrating compliance with the memorandum (SRM), SRM–SECY–16– Agreement States, and those Agreement public dose limits; 0106 (ADAMS Accession No. • States have incorporated many of the Technical analyses for ML17251B147), dated September 8, requirements in 10 CFR part 61 into demonstrating compliance with dose 2017, which directed the NRC staff to their corresponding regulations and as limits for protection of inadvertent publish a supplemental proposed rule license conditions for their licensees. intruders; for public comment that is revised to On March 26, 2015, the NRC • Identification and description of include Commission-directed rule published a proposed rule, ‘‘Low-level defense-in-depth protections that, taken changes. The Commission directed Radioactive Waste Disposal,’’ for an together with the technical analyses, changes that are pertinent to this public initial 120-day comment period in the constitute the safety case; comment request are stated in table 1.

TABLE 1—RULE CHANGES

Draft final rule SRM direction

Compliance period of: Compliance period of 1,000 years, independent of radionuclide content. • 1,000 years or • 10,000 years (if significant quantities of long-lived radionuclides are present) New requirements applicable to all currently operating and future • New requirements applicable to all future LLRW disposal facilities. LLRW disposal facilities. • The regulator may use a case-by-case basis (i.e., ‘‘grandfather provi- sion’’) for applying new requirements to only those sites that plan to accept large quantities of depleted uranium for disposal.

III. Discussion in light of the Commission’s changes to During the comment period for this the draft final rule identified in table 1. action, the NRC will conduct a public In addition to specified rule language All comments provided will be meeting at the NRC’s Headquarters that changes, the Commission, in SRM– will explain the cost and benefit SECY–16–0106, also directed the NRC considered in improving the regulatory analysis to ensure that it is sufficiently information it is seeking in this notice staff to ‘‘be informed by broader and and to address questions. Information more fully integrated, but reasonably informed by broader and more fully regarding the public meeting is posted foreseeable costs and benefits to the U.S. integrated, but reasonably foreseeable, on the NRC’s public meeting Web site. waste disposal system resulting from the costs and benefits to the U.S. waste The NRC’s public meeting Web site is proposed rule changes, including pass- disposal system; however, the NRC staff located at https://www.nrc.gov/public- through costs to waste generators and does not plan to provide responses to involve.html. processors.’’ To support development of these comments. In addition, the NRC the new supplemental proposed rule as staff is requesting that comments be The NRC has also posted the meeting directed by the Commission in SRM– limited to focus on the regulatory notice on the Federal rulemaking Web SECY–16–0106, the NRC staff is seeking analysis itself—the NRC plans to issue site at http://www.regulations.gov under comment on how to improve the a separate notice and comment period Docket ID NRC–2011–0012. The NRC approach/methodology and actual cost on the changes being proposed in the will post additional materials related to data currently used in the draft final supplemental proposed rule in 2018. At this document, including any public rule regulatory analysis to provide more that time, members of the public will comments received, on the Federal accurate cost and benefit data in the also be provided another opportunity to rulemaking Web site. The Federal final regulatory analysis. In particular, provide comments on the revised rulemaking Web site allows you to the NRC is seeking information on any regulatory analysis, which will be receive alerts when changes or additions cost changes that should be updated based on comments from this occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: incorporated into the regulatory analysis action. (1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC–

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48285

2011–0012); (2) click the ‘‘Sign up for ADAMS I. Introduction and Overview Email Alerts’’ link; and (3) enter your Accession No./ Document Federal On October 6, 2017, the Postal Service email address and select how frequently Register filed a notice of inflation-based rate Citation you would like to receive emails (daily, adjustments affecting market dominant weekly, or monthly). December 27, 1982 10 CFR part domestic and international products IV. Requested Information and 61 Statement of Considerations .. 47 FR 57446 and services, along with related product March 26, 2015, 10 CFR part 61 description changes to the Mail Comments proposed rule ...... 80 FR 16081 1 SECY–16–0106, FINAL RULE: Classification Schedule (MCS). The This section provides specific Low-Level Radioactive Waste intended effective date is January 21, questions associated with the draft Disposal (10 CFR part 61) (RIN 2018. Notice at 2. 3150–AI92) ...... ML16188A290 Contents of filing. The Postal Service’s regulatory analysis (ADAMS Accession SECY–16–0106 draft Federal Reg- No. ML16189A050). These questions ister notice ...... ML16188A371 filing consists of the Notice, which the will also be discussed at the public SECY–16–0106 draft regulatory Postal Service represents addresses the meeting. The NRC staff will consider the analysis ...... ML16189A050 data and information required under 39 responses to these questions as it revises SRM–SECY–0106 ...... ML17251B147 CFR 3010.12; four attachments the regulatory analysis. (Attachments A–D) to the Notice; and Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day eight sets of workpapers filed as library Question 1: Is the NRC considering of October 2017. references. appropriate alternatives for the For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Attachment A presents the proposed regulatory action described in the draft Daniel S. Collins, price and related product description regulatory analysis? Director, Division of Material Safety, State, changes to the MCS. Id. Attachment A. Question 2: Are there additional Tribal and Rulemaking Programs, Office of Attachments B and C address workshare factors that the NRC should consider in Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. discounts and related information and the regulatory action? What are these [FR Doc. 2017–22459 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] the price cap calculation. Notice, factors? BILLING CODE 7590–01–P Attachments B and C, respectively. Question 3: Is there additional Attachment D is a copy of Governors’ information concerning regulatory Resolution No. 16–18. Notice, impacts that the NRC should include in POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION Attachment D. its regulatory analysis for this Several library references present rulemaking? [Docket No. R2018–1; Order No. 4153] supporting financial documentation for the five classes of mail and for First- Question 4: Are all costs and benefits Market Dominant Price Adjustment Class Mail International. Notice at 6 n.9. properly addressed to determine the The First-Class Mail International AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. economic impact of the rulemaking library reference was filed under seal.2 alternatives? What cost differences ACTION: Notice. Library Reference USPS–LR–R2018–1/6 would be expected from moving from documents modifications to the cost the discussed 1,000 year and 10,000 SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a recently-filed Postal Service notice of avoidance models for USPS Marketing year compliance periods to a single Mail and Periodicals.3 The Postal 1,000 year compliance period? Are there inflation-based rate adjustments affecting market dominant domestic and Service states that these modifications any unintended consequences of reflect the elimination of Flats making this revision? international products and services, along with numerous proposed Sequencing System (FSS)-specific Question 5: Are there any costs that classification changes. The adjustments pricing in Docket No. R2017–1 and the should be assigned to those sites not and other changes are scheduled to take proposed Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) planning to accept large quantities of effect January 21, 2018. This notice changes related to 5-Digit pallets. Id. depleted uranium for disposal in the informs the public of the filing, invites Library Reference USPS–LR–R2018–1/7 future? public comment, and takes other provides census data and volumes related to the Move Update assessment Question 6: Is NRC’s assumption that administrative steps. charge.4 only two existing LLRW sites (i.e., DATES: Comments are due: October 26, Planned price adjustments. The Postal EnergySolutions’ Clive Utah disposal 2017. Service’s planned percentage changes facility and Waste Control Specialists’ ADDRESSES: Submit comments by class are, on average, as follows: Texas disposal facility) plan to accept electronically via the Commission’s large quantities of depleted uranium for Filing Online system at http:// Planned price disposal in the future reasonable? www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit Market dominant class adjustment Question 7: What additional costs or comments electronically should contact (%) cost savings, not already considered in the person identified in the FOR FURTHER First-Class Mail ...... 1.905 the draft regulatory analysis, will the INFORMATION CONTACT section by USPS Marketing Mail ...... 1.908 supplemental proposed rulemaking or telephone for advice on filing Periodicals ...... 1.924 alternatives cause to society, industry, alternatives. Package Services ...... 1.960 Special Services ...... 1.986 and government? What are the potential FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: transfer (‘‘pass-through’’) costs to the David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at waste generators and processors? 202–789–6820. 1 Notice of Market Dominant Price Adjustment, V. Availability of Documents SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: October 6, 2017, at 3 (Notice). 2 See Notice of the United States Postal Service The documents identified in the Table of Contents of Filing USPS–LR–R2018–1/NP1, October 6, 2017. 3 Library Reference USPS–LR–R2018–1/6, following table are available to I. Introduction and Overview October 6, 2017, Preface at 1. interested persons through one or more II. Initial Administrative Actions 4 Library Reference USPS–LR–R2018–1/7, of the following methods, as indicated. III. Ordering Paragraphs October 6, 2017, Preface at 1.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48286 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

Notice at 6. public (Public Representative) in this II. Initial Administrative Actions Price adjustments for products within proceeding. III. Ordering Paragraphs classes vary from the average. See, e.g., I. Introduction and Overview id. at 8 (Table 5 showing range for First- III. Ordering Paragraphs Class Mail products). Most of the It is ordered: On October 6, 2017, the Postal Service planned adjustments entail increases to 1. The Commission establishes Docket filed notice with the Commission market dominant rates and fees; No. R2018–1 to consider planned price concerning changes in rates of general 1 however, in a few instances, the Postal adjustments in rates and fees for market applicability for competitive products. Service proposes no adjustment. See id. dominant postal products and services The Postal Service represents that, as at 8, 27. and related changes identified in the required by 39 CFR 3015.2(b), the Close out of Calendar Year (CY) 2017 Postal Service’s October 6, 2017 Notice. Notice includes an explanation and promotions. The Postal Service states 2. Comments on the planned price justification for the changes, the that the new prices reflect the close out adjustments and related classification effective date, and a schedule of the of the CY 2017 promotions for First- changes are due no later than October changed rates. See Notice at 1. The Class Mail and USPS Marketing Mail. 26, 2017. changes are scheduled to take effect on Id. at 29. 3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Lee January 21, 2018. Id. Attached to the Notice are Governors’ Amendment to pallet preparation. McFarland is appointed to serve as an Decisions Nos. 16–10 and 16–8, which The Postal Service proposes to amend officer of the Commission (Public state the new prices are in accordance the DMM to increase the preparation of Representative) to represent the with 39 U.S.C. 3632 and 3633 and 39 USPS Marketing Mail and Periodicals interests of the general public in this Carrier Route bundles on 5-Digit Carrier CFR 3015.2.2 The Governors’ Decisions proceeding. provide an analysis of the competitive Route pallets in non-FSS zones. Id. at 4. The Commission directs the 30. The Postal Service states that the products’ price changes intended to Secretary of the Commission to arrange demonstrate that the changes comply billing determinants for USPS for prompt publication of this notice in Marketing Mail and Periodicals have with 39 U.S.C. 3633 and 39 CFR part the Federal Register. 3 been adjusted to reflect this change. Id. 3015. The attachment to the Governors’ Proposed product description By the Commission. Decisions sets forth the price changes changes. Stating that there are no Stacy L. Ruble, and includes draft Mail Classification substantive classification changes Secretary. Schedule (MCS) language for associated with its request, the Postal [FR Doc. 2017–22370 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] competitive products of general Service displays the new prices and BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P applicability. related product description changes to The Governors’ Decisions include two the market dominant section of the MCS additional attachments: • A partially redacted table showing in Attachment A. Id. at 33. POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION FY 2017 projected volumes, revenues, II. Initial Administrative Actions [Docket No. CP2018–8; Order No. 4154] attributable costs, contribution, and cost coverage for each product, assuming The Commission hereby provides Competitive Price Adjustment public notice of the Postal Service’s implementation of the new prices on filing and pursuant to 39 CFR 3010.11 AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. January 21, 2018. • A partially redacted table showing establishes Docket No. R2018–1 to ACTION: Notice. consider the planned price adjustments FY 2017 projected volumes, revenues, in rates and fees for market dominant SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a attributable costs, contribution, and cost postal products and services, as well as recently filed Postal Service notice of coverage for each product, assuming a the related classification changes, rate adjustments affecting competitive hypothetical implementation of the new identified in the Postal Service’s domestic and international products prices on October 1, 2017. The Notice also includes an October 6, 2017 Notice. The and services. The adjustments are application for non-public treatment of Commission invites comments from scheduled to take effect January 21, the attributable costs, contribution, and interested persons on whether the 2018. This notice informs the public of cost coverage data in the unredacted Notice is consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3622 the filing, invites public comment, and version of the annex to the Governors’ and the requirements of 39 CFR part takes other administrative steps. Decisions, as well as the supporting 3010. Comments are due no later than DATES: Comments are due: October 24, materials for the data. October 26, 2017. 2017. The Commission has posted the ADDRESSES: Submit comments 1 Notice of Changes in Rates of General public portions of the Postal Service’s electronically via the Commission’s Applicability for Competitive Products Established filing on its Web site at http:// Filing Online system at http:// in Governors’ Decision Nos. 16–8 and 16–10, www.prc.gov. The Commission will post October 6, 2017 (Notice). Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit 3632(b)(2), the Postal Service is obligated to publish revisions to the filing (if any) or other comments electronically should contact documents the Postal Service submits in the Governors’ Decisions and record of proceedings the person identified in the FOR FURTHER in the Federal Register at least 30 days before the this docket on its Web site, along with INFORMATION CONTACT section by effective date of the new rates. related Commission documents, 2 Notice, Decision of the Governors of the United telephone for advice on filing States Postal Service on Changes in Rates of General comments, or other submissions, unless alternatives. such filings are the subject of an Applicability for Competitive Products (Governors’ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Decision No. 16–8), November 14, 2016 (Governors’ application for non-public treatment. Decision No. 16–8); Notice, Decision of the The Commission’s policy on access to David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at Governors of the United States Postal Service on documents filed under seal appears in 202–789–6820. Changes in Rates of General Applicability for 39 CFR part 3007. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Competitive Products (Governors’ Decision No. 16– 10), December 5, 2016 (Governors’ Decision No. 16– Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Table of Contents 10) (collectively, Governors’ Decisions). Commission appoints Lee McFarland to 3 Governors’ Decision No. 16–8 at 1; Governors’ represent the interests of the general I. Introduction and Overview Decision No. 16–10 at 1.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48287

Planned price adjustments. The whether the planned changes are agency. DTC filed the proposed rule Governors’ Decisions include an consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) overview of the Postal Service’s planned and 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR of the Act 3 and Rule 19b–4(f)(2) price changes, which is summarized in 3020 subparts B and E. Comments are thereunder.4 The Commission is the table below. due no later than October 24, 2017. For publishing this notice to solicit specific details of the planned price comments on the proposed rule change TABLE I–1—PROPOSED PRICE changes, interested persons are from interested persons. encouraged to review the Notice, which CHANGES I. Clearing Agency’s Statement of the is available on the Commission’s Web Terms of Substance of the Proposed Average site, www.prc.gov. Rule Change Product name price Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Curtis E. increase The proposed rule change 5 would (percent) Kidd is appointed to serve as Public Representative to represent the interests revise the DTC Fee Schedule (‘‘Fee 6 Domestic Competitive Products of the general public in this docket. Schedule’’) to eliminate a fee charged to Participants that submit an eligibility Priority Mail Express ...... 3.9 III. Ordering Paragraphs request or required offering documents Retail ...... 3.9 It is ordered: for a new issue (‘‘Issue’’) of Securities Commercial Base ...... 3.7 1. The Commission establishes Docket two business days prior to the Closing Commercial Plus ...... 3.7 No. CP2018–8 to provide interested Date (‘‘Two-Day Surcharge’’), as Priority Mail ...... 3.9 persons an opportunity to express views discussed below. Retail ...... 0.8 and offer comments on whether the Commercial Base ...... 6.2 II. Clearing Agency’s Statement of the Commercial Plus ...... 6.1 planned changes are consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, and 3642, 39 CFR Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Parcel Select ...... Proposed Rule Change Traditional ...... 4.9 part 3015, and 39 CFR 3020 subparts B Lightweight ...... 7.0 and E. In its filing with the Commission, the Parcel Return Service ...... 4.9 2. Comments are due no later than clearing agency included statements Return Sectional Center Facility 5.2 October 24, 2017. concerning the purpose of and basis for Return Delivery Unit ...... 4.6 3. The Commission appoints Curtis E. the proposed rule change and discussed First-Class Package Service ...... Kidd to serve as Public Representative any comments it received on the Commercial ...... 3.9 to represent the interests of the general proposed rule change. The text of these Retail ...... 14.5 Retail Ground ...... 3.9 public in this proceeding. statements may be examined at the 4. The Secretary shall arrange for places specified in Item IV below. The Domestic Extra Services publication of this order in the Federal clearing agency has prepared Register. summaries, set forth in sections A, B, Premium Forwarding Service En- By the Commission. and C below, of the most significant rollment Fee ...... 3.9 aspects of such statements. Adult Signature Service ...... Stacy L. Ruble, Basic ...... 3.4 Secretary. (A) Clearing Agency’s Statement of the Person-Specific ...... 3.3 [FR Doc. 2017–22373 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Competitive Post Office Box ...... 6.5 BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P Proposed Rule Change Package Intercept Service ...... 3.9 1. Purpose International Competitive Products SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Background Global Express Guaranteed ...... 3.9 COMMISSION The proposed rule change would Priority Mail Express International 3.9 revise the Fee Schedule 7 to eliminate Priority Mail International ...... 3.9 [Release No. 34–81854; File No. SR–DTC– 2017–019] the Two-Day Surcharge, as discussed International Priority Airmail ...... 3.9 below. International Priority Airmail M- Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Participants 8 are required to provide Bags ...... 3.9 an eligibility request for specified International Surface Air Lift ...... 3.9 Depository Trust Company; Notice of International Surface Air Lift M- Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of 3 Bags ...... 3.9 Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate a 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 Airmail M-Bags ...... 3.9 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). Surcharge for Eligibility Requests 5 First-Class Package International Each term not otherwise defined herein has its Submitted to DTC Two Days Prior to respective meaning as set forth in the Rules, By- Service ...... 3.9 Closing Date Laws and Organization Certificate of DTC (the ‘‘Rules’’), available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/ International Ancillary Services and Special October 11, 2017. rules-and-procedures.aspx, and the DTC Services Operational Arrangements (Necessary for Securities Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the to Become and Remain Eligible for DTC Services) International Ancillary Services .... 3.9 Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘OA’’), available at http://www.dtcc.com/∼/media/ (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 Files/Downloads/legal/issue-eligibility/eligibility/ Source: See Governors’ Decision No. 16–8 notice is hereby given that on October operational-arrangements.pdf. at 2–5; Governors’ Decision No. 16–10 at 1; 6 ∼ 2, 2017, The Depository Trust Company Available at http://www.dtcc.com/ /media/ Mail Classification Schedule sections 2105.6, Files/Downloads/legal/fee-guides/dtcfee 2110.6, 2115.6, 2125.6, 2135.6, 2305.6, (‘‘DTC’’) filed with the Securities and guide.pdf?la=en. 2315.6, 2335.6, and 2510.9.6. Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) 7 Supra note 6. 8 II. Initial Administrative Actions the proposed rule change as described Only (i) Participants and (ii) underwriters with in Items I, II and III below, which Items an approved correspondent relationship with a The Commission establishes Docket have been prepared by the clearing Participant, may request DTC eligibility for a new No. CP2018–8 to consider the Postal security being offered and distributed. It is therefore incumbent on an Issuer to have a relationship with Service’s Notice. Interested persons may 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). an underwriter or other financial institution that is express views and offer comments on 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48288 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

Securities to DTC by the submission of eligibility request for a new Issue requirements of Rule 17Ad–22(e)(23), all required ‘‘Issuer’’ 9 and securities submitted two days prior to Closing promulgated under the Act, cited above. data and all required offering Date. Therefore, DTC proposes to (B) Clearing Agency’s Statement on documents,10 at a minimum, through eliminate the Two-Day Surcharge and Burden on Competition the online Securities Origination, revise the Fee Schedule accordingly. Underwriting and Reliable Corporate The Closing Date and One-Day DTC does not believe that the Action Environment (‘‘UW SOURCE’’) Surcharges would remain unchanged proposed rule change would have any system for the Security to be considered and continue to be charged to impact on competition, because the for full service eligibility at DTC.11 In Participants to offset costs associated Two-Day Surcharge is a minimal addition to meeting other requirements with more manually intensive amount and its elimination should not as set forth in the OA,12 a Participant processing associated with the timely have a material effect on (i) a that seeks to make a new Issue eligible processing of eligibility requests determination by an underwriter on for Deposit at DTC must submit the submitted on or one day before Closing whether to submit an eligibility request eligibility request and offering Date, as applicable. for a new Issue or (ii) costs incurred by documentation described above through Participants in using DTC’s eligibility UW SOURCE at least six business days Effective Date of Proposed Rule Change services. prior to the Closing Date. If the (C) Clearing Agency’s Statement on Participant submits the eligibility The proposed rule change would be effective on October 2, 2017. Comments on the Proposed Rule request or the required offering Change Received From Members, documentation for a new Issue within 2. Statutory Basis Participants, or Others two days or less prior to the Closing Date, it will be subject to fees, referred Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act 14 DTC has not received or solicited any to in the Fee Schedule as surcharges requires, in part, that the Rules provide written comments relating to this (‘‘Surcharges’’), as outlined in the DTC for the equitable allocation of reasonable proposal. DTC will notify the Fee Schedule: (a) The Two-Day dues, fees, and other charges among its Commission of any written comments Surcharge is $2,000 per Issue (b) the participants. DTC believes that the received by DTC. Surcharge for submission of an proposed rule change provides for the III. Date of Effectiveness of the eligibility request or the required equitable allocation of fees charged to Proposed Rule Change, and Timing for offering documentation one day prior to Participants, because elimination of the Commission Action the Closing Date is $5,000 per Issue Two-Day Surcharge would apply to all The foregoing rule change has become (‘‘One-Day Surcharge’’), and (c) the Participants. In addition, DTC believes effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) Surcharge for submission of an that the proposed change is reasonable, of the Act 17 and paragraph (f) of Rule eligibility request or required the because the Two-Day Surcharge is no 19b–4 thereunder.18 At any time within offering documentation on the Closing longer necessary to balance DTC 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule Date is $10,000 per Issue (‘‘Closing Date revenue with its costs associated with change, the Commission summarily may Surcharge’’).13 The Surcharges are processing of the applicable eligibility temporarily suspend such rule change if designed to cover costs to DTC of requests, as discussed above. Therefore, it appears to the Commission that such providing expedited processing of the DTC believes that the proposed rule action is necessary or appropriate in the eligibility request. change is consistent with the public interest, for the protection of Proposed Rule Change requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the Act.15 After reviewing its cost structure the purposes of the Act. relating to eligibility processing, DTC The proposed rule change is also IV. Solicitation of Comments has determined that due to the designed to be consistent with Rule Interested persons are invited to development of enhanced systemic and 17Ad–22(e)(23) of the Act.16 Rule submit written data, views, and processing efficiencies over time, the 17Ad–22(e)(23) requires DTC, inter alia, arguments concerning the foregoing, Two-Day Surcharge is no longer to establish, implement, maintain and including whether the proposed rule necessary to be charged in order to enforce written policies and procedures change is consistent with the Act. cover the cost of processing an reasonably designed to provide Comments may be submitted by any of sufficient information to enable the following methods: a Participant or is directly associated with a participants to identify and evaluate the Participant that is willing to sponsor the eligibility risks, fees, and other material costs they Electronic Submissions process for the Issuer’s securities. See OA, supra note 5 at 1–2. incur by participating in the covered • Use the Commission’s Internet 9 ‘‘Issuer’’ is defined as an issuer of Securities clearing agency. The proposed rule comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ deposited at DTC. See OA, supra note 5 at 1. change, as described above, would rules/sro.shtml); or 10 The eligibility request must contain the (i) update the Fee Schedule to reflect the • Send an email to rule-comments@ identity of the lead underwriter, (ii) CUSIP proposed elimination of the Two-Day number(s), (iii) principal/share amount, as sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– applicable per CUSIP, and interest rates and Surcharge. As such, DTC believes that DTC–2017–019 on the subject line. maturity dates, as applicable per CUSIP. The the proposed change would promote preliminary offering document must be submitted disclosure of relevant rules and material Paper Comments and (e.g., official statement, prospectus, offering procedures and provide sufficient • Send paper comments in triplicate memorandum) provide relevant information necessary for DTC to process the Issue (e.g., Issuer information to enable participants and to Secretary, Securities and Exchange name, description of the Security, denominations, other users of DTC’s services to evaluate Commission, 100 F Street NE., name of the trustee, paying agent, transfer agent, fees and other material costs of utilizing Washington, DC 20549–1090. and if applicable, other features of the Security, DTC’s services, in accordance with the such as an early redemption). See Exhibit B of OA, All submissions should refer to File supra note 5. Number SR–DTC–2017–019. This file 11 See OA, supra note 5 at 1–2. 14 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(D). 12 See Exhibit B of OA, supra note 5. 15 Id. 17 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 13 See Fee Schedule, supra note 6 at 28. 16 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(23). 18 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48289

number should be included on the Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE subject line if email is used. To help the to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities COMMISSION Commission process and review your Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule comments more efficiently, please use 19b–4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule [Release No. 34–81849; File No. SR– only one method. The Commission will change to list and trade shares of the BatsBYX–2017–19; SR–BatsBZX–2017–55; post all comments on the Commission’s U.S. Equity Cumulative Dividends SR–BatsEDGA–2017–22; SR–BatsEDGX– 2017–35] Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ Fund—Series 2027 and the U.S. Equity rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the Ex-Dividend Fund—Series 2027 under Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats submission, all subsequent NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200, BYX Exchange, Inc.; Bats BZX amendments, all written statements Commentary .02. The proposed rule Exchange, Inc.; Bats EDGA Exchange, with respect to the proposed rule change was published for comment in Inc.; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Order change that are filed with the the Federal Register on August 28, Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Commission, and all written 2017.3 The Commission has received no Changes, as Modified by Amendments communications relating to the comment letters on the proposed rule No. 1, To Harmonize the Corporate proposed rule change between the Governance Framework of Each Commission and any person, other than change. Exchange With That of Chicago Board those that may be withheld from the Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 4 provides Options Exchange, Incorporated and public in accordance with the that, within 45 days of the publication C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be of notice of the filing of a proposed rule available for Web site viewing and change, or within such longer period up October 11, 2017. printing in the Commission’s Public to 90 days as the Commission may I. Introduction Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., designate if it finds such longer period Washington, DC 20549–1090 on official to be appropriate and publishes its On August 23, 2017, each of Bats BYX business days between the hours of reasons for so finding or as to which the Exchange, Inc. (‘‘BYX’’), Bats BZX 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the self-regulatory organization consents, Exchange, Inc. (‘‘BZX’’), Bats EDGA filing also will be available for the Commission shall either approve the Exchange, Inc. (‘‘EDGA’’), and Bats inspection and copying at the principal proposed rule change, disapprove the EDGX Exchange, Inc. (‘‘EDGX’’) (each, office of DTC and on DTCC’s Web site proposed rule change, or institute an ‘‘Exchange’’ and collectively, (http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule- proceedings to determine whether the ‘‘Exchanges’’) filed with the Securities filings.aspx). All comments received proposed rule change should be and Exchange Commission will be posted without change; the disapproved. The 45th day after (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section Commission does not edit personal 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act publication of the notice for this identifying information from of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 proposed rule change is October 12, submissions. You should submit only thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to information that you wish to make 2017. The Commission is extending this align its corporate governance available publicly. All submissions 45-day time period. The Commission framework to the structure of other U.S. should refer to File Number SR–DTC– finds that it is appropriate to designate securities exchanges owned by its 2017–019 and should be submitted on a longer period within which to take ultimate parent company, CBOE or before November 7, 2017. action on the proposed rule change so Holdings, Inc. (‘‘CBOE Holdings’’). On that it has sufficient time to consider the For the Commission, by the Division of August 25, 2017, each of BYX, BZX, Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated proposed rule change. EDGA, and EDGX filed Amendment No. authority.19 Accordingly, the Commission, 1 to its respective proposed rule change. Eduardo A. Aleman, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,5 The proposed rule changes, as modified Assistant Secretary. designates November 26, 2017 as the by Amendments No. 1, were published for comment in the Federal Register on [FR Doc. 2017–22391 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] date by which the Commission shall September 6, 2017.3 The Commission BILLING CODE 8011–01–P either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings to determine whether to received no comments on the proposed disapprove the proposed rule change rule changes. This order grants approval SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE (File Number SR–NYSEArca–2017–88). of the proposed rule changes, each as COMMISSION modified by its respective Amendment For the Commission, by the Division of No. 1. [Release No. 34–81848; File No. SR– Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated NYSEArca–2017–88] authority.6 II. Background Eduardo A. Aleman, On December 16, 2016, the Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Commission approved proposed rule Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2017–22386 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] changes relating to a corporate Longer Period for Commission Action transaction (‘‘Transaction’’) in which BILLING CODE 8011–01–P on Proposed Rule Change To List and CBOE Holdings became the ultimate Trade the Shares of the U.S. Equity Cumulative Dividends Fund—Series 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2027 and the U.S. Equity Ex-Dividend 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. Fund—Series 2027 Under NYSE Arca 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 81498 Equities Rule 8.200, Commentary .02 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). (August 30, 2017), 82 FR 42127 (September 6, 2017) 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. (‘‘BYX Notice’’); 81497 (August 30, 2017), 82 FR October 11, 2017. 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81453 42181 (September 6, 2017) (‘‘BZX Notice’’); 81496 On August 8, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (August 22, 2017), 82 FR 40816. (August 30, 2017), 82 FR 42206 (September 6, 2017) (‘‘EDGA Notice’’); and 81503 (August 30, 2017), 82 4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). filed with the Securities and Exchange FR 42153 (September 6, 2017) (‘‘EDGX Notice,’’ and 5 Id. together with the BYX Notice, BZX Notice, and 19 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 6 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(31). EDGA Notice, ‘‘Notices’’).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48290 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

parent of BYX, BZX, EDGA, and EDGX.4 than the bylaws), similar to the that one or more directors shall be CBOE Holdings is also the parent of treatment of this provision by CBOE.7 representative of issuers and investors Chicago Board Options Exchange, Each Exchange represents that its and not be associated with a member of Incorporated (‘‘CBOE’’) and C2 Options Proposed Certificate and Proposed the exchange, broker, or dealer. The Exchange, Incorporated (‘‘C2’’). In Bylaws reflect the expectation that the Commission further finds that the connection with the Transaction, each Exchange will be operated with a proposed rule changes are consistent of BYX, BZX, EDGA, and EDGX governance structure similar to that of with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,14 which 8 proposes to amend and restate its CBOE and C2. Each Exchange states requires, among other things, that the that aligning its governance documents certificate of incorporation and bylaws 5 rules of a national securities exchange with the governance documents of to conform to the certificates of be designed to prevent fraudulent and CBOE and C2 will preserve governance manipulative acts and practices, to incorporation and bylaws of CBOE and continuity across each of CBOE C2.6 In addition, each Exchange promote just and equitable principles of Holdings’ six U.S. securities exchanges.9 trade, to foster cooperation and proposes to amend its rules to reflect the Each Exchange further states that it will coordination with persons engaged in Proposed Bylaws, as well as to address continue to be so organized and have regulating, clearing, settling, and regulatory revenues in the rules (rather the capacity to be able to carry out the processing information with respect to, purposes of the Act and to comply, and and facilitating transactions in, 4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79585 to enforce compliance by its members securities, to remove impediments to (December 16, 2016), 81 FR 93988 (December 22, and persons associated with its 2016) (SR–BatsBZX–2016–68; SR–BatsBYX–2016– and perfect the mechanism of a free and 29; SR–BatsEDGA–2016–24; SR–BatsEDGX–2016– members, with the provisions of the open market and a national market 60) (‘‘Transaction Order’’). Act, the rules and regulations system and, in general, to protect 5 See BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42128; BZX Notice, thereunder, and the Exchange’s rules, as investors and the public interest. 82 FR at 42181–82; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at 42206– required by Section 6(b)(1) of the Act.10 The Commission notes that the 07; EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42154. Specifically, BYX Proposed Certificates and Proposed proposes to replace the certificate of incorporation III. Discussion and Commission of BYX (‘‘BYX Current Certificate’’) in its entirety Findings Bylaws are substantially similar to the with the Amended and Restated Certificate of CBOE Certificate and CBOE Bylaws, Incorporation of BYX (‘‘BYX Proposed Certificate’’) After careful review, the Commission with limited exceptions as discussed and to replace the Fifth Amended and Restated finds that the proposed rule changes, as below. The Commission further notes Bylaws of BYX (‘‘BYX Current Bylaws’’) in its modified by Amendments No. 1, are entirety with the Sixth Amended and Restated that it received no comments on the Bylaws of BYX (‘‘BYX Proposed Bylaws’’). See BYX consistent with the requirements of the proposed rule changes. Notice, 82 FR at 42128. BZX proposes to replace the Act and the rules and regulations certificate of incorporation of BZX (‘‘BZX Current thereunder applicable to a national A. Ownership Certificate’’) in its entirety with the Amended and securities exchange.11 In particular, the BYX’s and BZX’s Proposed Restated Certificate of Incorporation of BZX (‘‘BZX Commission finds that the proposed Proposed Certificate’’) and to replace the Fifth Certificates each specify that Bats Global Amended and Restated Bylaws of BZX (‘‘BZX rule changes are consistent with Section Markets Holdings, Inc. (‘‘Bats Global Current Bylaws’’) in its entirety with the Sixth 6(b)(1) of the Act,12 which requires a Markets Holdings’’) will be the sole Amended and Restated Bylaws of BZX (‘‘BZX national securities exchange to be so owner of the common stock of the Proposed Bylaws’’). See BZX Notice, 82 FR at organized and have the capacity to carry 42181. EDGA proposes to replace the certificate of Exchange and that any sale, transfer, or incorporation of EDGA (‘‘EDGA Current out the purposes of the Act and to assignment by Bats Global Markets Certificate’’) in its entirety with the Second comply, and to enforce compliance by Holdings of any shares of common stock Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation its members and persons associated of the Exchange will be subject to prior of EDGA (‘‘EDGA Proposed Certificate’’) and to with its members, with the provisions of approval by the Commission pursuant replace the Sixth Amended and Restated Bylaws of 15 EDGA (‘‘EDGA Current Bylaws’’) in its entirety with the Act. The Commission also finds that to a rule filing. EDGA’s and EDGX’s the Seventh Amended and Restated Bylaws of the proposed rule changes are consistent Proposed Certificates each include a EDGA (‘‘EDGA Proposed Bylaws’’). See EDGA with Section 6(b)(3) of the Act,13 which similar provision reflecting Direct Edge Notice, 82 FR at 42207. EDGX proposes to replace requires that the rules of a national LLC (‘‘Direct Edge’’) as sole owner of the the certificate of incorporation of EDGX (‘‘EDGX Current Certificate,’’ and together with the BYX securities exchange assure a fair common stock of the Exchange and Current Certificate, BZX Current Certificate, and representation of its members in the prohibiting any sale, transfer, or EDGA Current Certificate, ‘‘Current Certificates’’) in selection of its directors and the assignment by Direct Edge of the its entirety with the Second Amended and Restated administration of its affairs and provide Exchange’s common stock without prior Certificate of Incorporation of EDGX (‘‘EDGX Proposed Certificate,’’ and together with the BYX approval by the Commission pursuant 7 16 Proposed Certificate, BZX Proposed Certificate, and See BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42139; BZX Notice, to a rule filing. EDGA Proposed Certificate, ‘‘Proposed 82 FR at 42192–93; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at 42218; The Commission believes that Certificates’’) and to replace the Sixth Amended EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42165. For a further description of the proposed changes to the specifying the sole owner of each and Restated Bylaws of EDGX (‘‘EDGX Current Exchange as either Bats Global Markets Bylaws’’ and together with the BYX Current certificates of incorporation, bylaws, and rules of Bylaws, BZX Current Bylaws, and EDGA Current the Exchanges, see Notices, supra note 3. Holdings or Direct Edge and the 8 Bylaws, ‘‘Current Bylaws’’) in its entirety with the See BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42128; BZX Notice, Seventh Amended and Restated Bylaws of EDGX 82 FR at 42182; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at 42207; 14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42154. (‘‘EDGX Proposed Bylaws,’’ and together with the 15 See BYX Proposed Certificate, Article Fourth; 9 BYX Proposed Bylaws, BZX Proposed Bylaws, and See BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42139; BZX Notice, BZX Proposed Certificate, Article Fourth. 82 FR at 42193; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at 42218; EDGA Proposed Bylaws, ‘‘Proposed Bylaws’’). See 16 See EDGA Proposed Certificate, Article Fourth; EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42165. EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42154. EDGX Proposed Certificate, Article Fourth. Bats 10 6 The current certificates of incorporation of See BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42139; BZX Notice, Global Markets Holdings and Direct Edge are each CBOE and C2 are the Third Amended and Restated 82 FR at 42193; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at 42218; wholly-owned subsidiaries of CBOE V, LLC (‘‘CBOE Certificate of Incorporation of CBOE and the Fourth EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42165. V’’) and CBOE V is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amended and Restated Certificate of C2, 11 In approving these proposed rule changes, the CBOE Holdings. Any change in CBOE V’s status as respectively (collectively, ‘‘CBOE Certificate’’), and Commission has considered the proposed rules’ sole stockholder of Bats Global Markets Holdings or the Eighth Amended and Restated Bylaws of CBOE impact on efficiency, competition, and capital sole member of Direct Edge, or of CBOE Holdings’ and the Eighth Amended and Restated Bylaws of formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). status a sole member of CBOE V, must be approved C2, respectively (collectively, ‘‘CBOE Bylaws’’). See 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1). by the Commission pursuant to a rule filing. See Notices, supra note 3. 13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3). Transaction Order, 81 FR at 93990.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48291

proposed restrictions on Bats Global B. Governance Industry Directors will not constitute Market Holdings and Direct Edge that In connection with the proposal to less than the number of Industry prevent these entities from selling, adopt the Proposed Certificates and Directors, excluding the Chief Executive transferring, or assigning their common Proposed Bylaws, each Exchange is Officer from the calculation of Industry stock in BYX and BZX, and EDGA and proposing to replace certain provisions Directors for such purpose. At all times EDGX, respectively, without the pertaining to governance of the at least 20% of the Directors will be Commission’s approval, taken together Exchange with related provisions that Representative Directors as nominated with the voting restrictions and are based on provisions currently in the or otherwise selected through the ownership limitations in the governing CBOE Certificate and CBOE Bylaws. For Representative Director Nominating documents of CBOE Holdings and the each Exchange, these changes include, Body, and the Board will determine the restrictions on CBOE V previously among others, provisions governing: number of Representative Directors that approved by the Commission, are The composition of the Exchange’s are Non-Industry Directors and Industry 22 designed to minimize the potential that board of directors (‘‘Board’’ and each Directors, if any. Directors will serve one-year terms a person could improperly interfere member of the Board, a ‘‘Director’’); the ending on the annual meeting following with, or restrict the ability of, the process for nominating, electing, the meeting at which such Directors Commission or the Exchanges to removing, and filling vacancies of were elected or at such time as their effectively carry out their regulatory Directors; the Board committee structure; the authorization to create an successors are elected or appointed and oversight responsibilities under the qualified, except in the event of earlier Act.17 The Commission also notes that Advisory Board; and the regulatory independence of the Exchange.20 death, resignation, disqualification, or the restrictions on transfer of ownership removal.23 The Board will be the sole interest in the Exchanges will be similar 1. Board of Directors judge of whether an Industry Director or 18 to those currently in place. In this Non-Industry Director fails to maintain regard, the Commission believes that the Under the Proposed Bylaws, each Exchange’s Board will consist of at least the requisite qualifications, in which proposed rule changes are consistent five Directors. Each Exchange’s Board event the Director will be terminated. A with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act 19 in will determine, by resolution, the total Representative Director may only be particular, which requires that an number of Directors and the number of removed for cause by a vote of the exchange be organized and have the 24 Non-Industry Directors and Industry stockholders. A vacancy on the Board capacity to be able to carry out the Directors, if any.21 The number of Non- purposes of the Act and to comply, and EDGA Proposed Bylaws, Article I, Section 1.1(f); EDGX Proposed Bylaws, Article I, Section 1.1(f). to enforce compliance by its members 20 See BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42128–39; BZX The term ‘‘Member’’ means any registered broker or and persons associated with its Notice, 82 FR at 42182–92; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at dealer that has been admitted to membership in the 42207–17; EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42154–65. members, with the provisions of the Exchange. See BYX Rule 1.5(n); BZX Rule 1.5(n); 21 Act, the rules and regulations Under the Proposed Bylaws, an ‘‘Industry EDGA Rule 1.5(n); EDGX Rule 1.5(n). Director’’ is defined, subject to limited exclusions, 22 See BYX Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Sections thereunder, and the rules of the as any director who (i) is an Exchange Member or 3.1 and 3.2; BZX Proposed Bylaws, Article III, exchange. otherwise subject to regulation by the Exchange; (ii) Sections 3.1 and 3.2; EDGA Proposed Bylaws, is a broker-dealer or an officer, director or employee Article III, Sections 3.1 and 3.2; EDGX Proposed of a broker-dealer or has been in any such capacity 17 See Transaction Order, 81 FR at 93989–91. In Bylaws, Article III, Sections 3.1 and 3.2. Under the within the prior three years; (iii) is, or was within addition to the restrictions on CBOE Holdings and Proposed Bylaws, a ‘‘Representative Director’’ is the prior three years, associated with an entity that CBOE V discussed above, see supra note 16, CBOE defined as a director recommended by the is affiliated with a broker-dealer whose revenues Holdings’ governing documents place restrictions Representative Director Nominating Body. See BYX account for a material portion of the consolidated on the ability to own and vote shares of the capital Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.2; BZX revenues of the entities with which the broker- stock of CBOE Holdings. Specifically, unless the Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.2; EDGA dealer is affiliated; (iv) has a material ownership CBOE Holdings Board of Directors waives such Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.2; EDGX interest in a broker-dealer and has investments in restrictions for a permissible reason, no person, Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.2. The broker-dealers that account for a material portion of alone or together with its related persons: (1) Shall ‘‘Representative Director Nominating Body’’ is the director’s net worth; (v) has a consulting or be entitled to vote or cause the voting of shares of defined as either (i) the Industry-Director employment relationship with or has provided stock of CBOE Holdings to the extent that such professional services to the Exchange or any of its Subcommittee of the Nominating and Governance shares represent more than 20% of the then affiliates or has had such a relationship or has Committee if there are at least two Industry outstanding votes entitled to be cast; (2) shall be provided such services within the prior three years; Directors on the Nominating and Governance party to any agreement, plan, or other arrangement or (vi) provides, or has provided within the prior Committee, or (ii) if the Nominating and under circumstances that would result in the shares three years, professional or consulting services to a Governance Committee has less than two Industry of CBOE Holdings stock not being voted, or the broker-dealer, or to an entity with a 50% or greater Directors, then the Representative Director withholding of any related proxy, where the effect ownership interest in a broker-dealer whose Nominating Body shall mean the Exchange Member of such agreement, plan, or other arrangement revenues account for a material portion of the Subcommittee of the Advisory Board. See BYX would be to enable any person, alone or together consolidated revenues of the entities with which Proposed Bylaws, Article I, Section 1.1(j); BZX with its related persons, to vote, possess the right the broker-dealer is affiliated, and the revenue from Proposed Bylaws, Article I, Section 1.1(j); EDGA to vote, or cause the voting of shares of stock of all such professional or consulting services Proposed Bylaws, Article I, Section 1.1(j); EDGX CBOE Holdings that would exceed 20% of the then accounts for a material portion of either the Proposed Bylaws, Article I, Section 1.1(j). Each outstanding votes entitled to be cast; or (3) shall be revenues received by the director or the revenues Exchange represents that if there are less than two permitted to beneficially own directly or indirectly received by the director’s firm or partnership. Industry Directors on the Nominating and shares of stock of CBOE Holdings representing more Under the Proposed Bylaws, a ‘‘Non-Industry Governance Committee, it would institute an than 20% of the shares then outstanding. See Director’’ is defined as a person who is not an Advisory Board, if not already established. See BYX Transaction Order, 81 FR at 93989–90. See also Industry Director. At all times, at least one Non- Notice, 82 FR at 42130 n. 15; BZX Notice, 82 FR Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62158 (May Industry Director will be a Non-Industry Director at 42184 n. 15; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at 42209 n. 15; 24, 2010), 75 FR 30082, 30084–85 (May 28, 2010) exclusive of the exceptions provided and will have EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42156 n. 15. For a (SR–CBOE–2008–88) (approving proposed rule no material business relationship with a broker or description of the proposed ‘‘Advisory Board,’’ see change relating to demutualization of CBOE) dealer or the Exchange or any of its affiliates. See infra notes 60–62 and accompanying text. (‘‘CBOE Demutualization Order’’). BYX Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.1; BZX 23 See BYX Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 18 See BYX Current Bylaws, Article IV, Section 7; Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.1; EDGA 3.1; BZX Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.1; BZX Current Bylaws, Article IV, Section 7; EDGA Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.1; EDGX EDGA Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.1; Current Bylaws, Article IV, Section 7; and EDGX Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.1. EDGX Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.1. Current Bylaws, Article IV, Section 7 (providing ‘‘Exchange Member’’ will have the same meaning as 24 See BYX Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section that stockholder may not transfer or assign, in the term ‘‘Member’’ in the rules of the Exchange. 3.4; BZX Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.4; whole or in part, its ownership interest). See BYX Proposed Bylaws, Article I, Section 1.1(f); EDGA Proposed Bylaws; Article III, Section 3.4; 19 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1). BZX Proposed Bylaws, Article I, Section 1.1(f); EDGX Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.4.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48292 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

may be filled by a vote of majority of the the Representative Director nominees process.33 As it has previously stated, Directors then in office, or by the sole recommended by the Representative the Commission believes that public remaining Director, so long as the Director Nominating Body or, in the directors can provide unique, unbiased elected Director qualifies for the case of a run-off election, the perspectives, which should enhance the position. For vacancies of Representative Director nominees who ability of each Exchange’s Board to Representative Directors, the receive the most votes.28 Subject to the address issues in a non-discriminatory Representative Director Nominating specific provisions pertaining to fashion and foster the integrity of the Body will recommend an individual to nomination of Representative Directors Exchange.34 be elected or provide a list of and filling of vacancies, each The Commission also believes that the recommended individuals, and the Exchange’s Nominating and Governance proposed requirement that at least 20% position will be filled by the vote of a Committee will have the authority to of the Directors be Representative majority of the Directors.25 nominate individuals for election as Directors, and the means by which they The Representative Director Directors.29 will be chosen by Exchange Members, is Nominating Body will provide a The Commission believes that the consistent with Section 6(b)(3) of the mechanism for Exchange Members to proposed composition of each Act,35 because it provides for the fair provide input with respect to nominees Exchange’s Board satisfies the representation of members in the for the Representative Directors. The requirements in Section 6(b)(3) of the selection of directors and the Representative Director Nominating Act,30 which requires in part that one or administration of each Exchange. Body will issue a circular to Exchange more directors be representative of Section 6(b)(3) of the Act requires that Members identifying nominees selected issuers and investors and not be ‘‘the rules of the exchange assure a fair by the Representative Director associated with a member of the representation of its members in the Nominating Body. Exchange Members exchange, or with a broker or dealer.31 selection of its directors and may nominate alternative candidates for In particular, at least one Non-Industry administration of its affairs and provide election to be Representative Directors Director would be a Non-Industry that one or more directors shall be by submitting a petition signed by Director exclusive of any exceptions and representative of issuers and investors individuals representing not less than would have no material business and not be associated with a member of 10% of the Exchange Members at the relationship with a broker or dealer or the exchange, broker, or dealer.’’ 36 As time, with a run-off election held if one the Exchange or any of its affiliates. The the Commission previously has noted, or more valid petitions are received.26 In Commission previously has stated that this statutory requirement helps to any run-off election, each Exchange the inclusion of public, non-industry ensure that members of each Exchange Member will have one vote for each representatives on exchange oversight have a voice in the Exchange’s use of its Representative Director position to be bodies is an important mechanism to self-regulatory authority, and that each filled that year; provided, however, that support an exchange’s ability to protect Exchange is administered in a way that no Exchange Member, either alone or the public interest,32 and that they can is equitable to all those who trade on its together with its affiliates, may account help to ensure that no single group of market or through its facilities.37 for more than 20% of the votes cast for market participants has the ability to 2. Exchange Committees a candidate.27 Each Exchange’s systematically disadvantage others Under the Proposed Bylaws, each Nominating and Governance Committee through the exchange governance Exchange will establish certain will be bound to accept and nominate committees that consist solely of 28 See BYX Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section Directors. These Board committees will 25 See BYX Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.1; BZX Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.1; 3.5; BZX Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.5; EDGA Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.1; include an Executive Committee, a EDGA Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.5; EDGX Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.1. Regulatory Oversight Committee, a EDGX Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.5. 29 See BYX Proposed Bylaws, Article IV, Section Nominating and Governance 26 See BYX Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 4.3; BZX Proposed Bylaws, Article IV, Section 4.3; Committee, and such other standing and 3.2; BZX Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.2; EDGA Proposed Bylaws, Article IV, Section 4.3; EDGA Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.2; EDGX Proposed Bylaws, Article IV, Section 4.3. 33 EDGX Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.2. 30 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3). See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 27 See BYX Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 31 The Commission also notes that it previously 68341 (December 3, 2012), 77 FR 73065, 73067 3.2; BZX Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.2; found the composition requirements for the Boards (December 7, 2012) (File No. 10–207) (granting the exchange registration of the Miami International EDGA Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.2; of Directors of CBOE and C2, upon which the Securities Exchange, LLC) (‘‘MIAX Exchange EDGX Proposed Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.2. The proposed requirements are based, to be consistent Order’’). CBOE Bylaws provide that in any run-off election with the Act. See CBOE Demutualization Order, 75 34 for Representative Directors, a holder of a trading FR at 30087–88; Securities Exchange Act Release See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. permit will have one vote with respect to each Nos. 80523 (April 25, 2017), 82 FR 20399, 20400 62716 (August 13, 2010), 75 FR 51295, 51298 trading permit held by such trading permit holder (May 1, 2017) (SR–CBOE–2017–017) (‘‘CBOE 2017 (August 19, 2010) (File No. 10–198) (granting the for each Representative Director position to be Order’’); 80522 (April 25, 2017), 82 FR 20409, exchange registration of BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.); filled. See CBOE Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.2. 20410 (May 1, 2017) (SR–C2–2017–009) (‘‘C2 2017 53382 (February 27, 2006), 71 FR 11251, 11261 The Exchanges note that because no ‘‘trading Order’’); 68767 (January 30, 2013), 78 FR 8216, 8217 (March 6, 2006) (SR–NYSE–2005–77) (approving permit’’ or similar concept exists on the Exchanges, (February 5, 2013) (SR–C2–2012–039); 68766 the New York Stock Exchange Inc.’s business the Proposed Bylaws provide instead that each (January 30, 2013), 78 FR 8203, 8204–05 (February combination with Archipelago Holdings, Inc.); Exchange Member shall have one vote for each 5, 2013) (SR–CBOE–2012–116); 65980 (December 53128 (January 13, 2006), 71 FR 3550, 3553 (January Representative Director position to be filled. See 15, 2011), 76 FR 79252, 79253–54 (December 21, 23, 2006) (File No. 10–131) (granting the exchange BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42131 n. 16; BZX Notice, 82 2011) (SR–CBOE–2011–099) (‘‘CBOE December registration of The Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC) FR at 42184 n. 16; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at 42209 2011 Order’’); 65979 (December 15, 2011), 76 FR (‘‘Nasdaq Exchange Order’’). n. 16; EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42157 n.16. The 79239, 79241 (December 21, 2011) (SR–C2–2011– 35 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3). Exchanges state that they do not believe this 031) (‘‘C2 December 2011 Order’’); 61152 36 Id. deviation from the CBOE Bylaws is significant and (December 10, 2009), 74 FR 66699, 66700–02 37 See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. note that other Exchanges have similar practices. (December 16, 2009) (File No. 10–191) (granting the 81263 (July 31, 2017), 82 FR 36497, 36501 (SR–ISE– See BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42131 n. 16; BZX Notice, exchange registration of C2) (‘‘C2 Exchange Order’’). 2017–32) (approving proposed rule change to 82 FR at 42184 n. 16; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at 42209 32 See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. harmonize corporate governance framework of n. 16; and EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42157 n. 16 40760 (December 8, 1998), 63 FR 70844, 70882 Nasdaq ISE, LLC with that of other exchanges (citing Amended and Restated Bylaws of Miami (December 22, 1998) (File No. S7–12–98) owned by Nasdaq, Inc.) (‘‘ISE Order’’); MIAX International Securities Exchange, LLC, Article II, (Regulation of Exchanges and Alternative Trading Exchange Order, 77 FR at 73067; Nasdaq Exchange Section 2.4(f)). Systems). Order, 71 FR at 3553.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48293

special committees as may be approved for approval by the Board and will not Each Exchange proposes to eliminate by the Board. In addition, each be subject to removal except by the its Compensation Committee. The Exchange will have committees that are Board. The Nominating and Governance Exchanges explain that the not comprised solely of Directors that Committee will have the authority to responsibilities of their Compensation may be provided for in the Exchange’s nominate individuals for election as Committees largely are duplicative of bylaws or rules or created by the Directors and have such other duties or those of the Compensation Committee of Board.38 exercise such other authority as may be their parent company, CBOE Holdings, The Proposed Bylaws require that prescribed by resolution of the Board. If other than to the extent that the each Exchange maintain an Executive the Nominating and Governance Exchange Compensation Committees Committee.39 The Executive Committee Committee has two or more Industry recommend the compensation of will include the Chairman of the Board; Directors, there shall be an Industry- executive officers whose compensation the Chief Executive Officer, if a Director; Director Subcommittee consisting of all is not already determined by the CBOE the Lead Director,40 if any; at least one such Directors, which will act as the Holdings Compensation Committee.46 Representative Director; and such other Representative Director Nominating The Exchanges represent that currently, number of Directors that the Board Body.43 each of the executive officers whose deems appropriate, provided that in no Each Exchange proposes to modify compensation would need to be event shall the number of Non-Industry the required composition, appointment determined by the Exchange-level Directors constitute less than the procedures, and duties of its Regulatory Compensation Committee are officers of number of Industry Directors, excluding Oversight Committee.44 Under the both the Exchange and CBOE Holdings, the Chief Executive Officer from the Proposed Bylaws, the Regulatory but should compensation need to be calculation of Industry Directors for this Oversight Committee of each Exchange determined in the future for any purpose. Members of the Executive will consist of at least three Directors, Exchange officer who is not also a CBOE Committee, except for those specified all of whom will be Non-Industry Holdings officer, the Exchange Board or above, will be recommended by the Directors. Members of the Regulatory senior management will perform such Nominating and Governance Committee Oversight Committee will be action without the use of a for approval by the Board and recommended by the Non-Industry compensation committee, as provided committee members will not be subject Directors on the Nominating and for in Article V, Section 5.11 of the to removal except by the Board. The Governance Committee for approval by Proposed Bylaws.47 Executive Committee will have and may the Board and will not be subject to Each Exchange also proposes to exercise all the powers and authority of removal except by the Board. The eliminate its Audit Committee because the Board in the management of the Regulatory Oversight Committee will the Audit Committees’ functions are business and affairs of the Exchange, have such duties and exercise such duplicative of the functions of the Audit with limited exceptions.41 authority as may be prescribed by Committee of CBOE Holdings. The Each Exchange proposes to eliminate resolution of the Board, bylaws, or Exchanges state that CBOE Holdings’ its current Nominating and Member Exchange rules.45 Audit Committee is composed of at least Nominating Committees and prescribe three CBOE Holdings Directors, all of that their duties be performed by its 43 See BYX Proposed Bylaws, Article IV, Section whom must be independent within the newly formed Nominating and 4.3; BZX Proposed Bylaws, Article IV, Section 4.3; meaning given to that term in the CBOE Governance Committee.42 The EDGA Proposed Bylaws, Article IV, Section 4.3; EDGX Proposed Bylaws, Article IV, Section 4.3. See Holdings Bylaws and Corporate Nominating and Governance Committee Governance Guidelines and Rule 10A– will consist of at least five Directors, also supra note 22. 44 See BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42134–35; BZX 3 under the Act.48 The Exchanges also with a majority of Directors that are Notice, 82 FR at 42188; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at state that the CBOE Holdings Audit Non-Industry Directors. Members of the 42213; EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42160–61. Committee has broad authority to assist 45 committee will be recommended by the See BYX Proposed Bylaws, Article IV, Section the CBOE Holdings Board in fulfilling Nominating and Governance Committee 4.4; BZX Proposed Bylaws, Article IV, Section 4.4; EDGA Proposed Bylaws, Article IV, Section 4.4; its oversight responsibilities in assessing EDGX Proposed Bylaws, Article IV, Section 4.4. 38 controls that mitigate the regulatory and See BYX Proposed Bylaws, Article IV, Section Unlike the Proposed Bylaws, the Current Bylaws operational risks associated with 4.1; BZX Proposed Bylaws, Article IV, Section 4.1; explicitly delineate particular responsibilities of the EDGA Proposed Bylaws, Article IV, Section 4.1; Regulatory Oversight Committee. See BYX Current operating each Exchange and to assist EDGX Proposed Bylaws, Article IV, Section 4.1. Bylaws, Article V, Section 6(c); BZX Current the CBOE Holdings Board in 39 See BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42135; BZX Notice, Bylaws, Article V, Section 6(c); EDGA Current discharging its responsibilities relating 82 FR at 42188–89; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at 42214; Bylaws, Article V, Section 6(c); EDGX Current to, among other things, CBOE Holdings’ EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42161. See also BYX Bylaws, Article V, Section 6(c). The Exchanges state Proposed Bylaws, Article IV, Sections 4.1 and 4.2; that, under the Proposed Bylaws, the Regulatory financial statements and disclosure BZX Proposed Bylaws, Article IV, Sections 4.1 and Oversight Committee will continue to have the matters, internal controls, and oversight 4.2; EDGA Proposed Bylaws, Article IV, Sections duties and authority delineated in the Current and risk management.49 The Exchanges 4.1 and 4.2; EDGX Proposed Bylaws, Article IV, Bylaws, with the exception that the Regulatory Sections 4.1 and 4.2. Oversight Committee will no longer consult the notwithstanding the proposed elimination of this 40 Under the Proposed Bylaws, the Board of each Chief Executive Officer with respect to establishing provision, the Exchange have no intention to Exchange may appoint one of the Non-Industry the goals, assessing the performance, and fixing eliminate the role of the Chief Regulatory Officer. Directors to serve as the Lead Director and perform compensation of the Chief Regulatory Officer. The See BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42137; BZX Notice, 82 such duties and possess such powers as the Board Exchanges state that this change is consistent with FR at 42190; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at 42215–16; prescribes. See BYX Proposed Bylaws, Article III, the Exchanges’ desire to maintain the independence EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42163. Section 3.7; BZX Proposed Bylaws, Article III, of the regulatory functions of the Exchanges. See 46 Section 3.7; EDGA Proposed Bylaws, Article III, BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42135; BZX Notice, 82 FR at See BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42133; BZX Notice, Section 3.7; EDGX Proposed Bylaws, Article III, 42188; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at 42213; EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42187; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at 42212; Section 3.7. 82 FR at 42161. In addition, the Proposed Bylaws EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42159. 41 See BYX Proposed Bylaws, Article IV, Section eliminate the requirement in the Current Bylaws 47 See BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42133; BZX Notice, 4.2; BZX Proposed Bylaws, Article IV, Section 4.2; that the Chief Regulatory Officer is a designated 82 FR at 42187; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at 42212; EDGA Proposed Bylaws, Article IV, Section 4.2; officer of the Exchange. See BYX Current Bylaws, EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42159. EDGX Proposed Bylaws, Article IV, Section 4.2. Article VII, Section 9; BZX Current Bylaws, Article 48 17 CFR 240.10A–3. 42 See BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42135; BZX Notice, VII, Section 9; EDGA Current Bylaws, Article VII, 49 See BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42133–34; BZX 82 FR at 42189; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at 42214; Section 9; EDGX Current Bylaws, Article VII, Notice, 82 FR at 42187; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42161. Section 9. The Exchanges represent that 42212–13; EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42159–60.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48294 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

further state that CBOE Holdings’ have no intention of establishing, Appeals Committee or Finance financial statements are prepared on a Finance Committees and that CBOE and Committee in the future, if desired. consolidated basis that includes the C2 do not have exchange-level Finance 3. Advisory Board financial results of CBOE Holdings’ Committees. The Exchanges state that subsidiaries, including each Exchange, they will retain the authority, under Each Exchange proposes to adopt and therefore the CBOE Holdings Audit Article IV, Section 4.1 of the Proposed Article VI, Section 6.1 of the Proposed Committee’s purview necessarily Bylaws, to establish a Finance Bylaws, which provides that the Board includes each Exchange.50 Finally, the Committee in the future if so desired.55 may establish an Advisory Board which Exchanges note that despite the The Commission believes that each will advise the Board and management elimination of Exchange-level Audit Exchange’s proposed committees, which regarding matters of interest to Committees, unconsolidated financial are similar to the committees Exchange Members. If established, the statements of each Exchange will still be maintained by CBOE and C2,56 are Board would set the number of members prepared for each fiscal year.51 designed to help enable the Exchange to of the Advisory Board, and at least two Each Exchange proposes to eliminate carry out its responsibilities under the members would be Exchange Members its Appeals Committee, which is a Act and are consistent with the Act, or persons associated with Exchange Board-level committee that presides including Section 6(b)(1), which Members. The Nominating and over all appeals related to disciplinary requires, in part, an exchange to be so Governance Committee would and adverse action determinations in organized and have the capacity to carry recommend members of the Advisory 60 accordance with Exchange rules. The out the purposes of the Act.57 The Board for approval by the Board. Each Exchanges state that while they are Commission further believes that each Exchange states that it believes an proposing to eliminate the Appeals Exchange’s proposed committees, Advisory Board could provide a vehicle Committee as a specified Board-level including their composition and the for Exchange management to receive committee, each Exchange would have means by which committee members advice from the perspective of Exchange the ability to appoint a Board-level or an will be chosen, are consistent with Members and regarding matters that 61 Exchange-level Appeals Committee Section 6(b)(3) of the Act because impact Exchange Members. Each pursuant to Article IV, Section 4.1 of the relevant committees provide for the fair Exchange further explains that an Proposed Bylaws. According to the representation of members in the Advisory Board would be completely Exchanges, they would prefer not to administration of that Exchange’s advisory in nature and would not be have to maintain and staff a standing affairs.58 vested with any Exchange decision- Appeals Committee, but rather would With respect to the proposal to making authority or other authority to like to provide their Boards with the eliminate each Exchange’s act on behalf of the Exchange. The flexibility to determine whether to Compensation Committee and Audit Exchanges note that while under the establish a Board-level or Exchange- Committee, the Commission notes that CBOE Bylaws an Advisory Board is level Appeals Committee.52 The this change is comparable to the mandatory, the Exchanges would like Exchanges note that CBOE and C2 governing structures of other exchanges, the flexibility to determine if an maintain an exchange-level Appeals including CBOE and C2, which the Advisory Board should be established in Committee rather than a Board-level 62 Commission has previously approved.59 the future. Appeals Committee and that other The Commission believes that each As more fully set forth in the Notices, exchanges do not require standing Exchange’s proposal to authorize an the Exchanges state that their respective Appeals Committees.53 Advisory Board to advise the Board and Compensation Committees’ and Audit Further, each Exchange proposes to management with respect to matters of Committees’ responsibilities largely are eliminate a provision of its Current interest to Exchange Members is duplicative of those of the Bylaws that allows the Chairman, with consistent with the Act. The Compensation Committee and Audit approval of the Board, to appoint a Commission notes that the Advisory Committee of CBOE Holdings. With Finance Committee to advise the Board Board will be advisory in nature and respect to the proposal to eliminate each with respect to the oversight of the will not be vested with decision-making Exchange’s Appeals Committee and the financial operations and conditions of authority or the authority to act on 54 specific provision permitting a Finance the Exchange. The Exchanges note behalf of the Exchange. Nevertheless, if Committee, the Commission notes that that they do not currently maintain, and established, the Advisory Board could the Act does not require the Exchanges serve as a supplementary adjunct 50 to maintain such committees and each See BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42134; BZX Notice, advisory body that can provide an 82 FR at 42187; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at 42212; Exchange will have the ability, under additional forum for Exchange Members EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42160. the Proposed Bylaws, to establish an 51 See BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42134; BZX Notice, to be heard and provide input to 82 FR at 42187; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at 42212; Exchange management above and 55 EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42160. See BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42134; BZX Notice, beyond the formal role played by 52 82 FR at 42188; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at 42213; See BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42134; BZX Notice, Representative Directors, as discussed 82 FR at 42188; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at 42213; EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42160. EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42160. 56 See CBOE Bylaws, Article IV, Sections 4.1–4.4; 53 See BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42134; BZX Notice, C2 Bylaws, Article IV, Sections 4.1–4.4. 60 See BYX Proposed Bylaws, Article VI, Section 82 FR at 42188; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at 42213; 57 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1). 6.1; BZX Proposed Bylaws, Article VI, Section 6.1; EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42160. For example, BOX 58 See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3). EDGA Proposed Bylaws, Article VI, Section 6.1; Options Exchange, LLC does not mandate an 59 See CBOE 2017 Order, 82 FR at 20400; C2 2017 EDGX Proposed Bylaws, Article VI, Section 6.1. Appeals Committee under its bylaws or exchange Order, 82 FR at 20410; Securities Exchange Act 61 See BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42136; BZX Notice, rules. See bylaws of BOX Options Exchange, LLC; Release Nos. 64127 (March 25, 2011), 76 FR 17974, 82 FR at 42189; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at 42214; rules of BOX Options Exchange, LLC. 17976 (March 31, 2011) (SR–CBOE–2011–010) EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42162. 54 See BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42134 (citing BYX (‘‘CBOE March 2011 Order’’); 64128 (March 25, 62 The Exchanges further note that there is no Current Bylaws, Article V, Section 6(f)); BZX 2011), 76 FR 17973, 17974 (March 31, 2011) (SR– statutory requirement to maintain an Advisory Notice, 82 FR at 42188 (citing BZX Current Bylaws, C2–2011–003) (‘‘C2 March 2011 Order’’); 62304 Board and the Current Bylaws do not require the Article V, Section 6(f)); EDGA Notice, 82 FR at (June 16, 2010), 75 FR 36136, 36137 (June 24, 2010) Exchanges to establish an Advisory Board. See BYX 42213 (citing EDGA Current Bylaws, Article V, (SR–NYSEArca–2010–31); 60276 (July 9, 2009), 74 Notice, 82 FR at 42136; BZX Notice, 82 FR at Section 6(f)); EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42160 (citing FR 34840, 34841 (July 17, 2009) (SR–NASDAQ– 42189–90; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at 42215; EDGX EDGX Current Bylaws, Article V, Section 6(f)). 2009–042). Notice, 82 FR at 42162.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48295

above. The Commission further notes • All confidential information • Additionally, each Exchange that the composition and function of the pertaining to the self-regulatory function proposes a rule that would prohibit the Advisory Board is the same as that for of the Exchange (including but not Exchange from using any revenues CBOE and C2, and that, while the CBOE limited to disciplinary matters, trading received by the Exchange from fees Bylaws currently mandate the data, trading practices, and audit derived from its regulatory function or establishment of an Advisory Board, the information) contained in the books and regulatory fines for non-regulatory Commission previously approved a records of the Exchange shall: (1) Not be purposes or to make distributions to the proposal for a permissive Advisory made available to any persons other stockholder.70 Board by CBOE and C2.63 than to those officers, Directors, The Commission believes that the employees, and agents of the Exchange provisions discussed in this section, 4. Regulatory Independence that have a reasonable need to know the which are designed to help ensure the The Proposed Certificates and contents thereof; (2) be retained in independence of each Exchange’s Proposed Bylaws, as well as proposed confidence by the Exchange and its regulatory function and facilitate the Exchange rules, include provisions officers, Directors, employees, and ability of each Exchange to carry out its designed to help maintain the agents; and (3) not be used for any responsibility and operate in a manner independence of the regulatory commercial purposes.67 consistent with the Act, are appropriate functions of each Exchange,64 which • Under the Proposed Bylaws, as is and consistent with the requirements of provisions are substantially similar to the case under the Current Bylaws, the the Act, particularly with Section those included in the governing books and records of each Exchange 6(b)(1), which requires, in part, an documents of other exchanges.65 must be maintained in the United exchange to be so organized and have Specifically: States.68 the capacity to carry out the purposes of • In discharging his or her • Under the Proposed Certificates and the Act.71 responsibilities as a member of the Proposed Bylaws, any amendments to The Commission believes that the Board, each Director shall take into those documents will not become proposed provisions relating to the consideration the effect that his or her effective until filed with, or filed with books and records of each Exchange are actions would have on the ability of the and approved by, the Commission, as designed to maintain the independence Exchange to carry out the Exchange’s required under Section 19 of the Act of the Exchanges’ self-regulatory responsibilities under the Act and on and the rules promulgated thereunder.69 function, and are consistent with the the ability of the Exchange: To engage Act. The Commission notes that these in conduct that fosters and does not Current Bylaws, Article III, Sections 1(d) and (e)); provisions are substantially similar to interfere with the Exchange’s ability to EDGA Notice, 82 FR at 42207 and n. 4 (citing EDGA those the Commission has previously Current Bylaws, Article III, Sections 1(d) and (e)); prevent fraudulent and manipulative EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42154 and n. 4 (citing EDGX found to be consistent with the Act in acts and practices; to promote just and Current Bylaws, Article III, Sections 1(d) and (e)). the context of the corporate governance equitable principles of trade; to foster 67 See BYX Proposed Certificate, Article Eleventh; structures of other exchanges.72 The cooperation and coordination with BZX Proposed Certificate, Article Eleventh; EDGA Commission also notes that the Proposed Certificate, Article Eleventh; EDGX governing documents of CBOE Holdings persons engaged in regulating, clearing, Proposed Certificate, Article Eleventh. The settling, processing information with Commission notes that, as is currently the case, the and CBOE V previously approved by the respect to, and facilitating transactions requirement to keep information confidential will Commission provide that all books and in securities; to remove impediments to not be interpreted as to limit or impede the rights records of the Exchanges reflecting of the Commission to access and examine such confidential information pertaining to and perfect the mechanisms of a free confidential information pursuant to the federal and open market and a national market securities laws and the rules and regulations the self-regulatory function of the system; and, in general, to protect thereunder, or limit or impede the ability of any investors and the public interest. In officers, Directors, employees, or agents of the amendments pursuant to Section 19 of the Act, the Exchange to disclose such confidential information Current Certificates and Current Bylaws, as rules of discharging his or her responsibilities as to the Commission. See BYX Proposed Certificate, the Exchange, are nonetheless subject to the a member of the Board or as an officer Article Eleventh; BZX Proposed Certificate, Article requirements of Section 19 of the Act and the rules or employee of the Exchange, each Eleventh; EDGA Proposed Certificate, Article and regulations thereunder. Director, officer or employee shall Eleventh; EDGX Proposed Certificate, Article 70 See proposed BYX Rule 15.2; proposed BZX comply with the federal securities laws Eleventh. See also BYX Current Bylaws, Article XI, Rule 15.2; proposed EDGA Rule 15.2; proposed Section 3; BZX Current Bylaws, Article XI, Section EDGX Rule 15.2. The proposed rule further and the rules and regulations 3; EDGA Current Bylaws, Article XI, Section 3; provides that such regulatory revenues will be thereunder and shall cooperate with the EDGX Current Bylaws, Article XI, Section 3. applied to fund the legal and regulatory operations Commission, and the Exchange 68 See BYX Proposed Bylaws, Article VIII, Section of the Exchange (including surveillance and pursuant to its regulatory authority.66 8.12; BZX Proposed Bylaws, Article VIII, Section enforcement activities), or, as the case may be, will 8.12; EDGA Proposed Bylaws, Article VIII, Section be used to pay restitution and disgorgement of 8.12; EDGX Proposed Bylaws, Article VIII, Section funds intended for customers (except in the event 63 See CBOE December 2011 Order, 76 FR at 8.12. See also BYX Current Bylaws, Article XI, of liquidation of the Exchange, in which case Bats 79254; C2 December 2011 Order, 76 FR at 79241– Section 3; BZX Current Bylaws, Article XI, Section Global Markets Holdings, with respect to BYX and 42; CBOE March 2011 Order, 76 FR at 17976; C2 3; EDGA Current Bylaws, Article XI, Section 3; BZX, and Direct Edge, with respect to EDGA and March 2011 Order, 76 FR at 17974. EDGX Current Bylaws, Article XI, Section 3. The EDGX, will be entitled to the distribution of the 64 See BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42140; BZX Notice, Commission notes that such books and records remaining assets of the Exchange). The Exchanges 82 FR at 42193; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at 42218; would be subject to examination by the state that this provision is similar to a provision in EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42166. Commission pursuant to the federal securities laws the Current Bylaws and also to CBOE Rule 2.51, 65 See, e.g., ISE Order, 82 FR at 36503–05; CBOE and the rules and regulations thereunder. except that, unlike CBOE Rule 2.51, the proposed Demutualization Order, 75 FR at 30089; C2 69 See BYX Proposed Certificate, Article Seventh; rule explicitly states that regulatory funds may not Exchange Order, 74 FR at 66704–05. BZX Proposed Certificate, Article Seventh; EDGA be distributed to the stockholder. See BYX Notice, 66 See BYX Proposed Certificate, Article Fifth(d); Proposed Certificate, Article Seventh; EDGX 82 FR at 42138–39; BZX Notice, 82 FR at 42192; BZX Proposed Certificate, Article Fifth(d); EDGA Proposed Certificate, Article Seventh; BYX EDGA Notice, 82 FR at 42217; and EDGX Notice, Proposed Certificate, Article Fifth(d); EDGX Proposed Bylaws, Article IX, Section 9.3; BZX 82 FR at 42164. See also BYX Current Bylaws, Proposed Certificate, Article Fifth(d). The Proposed Bylaws, Article IX, Section 9.3; EDGA Article X, Section 4; BZX Current Bylaws Article X, Exchanges note that this provision contains Proposed Bylaws, Article IX, Section 9.3; EDGX Section 4; EDGA Current Bylaws, Article X, Section language similar to that in the Current Bylaws. See Proposed Bylaws, Article IX, Section 9.3. The 4; EDGX Current Bylaws, Article X, Section 4. BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42128 and n. 4 (citing BYX Commission notes that, although the Current 71 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1). Current Bylaws, Article III, Sections 1(d) and (e)); Certificates and Current Bylaws do not include a 72 See, e.g., MIAX Exchange Order, 77 FR at BZX Notice, 82 FR at 42182 and n. 4 (citing BZX similar, explicit requirement regarding the filing of 73071.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48296 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

Exchanges will be subject to The Commission finds that these to the proposed rule change.4 The confidentiality restrictions.73 proposed rule changes are consistent Commission is publishing this notice of The Commission finds that the with the Act in that they are necessary Amendment No. 1 and approving the proposed process regarding to update cross-references and certain proposed rule change, as modified by amendments to the Proposed defined terms in the rules and would Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated Certificates and Proposed Bylaws is assist Exchange Members and the public basis. consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the in understanding the Exchanges’ rules. Act, because it reflects the obligation of II. Description of the Proposed Rule the Board to ensure compliance with the IV. Conclusion Change, as Modified by Amendment rule filing requirements under the Act. It is therefore ordered, pursuant to No. 1 Additionally, the Commission finds Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,80 that the The Exchange has proposed to adopt these changes to be consistent with proposed rule changes (SR–BatsBYX– initial and continued listing standards Section 19(b)(1) of the Act and Rule 2017–19; SR–BatsBZX–2017–55; SR– for the listing of Subscription Receipts. 19b–4 thereunder,74 which require that BatsEDGA–2017–22; and SR– In its proposal, NYSE generally a self-regulatory organization file with BatsEDGX–2017–35), each as modified described the structure of Subscription the Commission all proposed rules, as by its respective Amendment No. 1, be, Receipts and noted that Subscriptions well as all proposed changes in, and hereby are, approved. Receipts have been used as a financing additions to, and deletions of its For the Commission, by the Division of technique by Canadian public existing rules. These provisions clarify Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated companies.5 According to the Exchange, that amendments to the Proposed authority.81 Canadian companies typically use Certificates and Proposed Bylaws Eduardo A. Aleman, Subscription Receipts as a means of constitute proposed rule changes within Assistant Secretary. providing cash consideration in merger 6 the meaning of Section 19(b)(2) of the [FR Doc. 2017–22387 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] or acquisition transactions. Act and Rule 19b–4 thereunder, and are BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Subscription Receipts are sold in a subject to the filing requirements of public offering that occurs after the Section 19 of the Act and the rules and execution of an acquisition agreement. regulations thereunder. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE The proceeds of the Subscription The Commission also finds that the COMMISSION Receipt offering are held in a custody prohibition on the use of regulatory fees account and, if the related acquisition or fines to fund non-regulatory purposes [Release No. 34–81856; File No. SR–NYSE– 2017–31] closes, the Subscription Receipt holders or to make distributions to the will have their Subscription Receipts stockholder is consistent with Section Self-Regulatory Organizations; New converted into a specified number of 75 6(b)(1) of the Act, because it is York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of shares of the primary listed class of designed to further each Exchange’s Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order common stock of the issuer.7 If the ability to effectively comply with its Granting Accelerated Approval of a acquisition does not close, the statutory obligations and is designed to Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Subscription Receipts are redeemed for ensure that the regulatory authority of their original purchase price plus any 76 Amendment No. 1, To Amend the the Exchange is not improperly used. Listed Company Manual To Adopt interest accrued on the custody account. This restriction on the use of regulatory Initial and Continued Listing Standards The Exchange stated in its proposal funds is intended to preclude each for Subscription Receipts that Subscription Receipts provide a Exchange from using its authority to contingent form of financing for an raise regulatory funds for the purpose of October 11, 2017. issuer that only becomes permanent if benefiting its stockholder.77 8 I. Introduction the specified acquisition is completed. C. Related Rule Amendments In contrast, the Exchange noted that a On June 26, 2017, New York Stock company financing the cash Each Exchange proposes to amend its Exchange LLC (‘‘NYSE’’ or the consideration for an acquisition by rules in conjunction with the changes in ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities means of a traditional equity or debt the Proposed Bylaws.78 Specifically, and Exchange Commission each Exchange proposes to update (‘‘Commission’’) pursuant to Section 4 Amendment No. 1 amends the original filing to: certain cross-references to the bylaws in 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act (1) Correct a reference in the purpose section of the its rules and to move certain definitions of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 filing from a reference to Section 802.01 of the from the bylaws to the rules.79 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to Manual to a reference to Sections 802.02 and 802.03 of the Manual; (2) change the proposed continued amend the NYSE Listed Company listing holder requirement from 100 total holders to 73 See Transaction Order, 81 FR at 93991–92. Manual (‘‘Manual’’) to adopt initial and 100 public holders; (3) provide that Subscription 74 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1); 17 CFR 240.19b–4. continued listing standards for Receipts will be subject to immediate suspension 75 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1). Subscription Receipts. The proposed and delisting proceedings (with no eligibility with 76 See, e.g., ISE Order, 82 FR at 36505 (approving respect to the procedures set forth in Sections a prohibition on the use of regulatory fines, fees, or rule change was published for comment 802.02 and 802.03 of the Manual) in the event that penalties to pay dividends). See also CBOE in the Federal Register on July 13, at any time there are fewer than 100,000 publicly- Demutualization Order, 75 FR at 30089 (approving 2017.3 On October 3, 2017, the held shares or 100 public holders of the CBOE Rule 2.51). Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 Subscription Receipts; and (4) make clear that 77 See BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42138; BZX Notice, Subscription Receipts convert into primary 82 FR at 42192; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at 42217; common stock of the listed company. When the EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42164. regulatory revenues for non-regulatory purposes Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 with the from the Current Bylaws to the rules. See supra 78 See BYX Notice, 82 FR at 42139; BZX Notice, Commission, it also submitted Amendment No. 1 to note 70 and accompanying text. 82 FR at 42192–93; EDGA Notice, 82 FR at 42218; the public comment file for SR–NYSE–2017–31 80 EDGX Notice, 82 FR at 42165. 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). (available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr- 81 nyse-2017-31/nyse201731.htm). 79 See proposed BYX Rules 1.1, 2.10, and 8.6; 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 5 proposed BZX Rules 1.1, 2.10, and 8.6; proposed 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). See Notice, supra note 3, at 32413. EDGA Rules 1.1, 2.10, and 8.6; proposed EDGX 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 6 See id. Rules 1.1, 2.10, and 8.6. The Exchanges also 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81102 7 See Amendment No. 1. propose to move the prohibition on the use of (July 7, 2017), 82 FR 32413 (‘‘Notice’’). 8 See Notice, supra note 3, at 32413.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48297

offering is at risk of having incurred The Exchange has also proposed to subject to all of the continued listing unnecessary dilution of its shareholders amend Section 802.01B of the Manual to requirements applicable to a primary or indebtedness if the related include continued listing standards class of common stock listed on acquisition fails to close.9 The Exchange applicable to Subscription Receipts NYSE.18 further noted that Subscription Receipts listed under proposed Section 102.08 of The Exchange also has proposed to provide investors with flexibility to the Manual. In its filing, as modified by amend Section 202.06 of the Manual to elect to invest in the post-merger Amendment No. 1, the Exchange provide that whenever it halts trading in company and not in the company in its proposed to immediately initiate a security of a listed company pending pre-merger form. suspension and delisting procedures dissemination of material news or The Exchange has proposed the when: (i) The number of publicly-held implements any other required following initial listing standards for shares is less than 100,000; (ii) the regulatory trading halt, the Exchange Subscription Receipts: 10 number of public holders is less than will also halt trading in any listed (a) At the time of initial listing, the 100; 13 (iii) the total market Subscription Receipt that is Subscription Receipts must have a price capitalization of the Subscription exchangeable by its terms into the per share of at least $4.00, a minimum Receipts is below $15 million over 30 common stock of such company.19 total market value of publicly-held consecutive trading days; (iv) the related The Exchange represented that it will shares of $100 million, 1,100,000 common equity security ceases to be monitor activity in Subscription publicly-held shares,11 and 400 holders listed; or (v) the issuer announces that Receipts to identify and deter any of round lots (i.e., 100 securities). the Specified Acquisition has been potential improper trading activity in (b) The issuer must be an NYSE listed terminated. such securities and will adopt enhanced company that is not currently non- An issuer of Subscription Receipts surveillance procedures to enable it to compliant with any applicable will not be eligible to follow the monitor Subscription Receipts alongside continued listing standard. procedures outlined in Sections 802.02 the common equity securities into (c) The proceeds of the Subscription and 802.03 of the Manual with respect which they are convertible.20 Receipts offering must be designated to these criteria,14 and any such security Additionally, the Exchange states that it solely for use in connection with the will be subject to delisting procedures will rely on its existing trading consummation of a specified acquisition as set forth in Section 804 of the surveillances, administered by the that is the subject of a binding Manual.15 The Exchange also stated that Exchange or the Financial Industry acquisition agreement (the ‘‘Specified Subscription Receipts will be subject to Regulatory Authority (‘‘FINRA’’) on Acquisition’’). potential delisting for all of the reasons behalf of the Exchange, which are (d) The proceeds of the Subscription generally applicable to operating designed to detect violations of Receipts offering must be held in an companies under Section 802.01 of the Exchange rules and applicable federal interest-bearing custody account by an Manual.16 The Exchange further noted securities law. independent custodian. in its proposal that an issuer of Finally, the Exchange has proposed to (e) The Subscription Receipts must Subscription Receipts may be subject to apply the listing fees for ‘‘short-term’’ promptly be redeemable for cash (i) at delisting at the time of closing of the securities (i.e., securities with a life of any time the Specified Acquisition is related acquisition pursuant to the seven years or less), set forth in Section terminated, or (ii) if the Specified ‘‘backdoor listing’’ provisions of Section 902.06 of the Manual, to Subscription Acquisition does not close within 703.08(E) of the Manual.17 Further, if Receipts because these securities, as twelve months from the date of issuance the Specified Acquisition is noted above, will be short-term consummated, as noted above, the securities that have a maximum term of of the Subscription Receipts, or such 21 earlier time as is specified in the Subscription Receipts convert into the twelve months. The Exchange has operative agreements. If the primary listed class of common stock of therefore proposed to amend Section Subscription Receipts are redeemed, the the issuer, which will thereafter be 902.06 of the Manual to make it explicit that it will apply to Subscription holders must receive cash payments 13 Receipts. Finally, the Exchange equal to their proportionate share of the In adopting a continued listing requirement of 100 public holders, the Exchange notes that this is proposes to amend Section 902.06 of the funds in the custody account, including similar to other exchange continued listing Manual to remove a reference to the any interest earned on those funds. standards. See, e.g., NASDAQ Marketplace Rule (f) If the Specified Acquisition is 5460(a)(4). See also Section 802.01D (providing annual fees charged prior to January 1, consummated, the holders of the continued listing standards for warrants, among 2017, as that reference is now irrelevant. other specialized securities). For purposes of the Subscription Receipts must receive the continued listing requirements for Subscription III. Discussion and Commission shares of common stock for which their Receipts, ‘‘public holders’’ exclude holders that are Findings directors, officers, or their immediate families and Subscription Receipts are exchangeable. The Commission finds that the (g) The sale of the Subscription holders of other concentrated holdings of 10% or more. See proposed Section 802.01B of the Manual. proposed rule change, as modified by Receipts and the issuance of the 14 Sections 802.02 and 802.03 of the Manual set Amendment No. 1, is consistent with common stock of the issuer in exchange forth procedures for listed companies to submit a the requirements of the Act and the for the Subscription Receipts must both plan, which must be approved by the Exchange, to rules and regulations thereunder be registered under the Securities Act of bring the listed company into conformity with a 12 continued listing standard within eighteen months applicable to a national securities 1933. of receiving a letter of non-compliance. As noted exchange and, in particular, the above, an issuer of Subscription Receipts will not requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act 9 See id. be eligible to utilize the procedures in Sections and the rules and regulations 10 See id. 802.02 or 802.03 of the Manual to submit a plan of 11 For purposes of the initial and continued compliance and instead will be subject to the listing requirements for Subscription Receipts, procedures in Section 804 of the Manual. 18 See Amendment No. 1. See also Section 802.01 shares held by directors, officers, or their immediate 15 Section 804 of the Manual sets forth the of the Manual (providing the continued listing families and other concentrated holdings of 10 applicable due process procedures, including criteria for capital or common stock listed on percent or more are excluded in calculating the appeal rights, for the suspension and delisting of NYSE). number of publicly-held shares. See proposed the securities of a listed company. 19 See Notice, supra note 3, at 32414. Sections 102.08 and 802.01B of the Manual. 16 See Notice, supra note 3, at 32414. 20 See id. 12 See 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq. 17 See id. 21 See id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48298 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

thereunder. Specifically, the warrants. At the time investors purchase depth and liquidity, exists for the initial Commission finds that the proposal is a Subscription Receipt they will also listing of Subscription Receipts.26 consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the have information about the Specified Similarly, the Commission believes Act,22 which requires that an exchange Acquisition and are making a decision the Exchange’s proposed continued have rules designed to, among other to purchase stock in the listed post- listing standards for Subscription things, promote just and equitable acquisition company. Receipts are consistent with the principles of trade, remove requirements of the Act and the To address these unique protection of investors. Under the impediments to an perfect the characteristics, as discussed in more mechanisms of a free and open market amended proposal, the Exchange will detail below, the Exchange has and a national market system, protect immediately initiate suspension and proposed to adopt new Section 102.08 investors and the public interest, and delisting procedures when (i) the to list Subscription Receipts, and not permit unfair discrimination number of publicly-held shares is less specified continued listing standards. between customers, issuers, brokers, or than 100,000, (ii) the number of public The proposed standards would permit 27 dealers.23 holders is less than 100, (iii) the total NYSE to list, and continue to list, The development and enforcement of market capitalization of the Subscription Receipts that meet specific adequate standards governing the initial Subscription Receipts is below $15 and continued listing of securities on an criteria, including market value, million over 30 consecutive trading exchange is an activity of critical distribution, and price requirements, days, (iv) the related common equity importance to financial markets and the which should help to ensure that the security ceases to be listed, or (v) the investing public. Listing standards, Subscription Receipts have sufficient issuer announces that the Specified among other things, serve as a means for public float, investor base, and liquidity Acquisition has been terminated.28 In an exchange to screen issuers and to to promote fair and orderly markets. In addition, Subscription Receipts will be provide listed status only to bona fide addition, issuers of Subscription subject to potential delisting for all of companies that have or will have Receipts would have to comply with the reasons generally applicable to sufficient public float, investor base, other investor protection criteria in operating companies, including those and trading interest to provide the depth order to list Subscription Receipts, such outlined in Section 802.01D of the and liquidity necessary to promote fair as, among others, holding proceeds in a Manual, which discusses the factors and and orderly markets. Adequate custodial account controlled by an criteria that may result in delisting, and standards are especially important given independent custodian and providing may also be subject to delisting at the the expectations of investors regarding shareholders with cash redemption time of closing of the related acquisition exchange trading and the imprimatur of rights should the Specified Acquisition pursuant to the backdoor listing listing on a particular market. Once a be terminated or not close within 12 provisions of Section 703.08 of the security has been approved for initial months. Manual. The Commission notes the listing, maintenance criteria allow an The Commission believes that the application of the backdoor listing exchange to monitor the status and proposed initial and continued listing provision will help to ensure that companies that would not otherwise trading characteristics of that issue to standards for Subscription Receipts are qualify for original listing on the ensure that it continues to meet the consistent with the requirements of the Exchange could not list, for example, by exchange’s standards for market depth Act, including the protection of and liquidity so that fair and orderly merging with a listed company. investors and the promotion of fair and The Commission believes that these markets can be maintained. orderly markets. standards, taken together, should help Subscription Receipts, as discussed At the time of initial listing, the ensure that a sufficient market, with by the Exchange in its proposal, are a Subscription Receipts must have a price adequate depth and liquidity, exists for financing technique to fund a Specified per share of at least $4.00, a minimum the continued listing of Subscription Acquisition. As NYSE noted in its filing, total market value of publicly-held Receipts and are similar to the an issuer could sell equity securities to shares of $100 million, 1,100,000 continued listing standards for other fund an acquisition, but if the publicly-held shares,24 and 400 holders securities that have similar acquisition doesn’t close, investors will of round lots (i.e., 100 securities). The characteristics.29 The Commission also still experience dilution in their Commission notes that the distribution notes that once the Specified holdings. Subscription Receipts allow criteria is the same that currently investors the right to invest in the applies to the listing of common stock 26 Because the issuer of the Subscription Receipt common stock of the listed company in connection with an initial public is already listing its primary common stock on the upon consummation of a Specified Exchange, it must comply with the continued offering under NYSE listing rules and Acquisition. If the deal is not listing standards for capital and common stock as that the $100 million market value of well as the corporate governance requirements consummated within a short time frame publicly-held shares requirement is applicable to listed companies. of 12 months or less, the Subscription 27 similar to the requirements for other For purposes of the continued listing Receipt holders receive their pro rata requirements for Subscription Receipts, ‘‘public share of the offering proceeds plus initial listing of securities on the holders’’ exclude holders that are directors, officers, Exchange.25 The Commission believes or their immediate families and holders of other interest. In this sense, Subscription concentrated holdings of 10% or more. See Receipts could be viewed as a security that these standards should help ensure that a sufficient market, with adequate proposed Section 802.01B of the Manual. with characteristics of both equity and 28 The Commission notes that an issuer of debt and are similar, but not identical Subscription Receipts will not be eligible to follow to, other contingent securities with a 24 For purposes of the initial and continued the evaluation and follow-up procedures outlined listing requirements for Subscription Receipts, in Sections 802.02 and 802.03 of the Manual with right to receive common stock, such as shares held by directors, officers, or their immediate respect to these criteria, and any such security will families and other concentrated holdings of 10 be subject to delisting procedures as set forth in 22 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). percent or more are excluded in calculating the Section 804 of the Manual. 23 In approving this proposed rule change, the number of publicly-held shares. See proposed 29 See, e.g., Section 802.01D of the Manual Commission notes that it has considered the Sections 102.08 and 802.01B of the Manual. (providing the continued listing standards for proposed rules’ impact on efficiency, competition, 25 See Sections 102.01A and 102.01B of the certain types of specialized securities, including and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). Manual. warrants).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48299

Acquisition has occurred and a proceeds of the Subscription Receipts The Commission believes that these Subscription Receipt is converted to offering must also be held in an interest- safeguards and standards should help to common stock, that common stock is bearing custody account by an ensure that the listing, and continued subject to the continued listing independent custodian and holders will listing, of any Subscription Receipts on requirements for capital or common promptly redeem the Subscription NYSE will be consistent with investor stock in Section 802.01of the Manual.30 Receipts for cash, equal to the holder’s protection, the public interest, and the In addition to the quantitative listing proportionate share of the funds in the maintenance of fair and orderly markets. requirements proposed for Subscription custody account plus any interest In this regard, the Commission expects Receipts, the proposed initial and earned, at any time the Specified NYSE to thoroughly review any continued listing standards also include Acquisition is terminated or if the potential listing of Subscription additional protections for Subscription Specified Acquisition does not close Receipts to ensure that its listing Receipt holders. For example, the issuer within twelve months from the date of standards have been met and continue of Subscription Receipts must be an issuance of the Subscription Receipts to be met, as well as to monitor trading NYSE listed company that is not (or such earlier time as specified in the in the Subscription Receipts and related currently non-compliant with any operative agreements). If the Specified common stock of the issuer. Based on applicable continued listing standard Acquisition is consummated, the the foregoing, the Commission finds that and must continue to be listed on the holders of the Subscription Receipts the proposed initial and continued Exchange throughout the time the will receive the shares of common stock listing standards are consistent with the Subscription Receipts are traded on the for which their Subscription Receipts Act. Exchange. The proposed rules also are exchangeable. Finally, the listing Finally, the Commission believes that provide that whenever the Exchange standards specifically state and remind the proposed fees set forth in Section halts trading in a security of a listed issuers that the sale of Subscription 902.06 of the Manual are consistent company pending dissemination of Receipts and the issuance of the with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,33 in material news or implements any other common stock of the issuer in exchange particular, in that they are designed to required regulatory trading halt, the for the Subscription Receipts must both provide for the equitable allocation of Exchange will also halt trading in any be registered under the Securities Act of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges, listed Subscription Receipt that is 31 1933. This is important because and are not designed to permit unfair exchangeable by its terms into the shareholders, at the time they purchase discrimination among the Exchange’s common stock of such company. a Subscription Receipt, are making an The Commission believes that these members, issuers, and other persons investment decision to also purchase using its facilities. The Commission additional requirements should protect the common stock of the merged listed investors and the public interest, notes that the proposed fees are the company should the Specified same as the fees applicable to similar consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Acquisition be consummated, within Act, by assuring that information with short term securities under Rule 902.06 twelve months or such shorter specified of the Manual. respect to the listed company issuing time period. Therefore, it is important to Based on the above, the Commission the Subscription Receipts is publicly have registration and disclosure under believes the proposed rule change, as available and that the issuing company the Securities Act of both the amended, is reasonable and should is meeting all continued listing Subscription Receipt and the related provide for the listing of Subscription standards, including corporate common stock. Based on the above, the Receipts, with baseline investor governance requirements, of the Commission believes that specifically protection and other standards. The Exchange. In addition, these setting forth the Securities Act Commission believes, as discussed requirements should help assure that registration requirements in the NYSE above, that NYSE has developed the Exchange has a listing relationship rules for listing Subscription Receipts is sufficient standards to allow the listing with, and direct access to information consistent with the requirements of of Subscription Receipts on the from, the issuer of the Subscription Section 6(b)(5) of the Act to further Exchange, and finds the proposal Receipts. Among other things, this investor protection and the public consistent with the requirements set direct relationship the Exchange has interest. with the listed company issuing the forth under the Act, and in particular, The Exchange will also monitor 34 Subscription Receipts will help to activity in Subscription Receipts to Sections (6)(b)(4) and 6(b)(5). ensure that the Exchange will receive identify and deter any potential IV. Solicitation of Comments on information in a timely manner to halt improper trading activity in such Amendment No. 1 trading in the Subscription Receipts securities and will adopt enhanced when there is a material news, or other surveillance procedures to enable it to Interested persons are invited to regulatory, trading halt imposed on the monitor Subscription Receipts alongside submit written data, views, and common stock, and other securities, of the common equity securities into arguments concerning the foregoing, the listed company. which they are convertible. Since the including whether Amendment No. 1 is There are additional protections for Subscription Receipts are related to, and consistent with the Act. Comments may investors in the proposed standards. represent an interest in, the common be submitted by any of the following These include that all the proceeds of stock of the post-acquisition listed methods: the Subscription Receipts offering must company, this enhanced surveillance Electronic Comments be designated solely for use in should help to monitor the trading • connection with the consummation of a activity in both the issuer’s listed Use the Commission’s Internet Specified Acquisition pursuant to a common stock and the Subscription comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ definitive acquisition agreement, the Receipts.32 rules/sro.shtml); or material terms of which would be subject to disclosure. Additionally, the 31 See 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq. which are designed to detect violations of Exchange 32 As noted above, the Exchange will also rely on rules and applicable federal securities laws. 30 See Section 802.01 of the Manual. See also its existing trading surveillances, administered by 33 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). Amendment No. 1. the Exchange or FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, 34 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(4) and (b)(5).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48300 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

• Send an email to rule-comments@ suspension and delisting proceeding thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– provisions of Section 804 of the Manual, amend Interpretation and Policy .07 of NYSE–2017–31 on the subject line. and provide a clarification that all Exchange Rule 4.11, Position Limits, to Subscription Receipts convert into increase the position limits for options Paper Comments primary common stock of the issuer. on the following exchange traded funds • Send paper comments in triplicate The Commission notes that the and exchange traded notes: iShares to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities revisions in Amendment No. 1 provide China Large-Cap ETF, iShares MSCI and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street additional clarity and specificity to the EAFE ETF, iShares MSCI Emerging NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. proposal and do not raise any novel Markets ETF, iShares Russell 2000 ETF, All submissions should refer to File regulatory concerns. In addition, the iShares MSCI Brazil Capped ETF, Number SR–NYSE–2017–31. This file changes to the continued listing iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond Fund number should be included on the standards strengthen the proposal and ETF, iPath S&P 500 VIX Short-Term subject line if email is used. To help the are consistent with investor protection. Futures ETN, PowerShares QQQ Trust, Commission process and review your Finally, the Commission notes that the and iShares MSCI Japan ETF. The comments more efficiently, please use majority of the original proposal was not proposed rule change was published for only one method. The Commission will modified and was subject to a full comment in the Federal Register on post all comments on the Commission’s notice-and-comment period, and no August 31, 2017.3 The Commission Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ comments were received. Accordingly, received no comments regarding the rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the the Commission finds that good cause proposal. submission, all subsequent exists to approve the proposal, as Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 4 provides amendments, all written statements modified by Amendment No. 1, on an with respect to the proposed rule that within 45 days of the publication of accelerated basis, pursuant to Section notice of the filing of a proposed rule change that are filed with the 19(b)(2) of the Act.35 Commission, and all written change, or within such longer period up communications relating to the VI. Conclusion to 90 days as the Commission may proposed rule change between the designate if it finds such longer period It is therefore ordered, pursuant to to be appropriate and publishes its Commission and any person, other than Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,36 that the those that may be withheld from the reasons for so finding or as to which the proposed rule change (SR–NYSE–2017– self-regulatory organization consents, public in accordance with the 31), as modified by Amendment No. 1 provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be the Commission shall either approve the thereto, be, and hereby is, approved on proposed rule change, disapprove the available for Web site viewing and an accelerated basis. printing in the Commission’s Public proposed rule change, or institute Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., For the Commission, by the Division of proceedings to determine whether the Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated proposed rule change should be Washington, DC 20549, on official authority.37 business days between the hours of disapproved. The 45th day for this filing Eduardo A. Aleman, 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the is October 15, 2017. filing will also be available for Assistant Secretary. The Commission is extending the 45- inspection and copying at the principal [FR Doc. 2017–22408 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] day time period for Commission action office of the Exchange. All comments BILLING CODE 8011–01–P on the proposed rule change. The received will be posted without change; Commission finds that it is appropriate the Commission does not edit personal to designate a longer period within identifying information from SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE which to take action on the proposed submissions. You should submit only COMMISSION rule change so that it has sufficient time information that you wish to make [Release No. 34–81853; File No. SR–CBOE– to consider the proposed rule change. publicly available. All submissions 2017–057] Accordingly, pursuant to Section should refer to File Number SR–NYSE– 19(b)(2) of the Act 5 and for the reasons 2017–31 and should be submitted on or Self-Regulatory Organizations; stated above, the Commission before November 7, 2017. Chicago Board Options Exchange, designates November 29, 2017, as the V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Incorporated; Notice of Designation of date by which the Commission should Rule Change, as Modified by Longer Period for Commission Action either approve or disapprove, or Amendment No. 1 on Proposed Rule Change To Amend institute proceedings to determine Interpretation and Policy .07 of whether to disapprove, the proposed The Commission finds good cause to Exchange Rule 4.11, Position Limits, approve the proposed rule change, as rule change (File No. SR–CBOE–2017– To Increase the Position Limits for 057). modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to Options on Certain ETFs the 30th day after the date of For the Commission, by the Division of publication of the notice of Amendment October 11, 2017. Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated No. 1 in the Federal Register. As noted On August 15, 2017, Chicago Board authority.6 above, in Amendment No. 1, the Options Exchange, Incorporated (the Eduardo A. Aleman, Exchange amended the original filing to ‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘CBOE’’) filed with the Assistant Secretary. correct an incorrect reference to the Securities and Exchange Commission [FR Doc. 2017–22390 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Manual in the purpose section of the (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section BILLING CODE 8011–01–P filing, replace the proposed continued 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act listing standard of 100 total holders 1 of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) and Rule 19b–4 2 with 100 public holders, add two 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81483 additional continued listing standards— 35 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). (August 25, 2017), 82 FR 41457. the 100,000 publicly-held shares 36 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). requirement and the 100 public holder 37 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). requirement—to the immediate 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 6 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(31).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48301

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Life Priority Order Attribute (‘‘ELO’’).3 ELO priority over other Orders on the COMMISSION ELO will allow certain Displayed Nasdaq Book. The issues will require Orders 4 that are committed to a one- [Release No. 34–81855; File No. SR– additional thoughtful and methodical NASDAQ–2017–103] second or longer resting period to development efforts to ensure that risks receive higher priority than other are adequately addressed, and the Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Displayed Orders of the same price on System will accurately account for the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of the Nasdaq Book. Currently, Nasdaq’s new ELO priority. As a consequence, 5 Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of System places a time-stamp on each the Exchange is proposing to implement Proposed Rule Change to Postpone Order entered by a member, which ELO in the second half of 2018. As it determines the time ranking of the Implementation of a New Attribute for originally committed to do, the Order for purposes of processing the Designated Retail Orders Exchange will notify market Order.6 The System presents resting October 11, 2017. Orders on the Nasdaq Book for participants via an Equity Trader Alert once a specific date for the initial Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the execution against incoming Orders in Securities Exchange Act of 1934 accordance with a price/display/time rollout is determined. (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 algorithm.7 Price means that better 2. Statutory Basis notice is hereby given that on priced Orders will be presented for September 29, 2017, The NASDAQ execution first. The Exchange proposed The Exchange believes that its Stock Market LLC (‘‘Nasdaq’’ or ELO to promote Displayed Orders with proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities longer time horizons, thereby enhancing of the Act,10 in general, and furthers the and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or the market so that it works for a wider objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,11 ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule array of market participants. in particular, in that it is designed to change as described in Items I and II Implementation of ELO requires the promote just and equitable principles of below, which Items have been prepared Exchange to make an exception to the trade, to remove impediments to and by the Exchange. The Commission is general priority rules 8 so that Displayed perfect the mechanism of a free and publishing this notice to solicit Orders with an Extended Life Priority open market and a national market comments on the proposed rule change Attribute are allowed to earn queue system, and, in general to protect from interested persons. priority on the Nasdaq Book at any investors and the public interest, given price level ahead of all other I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s because it will allow the Exchange to Displayed Orders without the Extended Statement of the Terms of the Substance adequately address complex unforeseen Life Priority Attribute.9 of the Proposed Rule Change In proposing ELO, the Exchange issues that introduce risk to the The Exchange proposes to postpone anticipated a progressive rollout of the development and functioning of ELO. implementation of a new attribute for ELO functionality, beginning with a The Exchange believes that, to address designated retail orders small set of symbols and gradually these issues in a thorough and The text of the proposed rule change expanding further. The Exchange also thoughtful manner, additional time is is available on the Exchange’s Web site committed to publish the symbols needed for it to solve these issues before at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/, at eligible for ELO on its Web site. The it can implement ELO. As a the principal office of the Exchange, and Exchange noted that it intended to consequence, the proposed delay will at the Commission’s Public Reference implement the initial set of symbols for serve to protect investors by decreasing Room. ELO in the third quarter of 2017, with the likelihood of potential disruption to II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s the exact implementation date being the market caused by the Statement of the Purpose of, and reliant on several factors, such as the implementation of ELO. Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule results of extensive testing and industry B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Change events and initiatives. The Exchange has encountered Statement on Burden on Competition In its filing with the Commission, the unforeseen issues in developing ELO, Exchange included statements The Exchange does not believe that which have delayed its implementation. concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change will impose These issues concern the complexity of the proposed rule change and discussed programming the System to account for any burden on competition not any comments it received on the necessary or appropriate in furtherance proposed rule change. The text of these 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81097 of the purposes of the Act. Delaying the statements may be examined at the (July 7, 2017), 82 FR 32386 (July 13, 2017) (SR– implementation of ELO will allow the places specified in Item IV below. The NASDAQ–2016–161) (approving the proposal as Exchange to adequately analyze issues, Exchange has prepared summaries, set modified by Amendment No. 1). as well as to further develop and test 4 Only Designated Retail Orders, as defined by forth in sections A, B, and C below, of Nasdaq systems to ensure that ELO the most significant aspects of such Rule 7018, are available for ELO. 5 functions as proposed. Ensuring that the statements. As defined by Rule 4701(a). 6 See Rule 4756(a)(2). Exchange has adequate time to do so A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 7 See Rule 4757. To implement ELO’s exception does not place a burden on competition Statement of the Purpose of, and to the price/display/time algorithm the Exchange proposed amending Rule 4757. See supra note 3. whatsoever, since ELO has not been Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 8 Id. implemented and market participants Change 9 The Exchange proposed to designate orders with have not yet begun to program their 1. Purpose the ELO attribute with a new, unique identifier or systems to accept ELO. Thus market they may alternatively be entered through an order participants will not be affected by the On July 7, 2017, the Commission port that has been set to designate, by default, all delay in its implementation. approved the Exchange’s new Extended orders with the new identifier. Orders marked with the new identifier—whether on an order-by-order basis or via a designated port—would be 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). disseminated via Nasdaq’s TotalView ITCH data 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. feed. 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48302 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s operative delay and designates the Washington, DC 20549 on official Statement on Comments on the proposed rule change operative upon business days between the hours of Proposed Rule Change Received From filing.16 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such Members, Participants, or Others At any time within 60 days of the filing also will be available for No written comments were either filing of the proposed rule change, the inspection and copying at the principal solicited or received. Commission summarily may office of the Exchange. All comments temporarily suspend such rule change if received will be posted without change; III. Date of Effectiveness of the it appears to the Commission that such the Commission does not edit personal Proposed Rule Change and Timing for action is necessary or appropriate in the Commission Action identifying information from public interest, for the protection of submissions. You should submit only Because the foregoing proposed rule investors, or otherwise in furtherance of information that you wish to make change does not: (i) Significantly affect the purposes of the Act. If the available publicly. All submissions Commission takes such action, the the protection of investors or the public should refer to File Number SR– interest; (ii) impose any significant Commission shall institute proceedings NASDAQ–2017–103, and should be burden on competition; and (iii) become to determine whether the proposed rule submitted on or before November 7, operative for 30 days from the date on change should be approved or which it was filed, or such shorter time disapproved. 2017. as the Commission may designate, it has For the Commission, by the Division of IV. Solicitation of Comments become effective pursuant to Section Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b– Interested persons are invited to authority.17 4(f)(6) thereunder.12 submit written data, views, and Eduardo A. Aleman, A proposed rule change filed arguments concerning the foregoing, Assistant Secretary. pursuant to Rule 19b–4(f)(6) under the including whether the proposed rule [FR Doc. 2017–22392 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Act 13 normally does not become change is consistent with the Act. operative for 30 days after the date of its Comments may be submitted by any of BILLING CODE 8011–01–P filing. However, Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) 14 the following methods: permits the Commission to designate a Electronic Comments SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE shorter time if such action is consistent COMMISSION with the protection of investors and the • Use the Commission’s Internet public interest. The Exchange has asked comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ the Commission to waive the 30-day rules/sro.shtml); or [Release No. 34–81852; File No. SR–BOX– operative delay so that the Exchange • Send an email to rule-comments@ 2017–32] may immediately extend the ELO sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– implementation date. The Exchange NASDAQ–2017–103 on the subject line. Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of stated that it will not be able to Paper Comments implement ELO by the end of the third Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of • quarter of 2017. According to the Send paper comments in triplicate a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange, it has encountered to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities the Fee Schedule To Adopt a Strategy unforeseen issues in developing ELO, and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street QOO Order Fee Cap and these issues will require additional NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. thoughtful and methodical development All submissions should refer to File October 11, 2017. efforts to ensure that risks are Number SR–NASDAQ–2017–103. This Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the adequately addressed and the System file number should be included on the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the will accurately account for the new ELO subject line if email is used. To help the ‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 priority. The Exchange also stated that Commission process and review your notice is hereby given that on waiving the operative delay will allow comments more efficiently, please use September 29, 2017, BOX Options it to implement the proposed only one method. The Commission will Exchange LLC (the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed implementation delay and provide post all comments on the Commission’s with the Securities and Exchange notice to market participants thereof.15 Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the The Commission believes that waiving rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the proposed rule change as described in the 30-day operative delay is consistent submission, all subsequent Items I, II, and III below, which Items with the protection of investors and the amendments, all written statements have been prepared by the Exchange. with respect to the proposed rule public interest. Therefore, the The Exchange filed the proposed rule Commission hereby waives the change that are filed with the change pursuant to Section Commission, and all written 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,3 and Rule 12 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). As required under Rule communications relating to the 4 19b–4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the proposed rule change between the 19b–4(f)(2) thereunder, which renders Commission with written notice of its intent to file Commission and any person, other than the proposal effective upon filing with the proposed rule change, along with a brief the Commission. The Commission is description and the text of the proposed rule those that may be withheld from the change, at least five business days prior to the date public in accordance with the publishing this notice to solicit of filing of the proposed rule change, or such provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be comments on the proposed rule change shorter time as designated by the Commission. available for Web site viewing and from interested persons. 13 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 14 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). printing in the Commission’s Public 15 The Exchange stated that, as it originally Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., 17 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). committed to do, it will notify market participants 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). via an Equity Trader Alert once a specific date for 16 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. the initial rollout is determined and will publish operative delay, the Commission has considered the the symbols that are eligible for ELO on its Web proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition, 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). site. and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48303

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s day in the same option class. QOO Fee Cap from the Broker Dealer monthly Statement of the Terms of the Substance Order fees in these combined Strategies QOO fee cap and the QOO Order Rebate of the Proposed Rule Change will further be capped at $25,000 per as additional incentives for these orders The Exchange is filing with the month per Participant. The Exchange will no longer be necessary. Securities and Exchange Commission then proposes to specify that executions subject to the Strategy QOO Order Fee B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s (‘‘Commission’’) a proposed rule change Statement on Burden on Competition to amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Cap will not be subject to the Broker Market LLC (‘‘BOX’’) options facility. Dealer manual transaction fee cap of The Exchange does not believe that While changes to the fee schedule $75,000 per month in Section II.A, and the proposed rule change will impose the QOO Order Rebate outlined in pursuant to this proposal will be any burden on competition not Section II.C. effective upon filing, the changes will necessary or appropriate in furtherance become operative on October 2, 2017. 2. Statutory Basis of the purposes of the Act. Further, the Exchange does not believe that capping The text of the proposed rule change is The Exchange believes that the available from the principal office of the the fees for certain Strategy QOO Orders proposal is consistent with the will impose an undue burned on intra- Exchange, at the Commission’s Public requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, Reference Room and also on the market competition because all Floor in general, and Section 6(b)(4) and Participants are eligible for the fee cap. Exchange’s Internet Web site at http:// 6(b)(5) of the Act,7 in particular, in that boxexchange.com. Further, the Exchange believes that the it provides for the equitable allocation fee cap will promote competition by II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s of reasonable dues, fees, and other allowing the Exchange to remain Statement of the Purpose of, and charges among BOX Participants and competitive with other exchanges with Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule other persons using its facilities and open outcry trading floors. Change does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s In its filing with the Commission, the The Exchange believes that the Statement on Comments on the Exchange included statements proposed Strategy QOO Order fee cap is Proposed Rule Change Received From concerning the purpose of and basis for reasonable and appropriate. The Members, Participants, or Others the proposed rule change and discussed proposed fee cap of $700 per day for any comments it received on the certain strategies executed on the same No written comments were either proposed rule change. The text of these trading day in the same option class; solicited or received. statements may be examined at the and $25,000 per month per Participant III. Date of Effectiveness of the places specified in Item IV below. The are the same amount strategy fee caps at Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Exchange has prepared summaries, set a competing exchanges with an open Commission Action forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of outcry trading floor.8 Further, the the most significant aspects of such Exchange believes that this proposed fee The foregoing rule change has become statements. cap is equitable and not unfairly effective pursuant to Section 9 discriminatory because it provides 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act and A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Rule 19b–4(f)(2) thereunder,10 because Statement of the Purpose of, and incentives for all Participants to submit certain strategy orders to the BOX it establishes or changes a due, or fee. Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule At any time within 60 days of the Change Trading Floor, which brings increased liquidity and order flow to the floor for filing of the proposed rule change, the 1. Purpose the benefit of all market participants. Commission summarily may The Exchange proposes to amend the Finally, the Exchange believes it is temporarily suspend the rule change if Fee Schedule for trading on BOX to reasonable, equitable and not unfairly it appears to the Commission that the establish monthly and daily fee caps for discriminatory to exempt all action is necessary or appropriate in the certain manual transactions fees on the transactions subject to the Strategy QOO public interest, for the protection of BOX open-outcry Trading Floor investors, or would otherwise further (‘‘Trading Floor’’). Manual transactions established by combining a long position in the the purposes of the Act. If the underlying security with a long put and a short call consist of Qualified Open Outcry Commission takes such action, the position that shares the same strike and expiration. Commission shall institute proceedings (‘‘QOO’’) Orders.5 A QOO Order must A ‘‘jelly roll strategy’’ is created by entering into be entered as a two-sided order, an two separate positions simultaneously. One to determine whether the proposed rule position involves buying a put and selling a call should be approved or disapproved. initiating side and a contra-side, and the with the same strike price and expiration. The QOO Order fees, rebates and applicable second position involves selling a put and buying IV. Solicitation of Comments fee and rebate caps will apply to both a call, with the same strike price, but with a sides of the order. different expiration from the first position. A ‘‘box Interested persons are invited to spread strategy’’ is a strategy that synthesizes long submit written data, views, and Specifically, the Exchange proposes to and short stock positions to create a profit. add Section II.D ‘‘Strategy QOO Fee arguments concerning the foregoing, Specifically, a long call and short put at one strike including whether the proposed rule Cap’’ where manual transactions fees is combined with a short call and long put at a will be capped at $700 for all reversal, different strike to create synthetic long and change is consistent with the Act. synthetic short stock positions, respectively. These Comments may be submitted by any of conversion, jelly roll, and box spread definitions are identical to the terms defined in the 6 the following methods: strategies executed on the same trading Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (‘‘CBOE’’) Fee Schedule; NYSE American Options Fee Electronic Comments 5 See BOX Rule 7600. The QOO Order must be Schedule ‘‘(‘‘NYSE’’) and Phlx Pricing Schedule entered as a two-sided order when it is submitted (‘‘PHLX’’), Strategy Caps on Multiply Listed • Use the Commission’s Internet to the Exchange for execution through the BOX Options Fees. comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ Order Gateway (‘‘BOG’’). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5). rules/sro.shtml); or 6 A ‘‘reversal strategy’’ is established by 8 See CBOE Fee Schedule Footnote 13; NYSE Fee combining a short security position with a short put Schedule, Limit of Fees on Options Strategy and a long call position that shares the same strike Executions on page 18; and Phlx Pricing Schedule, 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). and expiration. A ‘‘conversion strategy’’ is Strategy Caps on Multiply Listed Options Fees. 10 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48304 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

• Send an email to rule-comments@ SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– COMMISSION Statement of the Purpose of, and BOX–2017–32 on the subject line. Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change Paper Comments [Release No. 34–81850; File No. SR–BOX– 2017–31] In its filing with the Commission, the • Send paper comments in triplicate Exchange included statements to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX concerning the purpose of and basis for Commission, 100 F Street NE., Options Exchange LLC; Notice of the proposed rule change and discussed Washington, DC 20549–1090. Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of any comments it received on the a Proposed Rule Change To Amend proposed rule change. The text of these All submissions should refer to File the Fee Schedule To Update Certain statements may be examined at the Number SR–BOX–2017–32. This file Fees Assessed Under Section VI.A places specified in Item IV below. The number should be included on the (Connectivity Fees) Exchange has prepared summaries, set subject line if email is used. To help the forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of Commission process and review your October 11, 2017. the most significant aspects of such comments more efficiently, please use Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the statements. only one method. The Commission will Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s post all comments on the Commission’s 1 2 ‘‘Act’’), and Rule 19b–4 thereunder, Statement of the Purpose of, and Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ notice is hereby given that on rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule September 29, 2017, BOX Options Change submission, all subsequent Exchange LLC (the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed amendments, all written statements with the Securities and Exchange 1. Purpose with respect to the proposed rule Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the The Exchange proposes to amend the change that are filed with the proposed rule change as described in Fee Schedule for trading on BOX to Commission, and all written Items I, II, and III below, which Items update the connectivity fees that are communications relating to the have been prepared by the Exchange. assessed on market participants. proposed rule change between the The Exchange filed the proposed rule Section VI.A. of the BOX Fee Commission and any person, other than change pursuant to Section Schedule ‘‘Connectivity Fees’’, was those that may be withheld from the 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,3 and Rule created to detail the fees applicable to public in accordance with the 19b–4(f)(2) thereunder,4 which renders market participants who connect to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be the proposal effective upon filing with BOX market network at Point of available for Web site viewing and the Commission. The Commission is Presence (‘‘PoP’’) sites. These sites are printing in the Commission’s Public publishing this notice to solicit owned and operated by third-party Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., comments on the proposed rule change external vendors, and the fees listed in Washington, DC 20549 on official from interested persons. this section are meant to encompass the business days between the hours of fees that could be charged based on each 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s market participant’s particular filing also will be available for Statement of the Terms of the Substance configuration. BOX does not assess inspection and copying at the principal of the Proposed Rule Change Connectivity Fees; these fees are office of the Exchange. All comments assessed by the datacenters and are received will be posted without change; The Exchange is filing with the billed directly to the market participant. the Commission does not edit personal Securities and Exchange Commission Connectivity fees can include one-time identifying information from (‘‘Commission’’) a proposed rule change set-up fees and monthly fees charged by submissions. You should submit only to amend the Fee Schedule [sic] to the third-party vendor in exchange for information that you wish to make amend the Fee Schedule to update the services provided to the market available publicly. All submissions certain fees assessed under Section VI.A participant. should refer to File Number SR–BOX– (Connectivity Fees). While changes to The Exchange proposes to update the 2017–32, and should be submitted on or the fee schedule pursuant to this fees applicable for the datacenters before November 7, 2017. proposal will be effective upon filing, where market participants may connect the changes will become operative on to the BOX network: NY4, owned and For the Commission, by the Division of October 2, 2017. The text of the Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated operated by Equinix; and 65 Broadway, proposed rule change is available from authority.11 owned and operated by 365 Main; and the principal office of the Exchange, at the connectivity fees applicable, Eduardo A. Aleman, the Commission’s Public Reference depending upon connection type. Assistant Secretary. Room and also on the Exchange’s Market participants are currently [FR Doc. 2017–22389 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Internet Web site at http:// assessed the following fees when BILLING CODE 8011–01–P boxexchange.com. connecting to the BOX network:

NY4 65 Broadway Connection Type One-time One-time set-up Monthly set-up Monthly

POTS ...... $100 $25 $50 $25 Ethernet ...... N/A N/A 250 175

11 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48305

NY4 65 Broadway Connection Type One-time One-time set-up Monthly set-up Monthly

T1 ...... 500 100 250 175 Cat 5/6 ...... 500 245 250 175 COAX ...... 500 245 250 200 Single & Multi Mode Fiber ...... 500 350 500 250 Extended Cross Connect ...... 1,000 750 500 400 Intra-Customer Cross Connect ...... 500 0 N/A N/A

The Exchange proposes to remove the NY4 datacenter. Additionally, the monthly fee at NY4 from $100 to $245. Extended Cross Connection Type for Exchange proposes to amend the T1 As such, the fees will be as follows:

NY4 65 Broadway Connection Type One-time One-time set-up Monthly set-up Monthly

POTS ...... $100 $25 $50 $25 Ethernet ...... N/A N/A 250 175 T1 ...... 500 245 250 175 Cat 5/6 ...... 500 245 250 175 COAX ...... 500 245 250 200 Single & Multi Mode Fiber ...... 500 350 500 250 Extended Cross Connect ...... N/A N/A 500 400 Intra-Customer Cross Connect ...... 500 0 N/A N/A

2. Statutory Basis B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Commission summarily may Statement on Burden on Competition temporarily suspend the rule change if The Exchange believes that the it appears to the Commission that the proposal is consistent with the The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose action is necessary or appropriate in the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, any burden on competition not public interest, for the protection of in general, and Section 6(b)(4) and investors, or would otherwise further 5 necessary or appropriate in furtherance 6(b)(5)of the Act, in particular, in that of the purposes of the Act. The the purposes of the Act. If the it provides for the equitable allocation Exchange believes that the proposed Commission takes such action, the of reasonable dues, fees, and other amendments to the Fee Schedule will Commission shall institute proceedings charges among BOX Participants and not impose a burden on competition to determine whether the proposed rule other persons using its facilities and among various Exchange Participants. should be approved or disapproved. does not unfairly discriminate between The proposed change is designed to IV. Solicitation of Comments customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. provide greater specificity and clarity Interested persons are invited to The Exchange believes it is within the Fee Schedule and does not place any Participants at a disadvantage submit written data, views, and reasonable, equitable and not unfairly arguments concerning the foregoing, discriminatory to state that connectivity compared to other Participants. Further, the Exchange does not believe this rule including whether the proposed rule fees are assessed on all market change is consistent with the Act. participants that establish connections change will have an impact on intermarket competition. Comments may be submitted by any of to BOX through a third-party and that the following methods: these fees will be billed directly to the C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s market participant. The Exchange Statement on Comments on the Electronic Comments believes that the proposed amendments Proposed Rule Change Received From • Use the Commission’s Internet to Section VI.A. of the Fee Schedule are Members, Participants, or Others comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ reasonable as they simply reflect the fee rules/sro.shtml); or No written comments were either • changes made by the datacenters, solicited or received. Send an email to rule-comments@ changes which the Exchange has no sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– III. Date of Effectiveness of the BOX–2017–31 on the subject line. control over. Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Further, the Exchange believes that Commission Action Paper Comments • the proposed Connectivity Fees The foregoing rule change has become Send paper comments in triplicate constitute an equitable allocation of effective pursuant to Section to Secretary, Securities and Exchange fees, and are not unfairly 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act 6 and Commission, 100 F Street NE., discriminatory, as all similarly situated Rule 19b–4(f)(2) thereunder,7 because it Washington, DC 20549–1090. market participants are charged the establishes or changes a due, or fee. All submissions should refer to File same amount depending on the services At any time within 60 days of the Number SR–BOX–2017–31. This file they receive. filing of the proposed rule change, the number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the 6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). Commission process and review your 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5). 7 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). comments more efficiently, please use

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48306 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

only one method. The Commission will Sonoma Creamery), 21750th Street East, The following areas have been post all comments on the Commission’s Sonoma, CA 95476 (‘‘Sonoma’’). determined to be adversely affected by Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ The financing is brought within the the disaster: rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the purview of § 107.730(a) and (d) of the Primary Counties: Beaufort, Jasper. submission, all subsequent Regulations because Svoboda Capital Contiguous Counties: amendments, all written statements Fund IV, L.P., an Associate of Svoboda South Carolina: Colleton, Hampton. with respect to the proposed rule Capital Fund IV SBIC, L.P., owns more Georgia: Chatham, Effingham. change that are filed with the than ten percent of Sonoma, and The Interest Rates are: Commission, and all written therefore this transaction is considered communications relating to the a financing of an Associate requiring Percent proposed rule change between the prior SBA approval. For Physical Damage: Commission and any person, other than Notice is hereby given that any Homeowners with Credit Avail- those that may be withheld from the interested person may submit written able Elsewhere ...... 3.500 public in accordance with the comments on the transaction, within Homeowners without Credit provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be fifteen days of the date of this Available Elsewhere ...... 1.750 available for Web site viewing and publication, to the Associate Businesses with Credit Avail- printing in the Commission’s Public Administrator for Investment, U.S. able Elsewhere ...... 6.610 Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Small Business Administration, 409 Businesses without Credit Washington, DC 20549 on official Third Street SW., Washington, DC Available Elsewhere ...... 3.305 business days between the hours of 20416. Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere ... 2.500 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such Dated: September 6, 2017. Non-Profit Organizations with- filing also will be available for A. Joseph Shepard, out Credit Available Else- inspection and copying at the principal Associate Administrator, Office of Investment where ...... 2.500 office of the Exchange. All comments and Innovation. For Economic Injury: received will be posted without change; Businesses & Small Agricultural the Commission does not edit personal [FR Doc. 2017–22397 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Cooperatives without Credit identifying information from BILLING CODE P Available Elsewhere ...... 3.305 submissions. You should submit only Non-Profit Organizations with- information that you wish to make out Credit Available Else- SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION where ...... 2.500 available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–BOX– [Disaster Declaration #15340 and #15341; The number assigned to this disaster 2017–31, and should be submitted on or South Carolina Disaster Number SC–00050] for physical damage is 15340 8 and for before November 7, 2017. economic injury is 15341 0. Administrative Declaration of a For the Commission, by the Division of The States which received an EIDL Disaster for the State of South Carolina Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated Declaration # are South Carolina, 8 authority. AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Georgia. Eduardo A. Aleman, Administration. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Assistant Secretary. ACTION: Notice. Number 59008) [FR Doc. 2017–22388 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Linda E. McMahon, BILLING CODE 8011–01–P SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster Administrator. for the State of South Carolina dated 10/ [FR Doc. 2017–22396 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 05/2017. BILLING CODE 8025–01–P Incident: Hurricane Irma. Svoboda Capital Fund IV SBIC, L.P.; Incident Period: 09/06/2017 through License No. 05/05–0327; Notice 09/13/2017. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 DATES: Issued on 10/05/2017. [Public Notice: 10165] of the Small Business Investment Act, Physical Loan Application Deadline Conflicts of Interest Date: 12/04/2017. Notice of Determinations; Culturally Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Significant Objects Imported for Notice is hereby given that Svoboda Application Deadline Date: 07/05/2018. Exhibition Determinations: ‘‘The Arch Capital Fund IV SBIC, L.P., One North ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan of Titus—From Jerusalem to Rome, Franklin Street, Suite 1500, Chicago, IL and Back’’ Exhibition 60606, a Federal Licensee under the applications to: U.S. Small Business Small Business Investment Act of 1958, Administration, Processing and SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the as amended (‘‘the Act’’), in connection Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport following determinations: I hereby with the financing of a small concern, Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. determine that certain objects to be has sought an exemption under Section FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. included in the exhibition ‘‘The Arch of 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, Titus—from Jerusalem to Rome, and Financings which Constitute Conflicts U.S. Small Business Administration, Back,’’ imported from abroad for of Interest of the Small Business 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, temporary exhibition within the United Administration (‘‘SBA’’) Rules and Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205–6734. States, are of cultural significance. The Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Svoboda SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is objects are imported pursuant to a loan Capital Fund IV SBIC, L.P. proposes to hereby given that as a result of the agreement with the foreign owner or provide equity security financing to Administrator’s disaster declaration, custodian. I also determine that the Estate Cheese Group, LLC (d/b/a applications for disaster loans may be exhibition or display of the exhibit filed at the address listed above or other objects at the Yeshiva University 8 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). locally announced locations. Museum, New York, New York, from on

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48307

or about October 27, 2017, until on or venues yet to be determined, is in the member of the public requesting about January 14, 2018, and at possible national interest. reasonable accommodation should also additional exhibitions or venues yet to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For make his/her request to Ms. Robinson be determined, is in the national further information, including a list of by October 25. Requests received after interest. the imported objects, contact Elliot Chiu that date will be considered but might FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. not be able to be fulfilled. The agenda of the meeting will further information, including a list of Department of State (telephone: 202– include Universal Postal Union Postal the imported objects, contact Elliot Chiu 632–6471; email: section2459@ Operations Council and Council of in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. state.gov). The mailing address is U.S. Administration fall session outcomes Department of State (telephone: 202– Department of State, L/PD, SA–5, Suite and implementation of the Integrated 632–6471; email: section2459@ 5H03, Washington, DC 20522–0505. Product Plan to modernize and integrate state.gov). The mailing address is U.S. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The the UPU’s international mail product Department of State, L/PD, SA–5, Suite foregoing determinations were made categories and associated remuneration 5H03, Washington, DC 20522–0505. pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. systems. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: foregoing determinations were made 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of Please contact Ms. Shereece Robinson of pursuant to the authority vested in me March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs the Office of Specialized and Technical by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 Agencies (IO/STA), Bureau of 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 International Organization Affairs, U.S. March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority Department of State, at tel. (202) 663– Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation 2649, by email at RobinsonSA2@ (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 of Authority No. 236–3 of August 28, state.gov, or by mail at IO/STA, Suite L– note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of 409 SA–1; U.S. Department of State; No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation Authority No. 257–1 of December 11, Washington, DC 20522. of Authority No. 236–3 of August 28, 2015). I have ordered that Public Notice 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of of these determinations be published in Joseph P. Murphy, the Federal Register. Authority No. 257–1 of December 11, Designated Federal Officer, Advisory 2015). I have ordered that Public Notice Alyson Grunder, Committee on International Postal and of these determinations be published in Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Bureau Delivery Services, Office of Specialized and the Federal Register. of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Technical Agencies, Bureau of International Department of State. Organization Affairs, Department of State. Alyson Grunder, [FR Doc. 2017–22455 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 2017–22488 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Bureau BILLING CODE 4710–19–P of Educational and Cultural Affairs, BILLING CODE 4710–05–P Department of State. [FR Doc. 2017–22409 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE BILLING CODE 4710–05–P [Public Notice 10172] [Public Notice: 10158] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information DEPARTMENT OF STATE Notice of Public Meeting Collection: Individual, Corporate or SUMMARY: As required by the Federal [Public Notice: 10169] Foundation, and Government Donor Advisory Committee Act, Public Law Letter Applications Notice of Determinations; Culturally 92–463, the Department of State gives AGENCY: Department of State. Significant Objects Imported for notice of a meeting of the Advisory Exhibition Determinations: ‘‘Painted in Committee on International Postal and ACTION: Notice of request for public Mexico, 1700–1790: Pinxit Mexici’’ Delivery Services. This Committee will comment and submission to OMB of Exhibition meet on Wednesday, November 1, 2017, proposed collection of information. from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the Time in the American Institute of SUMMARY: The Department of State has following determinations: I hereby Architects Board Room at 1735 New submitted the information collection determine that certain objects to be York Avenue NW., Washington, DC described below to the Office of included in the exhibition ‘‘Painted in 20006. Management and Budget (OMB) for Mexico, 1700–1790: Pinxit Mexici,’’ Any member of the public interested approval. In accordance with the imported from abroad for temporary in providing input to the meeting Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 we exhibition within the United States, are should contact Ms. Shereece Robinson, are requesting comments on this of cultural significance. The objects are whose contact information is listed collection from all interested imported pursuant to loan agreements below (see the ‘‘for further information’’ individuals and organizations. The with the foreign owners or custodians. section of this notice). Each individual purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 I also determine that the exhibition or providing oral input is requested to days for public comment. display of the exhibit objects at the Los limit his or her comments to five DATES: Submit comments directly to the Angeles County Museum of Art, Los minutes. Requests to be added to the Office of Management and Budget Angeles, California, from on or about speakers list must be received in writing (OMB) up to November 16, 2017. November 19, 2017, until on or about (letter or email) prior to the close of ADDRESSES: Direct comments to the March 18, 2018, at The Metropolitan business on Wednesday, October 25, Department of State Desk Officer in the Museum of Art, New York, New York, 2017; written comments from members Office of Information and Regulatory from on or about April 24, 2018, until of the public for distribution at this Affairs at the Office of Management and on or about July 22, 2018, and at meeting must reach Ms. Robinson by Budget (OMB). You may submit possible additional exhibitions or letter or email on this same date. A comments by the following methods:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48308 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

• Email: oira_submission@ Abstract of proposed collection: by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. omb.eop.gov. You must include the DS The Office of Emergencies in the 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of form number, information collection Diplomatic and Consular Service March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs title, and the OMB control number in (EDCS) manages the solicitation and Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 the subject line of your message. acceptance of gifts to the U.S. (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 • Fax: 202–395–5806. Attention: Desk Department of State. The information note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority Officer for Department of State. requested via donor letters is a No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: necessary first step to accepting of Authority No. 236–3 of August 28, Direct requests for additional donations. The information is sought 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of information regarding the collection pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2697, 5 U.S.C. Authority No. 257–1 of December 11, listed in this notice, including requests 7324 and 22 CFR, Part 3) and will be 2015). I have ordered that Public Notice for copies of the proposed collection used by EDCS’s Gift Fund Coordinator of these determinations be published in instrument and supporting documents, to demonstrate the donor’s intention to the Federal Register. donate either an in-kind or monetary to Chanel Wallace, who may be reached Alyson Grunder, gift to the Department. This information on (202) 647–7730 or at WallaceCR2@ Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Bureau state.gov. is mandatory and must be completed of Educational and Cultural Affairs, before the gift is received by the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Department of State. Department. • Title of Information Collection: [FR Doc. 2017–22492 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Individual, Corporate or Foundation Methodology: The information collection forms are BILLING CODE 4710–05–P and Government Donor Letter available upon request. Donors can Applications. • OMB Control Number: 1405–0218. complete hard copies of the form, and DEPARTMENT OF STATE • Type of Request: Extension of a mail to EDCS. [Public Notice: 10170] Currently Approved Collection. Frances Gidez, • Originating Office: Office of Gift Funds Coordinator, M/EDCS, Department Notice of Determinations; Culturally Emergencies in the Diplomatic and of State. Significant Object Imported for Consular Service (M/EDCS). [FR Doc. 2017–22418 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Exhibition Determinations: ‘‘Laura • Form Number: Individual (DS– BILLING CODE 4710–35–P Owens’’ Exhibition 4273), Donor Form—Corporate or Foundation (DS–4272), and Donor SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the Form—Government (DS–4271). DEPARTMENT OF STATE following determinations: I hereby • Respondents: Individuals, determine that a certain object to be Corporations, or Foundations that make [Public Notice: 10167] included in the exhibition ‘‘Laura donations to the Department. Owens,’’ imported from abroad for • Estimated Number of Respondents: Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for temporary exhibition within the United 4,333. States, is of cultural significance. The • Estimated Number of Responses: Exhibition Determinations: ‘‘Murillo: The Self-Portraits’’ Exhibition object is imported pursuant to a loan 4,333. agreement with the foreign owner or • Average Time per Response: 5 SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the custodian. I also determine that the minutes. • following determinations: I hereby exhibition or display of the exhibit Total Estimated Burden Time: 361 determine that certain objects to be object at the Whitney Museum of hours. included in the exhibition ‘‘Murillo: American Art, New York, New York, • Frequency: On occasion. The Self-Portraits,’’ imported from from on or about November 10, 2017, • Obligation To Respond: Mandatory. We are soliciting public comments to abroad for temporary exhibition within until on or about February 4, 2018, at permit the Department to: the United States, are of cultural the Dallas Museum of Art, Dallas, Texas, • Evaluate whether the proposed significance. The objects are imported from on or about March 25, 2018, until information collection is necessary for pursuant to loan agreements with the on or about July 29, 2018, at the the proper functions of the Department. foreign owners or custodians. I also Museum of Contemporary Art, Los • Evaluate the accuracy of our determine that the exhibition or display Angeles, in Los Angeles, California, estimate of the time and cost burden for of the exhibit objects at The Frick from on or about November 1, 2018, this proposed collection, including the Collection, New York, New York, from until on or about March 31, 2019, and validity of the methodology and on or about November 1, 2017, until on at possible additional exhibitions or assumptions used. or about February 4, 2018, and at venues yet to be determined, is in the • Enhance the quality, utility, and possible additional exhibitions or national interest. clarity of the information to be venues yet to be determined, is in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For collected. national interest. further information, including • Minimize the reporting burden on FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information identifying the object, those who are to respond, including the further information, including a list of contact Elliot Chiu in the Office of the use of automated collection techniques the imported objects, contact Elliot Chiu Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State or other forms of information in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. (telephone: 202–632–6471; email: technology. Department of State (telephone: 202– [email protected]). The mailing Please note that comments submitted in 632–6471; email: section2459@ address is U.S. Department of State, L/ response to this Notice are public state.gov). The mailing address is U.S. PD, SA–5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC record. Before including any detailed Department of State, L/PD, SA–5, Suite 20522–0505. personal information, you should be 5H03, Washington, DC 20522–0505. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The aware that your comments as submitted, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made including your personal information, foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me will be available for public review. pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48309

985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of indicate a contact person for the agency National Environmental Policy Act March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs or organization. (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. Section 4321, Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 The Department invites the public, et seq.), the regulations of the Council (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 governmental agencies, tribal on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority governments, and all other interested CFR part 1500–1508), and the No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation parties to provide comments on the Department’s implementing regulations of Authority No. 236–3 of August 28, Draft EA and Preliminary FONSI during (22 CFR part 161). 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of the 30-day public comment period. All Availability of the Draft EA and Authority No. 257–1 of December 11, comments received during the review Preliminary FONSI: Copies of the Draft 2015). I have ordered that Public Notice period may be made public, no matter EA and Preliminary FONSI have been of these determinations be published in how initially submitted. Comments are distributed to state and Federal the Federal Register. not private and will not be edited to agencies, tribal governments and other remove identifying or contact interested parties. Printed copies of the Alyson Grunder, information. Commenters are cautioned document may be obtained by visiting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Bureau against including any information that the Main Laredo Public Library, 1120 E. of Educational and Cultural Affairs, they would not want publicly disclosed. Calton Road, Laredo, Texas, 78041, or Department of State. Any party soliciting or aggregating by contacting the Borrego Project [FR Doc. 2017–22456 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] comments from other persons is further Manager at the above address. They are BILLING CODE 4710–05–P requested to direct those persons not to also available at https://www.state.gov/ include any identifying or contact e/enr/applicant/applicants/borrego information, or information they would pipeline/index.htm. DEPARTMENT OF STATE not want publicly disclosed, in their Sezaneh Seymour, comments. [Public Notice: 10163] Acting Director, Office of Environmental FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Quality and Transboundary Issues, Notice of Availability of the Draft Reilly, (202) 647–9798, ReillyJE@ Department of State. Environmental Assessment and state.gov. Project details for the Borrego [FR Doc. 2017–22411 Filed 10–13–17; 8:45 am] Preliminary Finding of No Significant Pipeline and copies of the Presidential BILLING CODE 4710–09–P Impact for the Borrego Pipeline permit application, as well as Presidential Permit Application information on the Presidential permit Review, Webb County, Texas process are available at the following: DEPARTMENT OF STATE https://www.state.gov/e/enr/applicant/ [Public Notice: 10166] AGENCY: Department of State. applicants/borregopipeline/index.htm. ACTION: Notice of availability; Please refer to this Web site or contact Notice of Determinations; Culturally solicitation of comments. the Department at the address listed in Significant Objects Imported for the ADDRESSES section of this notice. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of State Exhibition Determinations: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The (Department) announces availability for ‘‘Caravaggio: Masterpieces From the Department reviews Presidential permit public review and comment of the Draft Galleria Borghese’’ Exhibition applications under Executive Order Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) (E.O.) 13337 and E.O. 14432. E.O. 13337 SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the and the Preliminary Finding of No delegates to the Secretary of State the following determinations: I hereby Significant Impact for the Borrego President’s authority to receive determine that three objects to be Pipeline Presidential Permit Application applications for permits for the included in the exhibition ‘‘Caravaggio: (Preliminary FONSI). These documents construction, connection, operation, or Masterpieces from the Galleria evaluate the potential environmental maintenance of facilities for the Borghese,’’ imported from abroad for impacts of the construction, connection, exportation or importation of petroleum, temporary exhibition within the United operation, and maintenance of a petroleum products, coal, or other fuels States, are of cultural significance. The proposed new pipeline at the U.S.- (except for natural gas), at the borders of objects are imported pursuant to a loan Mexico border in Webb County, Texas, the United States, and to issue or deny agreement with the foreign owner or by Borrego Crossing Pipeline, LLC such Presidential permits upon a custodian. I also determine that the (Borrego), a subsidiary of Howard national interest determination. exhibition or display of the exhibit Midstream Energy Partners, LLC On August 12, 2016, Borrego objects at The J. Paul Getty Museum at (Howard Midstream). submitted an application to the the Getty Center, Los Angeles, DATES: The public comment period Department. The application requests a California, from on or about November starts on October 13, 2017, and will end new Presidential permit that would 21, 2017, until on or about February 18, November 13, 2017. authorize the construction, connection, 2018, and at possible additional ADDRESSES: Comments on the Draft EA operation and maintenance of facilities exhibitions or venues yet to be and Preliminary FONSI may be at the United States-Mexico border determined, is in the national interest. submitted at www.regulations.gov by (border facilities) for the export to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For entering [DOS–2017–0039] or the title of Mexico of refined petroleum products further information, including a list of this Notice into the search field and (including gasoline, premium gasoline, the imported objects, contact Elliot Chiu following the prompts. Comments may ultra-low sulfur diesel [ULSD] and jet in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. also be submitted by mail, addressed to: fuels). The petroleum products would Department of State (telephone: 202– Jill Reilly, Office of Environmental be transported through the new pipeline 632–6471; email: section2459@ Quality and Transboundary Issues between a terminal in Laredo, Texas, state.gov). The mailing address is U.S. (OES/EQT): Suite 2726, U.S. and the existing Nuevo Laredo Terminal Department of State, L/PD, SA–5, Suite Department of State, 2201 C Street NW., in Tamaulipas, Mexico. 5H03, Washington, DC 20522–0505. Washington, DC 20520. All comments The Draft EA and Preliminary FONSI SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The from agencies or organizations should were prepared consistent with the foregoing determinations were made

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48310 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

pursuant to the authority vested in me provide the transload services, but PA 19102. Replies to the petition are by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. would do so over private track that due on or before November 6, 2017. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of would no longer be subject to the Persons seeking further information March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Board’s jurisdiction. Petitioners state concerning abandonment or Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 that no other customers have requested discontinuance procedures may contact (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 common carrier service from either the Board’s Office of Public Assistance, note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority BECR or Landisville. Governmental Affairs, and Compliance No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation The parties state that Buckeye at (202) 245–0238 or refer to the full of Authority No. 236–3 of August 28, Partners, as the parent of both BECR and abandonment or discontinuance 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Buckeye Terminals, has consented to regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Authority No. 257–1 of December 11, and supports the proposed Questions concerning environmental 2015). I have ordered that Public Notice abandonment and discontinuance. issues may be directed to the Board’s of these determinations be published in Petitioners state that Landisville is also Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) the Federal Register. willing to accommodate the at (202) 245–0305. Assistance for the abandonment of the Line by seeking hearing impaired is available through Alyson Grunder, discontinuance of its common carrier the Federal Information Relay Service Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Bureau operating right over the Line. (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339. of Educational and Cultural Affairs, According to the Petitioners, the Line Department of State. An environmental assessment (EA) (or is stub-ended and therefore may not environmental impact statement (EIS), if [FR Doc. 2017–22410 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] accommodate overhead traffic. The necessary) prepared by OEA will be BILLING CODE 4710–05–P Petitioners state that, based on served upon all parties of record and information in BECR’s and Buckeye upon any agencies or other persons who Terminals’ possession, the Line does not comment during its preparation. Other SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD contain federally granted rights-of-way. interested persons may contact OEA to [Docket No. AB 1247; Docket No. AB 1248] Any documentation in their possession obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). EAs in will be made available promptly to abandonment proceedings normally will Buckeye East Chicago Railroad LLC— those requesting it. be made available within 60 days of the Abandonment Exemption—in Lake The interest of railroad employees filing of the petition. The deadline for County, Ind.; Landisville Railroad, will be protected by the conditions set submission of comments on the EA LLC—Discontinuance Exemption—in forth in Oregon Short Line Railroad— generally will be within 30 days of its Lake County, Ind. Abandonment Portion Goshen Branch service. Between Firth & Ammon, in Bingham & Board decisions and notices are On September 27, 2017, Buckeye East Bonneville Counties, Idaho, 360 I.C.C. Chicago Railroad LLC (BECR) and available on our Web site at 91 (1979). WWW.STB.GOV. Landisville Railroad, LLC (Landisville) By issuing this notice, the Board is (collectively, Petitioners) jointly filed instituting an exemption proceeding By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting with the Surface Transportation Board pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final Director, Office of Proceedings. (Board) a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 decision will be issued by January 12, Decided: October 12, 2017. for exemption from the prior approval 2018. Tammy Lowery, requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to Any offer of financial assistance Clearance Clerk. abandon and discontinue, respectively, (OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will [FR Doc. 2017–22465 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] approximately 1.34 miles of rail line be due no later than 10 days after BILLING CODE 4915–01–P located within the East Chicago service of a decision granting the Transload Facility (Facility) at or near petition for exemption. Each OFA must 400 East Columbus Drive in East be accompanied by a $1,800 filing fee. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD Chicago, Lake County, Ind. (the Line). See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25). The Line traverses United States Postal All interested persons should be [Docket No. AB 1249] Service ZIP Code 46312. Petitioners aware that, following discontinuance Buckeye Hammond Railroad LLC— state the Line does not include stations and abandonment, the Line may be Abandonment Exemption—in Lake other than the Facility and does not suitable for other public use, including County, Ind. have milepost designations. interim trail use. Any request for a According to Petitioners, Landisville public use condition under 49 CFR On September 27, 2017, Buckeye exclusively provides transloading and 1152.28 or for interim trail use/rail Hammond Railroad LLC (BHRR) filed interchange services on behalf of BECR banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be with the Surface Transportation Board to a connection with the Indiana Harbor due no later than November 6, 2017. (Board) a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 Belt Railroad (IHBR). Petitioners state Each interim trail use request must be for exemption from the prior approval that Buckeye Terminals, LLC, the accompanied by a $300 filing fee. See 49 requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to operator of the Facility, is the only CFR 1002.2(f)(27). abandon approximately 1.29 miles of shipper on the Line. Upon All filings in response to this notice rail line located within the Hammond consummation of the proposed must refer to Docket Nos. AB 1247 and Transload Facility (Facility) in transaction, Petitioners state that IHBR AB 1248 and must be sent to: (1) Surface Hammond, Lake County, Ind., traversing would continue to pick up and deliver Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., United States Postal Service Zip Codes traffic to the Facility as a common Washington, DC 20423–0001; (2) 46320 and 46312 (the Line). BHRR carrier. Petitioners also state that Charles A. Spitulnik, Kaplan Kirsch & states that the Line does not include Buckeye Terminals, which will be Rockwell LLP, 1001 Connecticut stations other than the Facility and does BECR’s successor as owner of the Line, Avenue NW., Suite 800, Washington, not have milepost designations. or Landisville, as a private contract DC 20036; and (3) Eric M. Hocky, Clark According to BHRR, Buckeye operator to Buckeye Terminals, will Hill PLC, One Commerce Square, 2005 Terminals, LLC, is the only shipper on move cars around the Facility and Market Street, Suite 1000, Philadelphia, the Line, which is used exclusively for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48311

transloading and interchange with the Persons seeking further information involved and must be received on or Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad (IHBR). concerning abandonment procedures before October 27, 2017. Upon consummation of the proposed may contact the Board’s Office of Public ADDRESSES: Send comments identified transaction, BHRR states that IHBR Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and by docket number FAA–2017–0968 would continue to pick up and deliver Compliance at (202) 245–0238 or refer using any of the following methods: traffic to the Facility as a common to the full abandonment regulations at • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to carrier. BHRR states that, Buckeye 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning http://www.regulations.gov and follow Terminals, which will be BHRR’s environmental issues may be directed to the online instructions for sending your successor as owner of the Line, or a the Board’s Office of Environmental comments electronically. contractor for Buckeye Terminals, Analysis (OEA) at (202) 245–0305. • Mail: Send comments to Docket would move cars around the Facility for Assistance for the hearing impaired is Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of its own internal use. According to available through the Federal Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey BHRR, Buckeye Terminals would Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West continue to receive and deliver traffic to 800–877–8339. Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC IBHR at the property, but would do so An environmental assessment (EA) (or 20590–0001. over private track that would no longer environmental impact statement (EIS), if • Hand Delivery or Courier: Take be subject to this Board’s jurisdiction. necessary) prepared by OEA will be comments to Docket Operations in BHRR states that no other customers served upon all parties of record and Room W12–140 of the West Building have requested common carrier service upon any agencies or other persons who Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey from BHRR. comment during its preparation. Other Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 According to BHRR, the Line is stub- interested persons may contact OEA to ended and therefore may not a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). EAs in Friday, except Federal holidays. accommodate overhead traffic. BHRR abandonment proceedings normally will • states that, based on information in its Fax: Fax comments to Docket be made available within 60 days of the Operations at 202–493–2251. and Buckeye Terminals’ possession, the filing of the petition. The deadline for Line does not contain federally granted Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. submission of comments on the EA 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the rights-of-way. Any documentation in generally will be within 30 days of its their possession will be made available public to better inform its rulemaking service. process. DOT posts these comments, promptly to those requesting it. Board decisions and notices are The interest of railroad employees without edit, including any personal available on our Web site at information the commenter provides, to will be protected by the conditions set WWW.STB.GOV. forth in Oregon Short Line Railroad— http://www.regulations.gov, as Abandonment Portion Goshen Branch Decided: October 12, 2017. described in the system of records Between Firth & Ammon, in Bingham & By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can Bonneville Counties, Idaho, 360 I.C.C. Director, Office of Proceedings. be reviewed at http://www.dot.gov/ 91 (1979). Tammy Lowery, privacy. By issuing this notice, the Board is Clearance Clerk. Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at instituting an exemption proceeding [FR Doc. 2017–22477 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final http://www.regulations.gov at any time. BILLING CODE 4915–01–P decision will be issued by January 12, Follow the online instructions for 2018. accessing the docket or go to the Docket Any offer of financial assistance Operations in Room W12–140 of the (OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION West Building Ground Floor at 1200 be due no later than 10 days after New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, Federal Aviation Administration service of a decision granting the DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday petition for exemption. Each OFA must [Summary Notice No. PE–2017–79] through Friday, except Federal holidays. be accompanied by a $1,800 filing fee. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25). Petition for Exemption; Summary of Lynette Mitterer, AIR–673, Federal All interested persons should be Petition Received Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind aware that, following abandonment, the Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356, Line may be suitable for other public AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. email [email protected], phone use, including interim trail use. Any (425) 227–1047; or Alphonso ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption request for a public use condition under Pendergrass, ARM–200, Office of received. 49 CFR 1152.28 or for interim trail use/ Rulemaking, Federal Aviation rail banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will SUMMARY: This notice contains a Administration, 800 Independence be due no later than November 6, 2017. summary of a petition seeking relief Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, Each interim trail use request must be from specified requirements of Federal email [email protected], accompanied by a $300 filing fee. See 49 Aviation Regulations. The purpose of phone (202) 267–4713. CFR 1002.2(f)(27). this notice is to improve the public’s This notice is published pursuant to All filings in response to this notice 14 CFR 11.85. must refer to Docket No. AB 1249 and awareness of, and participation in, this must be sent to: (1) Surface aspect of the FAA’s regulatory activities. Victor Wicklund, Neither publication of this notice nor Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Manager, Transport Standards Branch. Washington, DC 20423–0001; and (2) the inclusion or omission of information Petition for Exemption Charles A. Spitulnik, Kaplan Kirsch & in the summary is intended to affect the Rockwell LLP, 1001 Connecticut legal status of the petition or its final Docket No.: FAA–2017–0968. Avenue NW., Suite 800, Washington, disposition. Petitioner: Boeing. DC 20036. Replies to the petition are DATES: Comments on this petition must Sections of 14 CFR Affected: §§ 25.959 due on or before November 6, 2017. identify the petition docket number and 25.1322(d)(1).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48312 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

Description of Relief Sought: To fully DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION attendees. Attendees should register comply with the regulations for online at https://docs.google.com/forms/ unusable fuel supply and flightcrew National Highway Traffic Safety d/e/1FAIpQLSeLcUn2Dw2fNWEa8f9z altering, a design improvement is Administration Wh7NkleQgNv5GreVaP_I_Rv_sb6X8w/ _ needed to prevent an erroneous ‘‘Center [Docket No. NHTSA–2017–0086] viewform?usp=sf link by October 17, Fuel Low’’ advisory message. A software 2017. Please provide your name, email update is required to correct the Automated Driving Systems: Voluntary address, and affiliation. Also indicate erroneous display of the message of the Safety Self-Assessments; Public whether you plan to participate actively center fuel quantities above the level Workshop in the workshop (speaking would be where center fuel pumps should be limited to 5 minutes per agenda topic), AGENCY: National Highway Traffic and whether you require selected off. A time-limited exemption Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. is sought to correct the issue without accommodations such as a sign Department of Transportation (DOT). language interpreter. Space is limited, delay to the Boeing Model 767–2C ACTION: Notice of public workshop. so advanced registration is highly certification. The exemption would be encouraged. limited to a period ending on December SUMMARY: On September 12, 2017, Docket: Docket NHTSA–2017–0086 is 31, 2019. NHTSA published Automated Driving available for members of the public to [FR Doc. 2017–22407 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety. This submit written comments regarding the voluntary guidance encourages entities BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment as involved in the testing and deployment laid out in Automated Driving Systems of Automated Driving Systems on 2.0: A Vision for Safety. The formal DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION public roads to document for docket comment period will close on themselves how they are addressing December 18, 2017, but the Agency will Federal Motor Carrier Safety safety. Further, the Guidance continue to accept comments to the Administration recommends that these same entities docket. For access to the docket, go to summarize their assessments and make http://www.regulations.gov at any time Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier it available to the public via Voluntary or to 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Registration Plan Board of Directors Safety Self-Assessments. NHTSA is Building, Ground Floor, Room W12– announcing a public workshop to 140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety support entities that wish to make their a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Administration (FMCSA), DOT. self-assessment publicly available. The Friday, except Federal Holidays. Agency emphasizes that the workshop ACTION: Notice of Unified Carrier Telephone: 202–366–9826. is not intended to be a tutorial for a Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search Registration Plan Board of Directors prescriptive document. NHTSA hopes Meeting. the electronic form of all comments to hear from entities if there are any received into any of our dockets by the challenges that would make it difficult name of the individual submitting the TIME AND DATE: The meeting will be held for an entity to publicly disclose any comment (or signing the comment, if on October 26, 2017, from 12:00 Noon portion of a Voluntary Safety Self- submitted on behalf of an association, to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Assessment in a summary document, business, labor union, etc.). You may and discuss how those challenges might PLACE: This meeting will be open to the review the DOT’s complete Privacy Act be overcome or mitigated. To provide Statement in the Federal Register public via conference call. Any the most benefit, this workshop will interested person may call 1–877–422– published on April 11, 2000 (Volume encourage active, focused participation. 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78), by 1931, passcode 2855443940, to listen DATES: NHTSA will hold the public visiting http://www.dot.gov/ and participate in this meeting. workshop on October 20, 2017, from 10 privacy.html. STATUS: Open to the public. a.m. to 3 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. Check-in will begin at 9 a.m. Attendees Background MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified should arrive early enough to enable On September 20, 2016, NHTSA Carrier Registration Plan Board of them to go through security by 9:50 a.m. released and published for comment the Directors (the Board) will continue its The formal docket comment period will Federal Automated Vehicles Policy. The work in developing and implementing close on December 18, 2017, but the comment period officially closed on the Unified Carrier Registration Plan Agency will continue to accept November 22, 2016, but comments were and Agreement and, to that end, may comments to the docket. considered through February 16, 2017. consider matters properly before the ADDRESSES: The public workshop will NHTSA analyzed the docket comments, Board. be held at DOT Headquarters, located at public meeting proceedings and other 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., stakeholder discussions, Congressional FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Washington, DC 20590 (Green Line hearings, and State activities and Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified Metro station at Navy Yard) in the published on September 12, 2017, Carrier Registration Board of Directors at [Oklahoma City Conference Room]. This Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A (505) 827–4565. facility is accessible to individuals with Vision for Safety.1 This notice focuses Issued on: October 12, 2017. disabilities. on Section I of that document. Section 1: Voluntary Guidance for Larry W. Minor, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about the public Automated Driving Systems (Voluntary Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Guidance) provides recommendations Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. workshop, please contact NHTSA staff _ _ and suggestions for industry’s [FR Doc. 2017–22580 Filed 10–13–17; 11:15 am] at av info [email protected] or Debbie Sweet at 202–366–7179. BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 1 Available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/13069a-ads2.0_ Registration is necessary for all 090617_v9a_tag.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48313

consideration and discussion. This needed to craft a Voluntary Safety Self- received necessary exemptions from Voluntary Guidance includes no Assessment if they so choose. NHTSA NHTSA. It is a Level 4 ride-share compliance requirement or enforcement envisions the Voluntary Safety Self- vehicle with four seats and two large mechanism. The purpose of this Assessments would contain concise doors. We are providing one safety Voluntary Guidance is to support the summary information on these element example for the template, industry as it develops best practices in practices. however all safety elements are open for the design, development, testing, and Public Workshop Details discussion at the public workshop. deployment of automated vehicle Stakeholders are encouraged to review technologies. It is a non-regulatory With new information in the safety this information and determine how this approach to the safety of Automated elements and a new means for aligns with their ideas regarding the Driving Systems (ADS) (SAE disclosing an assessment summary to development of a Voluntary Safety Self- International automation Levels 3 the public provided in Automated Assessment. through 5—Conditional, High, and Full Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety, Automation Systems). NHTSA is holding a public workshop to Crashworthiness NHTSA offers the Voluntary engage stakeholders and assist entities Structural Integrity as they develop a Voluntary Safety Self- Guidance to help designers of ADSs • analyze, identify, and resolve safety Assessment as well as clarify and Summary of crash simulation considerations prior to deployment address concerns for those entities scenarios, component testing, and looking to disclose such information to physical tests. using their own industry and other best • practices. The Voluntary Guidance the public. Summary of bench marks for outlines 12 safety elements which the The public workshop will include testing. Agency believes represent the representatives from entities developing Protection of Occupants in the Vehicle a Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment, consensus across the industry, that are • generally considered to be the most States looking to review Voluntary Summary information about how salient design aspects to consider and Safety Self-Assessments, members of the the vehicle design leverages industry address when developing, testing, and public interested in reading the best practices and internal standards for Voluntary Safety Self-Assessments to crashworthiness. deploying ADSs on public roadways. • Among these elements are vehicle understand the steps taken to address If the vehicle contains a non- cybersecurity, human machine the safety of ADSs, and other Voluntary traditional seating configuration, interface, crashworthiness, consumer Safety Self-Assessment users. The open include summary information related to discussion among these interested the following: education and training, and post-crash Æ ADS behavior. Within each safety parties will serve to assist in the Protection for the occupants development of the most broadly expected to use the vehicle. design element, entities are encouraged Æ to consider and document their use of beneficial Voluntary Safety Self- Testing and countermeasures industry standards, best practices, Assessment. Discussion at the workshop related to crash impact protection and will include: the impact directions considered. company policies, or other methods Æ they have employed to provide for (1) How entities might summarize If appropriate, discussion of efforts they already undertake in methods related to rollover protection. increased system safety in real-world • conditions. addressing the safety elements provided If the vehicle will transport In addition, the Voluntary Guidance in the Voluntary Guidance; children (those under age 12), a encourages entities engaged in testing (2) challenges entities face in summary of child passenger safety and deployment to prepare and publicly developing their summary statements measures to address: Æ disclose Voluntary Safety Self- for the Voluntary Safety Self- Child occupant detection and Assessments of their systems Assessment and the means to overcome accommodations; Æ demonstrating their varied approaches them; Car seat use: Anchors, tethers, to achieving safety. The Voluntary (3) information helpful to designated seat locations; and Æ Safety Self-Assessment is intended to stakeholders looking to use the Booster seat use and designated communicate to the public (particularly Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment; and seat locations. (4) methods by which an entity may States and consumers) that entities are: Protection of Other Road Users publicly disclose the Voluntary Safety (1) Considering the safety aspects of • ADSs; Self-Assessment. Summary information of how the (2) communicating and collaborating A template of the types of summary vehicle considers crash forces from with DOT; information an entity might provide in other road vehicles or the infrastructure. (3) encouraging the self-establishment a Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment is • Summary information of how the of industry safety norms for ADSs; and provided below. The example is being vehicle seeks to mitigate injuries to (4) building public trust, acceptance, provided as an effort to offer assistance pedestrians and other vulnerable road and confidence through transparent in the development of a Voluntary users. testing and deployment of ADSs. Safety Self-Assessment and to guide The public workshop is formatted for It also allows companies an discussion during the public workshop. active participation and open opportunity to showcase their approach This template illustrates the type of discussion. The intention is to seek to safety, without needing to reveal summary information that may be input from stakeholders to provide the proprietary intellectual property. provided for the safety element of greatest assistance to entities to develop NHTSA expects much of the work Crashworthiness, just one of the 12 a Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment. associated with the consideration of the safety elements presented in the NHTSA will begin the workshop with a 12 safety elements in the Voluntary Voluntary Guidance. The details in the presentation of the safety elements Guidance to be an extension of good and template are based on a fictitious included in the Automated Driving safe engineering practices already in vehicle and provided for illustration, Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety, the place within an entity, therefore entities guidance, and discussion purposes only. Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment and will have access to all the information This fictitious vehicle is one that has its content, and the template provided

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48314 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

in this notice. Participants should be ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments Abstract: Form 5308 is used to request prepared to discuss their reaction to the to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue permission to change the plan or trust template. Further discussion at the Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution year for a pension benefit plan. The public workshop may include other Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or information submitted is used in safety elements as well as public at [email protected]. determining whether IRS should grant disclosure of the Voluntary Assessment. Please send separate comments for permission for the change. NHTSA will conduct the public each specific information collection Current Actions: There are no changes workshop informally; thus, technical listed below. You must reference the being made to the form at this time. rules of evidence will not apply. We information collection’s title, form Type of Review: Extension of a will arrange for a written transcript of number, reporting or record-keeping currently approved collection. the workshop. You may make requirement number, and OMB number Affected Public: Business or other for- arrangements for copies of the (if any) in your comment. Requests for profit organizations. transcripts directly with the court additional information, or copies of the Estimated Number of Respondents: reporter. The transcript will also be information collection and instructions, 480. posted in the docket when it becomes or copies of any comments received, Estimated Time per Respondent: 42 available. contact Elaine Christophe, at Internal minutes. Should it be necessary to cancel the Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Estimated Total Annual Burden workshop due to inclement weather or Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, Hours: 339. other emergency, NHTSA will take all DC 20224, or through the internet, at 2. Title: Disclosure of Tax Return available measures to notify registered [email protected]. Information for Purposes of Quality or participants. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Peer Reviews, Disclosure of Tax Return Draft Workshop Agenda Information Due to Incapacity or Death Request for Comments 9–10 a.m. Arrival/Check-In through of Tax Return Preparer. Security The Internal Revenue Service, as part OMB Number: 1545–1209. 10–10:10 a.m. Welcome/Important of their continuing effort to reduce Regulation Project Number: TD 8383 Notices paperwork and respondent burden, (Final). 10:10–10:30 a.m. NHTSA Presentation invite the general public and other Abstract: These regulations govern the 10:30–12 a.m. Presentation by Federal agencies to take this circumstances under which tax return Stakeholder Representatives opportunity to comment on these information may be disclosed for 12 a.m.–1 p.m. Lunch (not provided) continuing information collections purposes of conducting quality or peer 1–1:45 p.m. Open Discussion Regarding listed below in this notice, as required reviews, and disclosures that are Challenges to Disclosure by the Paperwork Reduction Act of necessary because of the tax return 1:45–2:30 p.m. Open Discussion 1995. preparer’s death or incapacity. Regarding Approaches to Public Request for Comments: Comments Current Actions: There is no change to Disclosure submitted in response to this notice will this existing regulation. 2:30–2:50 p.m. Open Discussion be summarized and/or included in our Type of Review: Extension of 2:50–3 p.m. Closing Remarks/Adjourn request for Office of Management and currently approved collection. Issued in Washington, DC, under authority Budget (OMB) approval of the relevant Affected Public: Business or other for- delegated by 49 CFR 1.95. information collection. All comments profit organizations. Nathaniel Beuse, will become a matter of public record. Estimated Number of Respondents: Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Please do not include any confidential 250,000. Research. or inappropriate material in your Estimated Time per Respondent: 1 [FR Doc. 2017–22058 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] comments. We invite comments on: (a) hour. BILLING CODE 4910–59–P Whether the collection of information is Estimated Total Annual Burden necessary for the proper performance of Hours: 250,000. the agency’s functions, including 3. Title: Limitations on Credit or DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY whether the information has practical Refund. utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s OMB Number: 1545–1649. Internal Revenue Service estimate of the burden of the collection Revenue Procedure Number: Revenue of information; (c) ways to enhance the Procedure 99–21. Proposed Information Collection; quality, utility, and clarity of the Abstract: Generally, under section Comment Request information to be collected; (d) ways to 6511(a), a taxpayer must file a claim for AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), minimize the burden of the collection of credit or refund of tax within three years Treasury. information on respondents, including after the date of filing a tax return or ACTION: Notice and request for the use of automated collection within two years after the date of comments. techniques or other forms of information payment of the tax, whichever period technology; and (e) estimates of capital expires later. Under section 6511(h), the SUMMARY: The Internal Revenue Service, or start-up costs and costs of operation, statute of limitations on claims for as part of its continuing effort to reduce maintenance, and purchase of services credit or refund is suspended for any paperwork and respondent burden, to provide the requested information. period of an individual taxpayer’s life invites the general public and other The IRS is seeking comments during which the taxpayer is unable to Federal agencies to take this concerning the following forms, and manage his or her financial affairs opportunity to comment on continuing reporting and record-keeping because of a medically determinable information collections, as required by requirements: mental or physical impairment, if the the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 1. Title: Request for Change in Plan/ impairment can be expected to result in DATES: Written comments should be Trust Year. death, or has lasted (or can be expected received on or before December 18, 2017 OMB Number: 1545–0201. to last) for a continuous period of not to be assured of consideration. Form Number: 5308. less than 12 months.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48315

Current Actions: There are no changes with its U.S. income tax return. The disaffiliation; Revenue Procedure 2006– being made to the revenue procedure at burden for Form 8833 is reported under 21 modifies Rev. Proc. 89–56, 1989–2 this time. 1545–1354. C.B. 643, Rev. Proc. 90–39, 1990–2 C.B. Type of Review: Extension of a Current Actions: There is no change to 365, and Rev. Proc. 2002–32, 2002–20 currently approved collection. this existing regulation. IRB p.959, to eliminate impediments to Affected Public: Individuals or Type of Review: Extension of a the electronic filing of Federal income households. currently approved collection. tax returns (e-filing) and to reduce the Estimated Number of Respondents: Affected Public: Business or other for- reporting requirements in each of these 48,200. profit organizations, individuals or revenue procedures. Estimated Time per Respondent: 30 households, not-for-profit institutions, Current Actions: There are no changes minutes. farms, and Federal, state, local or tribal being made to these revenue procedures Estimated Total Annual Burden governments. at this time. Hours: 24,100. The burden for the reporting Type of Review: Extension of a 4. Title: Discharge of Liens. requirements is reflected in the burden currently approved collection. OMB Number: 1545–0854. of Forms W–8BEN, W–8ECI, W–8EXP, Affected Public: Business or other for- Regulation Project Number: T.D. 9410; W–8IMY, 1042, 1042S, 8233, 8833, and profit organizations. Form 14497; Form 14498. the income tax return of a foreign Estimated number of respondents: 20. Abstract: The Internal Revenue person filed for purposes of claiming a The estimated annual burden per Service needs this information in refund of tax. respondent varies from 2 hours to 8 processing a request to sell property 6. Title: Private Foundation hours, depending on individual subject to a tax lien to determine if the Disclosure Rules. circumstances, with an estimated taxpayer has equity in the property. OMB Number: 1545–1655. average of 5 hours. This information will be used to Regulation Project Number: T.D. 8861. Estimated total annual reporting determine the amount, if any, to which Abstract: The regulations relate to the burden: 100 hours. the tax lien attaches. public disclosure requirements 8. Title: Revision of Income Tax Current Actions: There is no change to described in section 6104(d) of the Regulations under Section 897, 1445, this existing regulation. There is no Internal Revenue Code. These final and 6109 to require use of Taxpayer change to Forms 14497 or 14498. regulations implement changes made by Identifying Numbers on Submission Type of Review: Extension of a the Tax and Trade Relief Extension Act under the Section 897 and 1445 currently approved collection. of 1998, which extended to private regulations. Affected Public: Individuals, business foundations the same rules regarding OMB Number: 1545–1797. or other for-profit organizations, and public disclosure of annual information Regulation Project Number: REG– farms. returns that apply to other tax-exempt 106876–00 (TD 9082). Estimated Number of Respondents: organizations. These final regulations Abstract: The collection of 500. provide guidance for private information relates to applications for Estimated Total Annual Burden foundations required to make copies of withholding certificates under Treas. Hours: 3,833. applications for recognition of Reg-1.1445–3 to be filed with the IRS 5. Title: Revision of Regulations exemption and annual information with respect to (1) dispositions of U.S. Relating to Withholding of Tax on return available for public inspection real property interests that have been Certain U.S. Source Income Paid to and to comply with requests for copies used by foreign persons as a principal Foreign Persons and Revision of of those documents. residence within the prior 5 years and Information Reporting Regulations. Current Actions: There is no change to excluded from gross income under OMB Number: 1545–1484. this existing regulation. section 121 and (2) dispositions of U.S. Regulation Project Number: REG– Type of Review: Extension of a real property interests by foreign 242282–97 (TD 8881-final). currently approved collection. persons in deferred like kind exchanges Abstract: This regulation prescribes Affected Public: Not-for-profit that qualify for nonrecognition under collections of information for foreign institutions. section 1031. persons that received payments subject Estimated Number of Respondents: Current Actions: There are no changes to withholding under sections 1441, 65,065. to this existing regulation. 1442, 1443, or 6114 of the Internal Estimated total annual reporting Type of Review: Extension of a Revenue Code. This information is used burden: 32,596 hours. currently approved collection. to claim foreign person status and, in 7. Title: Revenue Procedure 2002–32, Affected Public: Individuals or appropriate cases, to claim residence in Waiver of 60-Month Bar on households and Business or other for- a country with which the United States Reconsolidation after Disaffiliation; profit. has an income tax treaty in effect, so Revenue Procedure 2006–21, to Estimated Number of Respondents: that withholding at a reduced rate of tax Eliminate Impediments to E-Filing 150. may be obtained at source. The Consolidated Returns and Reduce Estimated Total Annual Reporting regulation also prescribes collections of Reporting Requirements. Burden: 600 hours. information for withholding agents. OMB Number: 1545–1784. Estimated Average Annual Burden This information is used by withholding Revenue Procedure Numbers: 2002– per Respondent: 4 hours. agents to report to the IRS income paid 32. 9. Title: Guidance Regarding Qualified to a foreign person that is subject to Abstract: Revenue Procedure 2002–32 Intellectual Property Contributions. withholding under Code sections 1441, provides qualifying taxpayers with a OMB Number: 1545–1937. 1442, and 1443. The regulation also waiver of the general rule of Notice Number: Notice 2005–41. requires that a foreign taxpayer claiming § 1504(a)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue Abstract: Notice 2005–41 explains a reduced amount of withholding tax Code barring corporations from filing new rules governing charitable under the provisions of an income tax consolidated returns as a member of a contributions of intellectual property treaty must disclose its reliance upon a group of which it had been a member made after June 3, 2004. The notice treaty provision by filing Form 8833 for 60 months following the year of explains the method by which a donor

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48316 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

of qualified intellectual property may DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY paperwork and respondent burden, notify the donee that the donor intends invites the public and other Federal to treat the contribution as a qualified Internal Revenue Service agencies to take this opportunity to donation under section 170(m). Donors comment on proposed and/or of qualified intellectual property will Open Meeting of the Taxpayer continuing information collections, as use the required notification as evidence Advocacy Panel Joint Committee. required by the Paperwork Reduction that they have satisfied the section AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is 170(m) notification requirement. Treasury. soliciting comments concerning the Current Actions: There are no changes methods to determine taxable income in ACTION: Notice of meeting. being made to the notice at this time. connection with a cost sharing Type of Review: Extension of SUMMARY: An open meeting of the arrangement, IRC section 482. currently approved collection. Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint DATES: Written comments should be Affected Public: Business or other for- Committee will be conducted. The received on or before December 18, 2017 profit organizations. Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting to be assured of consideration. Estimated Number of Respondents: public comments, ideas, and 30. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments suggestions on improving customer Estimated Average Time per to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue service at the Internal Revenue Service. Respondent: 1 hour. Service, Room 6141, 1111 Constitution Estimated Total Annual Burden DATES: The meeting will be held Friday, Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Hours: 30. November 17, 2017. Requests for additional information or 10. Title: Transfers by Domestic FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: copies of the regulations should be Corporations That Are Subject to Gretchen Swayzer at 1–888–912–1227 directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at Internal Section 367(a)(5); Distributions by or 469–801–0769. Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Domestic Corporations That Are Subject SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is Constitution Avenue NW., Washington to Section 1248(f). hereby given pursuant to Section DC 20224, or through the internet, at OMB Number: 1545–2183. 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory [email protected]. Regulation Project Number: TD 9614 Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and TD 9615. that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Title: Methods to Determine Taxable Abstract: Section 367(a)(5) now Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be Income in connection with a Cost provides that a transfer of assets to a held Friday, November 17, 2017, at Sharing Arrangement—IRC section 482. foreign corporation in an exchange 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time via OMB Number: 1545–1364. described in section 361 is subject to teleconference. The public is invited to Regulation Project Number: TD 9568. section 367(a)(1), unless certain make oral comments or submit written Abstract: This document contains ownership requirements and other statements for consideration. For more final regulations regarding methods to conditions are met. The regulations information please contact: Gretchen determine taxable income in connection provide guidance regarding the Swayzer at 1–888–912–1227 or 469– with a cost sharing arrangement under application of this section. 801–0769, TAP Office, 4050 Alpha Rd., section 482 of the Internal Revenue Current Actions: TD 9615 went final Farmers Branch, TX 75244, or contact Code (Code). The final regulations as TD 9760. address issues that have arisen in Type of Review: Revision of a us at the Web site: http:// www.improveirs.org. administering the current cost sharing currently approved collection. regulations. The final regulations affect Affected Public: Business or other for- The agenda will include various committee issues for submission to the domestic and foreign entities that enter profit organizations. into cost sharing arrangements Estimated Number of Respondents: IRS and other TAP related topics. The described in the final regulations. 305. public input is welcomed. Current Actions: There is no change to Estimated Time per Respondent: Dated: October 11, 2017. 10.69 hours. the burden previously approved. Antoinette Ross, Type of Review: Extension of a Estimated Total Annual Burden Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. Hours: 3260. currently approved collection. The following paragraph applies to all [FR Doc. 2017–22403 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Affected Public: Business or other for- of the collections of information covered BILLING CODE 4830–01–P profit organizations. by this notice: Estimated Number of Respondents: An agency may not conduct or 500. sponsor, and a person is not required to DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Estimated Time per Respondent: 18 hrs., 42 min. respond to, a collection of information Internal Revenue Service unless the collection of information Estimated Total Annual Burden displays a valid OMB control number. Proposed Extension of Information Hours: 9,350. The following paragraph applies to all Books or records relating to a collection Collection Request Submitted for the collections of information covered of information must be retained as long Public Comment; Methods To by this notice: as their contents may become material Determine Taxable Income in An agency may not conduct or in the administration of any internal Connection With a Cost Sharing sponsor, and a person is not required to revenue law. Generally, tax returns and Arrangement tax return information are confidential, respond to, a collection of information as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), unless the collection of information Treasury. displays a valid OMB control number. Approved: October 10, 2017. ACTION: Notice and request for Books or records relating to a L. Brimmer, comments. collection of information must be Senior Tax Analyst. retained if their contents may become [FR Doc. 2017–22404 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] SUMMARY: The Internal Revenue Service, material in the administration of any BILLING CODE 4830–01–P as part of its continuing effort to reduce internal revenue law. Generally, tax

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48317

returns and tax return information are process for determination of employee • Evaluate the accuracy of the confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. stock ownership plans. agency’s estimate of the burden of the 6103. DATES: Written comments should be proposed collection of information, Desired Focus of Comments: The received on or before December 18, 2017 including the validity of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is to be assured of consideration. methodology and assumptions used; • particularly interested in comments ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments Enhance the quality, utility, and that: to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue clarity of the information to be • Evaluate whether the proposed Service, Room 6141, 1111 Constitution collected; and collection of information is necessary • Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Minimize the burden of the for the proper performance of the Requests for additional information or collection of information on those who functions of the agency, including copies of the regulations should be are to respond, including using whether the information will have directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at Internal appropriate automated, electronic, practical utility; Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 mechanical, or other technological • Evaluate the accuracy of the Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, collection techniques or other forms of agency’s estimate of the burden of the DC 20224, or through the internet, at information technology, e.g., by proposed collection of information, [email protected]. permitting electronic submissions of including the validity of the responses. methodology and assumptions used; SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments submitted in response to • Enhance the quality, utility, and Title: Application for Determination this notice will be summarized and/or clarity of the information to be of Employee Stock Ownership Plan. included in the ICR for OMB approval collected; and OMB Number: 1545–0284. of the extension of the information Regulation Project Number: Form • Minimize the burden of the collection; they will also become a 5309. collection of information on those who matter of public record. are to respond, including using Abstract: Internal Revenue Code Approved: October 10, 2017. appropriate automated, electronic, section 404(a) allows employers an mechanical, or other technological income tax deduction for contributions R. Joseph Durbala, collection techniques or other forms of to their qualified deferred compensation IRS Tax Analyst. information technology, e.g., by plans. Form 5309 is used to request an [FR Doc. 2017–22437 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] permitting electronic submissions of IRS determination letter about whether BILLING CODE 4830–01–P responses. the plan is qualified under Code section Comments submitted in response to 409 or 4975(e)(7). this notice will be summarized and/or Current Actions: There is no change to DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY included in the ICR for OMB approval the burden previously approved. Internal Revenue Service of the extension of the information Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection. collection; they will also become a Proposed Collection; Comment matter of public record. Affected Public: Business or other for- profit organizations. Request for Regulation Project Approved: October 10, 2017. Estimated Number of Respondents: AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), R. Joseph Durbala, 2,500. Treasury. IRS Tax Analyst. Estimated Time per Respondent: 10 ACTION: Notice and request for [FR Doc. 2017–22406 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] hours, 47 minutes. comments. BILLING CODE 4830–01–P Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 26,975. SUMMARY: The Internal Revenue Service, The following paragraph applies to all as part of its continuing effort to reduce DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY the collections of information covered paperwork and respondent burden, by this notice: invites the general public and other Internal Revenue Service An agency may not conduct or Federal agencies to take this sponsor, and a person is not required to Proposed Extension of Information opportunity to comment on continuing respond to, a collection of information Collection Request Submitted for information collections, as required by unless the collection of information Public Comment; Application for the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. displays a valid OMB control number. Determination of Employee Stock The IRS is soliciting comments Books or records relating to a Ownership Plan concerning the monthly tax return for collection of information must be wagers. AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), retained if their contents may become DATES: Written comments should be Treasury. material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax received on or before December 18, 2017 ACTION: Notice and request for to be assured of consideration. comments. returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments SUMMARY: The Internal Revenue Service, 6103. to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue as part of its continuing effort to reduce Desired Focus of Comments: The Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution paperwork and respondent burden, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. invites the general public and other particularly interested in comments Requests for additional information or Federal agencies to take this that: copies of the form should be directed to opportunity to comment on proposed • Evaluate whether the proposed Kerry Dennis, Internal Revenue Service, and/or continuing information collection of information is necessary Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue collections, as required by the for the proper performance of the NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. functions of the agency, including the internet, at [email protected]. Currently, the IRS is soliciting whether the information will have SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: comments concerning the application practical utility; Title: Monthly Tax Return for Wagers.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48318 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

OMB Number: 1545–0235. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Type of Review: Extension of a Regulation Project Number: Form 730. currently approved collection. Internal Revenue Service Abstract: Form 730 is used to identify Affected Public: Business or other for- profit organizations. taxable wagers under Internal Revenue Proposed Extension of Information Code section 4401 and collect the tax Collection Request Submitted for Estimated Number of Respondents: monthly. The information is used to Public Comment; Mortgage Credit Form 8329—10,000; Form 8330—2,000 determine if persons accepting wagers Certificates (MCCs) Estimated Time per Respondent: are correctly reporting the amount of Form 8329—5 hrs. 53 min.; Form wagers and paying the required tax. AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 8330—7 hrs. 28 min. Current Actions: There is no change to Treasury. Estimated Total Annual Burden this existing form. ACTION: Notice and request for Hours: Form 8329—58,800; Form Type of Review: Extension of a comments. 8330—14,920. currently approved collection. The following paragraph applies to all SUMMARY: The Internal Revenue Service, the collections of information covered Affected Public: Businesses or other as part of its continuing effort to reduce by this notice: for-profit organizations and individuals. paperwork and respondent burden, An agency may not conduct or Estimated Number of Respondents: invites the public and other Federal sponsor, and a person is not required to 51,082. agencies to take this opportunity to respond to, a collection of information Estimated Time Per Respondent: 8 comment on proposed and/or unless the collection of information hours, 11 minutes. continuing information collections, as displays a valid OMB control number. required by the Paperwork Reduction Estimated Total Annual Burden Books or records relating to a Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is Hours: 418,362. collection of information must be soliciting comments concerning the retained if their contents may become The following paragraph applies to all application process for determination of material in the administration of any of the collections of information covered employee stock ownership plans. by this notice. internal revenue law. Generally, tax DATES: Written comments should be returns and tax return information are An agency may not conduct or received on or before December 18, 2017 confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. sponsor, and a person is not required to to be assured of consideration. 6103. respond to, a collection of information ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments unless the collection of information Desired Focus of Comments: The to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue displays a valid OMB control number. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is Service, Room 6141, 1111 Constitution Books or records relating to a collection particularly interested in comments Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. of information must be retained as long that: Requests for additional information or • as their contents may become material Evaluate whether the proposed copies of the regulations should be in the administration of any internal collection of information is necessary directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at Internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and for the proper performance of the Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 tax return information are confidential, functions of the agency, including Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. whether the information will have DC 20224, or through the internet, at practical utility; Request for Comments: Comments [email protected]. • submitted in response to this notice will Evaluate the accuracy of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: be summarized and/or included in the agency’s estimate of the burden of the request for OMB approval. All Title: Mortgage Credit Certificates proposed collection of information, comments will become a matter of (MCCs). including the validity of the public record. Comments are invited on: OMB Number: 1545–0922. methodology and assumptions used; • (a) whether the collection of information Regulation Project Number: Form Enhance the quality, utility, and is necessary for the proper performance 8329 and Form 8330. clarity of the information to be of the functions of the agency, including Abstract: Mortgage Credit Certificates collected; and whether the information shall have provide qualified holders of the • Minimize the burden of the practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the certificates with a credit against income collection of information on those who agency’s estimate of the burden of the tax liability. In general, an Issuer elects are to respond, including using collection of information; (c) ways to to establish a mortgage credit certificate appropriate automated, electronic, enhance the quality, utility, and clarity program in lieu of issuing qualified mechanical, or other technological of the information to be collected; (d) mortgage revenue bonds. Section 25 of collection techniques or other forms of ways to minimize the burden of the the Code permits states and political information technology, e.g., by collection of information on subdivisions to elect to issue Mortgage permitting electronic submissions of respondents, including through the use Credit Certificates in lieu of qualified responses. of automated collection techniques or mortgage revenue bonds. Form 8329 is Comments submitted in response to other forms of information technology; used by lending institutions and Form this notice will be summarized and/or and (e) estimates of capital or start-up 8330 is used by state and local included in the ICR for OMB approval costs and costs of operation, governments to provide the IRS with of the extension of the information maintenance, and purchase of services information on the issuance of mortgage collection; they will also become a to provide information. credit certificates (MCCs) authorized matter of public record. under Internal Revenue Code section 25. Approved: October 11, 2017. IRS matches the information supplied Approved: October 10, 2017. L. Brimmer, by lenders and issuers to ensure that the R. Joseph Durbala, Senior Tax Analyst. credit is computed properly. IRS Tax Analyst. [FR Doc. 2017–22405 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] Current Actions: There is no change to [FR Doc. 2017–22438 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P the burden previously approved. BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48319

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY respond to, a collection of information DATES: Comments must be submitted on unless the collection of information or before November 16, 2017. Internal Revenue Service displays a valid OMB control number. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments Books or records relating to a collection on the collection of information through Proposed Collection; Comment of information must be retained as long www.Regulations.gov, or to Office of Request for Form 8582 as their contents may become material Information and Regulatory Affairs, AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), in the administration of any internal Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Treasury. revenue law. Generally, tax returns and VA Desk Officer; 725 17th St. NW., tax return information are confidential, ACTION: The Internal Revenue Service Washington, DC 20503 or sent through _ (IRS), as part of its continuing effort to as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. electronic mail to oira submission@ Request for Comments: Comments reduce paperwork and respondent omb.eop.gov. Please refer to ‘‘OMB submitted in response to this notice will burden, invites the general public and Control No. 2900–0089’’ in any be summarized and/or included in the other Federal agencies to take this correspondence. request for OMB approval. All opportunity to comment on proposed comments will become a matter of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and/or continuing information public record. Comments are invited on: Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Office of Quality, collections, as required by the (a) Whether the collection of Privacy and Risk, Department of Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information is necessary for the proper Veterans Affairs, 811 Vermont Avenue, IRS is soliciting comments concerning performance of the functions of the Floor 5, Area 368, Washington, DC information collection requirements agency, including whether the 20420, (202) 461–5870 or email related to Passive Activity Loss information shall have practical utility; [email protected]. Please Limitations. (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate refer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0089’’ in any correspondence. DATES: of the burden of the collection of Written comments should be SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: received on or before December 18, 2017 information; (c) ways to enhance the to be assured of consideration. quality, utility, and clarity of the Authority: 38 U.S.C. 102, 38 U.S.C. 1315. information to be collected; (d) ways to ADDRESSES: Title: Statement of Dependency of Direct all written comments minimize the burden of the collection of Parent(s) VA Form 21P–509. to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue information on respondents, including Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution OMB Control Number: 2900–0089. through the use of automated collection Type of Review: Reinstatement with Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. techniques or other forms of information Requests for additional information or change of a previously approved technology; and (e) estimates of capital collection. copies of the regulation should be or start-up costs and costs of operation, directed to Taquesha Cain, Room 6526, Abstract: 38 U.S.C. 102 requires that maintenance, and purchase of services income and dependency must be 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., to provide information. Washington, DC 20224, or through the determined before benefits may be paid internet at [email protected]. Approved: October 12, 2017. to, or for, a dependent parent. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: L. Brimmer, Regulatory authority is found in 38 CFR Title: Passive Activity Loss Senior Tax Analyst. 3.4 and 38 CFR 3.250. Information is Limitations. [FR Doc. 2017–22402 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] requested by this form under the OMB Number: 1545–1008. BILLING CODE 4830–01–P authority of 38 U.S.C. 501(a)(2). Form Number: 8582. VA Form 21P–509 is used by VBA to Abstract: Internal Revenue Code gather income and dependency section 469 limits the passive activity DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS information from claimants who are losses that a taxpayer may deduct. The AFFAIRS seeking payment of benefits as, or for, a passive activity losses from passive dependent parent. This information is activities, to the extent that they exceed [OMB Control No. 2900–0089] necessary to determine dependency of the parent and make determinations income from passive activities, cannot Agency Information Collection Activity be deducted against nonpassive income. which affect the payment of monetary Under OMB Review: Statement of benefits. The form is used by a veteran Form 8582 is used to figure the passive Dependency of Parent(s) activity loss allowed and the actual loss seeking to establish his/her parent(s) as to be reported on the tax returns. AGENCY: Veterans Benefits dependent(s), and by a surviving parent Current Actions: There is no change Administration, Department of Veterans seeking death compensation. in the paperwork burden previously Affairs. An agency may not conduct or approved by OMB. ACTION: Notice. sponsor, and a person is not required to Type of Review: Extension of a respond to a collection of information currently approved collection. SUMMARY: In compliance with the unless it displays a currently valid OMB Affected Public: Individuals or Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of control number. The Federal Register households, estates, and trusts. 1995, this notice announces that the Notice with a 60-day comment period Estimated Number of Respondents: Veterans Benefits Administration soliciting comments on this collection 250,000. (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, of information was published at 82 FR Estimated Time per Respondent: 3 will submit the collection of 37168 on August 8, 2017. hours, 30 minutes. information abstracted below to the Affected Public: Individuals or Estimated Total Annual Burden Office of Management and Budget Households. Hours: 875,000. (OMB) for review and comment. The Estimated Annual Burden: 4,000. The following paragraph applies to all PRA submission describes the nature of Estimated Average Burden per of the collections of information covered the information collection and its Respondent: 30 minutes. by this notice: expected cost and burden and it Frequency of Response: Once, ad hoc. An agency may not conduct or includes the actual data collection Estimated Number of Respondents: sponsor, and a person is not required to instrument. 8,000.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 48320 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices

By direction of the Secretary. received an accelerated payment and receiving oral presentations from the Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, how such payment was used. public. However, the public may submit Department Clearance Officer, Office of An agency may not conduct or written statements for the Quality, Privacy and Risk, Department of sponsor, and a person is not required to Subcommittee’s review to Brenda Faas, Veterans Affairs. respond to a collection of information Designated Federal Officer, Department [FR Doc. 2017–22383 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] unless it displays a currently valid OMB of Veterans Affairs at Brenda.Faas@ BILLING CODE 8320–01–P control number. The Federal Register va.gov, or Thomas Pasakarnis, Alternate Notice with a 60-day comment period Designated Federal Officer, Department soliciting comments on this collection of Veterans Affairs at DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS of information was published at 82 FR [email protected]. Any AFFAIRS 151 on August 8, 2017, page 37168. member of the public wishing to attend [OMB Control No. 2900–0636] Affected Public: Individuals and the meeting or seeking additional households. information should contact Mr. Agency Information Collection Activity Estimated Annual Burden: 1.17 hours. Pasakarnis. Under OMB Review: Accelerated Estimated Average Burden per Because the meeting will be held in Payment Verification of Completion Respondent: 5 minutes. a federal government building, anyone Frequency of Response: One time. attending must be prepared to show a AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Estimated Number of Respondents: valid photo government issued ID. Administration, Department of Veterans 14. Please allow 15 minutes before the Affairs. By direction of the Secretary. meeting begins for this process. ACTION: Notice. Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Dated: October 11, 2017. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Department Clearance Officer, Office of LaTonya L. Small, Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of Quality, Privacy and Risk, Department of Federal Advisory Committee Management 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Affairs. Officer. Veterans Benefits Administration [FR Doc. 2017–22384 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 2017–22375 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, BILLING CODE 8320–01–P BILLING CODE 8320–01–P will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS (OMB) for review and comment. The AFFAIRS AFFAIRS PRA submission describes the nature of VA New Hampshire Vision 2025 Task the information collection and its Veterans’ Rural Health Advisory Force; Notice of Meeting expected cost and burden; it includes Committee; (Amended) Notice of the actual data collection instrument. The Department of Veterans Affairs Meeting DATES: Comments must be submitted on (VA) gives notice under the Federal The Department of Veterans Affairs or before November 16, 2017. Advisory Committee Act that the VA (VA) gives notice under the Federal ADDRESSES: Submit written comments New Hampshire Vision 2025 Task Advisory Committee Act that the on the collection of information through Force, which is a subcommittee of the Veterans’ Rural Health Advisory www.Regulations.gov, or to Office of Special Medical Advisory Group Committee will meet on November 1–2, Information and Regulatory Affairs, (SMAG), will meet October 31, 2017 2017. The meeting will be held at 333 Office of Management and Budget, Attn: from 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. ET and John Carlyle St., 4th Floor Conference VA Desk Officer; 725 17th St. NW., November 1, 2017 from 8:00 a.m.–12:30 Room, in Alexandria, VA 22314 on Washington, DC 20503 or sent through p.m. ET at the Department of Veterans November 1–2; both meeting sessions electronic mail to oira_submission@ Affairs, Manchester VA Medical Center, will begin at 8:30 a.m. (EST) each day omb.eop.gov. Please refer to ‘‘OMB 718 Smyth Road Manchester, NH 03104, and adjourn at 5:00 p.m. (EST). The Control No. 2900–0636’’ in any Building 1, 1st Floor, Training & meetings are open to the public. correspondence. Education Room. The meeting is open to The purpose of the Committee is to the public. No video or audio recording advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: will be authorized without prior on rural health care issues affecting Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Department permission from the Designated Federal Veterans. The Committee examines Clearance Officer (005R1B), Department Officer. Programs and policies that impact the of Veterans Affairs, 811 Vermont The purpose of the Subcommittee is delivery of VA rural health care to Avenue NW., (Floor 5, area 368), to develop a comprehensive set of Veterans and discusses ways to improve Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461–5870 options and recommendations to and enhance VA access to rural health or email [email protected]. develop a future vision of what VA must care services for Veterans. Please refer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900– do to best meet the needs of New The agenda will include updates from 0636’’ in any correspondence. Hampshire Veterans. The Department leadership, the Assistant SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: recommendations will be reviewed by Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Authority: Public Law 107–103 and Public the SMAG and then those final Policy and Services, Director Office of Law 110–181; 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521. recommendations will be forwarded to Rural Health and Committee Chairman, Title: Accelerated Payment the Secretary and Under Secretary for as well as presentations on general Verification of Completion, (VA Form Health for decision and action. health care access. 22–0840). The agenda may include updates Public comments will be received at OMB Control Number: 2900–0636. regarding focus groups, data review, and 4:30 p.m. on November 1, 2017. Type of Review: Extension of a health care delivery research for various Interested parties should contact Ms. currently approved collection. service lines and greater New Judy Bowie, via email at VRHAC@ Abstract: VA Form 22–0840 allows Hampshire health care market. No time va.gov, via fax at (202) 632–8615, or by VA claimants to certify that they will be allocated at this meeting for mail at 810 Vermont Avenue NW.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Notices 48321

(10P1R), Washington, DC 20420. meeting record. Any member of the Dated: October 4, 2017. Individuals wishing to speak are invited public seeking additional information LaTonya L. Small, to submit a 1–2 page summary of their should contact Ms. Bowie at the phone Federal Advisory Committee Management comment for inclusion in the official number or email address noted above. Officer. [FR Doc. 2017–22449 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Vol. 82 Tuesday, No. 199 October 17, 2017

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

40 CFR Parts 52 and 97 Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Texas; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport Federal Implementation Plan; Final Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48324 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION e.g., Confidential Business Information VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews AGENCY (CBI) or other information whose I. Background disclosure is restricted by statute 40 CFR Parts 52 and 97 therefore is not posted to A. Regional Haze [EPA–R06–OAR–2016–0611; FRL–9969–07– regulations.gov. Certain other material, Regional haze is visibility impairment Region 6] such as copyrighted material, is not that is produced by a multitude of placed on the Internet and will be sources and activities that are located Promulgation of Air Quality publicly available only in hard copy. across a broad geographic area and emit Implementation Plans; State of Texas; Publicly available docket materials are PM2.5 (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility available either electronically through carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), and Transport Federal Implementation Plan http://www.regulations.gov or in hard soil dust), and its precursors (e.g., SO2, copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross NOX, and, in some cases, ammonia AGENCY: Environmental Protection Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202– (NH3) and volatile organic compounds Agency (EPA). 2733. (VOCs)). Fine particle precursors react ACTION: Final rule. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: in the atmosphere to form PM2.5, which Michael Feldman at Feldman.Michael@ impairs visibility by scattering and SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean epa.gov or 214–665–9793 absorbing light. Visibility impairment Air Act (CAA or Act), the reduces the clarity, color, and visible Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever distance that can be seen. PM2.5 can also is finalizing a partial approval of the cause serious health effects and 2009 Texas Regional Haze State ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean the EPA. mortality in humans and contributes to Implementation Plan (SIP) submission environmental effects, such as acid and a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) Table of Contents deposition and eutrophication. for Texas to address certain outstanding I. Background Data from the existing visibility requirements. Specifically, the EPA is A. Regional Haze monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency finalizing determinations regarding best B. Interstate Transport of Pollutants That Monitoring of Protected Visual available retrofit technology (BART) for Affect Visibility Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring electric generating units (EGUs) in the C. Previous Actions Related to Texas network, show that visibility State of Texas. To address the BART Regional Haze impairment caused by air pollution requirement for sulfur dioxide (SO2), the II. Our Proposed Actions occurs virtually all the time at most EPA is finalizing an alternative to BART A. Regional Haze national parks and wilderness areas. In B. Interstate Transport of Pollutants That that consists of an intrastate trading 1999, the average visual range 1 in many program addressing the SO emissions Affect Visibility 2 III. Summary of Our Final Decisions Class I areas (i.e., national parks and from certain EGUs. To address the A. Regional Haze memorial parks, wilderness areas, and BART requirement for oxides of 1. BART-Eligible Units international parks meeting certain size nitrogen (NOX), we are finalizing our 2. Subject-to-BART Sources criteria) in the western United States proposed determination that Texas’ 3. SO2 BART was 100–150 kilometers, or about one- participation in the Cross-State Air 4. PM BART half to two-thirds of the visual range Pollution Rule’s (CSAPR) trading 5. NOX BART that would exist without anthropogenic B. Interstate Transport of Pollutants That program for ozone-season NOX qualifies air pollution. In most of the eastern as an alternative to BART. We are Affect Visibility Class I areas of the United States, the approving Texas’ determination that its C. Reasonable Progress IV. Summary and Analysis of Major Issues average visual range was less than 30 EGUs are not subject to BART for Raised by Commenters kilometers, or about one-fifth of the particulate matter (PM). Finally, we are A. Comments on Relying on CSAPR for visual range that would exist under 2 disapproving portions of several SIP SO2 BART or Developing an Intrastate estimated natural conditions. CAA revisions submitted to satisfy the CAA SO2 Trading Program programs have reduced some haze- requirement to address interstate B. Comments on Source-Specific BART causing pollution, lessening some visibility transport for six national C. Comments on EPA’s Proposed SIP visibility impairment and resulting in ambient air quality standards (NAAQS): Disapprovals partially improved average visual 1997 8-hour ozone, 1997 fine particulate D. Legal Comments ranges.3 E. Comments on Identification of BART- matter (PM2.5) (annual and 24-hour), CAA requirements to address the Eligible Sources problem of visibility impairment are 2006 PM2.5 (24-hour), 2008 8-hour F. Comments on PM BART ozone, 2010 1-hour nitrogen dioxide G. Comments on EPA’s Source-Specific continuing to be addressed and (NO2) and 2010 1-hour SO2. We are SO2 BART Cost Analyses implemented. In Section 169A of the finding that the BART alternatives to H. Comments on EPA’s Modeling 1977 Amendments to the CAA, address SO2 and NOX BART at Texas’ I. Comments on Affordability and Grid Congress created a program for EGUs meet the interstate visibility Reliability protecting visibility in the nation’s transport requirements for these V. SO2 Trading Program and Its Implications national parks and wilderness areas. NAAQS. for Interstate Visibility Transport, EGU This section of the CAA establishes as BART, and Reasonable Progress a national goal the prevention of any DATES: This final rule is effective on A. Background on CSAPR as an Alternative future, and the remedying of any November 16, 2017. to BART Concept B. Texas SO2 Trading Program ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 1 1. Identification of Sources Participating in Visual range is the greatest distance, in docket for this action under Docket ID kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be the Trading Program viewed against the sky. No. EPA–R06–OAR–2016–0611. All 2. Texas SO Trading Program as a BART documents in the docket are listed on 2 2 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999). Alternative 3 An interactive ‘‘story map’’ depicting efforts and the http://www.regulations.gov Web C. Specific Texas SO2 Trading Program recent progress by EPA and states to improve site. Although listed in the index, some Features visibility at national parks and wilderness areas information is not publicly available, VI. Final Action may be visited at: http://arcg.is/29tAbS3.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48325

existing man-made impairment of these sources. Specifically, section deficiency and we approve the new SIP visibility in 156 national parks and 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states submittal. wilderness areas designated as to revise their SIPs to contain such B. Interstate Transport of Pollutants mandatory Class I Federal areas.4 On measures as may be necessary to make That Affect Visibility December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated reasonable progress toward the natural regulations to address visibility visibility goal, including a requirement Section 110(a) of the CAA directs impairment in Class I areas that is that certain categories of existing major states to submit a SIP that provides for ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single stationary sources 8 built between 1962 the implementation, maintenance, and source or small group of sources, i.e., and 1977 procure, install and operate enforcement of each NAAQS, which is ‘‘reasonably attributable visibility the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit commonly referred to as an impairment.’’ 5 These regulations Technology’’ (BART). Larger ‘‘fossil-fuel infrastructure SIP. Among other things, represented the first phase in addressing fired steam electric plants’’ are included CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires visibility impairment. EPA deferred among the BART source categories. that SIPs contain adequate provisions to action on regional haze that emanates Under the Regional Haze Rule, states are prohibit interference with measures required to protect visibility in other from a variety of sources until directed to conduct BART states. This is referred to as ‘‘interstate monitoring, modeling, and scientific determinations for ‘‘BART-eligible’’ visibility transport.’’ SIPs addressing knowledge about the relationships sources that may be anticipated to cause interstate visibility transport are due to between pollutants and visibility or contribute to any visibility the EPA within three years after the impairment were improved. impairment in a Class I area. The promulgation of a new or revised Congress added section 169B to the evaluation of BART for EGUs that are NAAQS (or within such shorter period CAA in 1990 to address regional haze located at fossil-fuel-fired power plants issues, and we promulgated regulations as we may prescribe). A state’s failure to having a generating capacity in excess of addressing regional haze in 1999.6 The submit a complete, approvable SIP for 750 megawatts must follow the Regional Haze Rule revised the existing interstate visibility transport creates an ‘‘Guidelines for BART Determinations visibility regulations to integrate into obligation for the EPA to promulgate a Under the Regional Haze Rule’’ at the regulations provisions addressing FIP to address this requirement. appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 regional haze impairment and (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART C. Previous Actions Related to Texas established a comprehensive visibility Guidelines’’). Rather than requiring Regional Haze protection program for Class I areas. The source-specific BART controls, states requirements for regional haze, found at On March 31, 2009, Texas submitted also have the flexibility to adopt an 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included a regional haze SIP to the EPA that in our visibility protection regulations at emissions trading program or alternative included reliance on Texas’ 40 CFR 51.300–51.309. The requirement program as long as the alternative participation in the Clean Air Interstate to submit a regional haze SIP applies to provides greater reasonable progress Rule (CAIR) as an alternative to BART towards improving visibility than 9 all 50 states, the District of Columbia, for SO2 and NOX emissions from EGUs. and the Virgin Islands. States were BART. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) specifies This reliance was consistent with the required to submit the first how a state must conduct the EPA’s regulations at the time that Texas implementation plan addressing demonstration to show that an developed its regional haze plan,10 but regional haze visibility impairment no alternative program will achieve greater at the time that Texas submitted this SIP later than December 17, 2007.7 reasonable progress than the installation to the EPA, the D.C. Circuit had Section 169A of the CAA directs and operation of BART. 40 CFR remanded CAIR (without vacatur).11 states to evaluate the use of retrofit 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E) requires a The court left CAIR and our CAIR FIPs controls at certain larger, often under- determination under 40 CFR 51.308 in place in order to ‘‘temporarily controlled, older stationary sources in (e)(3) or otherwise based on the clear preserve the environmental values order to address visibility impacts from weight of evidence that the trading covered by CAIR’’ until we could, by program or other alternative measure rulemaking, replace CAIR consistent 4 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal achieves greater reasonable progress with the court’s opinion. The EPA areas consist of National Parks exceeding 6,000 than would be achieved through the promulgated CSAPR, a revised multi- acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks installation and operation of BART at exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks state trading program to replace CAIR, that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. the covered sources. Specific criteria for in 2011 12 (and revised it in 2012 13). 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the determining if an alternative measure CSAPR established FIP requirements for CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of achieves greater reasonable progress a number of states, including Texas, to Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where than source-specific BART are set out in visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR address the states’ interstate transport 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). Finally, 40 CFR obligation under CAA section mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 51.308(e)(4) states that states 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). CSAPR requires in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. participating in CSAPR need not require affected EGUs in these states to 7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate BART-eligible fossil fuel-fired steam as Class I additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an important value, the electric plants to install, operate, and 9 CAIR required certain states, including Texas, to requirements of the visibility program set forth in maintain BART for the pollutant reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX that significantly section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory covered by CSAPR. contribute to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I NAAQS for fine particulate matter and ozone. See Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land Under section 110(c) of the CAA, 70 FR 25152 (May 12, 2005). Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term whenever we disapprove a mandatory 10 See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). ‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory SIP submission in whole or in part, we 11 See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Class I Federal area.’’ are required to promulgate a FIP within Cir. 2008), modified, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 5 45 FR 80084 (Dec. 2, 1980). 12 two years unless the state corrects the 76 FR 48207 (Aug. 8, 2011). 6 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR 13 CSAPR was amended three times in 2011 and part 51, subpart P (Regional Haze Rule). 2012 to add five states to the seasonal NOX program 7 See 40 CFR 51.308(b). EPA’s regional haze 8 See 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(7) (listing the set of and to increase certain state budgets. 76 FR 80760 regulations require subsequent updates to the ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially subject-to- (December 27, 2011); 77 FR 10324 (February 21, regional haze SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(g)–(i). BART). 2012); 77 FR 34830 (June 12, 2012).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48326 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

participate in the CSAPR trading December 2014 proposal. That our separate November 10, 2016 programs and establishes emissions rulemaking was challenged, however, proposed finding that the EPA’s actions budgets that apply to the EGUs’ and in December 2016, following the in response to the D.C. Circuit’s remand collective annual emissions of SO2 and submittal of a request by the EPA for a would not adversely impact our 2012 NOX, as well as seasonal emissions of voluntary remand of the parts of the rule demonstration that participation in NOX. Following issuance of CSAPR, the under challenge, the Fifth Circuit Court CSAPR meets the Regional Haze Rule’s EPA determined that CSAPR would of Appeals remanded the rule in its criteria for alternatives to BART.25 We achieve greater reasonable progress entirety.19 noted that we could not finalize this towards improving visibility than would On October 26, 2016, the EPA portion of our proposed FIP unless and source-specific BART in CSAPR finalized an update to CSAPR to address until we finalized our proposed finding states.14 We revised the Regional Haze the interstate transport requirements of that the set of actions taken by the EPA Rule to allow states that participate in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with in response to the D.C. Circuit’s remand CSAPR to rely on participation in the respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS of certain CSAPR budgets would not trading programs in lieu of requiring (CSAPR Update).20 The EPA also adversely impact our prior EGUs in the state to install BART responded to the D.C. Circuit’s remand determination that CSAPR provides for controls. of certain CSAPR seasonal NOX budgets greater reasonable progress than BART. In the same action that EPA in that action. As to Texas, the EPA As noted in section I.C, on September determined that states could rely on withdrew Texas’s seasonal NOX budget 21, 2017, we finalized our proposed CSAPR to address the BART finalized in CSAPR to address the 1997 finding that EPA’s 2012 analytical requirements for EGUs, EPA issued a ozone NAAQS. However, in that same demonstration remains valid and that limited disapproval of a number of action, the EPA promulgated a FIP with participation in CSAPR as it now exists states’ regional haze SIPs, including the a revised seasonal NOX budget for Texas meets the Regional Haze Rule’s criteria 2009 SIP submittal from Texas, due to to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS.21 for an alternative to BART. the states’ reliance on CAIR, which had Accordingly, Texas remains subject to Also as noted in section I.C, as part of 15 our November 10, 2016 proposed action been replaced by CSAPR. The EPA did the CSAPR seasonal NOX requirements. not immediately promulgate a FIP to On November 10, 2016, in response to in response to the D.C. Circuit’s remand address the limited disapproval of the D.C. Circuit’s remand of Texas’s of Texas’ SO2 CSAPR budget, we also proposed to withdraw the FIP Texas’ regional haze SIP in order to CSAPR SO2 budget, we proposed to allow more time for the EPA to assess withdraw the FIP provisions requiring provisions requiring EGUs in Texas to the remaining elements of the 2009 EGUs in Texas to participate in the participate in the CSAPR trading Texas SIP submittal. In December 2014, CSAPR trading programs for annual programs for annual emissions of SO2 26 22 and NOX. In our January 4, 2017 we proposed an action to address the emissions of SO2 and NOX. We also remaining regional haze obligations for proposed to reaffirm that CSAPR proposed action on BART requirements Texas.16 In that action, we proposed, continues to provide for greater for Texas EGUs, we accordingly among other things, to rely on CSAPR reasonable progress than BART proposed that because Texas would no longer be participating in the CSAPR to satisfy the NOX and SO2 BART following our actions taken to address requirements for Texas’ EGUs; we also the D.C. Circuit’s remand of several program for SO2, and thus would no proposed to approve the portions of the CSAPR emissions budgets. On longer be eligible to rely on SIP addressing PM BART requirements September 21, 2017, we finalized the participation in CSAPR as an alternative to source-specific EGU BART for SO for the state’s EGUs. Before that rule was withdrawal of the FIP provisions for 2 under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4), our regional finalized, however, the D.C. Circuit annual emissions of SO and NO for 2 X haze FIP would need to include the issued a decision on a number of EGUs in Texas 23 and affirmed our identification of BART-eligible EGU challenges to CSAPR, denying most proposed finding that the EPA’s 2012 sources, screening of sources to identify claims, but remanding the CSAPR analytical demonstration remains valid subject-to-BART sources, and source-by- emissions budgets of several states to and that participation in CSAPR as it source determinations of SO BART the EPA for reconsideration, including now exists meets the Regional Haze 2 controls as appropriate. For those EGU the Phase 2 SO2 and seasonal NOX Rule’s criteria for an alternative to sources we proposed to find subject to budget for Texas.17 Due to potential BART. impacts of the remanded budgets on the BART, we proposed to promulgate EPA’s 2012 determination that CSAPR II. Our Proposed Actions source-specific SO2 requirements. We also proposed to disapprove Texas’ would provide for greater reasonable A. Regional Haze progress than BART, we did not finalize BART determinations for PM from our decision to rely on CSAPR to satisfy On January 4, 2017, we proposed a EGUs. In place of these determinations, the SO and NO BART requirements FIP to address the BART requirements we proposed to promulgate source- 2 X for Texas’ EGUs. In that action, we for Texas EGUs.18 Additionally, because specific PM BART requirements for our proposed action on the PM BART proposed to replace Texas’ reliance on EGUs that we proposed to find subject provisions for EGUs was dependent on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to to BART. Previously, we proposed to address the NO BART requirements for how SO and NO BART were satisfied, X approve the EGU BART determinations 2 X EGUs.24 we did not take final action on the PM This portion of our proposal for PM in the Texas regional haze SIP BART elements of Texas’ regional haze was based on the CSAPR Update and and this proposal has never been withdrawn.27 At that time, CSAPR was SIP. In January 2016, we finalized action 19 Texas v. EPA, 829 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2016). an appropriate alternative for SO2 and on the remaining aspects of the 20 81 FR 74504 (Oct. 26, 2016). NOX BART for EGUs. The Texas 21 81 FR 74504, 74524–25. Regional Haze SIP included a pollutant- 14 77 FR 33641 (June 7, 2012). 22 81 FR 78954. 15 specific screening analysis for PM to Id. 23 Texas continues to participate in CSAPR for 16 79 FR 74818 (Dec. 16, 2014). ozone season NOX. See final action signed 17 EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 September 21, 2017 available at regulations.gov in 25 81 FR 74504 (Nov. 10, 2016). F.3d 118, 132 (D.C. Cir. 2015). Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0598. 26 81 FR 78954. 18 81 FR 296 (Jan. 5, 2016). 24 82 FR 912, 914–15 (Jan. 4, 2017). 27 79 FR 74817, 74853–54 (Dec. 16, 2014).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48327

demonstrate that Texas EGUs were not accordance with CAA section emission caps using CSAPR allocations. subject to BART for PM. In a 2006 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). We also received similar comments guidance document,28 the EPA stated from Luminant and American Electric III. Summary of Our Final Decisions that pollutant-specific screening can be Power (AEP). Based upon the appropriate where a state is relying on A. Regional Haze comments, we are proceeding to address a BART alternative to address both NOX When we finalized a limited the SO2 BART requirement for EGUs and SO2 BART. disapproval of Texas’ 2009 regional under a BART alternative. The EPA finds that, because this BART B. Interstate Transport of Pollutants haze SIP for its reliance on CAIR alternative will result in SO emissions That Affect Visibility participation as a BART alternative, we 2 did not immediately finalize a CSAPR- from Texas EGUs that will be similar to In our January 5, 2016 final action 29 better-than-BART FIP for Texas, as we emissions anticipated under CSAPR, the we disapproved the portion of Texas’ had proposed for Texas and ultimately alternative is an appropriate approach SIP revisions intended to address finalized for twelve other states. Instead for addressing Texas’ SO2 BART interstate visibility transport for six of finalizing a CSAPR-better-than-BART obligations. NAAQS, including the 1997 8-hour FIP for Texas, the EPA acknowledged Specifically, the BART alternative is 30 ozone and 1997 PM2.5. That that we needed more time to assess the justified ‘‘based on the clear weight of rulemaking was challenged, however, Texas regional haze SIP in regard to the evidence’’ that the alternative and in December 2016, following the aspects other than its reliance on CAIR achieves greater reasonable progress submittal of a request by the EPA for a as an alternative to BART.33 As the EPA than would be achieved through BART. voluntary remand of the parts of the rule has continued to assess how best to See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E). The under challenge, the Fifth Circuit Court address the regional haze obligations for program is designed to accomplish of Appeals remanded the rule in its Texas, Texas has not submitted a SIP environmental and visibility results by entirety without vacatur.31 In our revision to address the prior achieving emission levels that will be January 4, 2017 proposed action we disapproval, so the EPA has a remaining the same as or better than the emission proposed to reconsider the basis of our obligation to address BART levels that would have been obtained by prior disapproval of Texas’ SIP revisions requirements for Texas EGUs. state participation in the interstate addressing interstate visibility transport After assessing how we should CSAPR program as finalized and under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for address BART for Texas EGUs, we amended in 2011 and 2012, which EPA six NAAQS. We proposed that Texas’ believe that our initial 2011 proposal, to first deemed to be better than BART for treat Texas like other similarly situated SIP submittals addressing interstate NOX and SO2 in a 2012 regulatory visibility transport for the six NAAQS CSAPR states, was an appropriate and action.36 The TCEQ and EPA recently were not approvable because they relied regionally consistent approach. As signed a memorandum of agreement solely on Texas’ 2009 Regional Haze SIP discussed above, in 2014, we proposed (MOA) to work together to develop a SIP to ensure that emissions from Texas did that CSAPR would satisfy the NOX and revision addressing interstate visibility not interfere with required measures in SO2 BART requirements for Texas transport requirements and BART 34 other states. Texas’ Regional Haze SIP, EGUs. However, we did not finalize requirements for EGUs with a BART in turn, relied on the implementation of this part of the 2014 proposal in the alternative trading program starting 35 CAIR as an alternative to EGU BART for action taken on January 5, 2016. Given from CSAPR as allowed under the 32 EPA’s response to the D.C. Circuit SO2 and NOX. We proposed a FIP to Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR fully address Texas’ interstate visibility remand of certain CSAPR emission 51.308(e)).37 Texas envisions that the transport obligations for: (1) 1997 8-hour budgets, we can no longer rely on FIP measures that serve to satisfy this CSAPR for Texas’ SO BART ozone, (2) 1997 PM2.5 (annual and 24- 2 BART requirement will be replaced by requirements. Based on comments we hour), (3) 2006 PM2.5 (24-hour), (4) 2008 a future SIP submission following the received in response to our January 8-hour ozone, (5) 2010 1-hour NO2 and approach described in the MOA that 2017 proposal, and giving particular (6) 2010 1-hour SO2. The proposed FIP may be approved as meeting the was based on our finding that our weight to the views expressed by Texas, requirements of the CAA and the proposed action to fully address the we are finalizing various determinations Regional Haze Rule. EPA policy BART requirements for Texas EGUs was to ensure satisfaction of the BART consistently favors that states will adequate to ensure that emissions from requirement for EGUs in Texas. Of exercise their SIP authority to avoid Texas do not interfere with measures to particular note, in making our final need for promulgation and continued protect visibility in nearby states in decision for the SO2 BART requirement implementation of measures under FIP for EGUs, we centered our focus on a authority. In the absence of a SIP to timely comment letter received from the 28 See discussion in Memorandum from Joseph address the SO2 BART requirement for Paisie to Kay Prince, ‘‘Regional Haze Regulations Texas Commission on Environmental Texas EGUs, however, EPA finds it and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Quality (TCEQ) and the Public Utility necessary to address the requirement Technology (BART) Determinations,’’ July 19, 2006. Commission of Texas (PUC). This 29 under its FIP authority, and the details 81 FR 296 (Jan. 5, 2016). comment urged us to consider as a 30 Specifically, we previously disapproved the of how this is addressed and the relevant portion of these Texas’ SIP submittals: BART alternative the concept of accompanying justification are further April 4, 2008: 1997 8-hour Ozone, 1997 PM2.5 (24- discussed below under Section III.A.3, hour and annual); May 1, 2008: 1997 8-hour Ozone, 33 77 FR 33641, 33654 (June 7, 2012). ‘‘SO2 BART.’’ 1997 PM2.5 (24-hour and annual); November 23, 34 79 FR 74817, 74823 (December 16, 2014) (‘‘We 2009: 2006 24-hour PM2.5; December 7, 2012: 2010 propose to replace Texas’ reliance on CAIR to NO2; December 13, 2012: 2008 8-hour Ozone; May satisfy the BART requirement for EGUs with 36 77 FR 33641 (June 7, 2012). 6, 2013: 2010 1-hour SO2 (Primary NAAQS). 79 FR reliance on CSAPR.’’). This part of the 2014 37 See Memorandum of Agreement Between the 74818, 74821; 81 FR 296, 302. proposal was not finalized in the action taken on Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and 31 Texas v. EPA, 829 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2016). January 5, 2016, that has since been remanded by the Environmental Protection Agency Regarding a 32 EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. 81 FR 295. State Implementation Plan to Address Certain F.3d 118, 133–34 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (holding that SIPs 35 Final action taken on January 5, 2016, that has Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport based on CAIR were unapprovable to fulfill good since been remanded by the Fifth Circuit Court of Requirements Pursuant to Sections 110 and 169A neighbor obligations). Appeals. 81 FR 295. of the Clean Air Act, Signed August 14, 2017.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48328 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

The Regional Haze Rule requires that the collection of BART-eligible units at TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF BART- SIP or FIP measures be in place to a facility. Table 1 shows the list of EGUs ELIGIBLE UNITS—Continued ensure that BART is satisfied for all in Texas that are BART-eligible: subject-to-BART EGUs and all haze- Facility Unit causing pollutants. For ease of TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF BART- summarization, we will detail the ELIGIBLE UNITS V H Braunig (CPS Energy) ...... 3. relevant final decisions for each of the WA Parish (NRG) ...... WAP4. WA Parish (NRG) ...... WAP5. haze-causing pollutants: PM, NOX, and Facility Unit 38 WA Parish (NRG) ...... WAP6. SO2. In our final decisions today, the Barney M. Davis (Talen/Topaz) ...... 1. Welsh Power Plant (AEP) ...... 1. relevant BART requirement for all Welsh Power Plant (AEP) ...... 2. BART-eligible coal-fired units and a Big Brown (Luminant) ...... 1. Big Brown (Luminant) ...... 2. Wilkes Power Plant (AEP) ...... 1. number of BART-eligible gas- or gas/fuel Cedar Bayou (NRG) ...... CBY1. Wilkes Power Plant (AEP) ...... 2. oil-fired units will be encompassed by Cedar Bayou (NRG) ...... CBY2. Wilkes Power Plant (AEP) ...... 3. BART alternatives for NOX and SO2 Coleto Creek (Dynegy 40) ...... 1. such that we do not deem it necessary Dansby (City of Bryan) ...... 1. 2. Subject-to-BART Sources to finalize subject-to-BART findings for Decker Creek (Austin Energy) ...... 1. As discussed elsewhere, it is these EGUs for these pollutants. The Decker Creek (Austin Energy) ...... 2. unnecessary to finalize the subject-to- remaining BART-eligible EGUs not Fayette (LCRA) ...... 1. Fayette (LCRA) ...... 2. BART determinations for BART-eligible covered by the SO BART alternative 2 Graham (Luminant) ...... 2. sources that are covered by the BART have been determined to be not subject Greens Bayou (NRG) ...... 5. alternatives for SO and NO . The to BART based on the methodologies 2 X Handley (Exelon) ...... 3. BART alternatives cover both BART- utilizing model plants and CALPUFF Handley (Exelon) ...... 4. eligible and non-BART eligible sources. modeling as described in our proposed Handley (Exelon) ...... 5. This combination provides for greater rule and BART Screening technical Harrington Station (Xcel) ...... 061B. reasonable progress than source-specific support document (TSD). Therefore, we Harrington Station (Xcel) ...... 062B. BART. Even if a unit were individually are approving the portion of the Texas J T Deely (CPS Energy) ...... 1. J T Deely (CPS Energy) ...... 2. found to not be subject to BART, its Regional Haze SIP that addresses the Jones Station (Xcel) ...... 151B. participation in the BART alternative BART requirement for EGUs for PM, we Jones Station (Xcel) ...... 152B. contributes to the finding that the are relying upon Texas EGUs’ continued Knox Lee Power Plant (AEP) ...... 5. program provides greater reasonable participation in the CSAPR program to Lake Hubbard (Luminant) ...... 1. progress than BART. We note that all serve as a BART alternative for NO , Lake Hubbard (Luminant) ...... 2. X BART-eligible EGUs in Texas are either and we are promulgating an intrastate Lewis Creek (Entergy) ...... 1. covered by the BART alternative or have trading FIP to address the SO BART Lewis Creek (Entergy) ...... 2. 2 screened out of being subject to BART. requirements for EGUs. Martin Lake (Luminant) ...... 1. Martin Lake (Luminant) ...... 2. The section below that discusses our 1. BART-Eligible Units Martin Lake (Luminant) ...... 3. final SO2 BART determination lists Monticello (Luminant) ...... 1. those units covered by the BART BART-eligible sources are those Monticello (Luminant) ...... 2. sources which have the potential to emit alternative program and identifies Monticello (Luminant) ...... 3. which of those units are BART-eligible. 250 tons per year or more of a visibility- Newman (El Paso Electric) ...... 2. impairing air pollutant, which were ‘‘in Newman (El Paso Electric) ...... 3. As discussed in section III.A.4 below, existence’’ on August 7, 1977 but not Newman (El Paso Electric) ...... 4. we are approving the portion of the ‘‘in operation’’ before August 7, 1962, Nichols Station (Xcel) ...... 143B. 2009 Texas Regional Haze SIP that and whose operations fall within one or O W Sommers (CPS Energy) ...... 1. determined that no PM BART more of 26 specifically listed source O W Sommers (CPS Energy) ...... 2. determinations are needed for BART- 39 Plant X (Xcel) ...... 4. eligible EGUs in Texas. categories. As discussed in detail in Powerlane (City of Greenville) ...... ST1. our proposal and the BART FIP TSD, For those BART-eligible EGUs that are Powerlane (City of Greenville) ...... ST2. not covered by the BART alternative for our analysis of BART-eligible EGUs Powerlane (City of Greenville) ...... ST3. started with the list of BART-eligible R W Miller (Brazos Elec. Coop) ..... 1. SO2, we are finalizing determinations sources provided by TCEQ in the 2009 R W Miller (Brazos Elec. Coop) ..... 2. that those EGUs are not subject-to-BART Texas Regional Haze SIP. Based on R W Miller (Brazos Elec. Coop) ..... 3. for NOX, SO2 and PM as proposed, additional information from potential Sabine (Entergy) ...... 2. based on the methodologies utilizing BART-eligible sources and the U.S. Sabine (Entergy) ...... 3. model plants and CALPUFF modeling Energy Information Administration Sabine (Entergy) ...... 4. as described in our proposed rule and Sabine (Entergy) ...... 5. (EIA), we converted Texas’ facility- BART Screening TSD. Sim Gideon (LCRA) ...... 1. The following sources are determined specific BART-eligible EGU list to a Sim Gideon (LCRA) ...... 2. unit-specific BART-eligible EGU list, Sim Gideon (LCRA) ...... 3. to be BART-eligible, but not subject-to- eliminated those units that have retired, Spencer (City of Garland) ...... 4. BART: and verified the BART-eligibility of each Spencer (City of Garland) ...... 5. remaining unit. We noted in our Stryker Creek (Luminant) ...... ST2. TABLE 2—SOURCES DETERMINED TO proposal that Texas’ list omitted some Trinidad (Luminant) ...... 6. BE BART-ELIGIBLE BUT NOT SUB- Ty Cooke (City of Lubbock) ...... 1. sources that we had identified as BART- JECT-TO-BART FOR NOX, SO2, AND Ty Cooke (City of Lubbock) ...... 2. eligible. We are finalizing the V H Braunig (CPS Energy) ...... 1. PM identification of BART-eligible units as V H Braunig (CPS Energy) ...... 2. proposed. A ‘‘BART-eligible source’’ is Facility Units

40 Dynegy purchased the Coleto Creek power Barney M. Davis (Talen/ 1. 38 In this action, we did not consider VOCs and plant from Engie in February, 2017. Note that ammonia among visibility-impairing pollutants for Coleto Creek may still be listed as being owned by Topaz). several reasons, as discussed in the TSD. Engie in some of our supporting documentation Cedar Bayou (NRG) ...... CBY1 & CBY2. 39 40 CFR 51.301. which was prepared before that sale. Dansby (City of Bryan) ...... 1.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48329

TABLE 2—SOURCES DETERMINED TO TABLE 2—SOURCES DETERMINED TO transport requirements and is part of the BE BART-ELIGIBLE BUT NOT SUB- BE BART-ELIGIBLE BUT NOT SUB- long-term strategy to meet the reasonable progress requirements of the JECT-TO-BART FOR NOX, SO2, AND JECT-TO-BART FOR NOX, SO2, AND PM—Continued PM—Continued Regional Haze Rule. The combination of the source Facility Units Facility Units coverage for this program, the total allocations for EGUs covered by the Decker Creek (Austin En- 1 & 2. V H Braunig (CPS Energy) 1, 2 & 3. program, and recent and foreseeable ergy). emissions from EGUs not covered by the Greens Bayou (NRG) ...... 5. 3. SO2 BART program will result in future EGU Handley (Exelon) ...... 3, 4 & 5. emissions in Texas that are similar to Jones (Xcel) ...... 151B & 152B. Knox Lee (AEP) ...... 5. The BART alternative will achieve the SO2 emission levels forecast in the Lake Hubbard (Luminant) .. 1 & 2. SO2 emission levels that are 2012 better-than-BART demonstration Lewis Creek (Entergy) ...... 1 & 2. functionally equivalent to those for Texas EGU emissions assuming Nichols Station (Xcel) ...... 143B. projected for Texas’ participation in the CSAPR participation. In line with the Plant X (Xcel) ...... 4. original CSAPR program. The BART comment from the TCEQ/PUC, we are Powerlane (City of Green- ST1, ST2 & alternative applies the CSAPR finalizing a BART alternative that will ville). ST3. allowance allocations for SO2 to all encompass the SO2 BART requirements R W Miller (Brazos Elec. 1, 2 & 3. BART-eligible coal-fired EGUs, several for coal-fired EGUs and a number of gas- Coop). Sabine (Entergy) ...... 2, 3, 4 & 5. additional coal-fired EGUs, and several and gas/fuel oil-fired EGUs under a Sim Gideon (LCRA) ...... 1, 2 & 3. BART-eligible gas-fired and gas/fuel oil- program that will include the sources in Spencer (City of Garland) 4 & 5. fired EGUs. In addition to being a the following table. See Section V.B for Trinidad (Luminant) ...... 6. sufficient alternative to BART, it secures a discussion on identification of Ty Cooke (City of Lubbock) 1 & 2. reductions consistent with visibility participating sources.

TABLE 3—TEXAS EGUS SUBJECT TO THE FIP SO2 TRADING PROGRAM

Owner/operator Units BART-eligible

AEP ...... Welsh Power Plant Unit 1 ...... Yes. Welsh Power Plant Unit 2 ...... Yes. Welsh Power Plant Unit 3 ...... No. H W Pirkey Power Plant Unit 1 ...... No. Wilkes Unit 1 * ...... Yes. Wilkes Unit 2 * ...... Yes. Wilkes Unit 3 * ...... Yes. CPS Energy ...... JT Deely Unit 1 ...... Yes. JT Deely Unit 2 ...... Yes. Sommers Unit 1 * ...... Yes. Sommers Unit 2 * ...... Yes. Dynegy ...... Coleto Creek Unit 1 ...... Yes. LCRA ...... Fayette/Sam Seymour Unit 1 ...... Yes. Fayette/Sam Seymour Unit 2 ...... Yes. Luminant ...... Big Brown Unit 1 ...... Yes. Big Brown Unit 2 ...... Yes. Martin Lake Unit 1 ...... Yes. Martin Lake Unit 2 ...... Yes. Martin Lake Unit 3 ...... Yes. Monticello Unit 1 ...... Yes. Monticello Unit 2 ...... Yes. Monticello Unit 3 ...... Yes. Sandow Unit 4 ...... No. Stryker ST2 * ...... Yes. Graham Unit 2 * ...... Yes. NRG ...... Limestone Unit 1 ...... No. Limestone Unit 2 ...... No. WA Parish Unit WAP4 * ...... Yes. WA Parish Unit WAP5 ...... Yes. WA Parish Unit WAP6 ...... Yes. WA Parish Unit WAP7 ...... No. Xcel ...... Tolk Station Unit 171B ...... No. Tolk Station Unit 172B ...... No. Harrington Unit 061B ...... Yes. Harrington Unit 062B ...... Yes. Harrington Unit 063B ...... No. El Paso Electric ...... Newman Unit 2 * ...... Yes. Newman Unit 3 * ...... Yes. Newman Unit 4 * ...... Yes. * Gas-fired or gas/fuel oil-fired units.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48330 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

This BART alternative includes all rules and program design of CSAPR, but the SO2 BART FIP for Texas’ BART- BART-eligible coal-fired units in Texas, applying them for Texas only, we are eligible EGUs participating in the additional coal-fired EGUs, and some proceeding with the commenters’, trading program will achieve greater additional BART-eligible gas and gas/ including the State of Texas’, suggested reasonable progress than BART with fuel oil-fired units. Moreover, we consideration for SO2 BART coverage respect to SO2. BART-eligible EGUs not believe that the differences in source for EGUs by means of a BART participating in the program are coverage between CSAPR and this alternative under an intrastate trading demonstrated to not cause or contribute BART alternative are either not program. As with any FIP, we also to visibility impairment, and we are significant or, in fact, work to would welcome Texas submitting a finalizing our determination in this demonstrate the relative stringency of future SIP, as discussed in the MOA, action that these units are not subject to the BART alternative as compared to that meets the Regional Haze Rule and BART. CSAPR (See Section V of this preamble the Act’s requirements so as to enable The Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR for detailed information). This relative future withdrawal of this FIP-based 51.308(e)(2)(iii) requires that the stringency can be understood in BART alternative.43 emission reductions from BART reference to the following points: In 2014 we had originally proposed alternatives occur ‘‘during the period of A. Covered sources under the BART that CSAPR would satisfy the SO2 BART the first long-term strategy for regional 44 alternative in this FIP represent 89% 41 requirement for Texas EGUs. haze.’’ The SO2 BART alternative that of all SO2 emissions from all Texas Although we never finalized that EPA is finalizing here will be EGUs in 2016, and approximately 85% proposal, functionally, the final implemented beginning in January of CSAPR allocations for existing units decision relies on substantially the same 2019, and thus emission reductions in Texas. technical elements. In contrast to the needed to meet the allowance B. The remaining 11% (100 minus 89) 2014 proposal, however, we are not allocations must take place by the end of 2016 emissions from sources not finalizing this SO2 BART alternative as of 2019. For the purpose of evaluating covered by the BART alternative come meeting the terms of 40 CFR Texas’s BART alternative, the end of the from gas units that rarely burn fuel oil 51.308(e)(4), as amended, because that first planning period of the first long- or coal-fired units that on average are regulatory provision, by its terms, term strategy for Texas is 2021. This is better controlled for SO2 than the provides BART coverage for pollutants a result of recent changes to the regional covered sources and generally are less covered by the CSAPR trading program haze regulation, revising the relevant to visibility impairment. (A in the State but on September 21, 2017, requirement for states to submit fuller discussion of this point is EPA finalized its proposed action to revisions to their long-term strategy 46 provided in Section V of this preamble.) remove Texas from the CSAPR SO2 from 2018 to 2021. Therefore, the 45 As such, any shifting of generation to trading program. Instead we are emission reductions from the Texas SO2 non-covered sources, as might occur if relying on the BART alternative option trading program will be realized prior to a covered source reduces its operation provided under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). that date and within the period of in order to remain within its SO2 The BART alternative being finalized Texas’ first long-term strategy for emissions allowance allocation, would today is supported by our determination regional haze. result in less emissions to generate the that the clear weight of the evidence is In promulgating the regulatory terms same amount of electricity. that the trading program achieves and rules for implementing the BART C. Furthermore, the non-inclusion of greater reasonable progress than BART. alternative, we are mindful of the a large number of gas-fired units that The BART alternative is designed to minimally required elements for a rarely burn fuel oil reduces the amount achieve SO2 emission levels from Texas BART alternative emissions trading of available allowances for units that sources similar to the SO2 emission program that are specified in the would typically and collectively be levels that would have been achieved provisions of 40 CFR expected to use only a fraction of under CSAPR. By a quantitative and 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A)–(L). In general, these CSAPR emissions allowances. Many of qualitative assessment of the operation types of provisions are foundational, in these sources typically emit at levels of the BART alternative, we are able to a generic sense, to the establishment of much lower than their allocation level. conclude that emission levels will be on allowance markets. CSAPR is a Sources not participating in the program average no greater than the emission prominent example of such an may choose to opt in, thereby increasing levels from Texas EGUs that would have allowance market, and by transferring the number of available allowances. been realized from the SO2 trading and generally incorporating program This will serve to make the program program under CSAPR. (See Section V rules and terms from the well-tested more closely resemble CSAPR. of this preamble for detailed provisions of CSAPR we have ensured D. The BART alternative does not information). Accordingly, by the that the BART alternative will conform allow purchasing of allowances from measure of CSAPR better than BART, in detail and coverage to the breadth of out-of-state sources. Emission provisions that are needed for an projections under CAIR and CSAPR 43 See Memorandum of Agreement Between the emissions trading program covered by a showed that Texas sources were Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and cap (See Section V of this preamble for the Environmental Protection Agency Regarding a additional discussion). To the extent anticipated to purchase allowances from State Implementation Plan to Address Certain out-of-state sources.42 Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport that Texas would submit a future SIP Based on these points, and borrowing Requirements Pursuant to Sections 110 and 169A revision under its SIP authority to to the greatest extent possible from the of the Clean Air Act, signed August 14, 2017. implement SO2 BART or an SO2 BART 44 79 FR 74817, 74823 (December 16, 2014) (‘‘We alternative for its EGUs as described in propose to replace Texas’ reliance on CAIR to 41 In 2016, 218,291 tons of SO2 were emitted from satisfy the BART requirement for EGUs with the MOA to meet the Regional Haze sources included in the program and 27,446 tons reliance on CSAPR.’’). This part of the 2014 Rule and CAA requirements, it may look from other EGUs (11.1%). proposal was not finalized in the action taken on to the provisions promulgated under FIP 42 See CAIR 2018 emission projections of January 5, 2016, that has since been remanded by authority or it may examine its approximately 350,000 tons SO2 emitted from Texas the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. 81 FR 295. EGUs compared to CAIR budget for Texas of 45 See final action signed September 21, 2017 flexibilities and the extent of its 225,000 tons. See section 10 of the 2009 Texas available at regulations.gov in Docket No. EPA–HQ– Regional Haze SIP. OAR–2016–0598. 46 82 FR 3078 (Jan. 10, 2017).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48331

discretion regarding essential provisions BART-eligible sources: Coleto Creek and D is the distance to the nearest detailed at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi). Unit 1 (Dynegy), Dansby Unit 1 (City of receptor of a Class I area. If the Q/D ratio Bryan), Greens Bayou Unit 5 (NRG), of Coleto Creek is smaller than the ratios 4. PM BART Handley Units 3,4, and 5 (Excelon), for the two modeling results (Fayette In our January 2017 proposal, we Lake Hubbard Units 1 and 2 (Luminant), and Sommers Deely) then Coleto Creek proposed to disapprove Texas’ technical Plant X Unit 4 (Xcel), Powerlane Units impacts can be estimated as less than evaluation and determination that PM ST1, ST2, and ST3 (City of Greenville), the impacts of these source(s) and thus BART emission limits are not required R W Miller Units 1, 2, and 3 (Brazos be screened out. We evaluated the for any of Texas’ EGUs. The Texas Elec.), Spencer Units 4 and 5 (City of closest Class I Areas (Big Bend, Regional Haze SIP included a pollutant- Garland), and Stryker Creek Unit ST2 Guadalupe Mountains, Carlsbad, specific screening analysis for PM to (Luminant). In our proposal, we used Wichita Mountains, and Caney Creek) demonstrate that Texas EGUs were not CALPUFF modeling and a model-plant and the Q/D ratios were: Coleto Creek subject to BART for PM. This approach analysis and found that all of these (0.59–0.86), Fayette (4.25–6.1), and was consistent with a 2006 guidance facilities except Coleto Creek and Sommers Deely (6.0–10.05).52 The Q/D document 47 in which the EPA stated Stryker Creek had impacts from NOX, ratio for Fayette is 6 to 8 times larger that pollutant-specific screening can be SO2 and PM below the BART screening than for Coleto Creek, while the Q/D appropriate where a state is relying on level.49 CALPUFF modeling showed ratio for Sommers Deely is 9 to 11.6 a BART alternative to address both NOX that Stryker Creek Unit ST2 had a times higher than for Coleto Creek. and SO BART. Because we proposed to visibility impact of 0.786 dv from NO , 2 X Therefore, if we were to model the PM address SO BART on a source-specific SO2 and PM. However, Stryker Creek 2 impacts from Coleto Creek, they would basis, however, Texas’ pollutant-specific Unit ST2 is now covered by a BART be an order of magnitude smaller than screening was not appropriate and we alternative for NOX and SO2, so we the impacts from these facilities, which proposed source-specific PM BART evaluated the visibility impact of are well below the threshold of 0.5 dv. emission limits consistent with existing Stryker Creek Unit ST2’s PM emissions practices and controls. In this final alone. The CALPUFF modeling files and Therefore, Coleto Creek is not subject to action, we are not finalizing source- spreadsheets included in our proposal BART for PM emissions. specific SO2 BART determinations. indicate that light extinction from PM In finalizing an approval of Texas’ Instead, for the majority of Texas’ (PMFine and PMCoarse) is less than 1% of determinations regarding PM BART, we BART-eligible EGUs, we are relying on total light extinction at all Class I areas. offer one additional note. We originally BART alternatives for both SO2 and Therefore, because the visibility impact proposed to approve Texas’ screening 53 NOX emissions. Therefore, we now of PM emissions from Stryker Creek approach in 2014, and our final action conclude that Texas’ pollutant-specific Unit ST2 would be a small fraction of today essentially conforms to our screening analysis was appropriate. All 0.786 dv (roughly 1%), the source is not technical evaluation in that proposal. of the BART-eligible sources subject to BART for PM under EPA’s 5. NO BART participating in the intrastate trading 2006 guidance. X We also evaluated the potential program have visibility impacts from We are finalizing our proposed visibility impact of PM emissions from PM alone below the subject-to-BART determination that Texas EGUs’ 48 Coleto Creek Unit 1 using the CAMx threshold of 0.5 deciviews (dv). continued participation in the CSAPR Furthermore, the BART-eligible sources modeling that Texas used for PM BART screening of its EGU sources in its SIP.50 program for interstate transport for not participating in the intrastate ozone will serve as a BART alternative trading program screened out of BART Specifically, we evaluated the modeling for NOX for EGUs in the State of Texas. for all visibility impairing pollutants. As results for two facilities (LCRA Fayette and Sommers Deely) with stack Our action to address NOX BART for such, we are approving the portion of EGUs as it applies to Texas is based on the Texas Regional Haze SIP that parameters similar to Coleto Creek’s, but which are located closer to Class I Areas two other recent rulemakings determined that PM BART emission concerning CSAPR. The first is the limits are not required for any Texas than Coleto Creek. Texas grouped the LCRA Fayette Facility in Group 2 of rulemaking to update CSAPR to address EGUs. interstate transport of ozone pollution As we explained in the January 2017 their PM screening modeling along with other sources and found that their with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, proposal, the Texas Regional Haze SIP which established a new ozone season did not evaluate PM impacts from all maximum aggregate impacts at all Class budget for NO emissions in Texas.54 BART-eligible EGUs. We have evaluated I areas were less than 0.25 deciviews X The second is the determination that and determined this omission does not (dv). Texas also explicitly modeled the CSAPR continues to be a better than affect Texas’ conclusion that no BART- City Public Service Sommers Deely BART alternative, on a pollutant eligible EGUs should be subject-to- Facility’s PM impacts. Maximum specific basis, for states that participate BART for PM emissions. In our impacts at all Class I areas from in the CSAPR program as it now proposal, we identified several facilities Sommers Deely were less than 0.32 dv. exists.55 Because our FIP relies on as BART-eligible that Texas did not To extend these model results to Coleto CSAPR as a BART alternative for NO identify as BART eligible in the Texas Creek, we used the Q/D ratio where Q X 51 for Texas EGUs, we are not required in Regional Haze SIP. Specifically, we is the maximum annual PM emissions identified the following additional this action to promulgate source-specific 49 EPA’s Proposal screened out Dansby, Greens Bayou, Handley, Lake Hubbard, Plant X, Powerlane, daily PM emission rate and then calculating the 47 See discussion in Memorandum from Joseph R W Miller, and Spencer using CALPUFF direct 2.5 Paisie to Kay Prince, ‘‘Regional Haze Regulations modeling and Model Plants. total emissions in tons per year if this max daily rate happened every day. and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit 50 Environ Report—‘‘Final Report Screening 52 _ _ _ Technology (BART) Determinations,’’ July 19, 2006. Analysis of Potential BART-Eligible Sources in See ‘Coleto Creek Screen analysis.xlsx.’ 48 53 Stryker Creek is covered by CSAPR for NOX Texas’’, September 27, 2006; ‘‘Addendum 1—BART See 79 FR 74817, 74848 (Dec. 16, 2014). 54 and by the SO2 trading program but was not Exemption Screening Analysis’’, Draft December 6, 81 FR 74504 (Oct. 16, 2016). included in the 2009 Regional Haze SIP. How 2006; and ‘‘BARTmodelingparameters V2.csv’’. 55 See final action signed September 21, 2017 Stryker Creek is screened out for PM is discussed 51 This is calculated by using the maximum daily available at regulations.gov in Docket No. EPA–HQ– below. PM10 daily emission rate, adding the maximum OAR–2016–0598.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48332 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

NOX BART determinations for those interprets interstate visibility transport number of banked allowances and sources. to be pollutant-specific, such that the number of allowances that can be We note that Texas may opt to use its infrastructure SIP submission need only allocated in a control period from the SIP planning authority, as was noted in address the potential for interference supplemental pool. Sources not covered its 2009 Regional Haze SIP in a similar with protection of visibility caused by by the program emitted less than 27,500 context, to address the NOX BART the pollutant (including precursors) to tons of SO2 in 2016 and are not requirement for EGUs without relying which the new or revised NAAQS projected to significantly increase from on CSAPR. If Texas instead wishes to applies.59 The 2013 Guidance lays out this level. Any new units would be rely upon the CSAPR program to two ways in which a state’s required to be well controlled and address the NOX BART requirement, it infrastructure SIP submittal may satisfy similar to the existing units not covered may submit a SIP revision to establish interstate visibility transport. One way by the program, they would not its reliance on the program to satisfy the is through a state’s confirmation in its significantly increase total emissions of requirement for NOX BART for EGUs. infrastructure SIP submittal that it has SO2. Additionally, this FIP relies on By using the SIP pathway, Texas would an EPA approved regional haze SIP in CSAPR as an alternative to EGU BART be exercising the primary responsibility place. In the absence of a fully approved for NOX, which exceeds the emissions for air pollution control that is regional haze SIP, a demonstration that reductions relied upon by other states embodied in the Act. See CAA section emissions within a state’s jurisdiction during consultation. As such, this BART 101(a)(3). Recognizing that the 2009 do not interfere with other states’ plans FIP is sufficient to address the interstate Regional Haze SIP did not, by its terms, to protect visibility meets this visibility transport requirement under provide an approvable means to address requirement. Such a demonstration CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the the requirement, however, we are now should point to measures that limit six NAAQS. required to exercise our FIP authority to visibility-impairing pollutants and C. Reasonable Progress address it.56 We are therefore finalizing ensure that the resulting reductions the determination as proposed. conform with any mutually agreed This final action is part of the long- emission reductions under the relevant term strategy for Texas and will B. Interstate Transport of Pollutants contribute to making reasonable That Affect Visibility regional haze regional planning organization (RPO) process.60 progress toward natural visibility We are finalizing our proposal to To develop its 2009 Regional Haze conditions at Texas’ and downwind disapprove Texas’ SIP revisions SIP, TCEQ worked through its RPO, the Class I areas. However, the EPA is not addressing interstate visibility transport Central Regional Air Planning determining at this time that this final under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for Association (CENRAP), to develop action fully resolves the EPA’s six NAAQS. As explained further in our strategies to address regional haze, outstanding obligations with respect to proposal, Texas’ infrastructure SIPs for which at that time were based on reasonable progress that resulted from these six NAAQS relied on the 2009 emissions reductions from CAIR. To the Fifth Circuit’s remand of our Regional Haze SIP, including its help states in establishing reasonable reasonable progress FIP. We intend to reliance on CAIR as an alternative to progress goals for improving visibility in take future action to address the Fifth EGU BART for SO2 and NOX to meet the Class I areas, the CENRAP modeled Circuit’s remand. interstate visibility transport future visibility conditions based on the requirements.57 We are finalizing a FIP IV. Summary and Analysis of Major mutually agreed emissions reductions Issues Raised by Commenters to fully address Texas’ interstate from each state. The CENRAP states visibility transport obligations for the then relied on this modeling in setting We received both written and oral following six NAAQS: (1) 1997 8-hour their respective reasonable progress comments at the public hearings we ozone, (2) 1997 PM2.5 (annual and 24 goals. held in Austin. We also received hour), (3) 2006 PM2.5 (24-hour), (4) 2008 This FIP is adequate to ensure that comments by the internet and the mail. 8-hour ozone, (5) 2010 1-hour NO2 and emissions from Texas do not interfere The full text of comments received from (6) 2010 1-hour SO2. with measures to protect visibility in these commenters, except what was An EPA guidance document (2013 nearby states because the BART FIP claimed as CBI, is included in the Guidance) on infrastructure SIP emission reductions are consistent with publicly posted docket associated with elements states that CAA section the level of emissions reductions relied this action at www.regulations.gov. The 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)’s interstate visibility upon by other states during CBI cannot be posted to transport requirements can be satisfied consultation. The 2009 Texas Regional www.regulations.gov, but is part of the by approved SIP provisions that the Haze SIP relied on CAIR to meet SO2 record of this action. We reviewed all EPA has found to adequately address a and NOX BART requirements. Under public comments that we received on state’s contribution to visibility CAIR, Texas EGU sources were the proposed action. Below we provide impairment in other states.58 The EPA projected to emit approximately 350,000 a summary of certain comments and our tpy of SO2. As discussed elsewhere, responses. First, we provide a summary 56 As explained in our proposal, our ongoing Texas EGU emissions for sources of all of the relevant technical authority and obligation to address the NOX BART comments we received and our requirement for Texas EGUs under CAA section covered by the trading program will be 110(c) traces to EPA’s limited disapproval of the constrained by the number of available responses to these comments. We do not 2009 Texas Regional Haze SIP in 2012 due to the allowances. Average annual emissions consider some of the technical State’s reliance on the remanded and replaced CAIR for the covered sources will be less than comments as relevant to the final action. as an alternative to NOX BART. See also EME For these comments we provide a brief Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, or equal to 248,393 tons with some year 133–34 (D.C. Cir. 2015) holding that SIPs based on to year variability constrained by the summary of the comments and a CAIR were unapprovable to fulfill good neighbor discussion as to why they are not obligations. 59 See Id., at 33. relevant. Second, we provide a 57 82 FR 912, 916 (Jan. 4, 2017). 60 See Id., at 34, and 76 FR 22036 (April 20, 2011) summary below of the more significant 58 See ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State containing EPA’s approval of the visibility legal comments with a summary of our Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) based on a Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)’’ included in the demonstration by Colorado that did not rely on the responses. All of the legal comments we docket for this action. Colorado Regional Haze SIP. received that are relevant to our final

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48333

action are found in a separate BART. These types of cap approaches path for finalizing a BART solution for document, titled the Legal Response To allow companies to consider a broader Texas EGUs. Indeed, EPA’s only lawful Comments (RTC) document. Therefore, range of alternative strategies. Under a path forward to finalize a BART FIP for if additional information is desired FIP with only unit-by-unit rate-based Texas by the current September 9, 2017 concerning how we addressed a limits, as proposed by EPA, such an deadline in EPA’s consent decree with particular legal comment, the reader alternative strategy would not be Sierra Club is to finalize a CSAPR-for- should refer to the Legal RTC document. allowed and EPA would have to revise BART FIP for Texas EGUs, as EPA Third, we provide a summary of the its FIP to allow the company to pursue proposed to do in December 2014. That more significant/relevant modeling the alternative. A similar approach proposal was not withdrawn, remains a related comments with a summary of using system-caps would provide valid and defensible alternative, is our responses. The entirety of the additional flexibility for companies. If supported by the record and prior EPA modeling comments and our responses the EPA is averse to creating a system- technical analyses, and has been fully thereto are contained in a separate cap trading program for a single state, an vetted with substantial public review document titled the Modeling RTC alternative would be to allow for a state and comments. document. system-cap trading program that would Response: Due to these comments allow companies to trade between A. Comments on Relying on CSAPR for requesting a BART alternative in lieu of systems once the EPA has approved the source-specific EGU BART, we are SO2 BART or Developing an Intrastate state program. finalizing an intrastate SO2 trading SO2 Trading Program We received a comment from program as an alternative to source-by- Comment: We received comments American Electric Power (AEP) stating source BART and to meet the interstate from TCEQ that our proposed SO2 that in the proposed Texas BART FIP, visibility transport requirements. This controls for the coal-fired power plants EPA states that it encourages Texas to program will provide the commenters, represents more control than is consider adopting SIP provisions that and other owners of covered EGUs, with necessary to satisfy BART. The EPA would allow EPA to fully approve the many of the benefits that they attributed should consider an alternate control Regional Haze SIP with respect to to CSAPR. The premise in the comment approach for these BART-affected units Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility that Texas EGUs are subject to CSAPR’s using source or system caps. Because Transport. AEP also suggests that SO2 trading program is no longer true, the CSAPR level of control is better than alternatively, Texas may also elect to given our recent action to remove Texas BART, the EPA should have considered satisfy its obligations by demonstrating from that trading program.61 Hence, we an equivalent control level in its BART an alternative. Although AEP views the cannot take the commenter’s analysis. For example, a potential most expeditious resolution for recommended action of addressing SO2 alternative is the concept of system- satisfying BART is finalization of BART through reliance on CSAPR. wide emission caps using CSAPR CSAPR as a better-than-BART allocations. A SO2 system-cap approach alternative, AEP would also welcome B. Comments on Source-Specific BART for BART would be based on and support working with the State and Comment: We received a number of establishing a cap on all the BART EPA to develop a satisfactory BART comments in favor or against our subject units under common ownership compliance alternative. For example, proposals regarding BART-eligibility and control based on CSAPR allocations AEP is open to consideration of a cap status, subject-to-BART status, and to those specific units. System-wide and trade program or other option for source-specific BART technologies and caps for these BART subject units based BART compliance. AEP is prepared to emission limits. Some were general and on CSAPR allocations would provide engage in such discussions as soon as some were very specific. flexibility while actually being more possible. Response: Due to the comments we stringent than CSAPR because the We also received a comment from received requesting a BART alternative companies would not have the ability to Luminant stating that the EPA can and in lieu of source-specific BART trade allocations with non-BART should address BART for Texas, not determinations, we are finalizing an facilities or with companies in other through EPA-mandated controls on intrastate SO2 trading program as an states. Furthermore, the EPA has individual units but through one of alternative to source-by-source BART approved system-cap approaches under several available BART alternatives that and to meet the interstate visibility

the TCEQ’s Chapter 117 rules for NOX. will ensure equivalent or greater transport requirements. As a If such an approach using CSAPR benefits at far less costs, as consequence, we believe that it is not allocations or some other similar demonstrated by EPA’s own prior necessary to respond to comments variation can be demonstrated to be analyses of Texas EGUs’ emissions. concerning the merits of the proposed more stringent than CSAPR itself, then Among those available alternatives is source-specific BART technologies and the EPA’s CSAPR-is-better-than-BART EPA’s original proposed BART plan for emission limits. Comments related to determination should satisfy some of EGUs in Texas—reliance on Texas BART-eligibility status and subject-to- the demonstration requirements for EGUs’ participation in the CSAPR BART status are addressed elsewhere in BART alternatives. Even if not based on annual SO and NO trading programs 2 X this preamble. CSAPR allocations, the EPA should as BART compliance. Since CSAPR consider a source-cap or system cap became effective in 2015, SO2 emissions C. Comments on EPA’s Proposed SIP approach as an alternative to unit-by- from Texas EGUs have declined Disapprovals unit rate-based standards. Source and substantially and are well below the Comment: The root of EPA’s flawed system cap strategies achieve equivalent levels that EPA previously determined proposal is EPA’s departure from the reductions by setting mass-based limits are ‘‘better-than-BART.’’ EPA itself cooperative federalism principles (e.g., ton per day) for a group of units calculated ‘‘major visibility underlying the Clean Air Act. The State derived from rate-based standards and improvements at Class I areas in and of Texas developed its regional haze SIP baseline levels of activity for the units. around Texas’’ from the CSAPR-for- In this context, the rate-based standards BART alternative for Texas. The 61 See final action signed September 21, 2017 used to set the caps would be the CSAPR-for-BART alternative remains available at regulations.gov in Docket No. EPA–HQ– emission rates determined to represent the most expeditious and cost effective OAR–2016–0598.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48334 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

after years of work, technical analysis, and responses, we refer the reader to interstate visibility transport and coordination with other States. For this separate document. requirements and BART requirements BART, Texas relied on the participation for EGUs with a BART alternative 1. EPA’s Obligation and Authority To of Texas EGUs in CAIR and EPA’s trading program starting from CSAPR.63 Promulgate a FIP determination that CAIR was better- However, without such a SIP, the Clean than-BART. EPA should have approved Comment: Texas’ and industry’s Air Act requires a promulgation of a FIP Texas’s SIP at the time because it challenge to CSAPR does not relieve to address the outstanding BART and complied with all statutory EPA of its mandatory duty to issue a interstate transport requirements. requirements and was supported by source-specific BART FIP for Texas. Comment: Texas’s decision to not EPA’s own modeling. In no way does Although EPA would have permitted meet the BART requirements for its the Proposed Texas BART FIP—which Texas to rely on CSAPR’s modest cap- EGUs through voluntary participation in starts over from scratch and creates an and-trade program to avoid source- CSAPR does not relieve EPA of its entirely new approach to BART for specific BART controls, Texas, mandatory duty to issue a source- Texas EGUs—respect the State’s Luminant, AEP, and Southwestern specific BART FIP for Texas. Even if primary role under the statute. At a Public Service Company all chose to Texas were willing to voluntarily minimum, to more closely align with challenge CSAPR. They were ultimately incorporate EPA’s invalidated CSAPR the State of Texas’s original choice to successful in defeating EPA’s inclusion emission budgets into its SIP, the state meet BART through a regional trading of Texas in the program for SO2 and cannot simply opt in and avoid source- program, EPA should now finalize its ozone-season NOX. Ever since the D.C. specific BART. Because Texas cannot prior proposal that CSAPR serve as a Circuit remanded the Texas NOX and reverse course and adopt emissions complete BART alternative for Texas SO2 budgets to EPA in July 2015, Texas budgets that it demonstrated were EGUs. has been on notice that source-specific unnecessary, as a matter of law, and Response: Our action in 2012 to BART could well be necessary to meet because the agency cannot achieve ‘‘all’’ disapprove Texas’ 2009 SIP submission its BART obligations. Yet Texas has not of the CSAPR reductions by 2018 (the due to its reliance on CAIR is not the put forward either a new interstate end of the first planning period), it subject of this rulemaking and we do transport SIP to replace CSAPR or a new cannot voluntarily adopt CSAPR. not address here the comment opposing BART SIP to address the Regional Haze Response: We agree that we have a that final action. We agree that CSAPR Rule. mandatory duty to address the BART continues to be available on a pollutant- Response: We agree that we have a requirement for Texas EGUs, but we do specific basis as a BART alternative for mandatory duty to address the BART not agree that we must address it participating states for those pollutants requirements for Texas EGUs but we do through a source-specific BART FIP. We subject to trading by CSAPR program not agree that we must address these understand this comment to refer to a participation; hence, we are finalizing a requirements through a FIP establishing hypothetical scenario based on the determination that CSAPR is better than source specific BART limits. We development and submission of a SIP by understand the comment to be Texas providing for voluntary BART for NOX at Texas EGUs. However, the premise in the comment that Texas referencing the court action, EME participation in CSAPR as a means of EGUs are subject to CSAPR’s SO Homer City Generation v. EPA, 795 F.3d addressing the SO2 and/or NOX BART 2 118 (D.C. Cir., July 28, 2015). At all trading program is no longer true, given requirements for Texas EGUs. The times since the original submission of our recent action to remove them from possibility of such an option was the 2009 Regional Haze SIP, Texas has that trading program.62 Hence, we detailed in a June 27, 2016 been entitled to submit updated or new cannot take the specific action memorandum entitled, ‘‘The U.S. SIP revisions to address BART or recommended in this comment. Due to Environmental Protection Agency’s Plan interstate transport. A State is also these comments requesting a BART for Responding to the Remand of the entitled to submit a SIP that may be alternative in lieu of source-specific Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Phase 2 approved to replace a FIP after a FIP’s EGU BART determinations, we are, SO2 Budgets for Alabama, Georgia, promulgation. When and whether Texas however, finalizing a SO South Carolina and Texas.’’ That 2 trading has been ‘‘on notice’’ regarding a program as an alternative to source-by- memorandum was provided and potential need for source-specific BART available to Texas and other states. source BART and as meeting the is not material to the present need to interstate visibility requirements. Several other states have pursued this address the EGU BART requirements option, but Texas has not, and it is not D. Legal Comments through either a SIP or FIP. We do note within the scope of our proposal. We are We received comments addressing that the 2009 Regional Haze SIP stated, not opining on the operation of state law EPA’s authority to promulgate a Federal ‘‘The TCEQ will take appropriate action or otherwise responding to this Implementation Plan (FIP), the use of if CAIR is not replaced with a system comment. We address the issue of CSAPR as a better-than-BART that the US EPA considers to be whether emission reductions from a alternative, cooperative federalism, equivalent to BART.’’ See 2009 SIP at 9– BART alternative must be achieved by deference to the State, the new 1. The 2009 SIP further acknowledged, 2018 in our response to another Administration’s policies, Executive ‘‘Some EGUs may become subject to comment. Orders, and litigation. These comments, BART pending resolution of the CAIR at Comment: EPA withdrawal of Texas and the response to comments, can be the federal level.’’ See 2009 SIP at 9–17. from CSAPR does not relieve EPA of its found in the document titled Legal RTC As circumstances now apply to Texas mandatory duty to issue a source- in the docket for this action. Below is a (and, as this comment suggests, may specific BART FIP for Texas. After summary of some of the more have been earlier projected), the State significant comments we received. For a can take appropriate action to develop 63 See Memorandum of Agreement Between the detailed review of all legal comments a SIP to address the EGU BART and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and interstate visibility transport the Environmental Protection Agency Regarding a State Implementation Plan to Address Certain 62 See final action signed September 21, 2017 requirements. The TCEQ and EPA Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport available at regulations.gov in Docket No. EPA–HQ– recently signed a MOA to work together Requirements Pursuant to Sections 110 and 169A OAR–2016–0598. to develop a SIP revision addressing of the Clean Air Act, Signed August 14, 2017.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48335

having given Texas four months’ notice Response: The legal and technical needed to meet the allowance of its intent to fully withdraw the state determinations of the CSAPR-Better- allocations must take place by the end from the CSAPR program, and made than-BART rule are subject to judicial of 2019. For the purpose of evaluating clear the implication that there would review under existing challenges and a Texas’s BART alternative, the end of the no longer be any doubt that Texas separate administrative record, as first planning period of the first long- sources would need to comply with indicated by the comment. Any term strategy for Texas is 2021. This is source-specific BART obligations, EPA challenges raised with regard to the a result of recent changes to the regional formally issued its proposal to withdraw present rulemaking and outside that haze regulation, revising the its federal plan to include Texas in the litigation may be time-barred or directed requirement for states to submit CSAPR emissions trading program one to the wrong forum. As such, we do not revisions to their long-term strategy month before issuing the BART believe that the incorporation of from 2018 to 2021.64 Therefore, the proposal. 81 FR 78954 (Nov. 10, 2016). arguments from a brief filed with the emission reductions from the Texas SO2 EPA again made clear the situation: ‘‘[I]f D.C. Circuit concerning a separate trading program will be realized prior to and when this [CSAPR withdrawal] regulatory determination warrants that date and within the period of proposal is finalized, Texas will no responses here, in this rulemaking, and Texas’ first long-term strategy for longer be eligible to rely on CSAPR that to offer responses here would regional haze. Moreover, we expect that participation as an alternative to certain suggest some basis for collateral, time- source owners in 2018 will already be regional haze obligations including the barred arguments that are out of the taking steps, including appropriate determination and application of scope of this action. source-level compliance planning (e.g., source-specific SO2 BART. Any such Comment: In addition to the legal purchase contracts for coal), to be ready remaining obligations are not addressed uncertainty surrounding the national for the compliance year beginning on in this proposed action and would be CSAPR-Better-than-BART rule, it is too January 1, 2019. Adding to this, the addressed through other state late for Texas to rely on a BART State has already experienced implementation plan (SIP) or FIP alternative like CSAPR or any other reductions in SO2 emissions in response actions as appropriate.’’ Id. at 78,956. program. Under EPA’s Regional Haze to market conditions and, to some EPA has informed the U.S. District Rule, any BART alternative must extent, periods of compliance with Court for the District of Columbia that include a ‘‘requirement that all CSAPR, including its allocations for it intends to finalize this proposal by necessary emission reductions take SO2, when those measures were in effect October 31, 2017. place during the period of the first long- or otherwise part of source owner After challenging the state’s inclusion term strategy for regional haze’’—i.e., no planning considerations. in CSAPR for years, industry has done later than 2018. There are no plans in We note that the BART alternative is place, or even in development, for any an about face in response to EPA’s projected to be implemented before any federal or state program that would of the earlier-proposed compliance Texas BART Proposal and now opposes ensure the necessary reductions take dates for source-specific SO BART for EPA’s withdrawal of Texas from 2 place by the end of the first planning coal-fired units. CSAPR. But EPA has gone on record period in 2018. The last year for which Texas EGUs that the agency does not currently have With the exception of a BART must meet CSAPR requirements for SO2 an analytical basis to support new alternative approved for the Navajo is 2016. We considered and decided not CSAPR budgets for Texas. As EPA has Generating Station, which relied on the to make the Texas SO2 trading program noted, there was no such thing as a Tribal Authority Rule to provide effective for 2017 because that would be legally compliant CSAPR budget for additional flexibility, EPA has never unreasonably short notice to the affected Texas following the remand. Texas has proposed or approved a BART EGUs in light of the late date in 2017 on had many years to submit a state SIP alternative that would allow the which this action will become effective. equivalent to CSAPR or other BART necessary emission reductions to be We considered and decided not to make alternative to avoid source-specific delayed past 2018. In Texas v. EPA, 829 the program effective for 2018 because BART, but Texas has taken no action to F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2016), Texas and that also would be unreasonably short address its contribution to interstate industry persuaded the Fifth Circuit of notice given that affected EGU owners pollution or regional haze. a likelihood that EPA could not require should be allowed more than a few Response: We agree that we have a controls beyond the first planning months to determine their strategy for mandatory duty to address the BART period for reasonable progress. While compliance with the program in light of requirement for Texas EGUs, but we do neither the statute nor regulation it having some features that are different not agree that we must address it precludes emission reductions relative from the CSAPR trading program they through a source-specific BART FIP. We to reasonable progress requirements to have been operating under until also have a mandatory duty to address occur beyond the planning period recently, for example the fact that they the interstate visibility transport deadline, the BART alternative will no longer be able to purchase and requirements. requirements contain a provision use allowances from out-of-state EGUs. Comment: We have strongly opposed directly on point. Accordingly, emission Comment: Adopting an emissions the CSAPR-Better-than-BART rule since reductions under a BART alternative trading program for Texas that allows its inception. It is unlawful and must be implemented by the end of the anywhere close to the tonnage of SO2 unsupported by the scientific record. first planning period. permitted by the emissions caps in Legal challenges to EPA’s rule which Response: The Regional Haze Rule at CSAPR would also fail to meet the purports to authorize reliance on 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii) requires that the substantive requirements for a BART CSAPR to satisfy BART are currently emission reductions from BART alternative. While the D.C. Circuit is pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of alternatives occur ‘‘during the period of considering whether CSAPR meets these Appeals. Until the D.C. Circuit rules on the first long-term strategy for regional substantive requirements in the CSAPR- the validity of the CSAPR-Better-than- haze.’’ The SO2 BART alternative that Better-than-BART litigation, Texas’s BART rule, neither EPA nor Texas EPA is finalizing here will be situation is unique in that EPA has should assume that CSAPR is an implemented beginning in January appropriate substitute for BART. 2019, and thus emission reductions 64 82 FR 3078 (Jan. 10, 2017).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48336 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

actually completed a source-specific correction via public comment and new satisfying BART, and these comments in BART proposal that can be directly information. Second, we also do not no way represent a commitment to compared with the CSAPR program. agree with any extension of the propose such an action, the TCEQ Thus, even if the CSAPR-Better-than- commenter’s assertion to a FIP. While should be able to rely on the EPA’s BART rule is upheld as a national rule the comment does not address all the CSAPR-is-better-than-BART that EPA has the option of relying upon pertinent requirements for a BART determination to satisfy certain aspects in certain states, and even if Texas were alternative, we have done so elsewhere of the BART alternative provisions in 40 to join CSAPR or voluntarily adopt its in this preamble. For example, as CFR part 51, § 51.308(e)(2) if such a budgets, it would be arbitrary for EPA allowed by the requirements for a BART program can be demonstrated to be to rely on CSAPR as a BART alternative alternative in § 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C), we are more stringent than CSAPR. without actually comparing the CSAPR declining to conduct the analysis that Specifically, the state should be able to or CSAPR-like program with its BART would include making determinations rely on the EPA’s determination that proposal. When comparing the two of BART for each source subject to CSAPR resulted in greater reasonable head-to-head, it is obvious as a practical BART and we are instead exercising the progress than source-specific BART to matter that allowing Texas’s coal-fired exception allowed when the alternative satisfy the requirements of power fleet to essentially continue measure ‘‘has been designed to meet a § 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E) and (e)(3). emitting the same levels of SO2 as the requirement other than BART (such as We acknowledge that other status quo is not going to achieve the core requirement to have a long-term requirements of § 51.308(e)(2) would equivalent visibility gains as the BART strategy to achieve the reasonable still need to be satisfied, such as proposal would. As detailed in ‘‘EPA’s progress goals established by States).’’ 65 monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, Fact Sheet for the Open House on EPA’s Third, we disagree that 51.308(e)(3) and provisions for emission trading Clean Air Plan Proposal for Texas applies to this action. Rather, we find programs. While the CSAPR option is Regional Haze’’, the proposed BART justification for the BART alternative specifically listed at § 51.308(e)(4), the limits are expected to reduce emissions under the ‘‘clear weight of the EPA’s Regional Haze rules do not of SO2 from 16 EGUs and would cut evidence’’ that the trading program will prohibit a state from relying on EPA’s emissions from approximately 89 to 98 provide greater reasonable progress than modeling demonstration that CSAPR percent—a reduction of over 194,000 would be achieved through the resulted in greater reasonable progress tons of SO2 every year. installation and operation of BART at when using an alternative under To satisfy the requirements for a the covered sources. This means of § 51.308(e)(2). If a state-only program is BART ‘‘alternative,’’ an emissions validating a BART alternative, described more stringent than CSAPR, for example trading program must make a technical by one Court as the ‘‘catch-all,’’ is a program based on CSAPR allocations demonstration that the trading program permitted by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E). but without interstate trading, requiring ‘‘will achieve greater reasonable We are allowed but not required to a state to conduct extensive modeling to progress [towards natural visibility] validate the BART alternative under the demonstrate what the EPA has already than would have resulted from the test set out in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). demonstrated for a less stringent installation and operation of BART at all Although we are not applying that test program is illogical and places an sources subject to BART.’’ Id. here, we believe this intrastate trading unnecessary and wasteful burden on § 51.308(e)(2)(i). Under EPA’s program meets the intent of (e)(3). When states. regulations, if the distribution of promulgating the 2012 CSAPR-Better- Response: We agree with this emissions is different under an than-BART rule, the EPA relied on an comment. In response to this comment, alternative program, a state ‘‘must analysis showing that CSAPR would our final FIP establishes an intrastate conduct dispersion modeling’’ to result in greater reasonable progress trading program that operates much like determine differences in visibility than BART under the test in 40 CFR the CSAPR program did in Texas. This between BART and the trading program 51.308(e)(3). In this action we are program is discussed in more detail for each impacted Class I area, for the relying, in part, on that demonstration elsewhere. worst and best 20 percent of days. The to show that the clear weight of 3. EPA’s Reliance on CSAPR for NO modeling only demonstrates ‘‘greater X evidence demonstrates that the SO2 BART reasonable progress’’ if both of the Trading Program will provide for greater following two criteria are met: (i) reasonable progress than BART in Comment: Agree with EPA’s proposal Visibility does not decline in any Class Texas. This is based on a showing that regarding CSAPR as a BART alternative I area, and (ii) There is an overall the emissions in Texas under the BART for NOX which is proposed for separate improvement in visibility, determined alternative will be on average no greater finalization. EPA could have followed by comparing the average differences than the emission levels from Texas the D.C. Circuit’s directive and updated between BART and the alternative over EGUs that was forecast in the NOX (and SO2) budgets for Texas. EPA all affected Class I areas. Id. demonstration for Texas EGU emissions could have but declined to do so. EPA § 51.308(e)(3). assuming CSAPR participation. notes that finalization of CSAPR as Response: The comment addresses the better-than-BART for NOX is contingent approvability of a hypothetical SIP 2. Statutory or Regulatory Text on a separate finalization that the D.C. offered to meet the requirements of 40 Comment: A state should be able to Circuit remands would not adversely CFR 51.308(e)(2). First, we do not agree independently rely on EPA’s CSAPR-is- impact 2012 demonstrations. with the premise of the comment that better-than-BART determination if the Uncertainty in this proposal does not merely proposed determinations of state can demonstrate that a state-only seem to be an issue for NOX and EPA BART in the context of a possible FIP program for EGUs is more stringent than is again basing a proposal on an action set a stringency threshold for a CSAPR. While the TCEQ has not yet to be finalized. demonstration set forth in a proposed any action to implement a Response: Whether we were in a hypothetical SIP. Proposed Texas-only program for EGUs based in position to provide updated annual NOX determinations are only proposals and some way on CSAPR as a means of and SO2 budgets for Texas is not the facts put forth to support those relevant to this rulemaking. Because proposals are themselves subject to 65 See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C). Texas EGUs are required to continue

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48337

participation in CSAPR for ozone Comment: Even if EPA could use a CSAPR. Of particular relevance here, transport, which involves NOX trading, BART alternative without going through after 2012, EPA dramatically increased we are determining that the NOX BART the statutory exemption process, the the CSAPR allocations for every covered requirement for EGUs continues to be CSAPR-Better-than-BART Rule was EGU in Texas. EPA later withdrew the met through our determination that fatally flawed, and even if it were valid February 21, 2012 rule revision, but CSAPR is better than BART. in 2012, is now woefully outdated. issued a new rule that included both the We interpret the comment as EPA’s regulations purport to allow the changes in the February 21, 2012 rule as supporting this action, even as it use of an alternative program in lieu of well as additional changes to state appears to criticize our reference to source-specific BART only if the budgets. another proposed action, which has alternative makes ‘‘greater reasonable By the time EPA finalized the Better- since been finalized, as part of the progress’’ than would BART. 40 CFR than-BART-Rule in June 2012, EPA had proposal for the NOX aspect of this 51.308(e)(2). To demonstrate greater changed the state emissions budgets by action. Our proposed and finalized reasonable progress, a state or EPA must tens of thousands of tons, yet EPA action for the NOX BART requirement show that the alternative program does proceeded to finalize the Better-than- addresses the Act’s requirements for not cause visibility to decline in any BART Rule based solely on the Texas. This action and our recent action Class I area and results in an overall emissions budgets in the original, 2011 to remove Texas EGUs from CSAPR’s improvement in visibility relative to CSAPR rule. EPA also extended the compliance deadlines by three years, SO2 trading program are distinct BART at all affected Class I areas. Id. actions, but we have provided § 51.308(e)(3)(i)–(ii). such that the phase 1 emissions budgets appropriate transparency and notice EPA compared CSAPR to BART in the take effect in 2015–2016 and the phase regarding how the proposed actions Better-than-BART Rule by using CSAPR 2 emissions budgets take effect in 2017 relate and have given careful allocations that are more stringent than and beyond. Even more changes to consideration to comments received that now required as well as by using CSAPR have occurred as a result of the have bearing on each of the actions. presumptive BART limits that are less D.C. Circuit’s decision in EME Homer stringent than are actually required City II Generation, including the Comment: EPA’s proposal is unlawful under the statute. Even under EPA’s proposed withdrawal of Texas from the because it exempts sources from skewed 2012 comparison, CSAPR annual NO and SO trading programs. installing BART controls without going X 2 achieves barely more visibility Given the large number of final BART through the exemption process Congress improvement than BART at Big Bend determinations made since 2012, and prescribed. The visibility protection and Guadalupe Mountains. The NO the significant changes to CSAPR provisions of the Clean Air Act include X emissions allowed under CSAPR from budgets since 2012, it is arbitrary and a ‘‘requirement’’ that certain sources Texas EGUs are higher than would be capricious to rely on the outdated ‘‘install, and operate’’ BART controls. 42 allowed under BART. This was true assumptions about emissions which U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(A). Congress specified even before EPA revised CSAPR to were made in the CSAPR-Better-than- the standard by which sources could be increase the emissions allocations for all BART Rule. exempted from the BART requirements, Texas EGUs. Response: As we had proposed, our which is that the source is not If it were assumed that the CSAPR- finalized determination that CSAPR reasonably anticipated to cause or Better-than-BART Rule were valid in participation will resolve NOX BART contribute to a significant impairment of 2012, it is based on assumptions for requirements for Texas EGUs is based visibility in any Class I area. both CSAPR and BART emissions on a separately proposed and finalized Appropriate federal land managers must which are now woefully outdated. The action. This comment falls outside of concur with any proposed exemption. CSAPR-Better-than-BART Rule’s the scope of our action here. EPA has not demonstrated that any of reliance on presumptive BART emission Comment: EPA’s November 2016 the Texas EGUs subject to BART meet limits is now outdated, given that EPA ‘‘Sensitivity Analysis’’ purports to the standards for an exemption, nor has has issued or approved source-specific update its CSAPR-Better-than-BART EPA obtained the concurrence of federal BART determinations for dozens of analysis to show that CSAPR still makes land managers. Therefore, EPA must sources since 2012. In particular, for greater reasonable progress than BART. require source-specific BART for each Texas sources, EPA has proposed SO2 We agree with EPA that the 2016 power plant subject to BART. BART limits which are far below the Sensitivity Analysis is not a proper legal Response: To the extent the comment presumptive BART limits EPA used in basis for demonstrating that CSAPR is directed to the prior rules that the Better-than-BART Rule. For units makes greater reasonable progress than determined and redetermined that other than Martin Lake, EPA proposes BART, because the 2016 analysis is CSAPR is better than BART and may be SO2 BART limits of 0.04 to 0.06 lbs/ merely a proposed rule. It would be relied upon as an alternative to BART, MMBtu, which are well below the unlawful to issue a final BART rule we disagree that relying on CSAPR is in presumptive SO2 BART limit of 0.15 relying on CSAPR to satisfy the NOX conflict with the CAA provision lbs/MMBtu; even at Martin Lake, EPA BART requirements in the absence of a regarding exemptions from BART. In proposes limits of 0.11 to 0.12, which final rule demonstrating that the CSAPR addition, the commenter’s objection are still below presumptive BART for Update makes greater reasonable does not properly pertain to this action, SO2. progress than BART. but instead to our past action that Similarly, the CSAPR-Better-than- To demonstrate that CSAPR makes established 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). We BART Rule is based on a version of greater reasonable progress than BART, believe this comment to fall outside of CSAPR that no longer exists. EPA must show that (1) visibility does the scope of our action here. To the Accordingly, any conclusion that EPA not decline in any Class I area under extent the comment objects to BART made in the 2012 Better than BART rule CSAPR, and (2) there is an overall alternatives generally, we also disagree. regarding whether CSAPR achieves improvement in visibility, based on In addition, that objection does not greater reasonable progress than BART comparing the average differences properly pertain to this action, but is no longer valid. Since 2012, EPA has between CSAPR and BART across all instead to our past regulatory action that significantly changed the allocations affected Class I areas. EPA’s analysis provided for BART alternatives. and the compliance deadlines for falls well short of making such a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48338 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

demonstration, as we noted in our prior emissions does not imply that each unit that provided BART coverage for comments on EPA’s 2016 Sensitivity will reduce its emissions by 20%; pollutant trading under CSAPR as Analysis. indeed, some units could increase specified at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). In any EPA’s 2016 analysis is markedly emissions while statewide emissions event, the argument that BART must be different from the CSAPR-Better-than- went down. EPA does not seem to have based on ‘‘continuous’’ control does not BART Rule, which relied on accounted for this in its analysis. Thus, transfer to the application and operation quantitative modeling of electric power even within EPA’s scenario whereby no of a BART alternative. Sources that section emissions, using the Integrated changes to reflect current conditions would operate under an annual trading Planning Model, and quantitative need to be made, EPA’s ad hoc analysis program that provides tons per year modeling of visibility at all affected fails to demonstrates that the ‘‘Better- allocations for a unit are not necessarily Class I areas, using CAMx. Instead of than-BART’’ test above would be met applying ‘‘continuous’’ controls either. updating that modeling, EPA’s 2016 because EPA has failed to account for In fact, they are also free to operate analysis consists of a back-of-the- changes in emissions distribution based seasonally or with intermittent use of envelope, qualitative discussion. This is on the altered budgets. controls so long as they operate within wholly insufficient. There have been In addition, EPA cannot simply the allocation or purchase allowances enormous changes in the electric power assume that the visibility improvement whenever emissions may exceed that sector since EPA issued the Better-than- averaged across all Class I areas, 40 CFR allocation. We necessarily disagree that BART Rule in 2012, including changes 51.308(e)(3)(ii), will still be better under EPA regulations would bar seasonal in regulatory requirements (e.g., CSAPR the updated CSAPR than under BART. emissions reductions to satisfy revisions, NAAQS updates, etc.) and Without updated visibility modeling, requirements for a BART alternative. changes in unit operations caused by EPA has no data to demonstrate that the changes in fuel prices, demand, etc. second prong of the BART alternative 4. Other CSAPR Comments Given that EPA believed in 2012 that it test will be met in spite of the Comment: The EPA should proceed to was necessary to conduct quantitative substantial changes in coverage and finalize CSAPR as a better-than-BART modeling of power sector emissions and budgets under CSAPR. alternative not only as to NOX but also the visibility impacts of such emissions, Response: In part, the comment makes as to SO2. In the Texas Regional Haze EPA must update that modeling in order the point that this final action cannot SIP, Texas relied on EPA’s Regional to prove that CSAPR still makes greater rely on another action that has only Haze Rule that allows states to reasonable progress than BART. been proposed. We agree with this implement an alternative to BART as EPA’s failure to update the modeling aspect of the comment, but this part of long as the alternative has been upon which it relied in the 2012 Better the comment is no longer relevant demonstrated to achieve greater than BART Rule is even more arbitrary because the other action has now been reasonable progress toward the national given EPA’s assumption, in the 2016 finalized. As we had proposed, our visibility goal than BART. EPA made Sensitivity Analysis, that no trading of finalized determination that CSAPR such a demonstration for CAIR and CSAPR allowances would occur across participation will resolve NOX BART many states, including Texas, relied on state lines. The Sensitivity Analysis requirements for Texas EGUs is based CAIR’s cap and trade programs as a uses ‘‘emissions that would occur if the on a separately proposed and now BART alternative for EGU emissions of state budgets are increased as proposed finalized action. This comment in its SO2 and NOX in their SIP submittals. assuming that all of the additional discussion of the 2016 sensitivity Following EPA’s demonstration in 2005 allowances are used by sources in the analysis and other particulars raises that CAIR is better-than-BART and after respective state (i.e., we did not re- issues that are addressed in the record Texas submitted the Regional Haze SIP, model trading).’’ This assumption bears for that separately finalized action. This the D.C. Circuit Court remanded CAIR no relationship to reality, in which comment falls outside of the scope of to EPA but ultimately did not vacate the CSAPR—both the original rule, and the our action here. CAIR rule. EPA approved certain States’ updated rule—expressly allows trading Comment: Under the updated version SIPs that implemented CAIR as a BART across state lines. EPA’s failure to create of CSAPR, Texas will not have alternative, yet, EPA did not do so for a realistic depiction of the geographic allowances for annual NOX emissions. Texas. distribution of emissions under the Instead, Texas will have a CSAPR CSAPR was issued to replace CAIR updated CSAPR budgets dooms its budget for NOX for only the ozone and because of EPA’s action on CAIR, Sensitivity Analysis, as EPA must season, which runs a few months each EPA subsequently withdrew reliance on demonstrate that visibility does not year. But BART is not a seasonal CAIR as a BART alternative and decline in any Class I area. Trading requirement; BART requires continuous finalized the demonstration that across state lines can increase emissions operation of pollution controls. ‘‘The compliance with CSAPR is better than from particular sources, which in turn determination of BART must be based application of BART. This action can degrade visibility at particular Class on an analysis of the best system of occurred after Texas had submitted its I areas. Having failed to consider how continuous emission control technology SIP. inter-state trading will affect the available and associated emission On December 16, 2014, EPA distribution of emissions under CSAPR, reductions achievable for each BART- published a proposed FIP program to EPA cannot possibly show that visibility eligible source that is subject to BART ‘‘replace reliance on CAIR with reliance will not decline in any Class I area within the State.’’ It violates EPA’s on the trading programs of CSAPR as an under CSAPR. regulations to use seasonal emissions alternative to BART for SO2 and NOX Similarly, EPA failed to account for reductions under CSAPR to satisfy the emissions for EGUs.’’ The CSAPR rule intra-state trading under CSAPR. Even BART requirement to install and operate had been challenged in the D.C. Circuit assuming all changes in budgets would ‘‘continuous emission control and the court held that EPA had over- apply only within the affected state— technology.’’ controlled certain States’ budgets and that is, assuming interstate emissions Response: We disagree with this remanded the CSAPR rule without trading did not change at all—EPA has comment, but also note that it should vacatur for further revision by EPA. In not accounted for trading within the not be directed to this action but rather January 2016, EPA did not finalize states. A 20% reduction in statewide to the past rulemaking determination BART controls for EGUs, citing

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48339

uncertainty. EPA issued the CSAPR CSAPR. AEP said they supported the finalized as proposed, a direct Update on October 24, 2016 but did not CSAPR trading programs because of contravention of the APA. revise SO2 or NOX annual budgets for their flexibility and administrative Response: Several contentions Texas. convenience, cost-effectiveness and the provided by this commenter are relevant EPA’s Proposed FIP and the ‘‘remarkable reductions that have to the action withdrawing Texas from imposition of source-specific BART occurred across the electric utility Phase 2 CSAPR program budget, but relies on the EPA’s proposed industry.’’ AEP also considered EPA’s given the finalization of that action they rulemaking for the withdrawal of Texas analysis of the impact of sources in are not relevant to this action. We are from the CSAPR Phase 2 trading budgets Texas on nonattainment areas in other required to address the BART for SO2. In November 2016, EPA states was inadequate and the requirements for both pollutants under published a proposal to withdraw the explanation provided by EPA for its our CAA FIP authority, in the absence FIP provisions that required affected decision to change the initial of an approvable SIP. We are finalizing EGUs to participate in Phase 2 of the determination was insufficient and our proposal that NOX BART is met by CSAPR trading programs for annual potentially exposed Texas EGUs to continued participation in CSAPR and emissions of SO2 and NOX purportedly future liability for the impact of PM2.5 we are finalizing a BART alternative to to address a decision of the U.S. Court emissions on Madison County and other address the SO2 BART requirement. The of Appeals for the District of Columbia upwind locations. AEP concluded their BART alternative applies the CSAPR Circuit that had remanded for further comments on 81 FR 78954 by allowance allocations for SO2 to all consideration the CSAPR Phase 2 SO2 recommending the EPA finalize CSAPR BART-eligible coal-fired EGUs, several budgets for Texas and other states. as a compliance alternative to BART for additional coal-fired EGUs, and several EPA’s proposed withdrawal of Texas SO2 and revise the Phase 2 budgets, BART-eligible gas-fired and gas/fuel oil- from the Phase 2 CSAPR program for instead of withdrawing Texas from fired EGUs. In addition to being a SO2 included a ‘‘sensitivity analysis’’ CSAPR. sufficient alternative to BART, it secures indicating that removal of Texas from The D.C. Circuit requires EPA to reductions consistent with visibility the Phase 2 SO2 budget trading program propose acceptable budgets consistent transport requirements and is part of the (and including the removal of the and confirm that those budgets are a long-term strategy to meet the Florida trading program) would not BART alternative and allow Texas to reasonable progress requirements of the adversely impact the demonstration that remain in the CSAPR trading program. Regional Haze Rule. CSAPR participation continued to Source specific controls, then, would no We do not agree with the commenter’s qualify as an alternative to compliance longer be necessary since CSAPR as a suggestion that we were not open to the with BART, in other states that were BART alternative would provide a more consideration of comments in our relying on CSAPR for BART cost-effective, less burdensome and proposed action or in any related compliance. flexible program for compliance with actions in violation of the APA. EPA also noted that ‘‘[n]o changes to Texas’ visibility obligations. Moreover, the assertion that EPA had the Regional Haze Rule are proposed as By EPA’s reliance on the proposed made up its mind that any proposal part of the rulemaking.’’ Id. However, in withdrawal of Texas from the CSAPR would be finalized as proposed support of this FIP proposal addressing trading program for SO2 as the basis for regardless of comments that might be Regional Haze, EPA notes that it, ‘‘had the proposed Texas BART FIP, EPA is offered is not correct. For efficiency and earlier proposed to rely on CSAPR illegally proposing BART controls on because of time constraints, our participation to address these BART- facilities premised on a proposed rule. proposal for the NOX aspect of this related deficiencies in Texas’ SIP Buttressing the proposed FIP on a action was based on a scenario of later submittals referencing its December, proposed-not-yet-finalized rule is finalization of the CSAPR remand 2014 proposed FIP.’’ EPA did not inconsistent with the APA. EPA seems response rule, but that does not mean address the D.C. Circuit Court’s remand concerned with uncertainty created by that we did not fairly consider all as directed. the remand yet, this action by EPA comments on the CSAPR remand The D.C. Circuit had remanded creates its own uncertainty with regard response rule or pre-decided the without vacatur the Phase 2 budgets in to whether the proposed withdrawal outcome of that rule. Our final decisions EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. will be finalized as proposed. The APA in this action reflect the final CSAPR EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Circuit 2015) requires that an agency provide notice remand rule, and consideration of and directed the EPA to reconsider the and an opportunity to comment on comments on our proposal for this emission budgets and propose revised proposed rules. 5 U.S.C. 553(c). An action. budgets. AEP said they did not support agency must be open to taking Comment: Recommend the CSAPR EPA’s proposal to withdraw Texas from comments and responding to them. This budgets be revised. Revising the CSAPR CSAPR, stating that the EPA had necessarily requires that EPA must budgets is supported by actual SO2 provided insufficient justification and consider comments from the public emissions. The Texas EGU SO2 and NOX explanation for the proposal and had before finalizing a proposed rule. In fact, emissions have steadily decreased and not considered the impact on the the comment period for the proposed have fallen well below 2017 CSAPR trading market. AEP noted that the court withdrawal of Texas from the SO2 budgets. These emissions are well below had specifically not vacated the Phase 2 CSAPR budgets ended after the date of the original better-than-BART budgets budgets due to concerns that such a the proposed BART FIP. Clearly, EPA for SO2. EPA’s determinations that decision would disrupt the trading gave itself no opportunity to consider CSAPR is better-than-BART is still valid markets. AEP also expressed concern public comment on the proposed and supported even if emissions were that withdrawing Texas from CSAPR withdrawal prior to relying on it as if it increased. would impact the compliance strategies were final as proposed to justify the We anticipate that EPA may respond facilities have developed for compliance need for proposing source-specific that a September 9, 2017 Consent with BART, as BART eligible facilities BART. EPA’s actions demonstrate that it Decree deadline (derived from a case in had developed compliance strategies had no intention of accepting public which the EGUs were not party) did not assuming BART compliance would be comment and had already made up its permit time to consider comments achieved through compliance with mind that the proposal would be before proposing the Texas BART FIP.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48340 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

Clearly, the most expeditious approach programs, CAIR, and its replacement, reductions must be enforceable to would be for EPA to revise the invalid CSAPR. In this proposal, EPA has prevent undesired and unexpected Phase 2 CSAPR budgets for Texas and effectively removed a cost-effective increases in future years. Pointing to propose that reliance on the revised compliance mechanism which has been ‘‘trends’’—i.e., unenforceable emissions budgets satisfies BART compliance. Any in place for the duration of the first levels without legal requirements delays in addressing Texas’ BART planning period, with costs and against future increases—does not meet obligations are the result of EPA not reductions that far exceed the regulatory CAA requirements. establishing an acceptable CAIR or obligation, with limited or no benefit to Comment: EPA must promulgate or CSAPR program, and EPA’s refusal to visibility. Because it was only late last approve a BART alternative for Texas, revise CSAPR Phase 2 budgets and not week that EPA made available the and must not finalize the unlawful and Texas’ failure to agree to accept invalid technical documents that it claims cost-prohibitive proposed Texas BART CSAPR budgets. In fact, the D.C. Circuit would support its action and EPA has FIP. EPA should not, and lawfully may instructed EPA to act ‘‘promptly’’ in yet to provide us with the specific not, finalize its Proposed Texas BART revising the budgets. modeling supporting the proposal that FIP. The Proposed Texas BART FIP— Additionally, EPA’s attempt to we requested several weeks ago, We like the predecessor Reasonable comply with a court deadline does not have not yet had an opportunity to Progress Rule that is stayed and was justify noncompliance with the APA. thoroughly evaluate EPA’s technical remanded by the Fifth Circuit for With its current proposal (Texas BART justification for the proposal. reconsideration—is fundamentally FIP), EPA has done nothing but create Response: Our proposal did not flawed, cost-prohibitive to implement, further uncertainty and violate the APA. effectively remove CSAPR, and we and contrary to reasoned decision- EPA could have requested an extension disagree with the comment’s making. EPA should address BART for of the deadline to revise the budgets, but characterization of how and when Texas—not through federally-mandated did not. Consistent with the CSAPR has been ‘‘in place.’’ Regardless, specific controls on individual units— Administration’s Executive Order on we agree with the premise of the but through one of several available Reducing Regulation and Controlling comment that SO2 BART and NOX BART alternatives that will achieve Regulatory Costs, EPA could revise the BART for Texas EGUs can be addressed equivalent or greater benefits at far less CSAPR budgets adhere to CSAPR is by the BART alternatives we rely on in costs, as demonstrated by EPA’s own better-than-BART, as they have in many our final action. We also disagree that prior modeling and sensitivity analyses. other states, and remove two proposed our proposal would have provided Among those available alternatives is regulations in doing so without the limited or no benefit to visibility to the EPA’s original proposed BART action promulgation of another rule (proposed extent it suggests our final action is not for EGUs in Texas—reliance on Texas withdrawal of Texas from the CSAPR providing visibility benefits. Visibility EGUs’ participation in CSAPR’s annual Phase 2 program and proposed source- benefits are being secured and preserved SO2 and NOX trading Programs as BART specific BART for Texas source.) EPA into the future by the final FIP compliance. That alternative remains should update the Phase 2 SO2 budgets measures. the most expeditious and defensible as directed and post-haste proceed to Comment: Texas’ SO2 emissions are path for finalizing a BART solution for finalize CSAPR as a better an alternative below the levels that EPA has found to Texas EGUs, and it is fully supported by to the application of source-specific be better-than-BART, and any EPA’s previous CSAPR better-than BART. reasonable assessment would conclude BART modeling and sensitivity Response: Texas declined to submit a that trends of anticipated emissions in analyses. Indeed, EPA’s only lawful SIP to voluntarily participate in CSAPR Texas will remain below those levels. path forward to finalize a BART FIP for and we have addressed our remand EPA conducted two sensitivity analyses Texas by the current September 9, 2017 obligations for Phase 2 SO2 budgets by that both demonstrate that revised deadline in EPA’s consent decree with ending Texas EGU participation in CSAPR emission levels for Texas are Sierra Club is to finalize a CSAPR-for- CSAPR for PM2.5 transport. We agree, better-than-BART. We compared actual BART FIP for Texas EGUs, as EPA however, that Texas sources can Texas EGU SO2 emissions in 2015 and signed in December 2014. For the many continue NOX BART coverage under 2016 to the SO2 emission levels that reasons discussed in Section II of these CSAPR and we are finalizing a BART EPA found are better-than-BART. In comments, EPA would be acting alternative for SO2 instead of both cases, Texas’ actual emissions are unlawfully were it to finalize the establishing source-specific SO2 BART well below the budgets that EPA has Proposed Texas BART FIP as issued in determinations for units at those determined are better-than-BART. December 2016. sources. The BART alternative applies Response: We are finalizing a BART As an alternative to finalizing a the CSAPR allowance allocations for alternative that applies the CSAPR CSAPR-for-BART FIP in September SO2 to all BART-eligible coal-fired allowance allocations for SO2 to all 2017, EPA could seek an extension of EGUs, several additional coal-fired BART-eligible coal-fired EGUs, several the consent decree deadline and EGUs, and several BART-eligible gas- additional coal-fired EGUs, and several proceed to work cooperatively with the fired and gas/fuel oil-fired EGUs. In BART-eligible gas-fired and gas/fuel oil- State of Texas and Texas EGU operators addition to being a sufficient alternative fired EGUs. In addition to being a to develop and propose for comment a to BART, it secures reductions sufficient alternative to BART, it secures different BART alternative for Texas, as consistent with visibility transport reductions consistent with visibility it has done in other states. Such an requirements and is part of the long- transport requirements and is part of the alternative could, for example, establish term strategy to meet the reasonable long-term strategy to meet the SO2 emission caps for Texas EGUs that progress requirements of the Regional reasonable progress requirements of the are comparable to CSAPR budgets and Haze Rule. Regional Haze Rule. To the extent, the would thus fall squarely within EPA’s Comment: EPA is now proposing to comment suggests that current and previous CSAPR=BART demonstration require stringent emission control anticipated emissions alone are enough and sensitivity analyses for Texas. EPA technology on units that have already to satisfy requirements for BART or a has frequently worked with states and met the BART obligations by BART alternative, we disagree. As a stakeholders to develop workable BART participation in the regional trading fundamental matter, emissions alternatives for EGUs, and it should do

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48341

the same here with Texas and Texas EPA signed a new proposed rule for NOX BART as proposed, and to finalize stakeholders, including Luminant. BART by December 9, 2016. EPA signed a BART alternative with emission levels Promulgation of a CSAPR-for-BART the Proposed Texas BART FIP on similar to CSAPR to address SO2 BART. FIP is EPA’s only lawful option for December 9, 2016, thereby triggering the We are not able to revive the 2014 meeting the September 9, 2017 consent extension in the consent decree. proposal to satisfy SO2 BART for Texas decree deadline. If EPA believes that it The consent decree, however, does EGUs because remand obligations have must finalize a BART rule for Texas not (and cannot) dictate the substance of led to the removal of SO2 trading EGUs by September 2017, EPA’s only EPA’s final BART rulemaking under the requirements for Texas. We agree that valid legal option is to finalize its 2014 extended deadline of September 9, this might have been a viable solution, proposed CSAPR-for-BART FIP. In that 2017; the only prerequisite to invoking but Texas declined to submit a SIP to proposal, EPA specifically stated that it this extension is the signing of a voluntarily participate in CSAPR to was proposing ‘‘a FIP to replace reliance proposal by December 9, 2016. EPA is fully preserve and accommodate this on CAIR with reliance on the trading not bound by the consent decree to option. programs of CSAPR as an alternative to finalize the terms of the current Comment: The Proposed Texas BART BART for SO2 and NOX emissions from proposal or any similar source-specific FIP is not only cost-prohibitive, it is not EGUs in the regional haze plan for BART rule; in fact, established necessary to achieve the goals of the Texas.’’ In support, EPA explained that principles of administrative law require Regional Haze Program and satisfy the it ‘‘determined that [1] CSAPR provides EPA to remain open-minded during the requirements of the CAA. EPA’s own for greater reasonable progress towards rulemaking process. The consent decree prior modeling and analysis show that the national goal than would BART and merely established deadlines for EPA’s BART for these units is more than met [2] Texas is included in CSAPR for NOX pending course of action. Accordingly, by current SO2 emission levels from and SO2.’’ The same is true today, and, for purposes of meeting the upcoming Texas EGUs, and the stringent indeed, recent emission trends and deadline of September 9, 2017, EPA is additional limits in the Proposed Texas EPA’s sensitivity analyses for Texas not prohibited by the consent decree BART FIP are not necessary. confirm that CSAPR is and remains from reverting to its 2014 proposal to EPA’s sensitivity analyses for Texas’s better-then-BART for Texas EGUs. Texas finalize CSAPR as a BART alternative SO2 CSAPR budgets and recent remains in the CSAPR annual programs for Texas EGUs. emission trends in Texas demonstrate for NOX and SO2, and EPA’s Response: We agree that the existence that CSAPR remains better-than-BART. determination that CSAPR provides for of the consent decree deadline does not EPA’s sensitivity analyses definitively greater reasonable progress than the dictate the substance of our action to confirm that EPA’s determination that installation of BART remains address Clean Air Act requirements to CSAPR is better-than-BART in Texas scientifically sound. EPA has meet the deadline. We disagree that our remains scientifically sound. When EPA determined that ‘‘[CSAPR] achieves only possible lawful action for meeting issued the final rule promulgating the greater reasonable progress towards the the deadline is to impose a FIP based on CSAPR-for-BART provision in June national goal of achieving natural CSAPR. 40 CFR 51.308(e) requires that 2012, EPA confirmed that the upward visibility conditions than source- states submit a SIP containing emission adjustments to Texas’s budgets under specific BART.’’ That conclusion limitations that represent BART for CSAPR did not adversely impact remains valid today, and EPA has not BART eligible sources that may visibility conditions in nearby Class I undertaken any action to revise or reasonably be anticipated to cause or areas. EPA initially calculated visibility rescind that rulemaking. In fact, the contribute to any impairment of improvements for nearby Class I areas Eighth Circuit recently upheld EPA’s visibility in any mandatory Class I based on a SO2 budget for Texas of conclusion that CSAPR is better than Federal area. Alternatively, 40 CFR 243,954 tons/year. Following EPA’s BART, stating that ‘‘EPA’s explanation 51.308(e) allows states to establish an upward adjustments to the CSAPR that the Transport Rule is better than emissions trading program or other budget due to errors in EPA’s initial source-specific BART is rational.’’ There alternative as long as the trading calculation, EPA revised its visibility is no legal or technical barrier to EPA program or other alternative will improvement estimates based on a SO2 finalizing its original proposal of achieve greater reasonable progress budget of 294,471 tons/year. EPA’s CSAPR-for-BART for Texas EGUs, and, toward natural visibility conditions than methodology demonstrates the expected indeed, that is EPA’s only lawful BART. Where a state has failed to visibility improvement as a result of current option if it were to meet the submit a SIP by the applicable deadline implementing the CSAPR is better-than- September 2017 deadline. or has submitted a SIP that has been BART provision under the original EPA’s consent decree with Sierra Club disapproved by the EPA, the CAA budget and the revised budget. Even does not prevent EPA from finalizing its authorizes and requires EPA to with an SO2 budget of nearly 300,000 original CSAPR-for-BART proposal in promulgate a FIP that meets the tons for Texas, visibility at these Class Texas. The consent decree that EPA requirements of the applicable federal I areas was projected to improve (not entered into with Sierra Club was statutes and regulations. Thus, EPA has degrade). revised in December 2015 to provide the authority to promulgate a FIP Recent emissions data confirm EPA’s two alternative deadlines for issuing a containing emission limits that prior determination—i.e., that Texas’s final rule that implements BART for represent BART for BART eligible emissions are well below the threshold Texas. First, the revised consent decree sources that may reasonably be that was previously determined to be provides that by ‘‘[n]o later than anticipated to cause or contribute to any better-than-BART. Implementation of December 9, 2016,’’ EPA was to impairment of visibility in any CSAPR Phase 1 began in 2015, and promulgate a final BART FIP for Texas, mandatory Class I Federal area. implementation of Phase 2 began in unless EPA had approved Texas’s SIP or Alternatively, EPA may establish an 2017. For 2015 and 2016—during promulgated ‘‘a partial SIP’’ meeting the emissions trading program or other CSAPR Phase 1—Texas maintained its BART requirements under the regional alternative which will achieve greater annual emissions of SO2 and NOX well haze program. Alternatively, the reasonable progress than BART. We are under the budgets established by EPA. December 2016 deadline would be meeting requirements with valid use of The state-wide budget for annual SO2 in ‘‘extended to September 9, 2017,’’ if discretion where appropriate to finalize Texas is 294,471 tons, and the state-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48342 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

wide budget for annual NOX in Texas is EGUs is addressed by continued regulations). First, EPA’s methodology 137,701 tons. These same budgets will participation in CSAPR program for for conducting a revised sensitivity apply during Phase 2, and there is no ozone transport. With regard to SO2, the analysis requires the identification of expectation that Texas EGUS will BART alternative is designed to achieve the Class I areas in and near Texas that exceed these thresholds. In fact, EPA’s SO2 emission levels from Texas EGUs that are most likely affected by Texas own data demonstrate that Texas has similar to the SO2 emission levels that emissions. Second, EPA’s analysis then not exceeded, or even approached, its would have been realized from the SO2 ‘‘employ[s] [the] very conservative’’ annual allowance allocations for either trading program under CSAPR. These assumption that ‘‘all of the visibility SO2 or NOX during Phase I of CSAPR. measures will assure Texas’ recent improvement’’ that EPA’s CSAPR better- Emissions of SO2 from Texas EGUs were reductions of SO2 and NOX will be than-BART modeling predicted for these 260,122 tons in 2015 and 244,233 tons maintained and improved upon in the nine areas as a result of all CSAPR in 2016. As for NOX, emissions from future. reductions from all covered states is Texas EGUs were 107,921 tons in 2015 Comment: The D.C. Circuit’s remand ‘‘solely due to [reductions] from Texas.’’ and 106,625 tons in 2016. Once CSAPR of CSAPR budgets does not create Third, with this conservative became effective in Texas in 2015, SO2 ‘‘uncertainty’’ that prevents EPA from assumption, EPA then ‘‘proportionally emissions from Luminant’s coal-fired finalizing CSAPR-for-BART for Texas reduce[s]’’ the modeled visibility EGUs dropped dramatically and have EGUs. EPA says that it did not finalize improvements at these nine Class I areas trended downward. There is no reason its initial CSAPR-for-BART proposal for based on the corrected higher SO2 to believe, and EPA presented no Texas EGUs because it noted some budget for Texas. For example, if, in reason, that this trend will reverse—and ‘‘uncertainty arising from the remand of response to the D.C. Circuit’s remand, certainly not to a degree that Texas EGU Texas’ CSAPR budgets’’ by the D.C. EPA were to adjust Texas’s budget to SO2 emissions would exceed CSAPR Circuit. EPA made that claim in the 350,000 tons, CSAPR would still be budgets or call into question EPA’s now-stayed January 2016 Reasonable better-than-BART for Texas and other CSAPR better-than-BART Progress Rule. That claim was wrong states. Such an adjustment would be demonstration. when it was made then, and it is clearly equivalent to a 57% reduction in the Texas has maintained its emissions wrong now. There is no ‘‘uncertainty.’’ number of SO2 tons reduced compared well below the budgets established by The D.C. Circuit’s remand does not to the original Texas CSAPR reductions CSAPR. The record establishes that prevent EPA from finalizing CSAPR as that were modeled for EPA’s original BART for these units can be no more an SO2 BART alternative for Texas CSAPR better-than-BART modeling. stringent than current emission levels, EGUs. EPA’s methodology would thus reduce which are well below CSAPR budgets. First, EPA’s claim that there is an the visibility benefit accordingly by In 2012, EPA concluded that ‘‘[CSAPR] ‘‘absence of CSAPR coverage for SO2’’ in multiplying the visibility improvement Texas following the D.C. Circuit’s achieves greater reasonable progress at the Class I areas affected by Texas by remand is simply wrong. Texas EGUs towards the national goal of achieving a factor of 0.43. Thus, for example, the are and have been regulated by a BART natural visibility conditions than visibility improvement at Wichita equivalent trading program for the source-specific BART.’’ EPA confirmed Mountains from CSAPR, even after entirety of the first planning period to this determination in subsequent increasing Texas’s budget to 350,000 date—first through CAIR and, after sensitivity analyses. So long as Texas’s tons, would be 0.688 deciview [1.6 CAIR’s replacement and up to the emissions remain below the CSAPR deciview × 0.43 = 0.688]. This budgets, the operation of Texas EGUs in present day, through CSAPR. Texas methodology could be applied to other such a manner will continue to be EGUs are presently subject to CSAPR’s budgets as well. Visibility better-than-BART. annual SO2 and NOX programs under Thus, the Proposed Texas BART FIP the budgets remanded by the D.C. improvements at nine Class I areas in or is based on a fundamental flaw by Circuit, which are budgets that EPA has around Texas result from the EPA—that BART for Texas EGUs must confirmed as better-than-BART. EPA’s application of EPA’s sensitivity analysis be ‘‘more emission reductions than prior determination that CSAPR is of a hypothetical adjustment of Texas’s projected under CAIR or CSAPR.’’ To better-than-BART for all states, CSAPR SO2 budget to 350,000 tons per the contrary, because Texas validly including Texas, is scientifically sound year. Thus, EPA’s own modeling shows remains in the annual CSAPR programs and remains a binding part of EPA’s that visibility at these Class I areas is projected to improve (not degrade) and for SO2 and NOX combined with the fact regulations. EPA may properly respond that the BART requirements are met that Texas EGU SO2 emissions are well to the D.C. Circuit’s remand by revising even if the CSAPR budgets are below the annual allocations, EPA has Texas’s annual SO2 budget (as no valid basis to change course from its instructed by the D.C. Circuit) after it increased. 2014 proposal to finalize CSAPR for finalizes the proposed CSAPR-for-BART Response: We have completed our BART in Texas in order to impose more FIP for Texas. response to the CSAPR remand by stringent source-specific BART controls. Second, regardless of when EPA withdrawing Texas EGUs from CSAPR EPA should proceed to finalize a FIP for responds to the D.C. Circuit’s remand, requirements for PM2.5 transport. We Texas that approves CSAPR as a BART EPA’s own sensitivity analyses confirm did not act to upward adjust Texas’ SO2 alternative for Texas EGUs. that were EPA to properly respond to budget. Whether that was a proper Response: We agree that emissions the remand by increasing Texas’s response to the remand or whether similar to the CSAPR budgets would be annual SO2 budgets so they do not over- upward adjustments would have better than BART and can be justified as control as instructed by the D.C. Circuit, preserved the analytic demonstration a BART alternative. To the extent the those revised budgets would remain that CSAPR is better than BART are not comment suggests that merely pointing better-than-BART. EPA established a issues of concern with the present to current emissions level can satisfy the multi-step methodology to analyze finalized action. To the extent the requirements of a BART alternative, we whether increases in Texas’s SO2 annual comment asserts that CSAPR budgets disagree. Those emissions levels must budgets would change EPA’s CSAPR can be used to support a better than be made enforceable, and our final better-than-BART determination (which BART alternative, we agree with the action accomplishes that. NOX BART for remains part of EPA’s binding comment and this concept is part of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48343

BART alternative and weight of the SO2. Compliance with regional haze 2. The regional haze rule defines ‘‘in evidence that we deem to justify it. obligations for BART-eligible facilities existence’’ to mean that: ‘‘the owner or Comment: The proposed rule is in Texas has depended on CAIR-equal operator has obtained all necessary legally dependent on other pending BART and CSAPR-equal BART and preconstruction approvals or permits proposed rulemakings. EPA may not removing Texas from CSAPR results in required by Federal, State, or local air proceed with this action without first significant disruption and costs to pollution emissions and air quality laws finalizing other proposed rules under planned future compliance for these or regulations and either has (1) begun, the CAA on which this action is based. facilities. EPA seeks these excessive or caused to begin, a continuous Since 2009, Texas EGUs have been controls which will achieve limited program of physical on-site construction subject to federal regulatory programs visibility benefits. EPA should take the of the facility or (2) entered into binding that have resulted in substantial proper approach and follow the remand agreements or contractual obligations, reductions in the NOX and SO2 without vacatur of the D.C. Circuit, which cannot be canceled or modified emissions that have been targeted by revise the trading budgets and then without substantial loss to the owner or EPA as contributing to interstate finalize CSAPR as compliance strategy operator, to undertake a program of transport and haze. In compliance with for BART in lieu of this proposal. construction of the facility to be EPA rules and precedent, Texas relied Response: We completed our response completed in a reasonable time.’’ 40 on CAIR, and then its replacement to the CSAPR remand in a separate CFR 51.301. CSAPR as achieving reductions in haze action and refer Commenter there. We The owner of Coleto Creek Unit 1 precursors from EGUs that are ‘‘better are finalizing a BART alternative for SO2 provided information that onsite than BART’’ in its Texas Regional Haze BART. construction began prior to August 7, SIP submittal. In the unlawful proposed 1977. Thus, Coleto Creek Unit 1 satisfies E. Comments on the Identification of rule, EPA rejects its prior position that the above criteria as being ‘‘in existence BART-Eligible Sources Texas EGUs are exempt from BART due on August 7, 1977.’’ Therefore, we to participation in CSAPR. Yet, Texas Comment: We received comment from disagree with the commenter and EGUs continue to this day to be subject the owners of Coleto Creek stating that continue to find that Coleto Creek Unit to CSAPR requirements for NOX and in the Texas Regional Haze SIP, TCEQ 1 is BART-eligible. The NOX BART SO2. While EPA has proposed to determined that Coleto Creek Unit 1 was requirement for Coleto Creek is met by withdraw CSAPR SO2 requirements for not a BART-eligible source, based on its relying on CSAPR as an alternative to Texas EGUs, it has not yet done so and interpretation and application of its SIP- EGU BART for NOX. The SO2 BART those EGUs remain subject to CSAPR approved regional haze rules at 30 TAC requirement is met by the intrastate allocations for both NOX and SO2 under Chapter 116, Subchapter M. In trading program FIP that we are federal and state laws and permits. implementing its rules, TCEQ prepared finalizing in this action and to which Additionally, EPA’s proposal to questionnaires that sought the Coleto Creek will be subject. The PM withdraw the CSAPR FIP with respect information needed to render its BART- BART requirement is met by our 66 to SO2 has been challenged in that eligibility determinations. As a result determination that the visibility impacts rulemaking docket as unlawful and not of this TCEQ-led process, TCEQ of PM emissions from Coleto Creek are in accordance with the court decision determined that Coleto Creek Unit 1 was too small to be considered to cause or remanding that action to EPA. not BART-eligible because it was not contribute to visibility impairment at As a result, EPA may not proceed built, and did not commence operation, any Class I area and we determined the with the disapproval of Texas’ reliance until 1980, which is well after the facility screens out and is not subject to on CSAPR as ‘‘better than BART’’ until August 7, 1977 applicability date. PM BART. such time that the proposal is legally Coleto Creek Unit 1 has reasonably finalized in compliance with the Court relied on the state’s eligibility F. Comments on PM BART decision that remanded that rule to determination in evaluating its We previously proposed to EPA. Once that rule is legally finalized, obligations under the Regional Haze disapprove the SIP’s subject-to-BART then Texas should be given an Rule program. EPA’s decision to reject determinations for PM, on the grounds opportunity to address whether and TCEQ’s BART-eligibility determination that the SIP had based these how that affects the state’s regional haze for Coleto Creek Unit 1 under 30 TAC determinations on reliance on a BART program before a FIP is considered. 116.1500 is unsupported. alternative for SO2 and NOX and, as a Response: As was made clear by our Response: The commenter states that result, considered only the contribution proposal, we agree our rule is because Coleto Creek Unit 1 did not of PM emissions to visibility dependent on other proposed and now commence operations until 1980, it impairment, and to adopt source- finalized rulemakings. Nothing in our should be determined to be not BART- specific PM emission limits to fill the proposal or final action prevents Texas eligible, as was determined by the SIP gap. In that context, we received from addressing the State’s regional TCEQ. However, we believe the TCEQ several comments related to PM BART haze program under its SIP planning erred in not listing Coleto Creek Unit 1 issues. Now, however, we have authorities. Texas did not request that as being BART-eligible. The date test for determined it is appropriate to adopt a we withhold our action to withdraw BART-eligibility is whether the units BART alternative to address SO2 and CSAPR SO2 requirements for Texas was ‘‘in existence on August 7, 1977,’’ NOX and therefore find Texas’ original EGUs, and it did not submit comments and began operation after August 7, SIP was correct in considering only the to oppose that action. We disagree that 1962. The BART rule defines as ‘‘in contribution of PM emissions. anything in the sequencing of actions existence on August 7, 1977’’ as follows Considering only PM emissions, all would allow us to suspend our FIP (70 FR 39159): sources considered in the Texas SIP obligations when there is no SIP to What does ‘‘in existence on August 7, were demonstrated to screen out of the address the requirements. 1977’’ mean? need for source specific PM BART Comment: The effort to impose BART emission limits. controls is the result of the proposed 66 See October 24, 2005 letter from Al Espinosa, Also, as explained above, we have Coleto Creek Power Station, #TX187–0023–0001, withdrawal of Texas from the CSAPR Docket Item No. EPA–R06–OAR–2016–0611–0023 identified additional sources as BART- Phase 2 or annual trading program for at p. 6. eligible that were not considered in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48344 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

2009 Texas Regional Haze SIP. As that Texas can only take this approach should approve the screening modeling discussed elsewhere, we have when the BART requirements of NOX the TCEQ conducted, as we proposed to determined that the impact due to PM and SO2 are satisfied, and that Texas’ do in January 2015. emissions from these additional sources error of not identifying several PM Luminant provided comments similar are also below the BART screen level. BART eligible sources is grounds for to those above. Luminant added that it Thus, the SIP’s determination that none disapproval. AEP believes this logic is believes that Texas remains in CSAPR of the BART-eligible EGUs are subject- unfounded and the situation is created so there is no basis for us to deviate to-BART for PM is correct and by EPA’s piecemeal approach to from our prior proposal to approve approvable. As a consequence, there is rulemaking. AEP agrees with EPA’s Texas’s PM BART determination. no SIP gap needing to be filled by a FIP. conclusion that gas-fired units that Luminant also stated that our reliance Because we are approving EGU PM occasionally burn fuel oil should have on a Ninth Circuit Court decision to BART screening determinations that no further control. AEP will limit support our rejection of pollutant- result in no EGUs being subject to PM burning fuel oil with a sulfur content of specific BART screening is incorrect BART analysis, comments supporting or 0.7% as currently required by its permit. because the case in point relied upon alleging errors in the details of our PM However, EPA has not provided the BART de minimis exemption, which BART five-factor analysis and our sufficient reasons to be addressing PM does not apply in this instance. proposed PM BART technology BART. EPA should finalize its earlier Response: We are approving the EGU selections and emission limits are not proposal to approve Texas’ PM BART element of Texas’s 2009 SIP relevant. We address in this section determination that sources in Texas are submittal. Under the combination of comments that are relevant to whether not subject to PM BART. reliance on the CSAPR ozone-season it is appropriate to approve the portion The Lower Colorado River Authority NOX trading program to satisfy NOX of this 2009 SIP submission and EPA’s disagrees with the disapproval of the BART and reliance on the FIP’s analysis in our proposal that determined Texas PM BART demonstration. intrastate trading program for SO2 that no PM emission limits for Texas The TCEQ and the Public Utilities emissions to satisfy SO2 BART, it is EGUs are needed to satisfy the BART Commission of Texas stated that our appropriate for determinations of requirement because the visibility reliance on language in a guidance whether a BART-eligible EGU is subject impacts of PM emissions from BART- memo 67 to bar TCEQ from conducting to BART for PM to be based only on the eligible EGUs do not cause or contribute pollutant-specific modeling to visibility impact of the source’s PM to visibility impairment. The determining BART eligibility was emissions. It is not necessary for us to information in section III.A. on the incorrect. The TCEQ believes this memo respond to the comments stating that a history of our proposals regarding the did not state that the TCEQ’s pollutant- PM-only analysis would be appropriate EGU PM BART element of the 2009 specific modeling is only appropriate even if both SO2 and NOX were not Texas SIP submission and EPA’s when BART for other pollutants is addressed by trading programs. proposals is useful background for satisfied with a BART alternative such In particular, TCEQ’s comments are understanding the comments and our as the CAIR or CSAPR. The TCEQ correct that the BART Guidelines do not responses on this topic. believes the memo states that such prohibit pollutant-specific screening. Although we are not finalizing the modeling may be appropriate where an The July 19, 2006 guidance memo states MATS-based PM limits proposed as PM alternative program is used for other that EPA does not generally recommend BART for the coal-fired EGUs, this pollutants. The TCEQ also believes we a pollutant-specific screening approach, regional haze action does not affect the incorrectly claimed that its SIP however, such a screening approach existing MATS requirements for these acknowledges PM-only modeling is may be appropriate for PM in certain units. We are also not finalizing the fuel inappropriate where an alternative to situations. The memo provides the oil sulfur percentage limits that we BART is not employed.68 situation of a state relying on CAIR for proposed for gas/fuel oil-fired EGUs; the The TCEQ states that our CAMx NOX and SO2 BART as an example same limits in existing permits for these modeling supports the conclusions from where pollutant-specific screening for sources are not affected by our action. the screening modeling conducted by it PM may be appropriate. We agree with Comments: AEP states that we that shows these same units did not TCEQ that the memo’s intention is not provide no basis for not approving the meet the 0.5 deciview (dv) threshold.69 to limit PM-only analysis to SIPs that TCEQ’s PM BART determination in Furthermore, the TCEQ states that we rely on CAIR. While we disagree with 2016 or logical support for our decision found that for gas-fired units, PM TCEQ’s position that a PM-only analysis to proceed with modeling PM in the emissions are ‘‘inherently low,’’ and is appropriate in a situation involving proposed Texas BART FIP. AEP believes that existing controls plus compliance source-specific SO2 BART emission that when a state is provided statutory with the MATS filterable PM limit of limits, the approaches promulgated here deference in implementing the Regional 0.03 lb/MMBtu is already BART, further for SO2 and NOX BART are BART Haze program, EPA must support its supporting its conclusion that there are alternatives and are similar to the CAIR decision for not approving the state’s no significant visibility impacts from situation described in the memo. determination. While AEP also agrees PM emissions from these sources and Therefore, we find that the pollutant that current PM requirements for BART controls for PM are unnecessary. specific PM screening approach in sources complying with MATS are Thus, the TCEQ reasons, a FIP for PM TCEQ’s original 2009 SIP submittal is sufficient for meeting PM BART for BART is unnecessary and the EPA appropriate and demonstrates that the Welsh Unit 1, it disagrees that PM sources covered by the BART alternative BART is even warranted at all or that 67 Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for program for SO2 screen out of PM EPA has provided adequate basis for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) BART. For BART-eligible EGU sources declaring that TCEQ’s screening Determinations, Joseph Paisie, EPA Geographic not participating in the BART analysis is no longer reliable. AEP says Strategies Group, July 19, 2006. alternative program for SO2, all these that buried in a footnote, EPA grasps at 68 Technical Support Document for the Texas sources screened out of BART for all Regional Haze BART Federal Implementation Plan, some claim of error that Texas’ PM BART FIP TSD, Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR– visibility impairing pollutants utilizing BART determinations only looked at the 2016–0611–004, page 26, footnote 39. model plants and CALPUFF modeling impact of PM emissions on visibility, 69 Id, at 82. as described in our proposed rule and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48345

BART Screening TSD. Therefore, we are controls were necessary for EGUs PM, it is not necessary for us to respond approving the determination that no ‘‘based on a screening analysis of the because we are approving the SIP and Texas EGUs are required to have source- visibility impacts from just PM not promulgating any such limits in this specific PM emission limits in order for emissions . . . .’’ In its current Texas action. We note that the cited visibility the BART requirement to be met. This BART rulemaking, EPA states that ‘‘[i]n benefits of switching to low-sulfur fuel approval is consistent with our connection with changed circumstances reflect assumed reductions in both December 2014 proposal for PM BART, on how Texas EGUs are able to satisfy direct PM emissions and SO2 emissions in which EPA proposed to rely on NOX and SO2 BART, we are now from these two sources. The Stryker and Texas’ CSAPR participation for SO2 and proposing to disapprove the portion of Graham units are both covered by the NOX BART and to approve the SIP’s the Texas Regional Haze SIP that intrastate trading program for SO2 and determinations regarding the need for evaluated the PM BART requirements CSAPR for NOX, so it is appropriate that PM emission limits. See 79 FR 74817, for EGUs.’’ The changed circumstances the subject-to-BART determination be 74848 (January 13, 2015). We are also EPA refers to is the removal of Texas made on the basis of the impacts of determining that other sources that EPA sources from the SO2 caps of the CSAPR direct PM emissions alone. Those identified in our December 2016 rule. Unless a source is subject to a impacts are less than 0.5 dv. proposal as BART-eligible that were not BART alternative or is otherwise Comment: Texas identified 126 identified as BART eligible in TCEQ’s determined to be exempt from BART for sources as BART-eligible or potentially 2009 Regional Haze SIP are also a particular pollutant, EPA’s regulations BART eligible. screened out from PM BART. and BART guidelines do not generally Yet Texas ultimately concluded that Comment: The Sierra Club states that provide for exemptions from a five- no BART-eligible source is subject to we should finalize our proposed factor BART analysis for a specific BART. Texas’s determination is based in disapproval of Texas’s PM BART pollutant. Under EPA’s BART part on the unsupported selection of 0.5 determinations, which assumed that Guidelines and the definition of BART, dv as the threshold for contribution to SO2 and NOX emissions contributing to once a source has been determined to be visibility impairment. EPA must PM formation would be regulated under subject to BART, a five-factor BART disapprove Texas’s determination as to CSAPR, see 82 FR at 935. Following the analysis must be done for each pollutant the sources subject to BART. Texas D.C. Circuit Court’s remand of CSAPR, pursuant to 40 CFR part 51, 51.301 and adopted 0.5 dv as the threshold for SO2 emissions from Texas sources are Appendix Y, section IV.A. So, EPA is ‘‘contribution’’ to visibility impairment. no longer limited by CSAPR. The correct that it must address BART for Texas provided no justification for using assumption underlying Texas’s PM PM for the BART-subject sources in a 0.5 dv threshold. There is no BART determinations—that CSAPR Texas. documentation in the record as to how would limit emissions of PM precursors Response: The premise in the or why Texas selected this threshold, from Texas sources—is now inaccurate; comment that EGUs in Texas will not be and there is no legal support for such therefore, reasons the Sierra Club, we subject to a BART alternative for both threshold. EPA’s BART Guidelines do must disapprove the State’s PM BART NOX and SO2 is incorrect, given the not authorize states automatically to use determinations. content of this final action. a 0.5 dv contribution threshold. Instead, Response: We note that the D.C. Comment: Coleto Creek Unit 1 should the BART Guidelines state only that Circuit Court remanded the budget for not be subject to any FIP emission ‘‘any threshold that you use for Texas EGUs in the CSAPR trading limits, because it should not be determining whether a source program for SO2 without vacatur, so the determined to be BART-eligible. ‘contributes’ to visibility impairment commenter’s statement that Texas EGUs Response: Texas’ 2009 SIP submission should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews. are no longer limited by CSAPR was not did not include Coleto Creek Unit 1 as In the next sentence, the Guidelines true at the time the comment was a BART-eligible source and instruct each state that it ‘‘should offered. It is true now as a result of our consequently the SIP did not present consider the number of emissions recent action to remove Texas EGUs any analysis of whether it is subject-to- sources affecting the Class I areas at from the annual SO2 and NOX trading BART, while we are determining in this issue and the magnitude of the programs. However, a large set of Texas action that Coleto Creek Unit 1 is BART- individual sources’ impacts.’’ There is EGUs will, under the final FIP, be eligible. However, we evaluated the no evidence in the record that Texas subject to CSAPR for ozone-season NOX available modeling and other analyses ever conducted this analysis. and the intrastate trading program FIP and we have concluded that this Furthermore, the Guidelines conclude for SO2. For these EGUs, the BART information shows minimal impacts that ‘‘a larger number of sources causing guidelines and our guidance allow for from PM from this particular BART- impacts in a Class I area may warrant a the subject-to-BART for PM eligible source. Modeled PM impacts lower contribution threshold.’’ As determination to be based on only the from Coleto Creek Unit 1 are expected Texas’s list of 126 BART eligible sources impacts of PM emissions on visibility. to be much less than 0.32 delta indicates, a large number of sources For the BART-eligible EGUs that will deciviews (see Section III.4). impact the Class I areas in Texas and in not be required to participate in the Comment: Requiring the Stryker and neighboring states. Indeed, the subset of FIP’s intrastate trading program, our Graham units to switch to ultra-low- sources that screened out of BART analysis indicates that even when all sulfur diesel would significantly based on individual modeling have a three pollutants are included in the improve visibility. Requiring this combined, baseline impact of nearly 10 modeling, all of these sources affect switching at Stryker would improve deciviews. Thus, the situation in Texas visibility at surrounding Class I Areas visibility by more than 0.5 dv at Caney is exactly what EPA had in mind when by less than 0.5 dv, thus screening out Creek, and switching to ultra-low-sulfur it noted that a contribution threshold of being subject to PM BART. diesel at Graham would improve lower than 0.5 dv may be appropriate. Comment: EPA in its previous visibility by 0.85 dv at Wichita Had Texas followed the BART rulemaking on the reasonable progress Mountains. Guidelines, it may well have selected a measures for the Texas and Oklahoma Response: Insofar as this is a comment threshold lower than 0.5 dv. Using a regional haze plans initially proposed to on our proposed source-specific FIP lower contribution threshold would accept Texas’ finding that no PM BART emission limits to address BART for change Texas’s conclusion as to which

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48346 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

sources are subject to BART because limited to 0.7% fuel oil by weight. subject-to-BART for NOX, SO2 and PM there are sources with a baseline impact These commenters argued that our as proposed, based on the just below 0.5 deciviews. EPA has a estimate of the price per gallon for methodologies utilizing model plants statutory responsibility to ensure that a ULSD was too high and that in any case, and CALPUFF modeling as described in SIP meets all applicable Clean Air Act the total annual cost to make the switch our proposed rule and BART Screening requirements and is supported by the is very low. They also argue that TSD. As mentioned in the BART record. Here, Texas’s use of a 0.5 dv requiring the Stryker and Graham units screening TSD, we used versions threshold has two fatal flaws: It is not to switch to ultra-low-sulfur diesel (CALPUFF v5.8.4 and an existing based on the analysis prescribed by the would significantly improve visibility. CALMET data set that utilized CALMET BART Guidelines, and it is not Response: Due to the comments we v5.53a) that do not significantly differ supported by any analysis whatsoever received requesting a BART alternative from the current regulatory versions of in the record. Therefore, EPA must in lieu of source-specific EGU BART CALPUFF (v5.8.5) and CALMET disapprove Texas’s conclusions that determinations, we are finalizing a SO2 (v5.8.5). The current regulatory versions sources are not subject to BART, where trading program as an alternative to do include some additional bug fixes Texas screened out sources because of a source-by-source BART. As a but the bugs that were fixed are not visibility impact below 0.5 deciviews.70 consequence, we believe that comments expected to significantly change the Response: EPA’s BART Guidelines concerning the SO2 BART cost analyses results for the modeling assessments we allow states conducting source-by- we performed on the coal-fired EGUs have done. The 2016 USDA Forest source BART determinations to exempt and these gas-fired units that Service Guidance was not released until sources with visibility impacts as high occasionally burn fuel oil are no longer August of 2016 and no BART modeling as 0.5 dv. While we agree that a state relevant. The trading program, by its was conducted by states and RPOs using may choose to use a lower threshold, nature, provides sources with flexibility MMIF. The USDA Forest Service this should be based on consideration of in meeting the requirements. As a result, Guidance is more germane for future SIP not only the number of sources, but the we expect compliance for sources to be developments and any visibility proximity to the Class I area and the extremely cost-effective. The program analyses for other regulatory potential combined visibility impacts addresses both BART eligible and non- assessments in the future. from a group of sources. States have the BART eligible EGUs. The combination In considering the comment that we discretion within the CAA, Regional addresses 89% of the emissions (based should use a more recent version of Haze Rule, and BART Guidelines to set on 2016 annual emissions) that would CALPUFF (6.4) or an earlier version an appropriate contribution threshold have been addressed by CSAPR and, as 6.112, we considered the regulatory considering the number of emissions a result, EGU emissions in Texas will be status of CALPUFF for visibility sources affecting the Class I areas at similar to emission levels anticipated in analyses and what analyses are needed issue and the magnitude of the sources’ the CSAPR better than BART to utilize an updated CALPUFF impacts. demonstration and will achieve greater modeling system. The requirements of reasonable progress than BART. G. Comments on EPA’s Source-Specific 40 CFR 51.112 and 40 CFR part 51, SO2 BART Cost Analyses H. Comments on EPA’s Modeling Appendix W, Guideline on Air Quality Comment: We received a large 1. Modeling Related to Screening out Models (GAQM) and the BART number of comments from the EGU BART-eligible sources based on Guidelines which refers to GAQM as the owners covered under our proposal and CALPUFF Modeling and Model Plant authority for using CALPUFF, provide environmental groups concerning analysis the framework for determining the appropriate model platforms and various aspects of the SO2 BART cost Comment: We received comments versions and inputs to be used. Because analyses we performed for the coal-fired stating that we used an outdated version EGUs. These comments included both of concern with CALPUFF’s treatment of CALPUFF and CALMET in our of chemical transformations, which criticisms of and support for our basic CALPUFF analyses and there are more approach, the tools we used, and affect AQRVs, EPA has not approved the recent EPA approved versions of chemistry of CALPUFF’s model as a various individual aspects of our cost CALPUFF and CALMET. The analyses. We also received Confidential ‘‘preferred’’ model. The use of the commenter indicated that there are regulatory version is approved for Business Information (CBI) comments more recent non-regulatory versions of from the owner of one of the EGUs increment and NAAQS analysis of CALPUFF (such as version 6.4) that primary pollutants only. Currently, covering the same areas. include a number of technological We also received comments from CALPUFF Version 5.8, is subject to the improvements that could have been environmental groups stating that we requirements of GAQM 3.0(b) and as a used. The commenter also indicated we should have required the gas-fired units screening model, GAQM 4. CALPUFF did not follow USDA Forest Service that occasionally burn fuel oil to Versions 6.112 and 6.4 have not been Guidance that recommend using minimally switch to Ultra-Low-Sulfur approved by EPA for even this limited Mesocscale Model Interface Program Diesel (ULSD) in lieu of our proposed purpose. The versions of CALPUFF, (MMIF) for generating met fields for BART determination that these units be version 6.112 or 6.4, that the commenter CALPUFF.71 The commenter concluded recommended could be used to provide that EPA’s CALPUFF analysis was less 70 This comment was submitted to a public modeling analyses of BART eligible docket (separate from the docket established for this reliable because of these issues. sources that have not gone through a action), in response to our December 2014 proposal Response: For those BART-eligible full regulatory review in accordance (79 FR 74817, 74853–54 (Dec. 16, 2014)) to approve EGUs that are not covered by the BART the subject-to-BART determinations in Texas’ 2009 with 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W alternative for SO2, we are finalizing SIP submission and to disapprove the reasonable Section 3.2.2. Furthermore, the progress and some other elements of that SIP determinations that those EGUs are not currently available information does not submission. See Docket Item No. EPA–R06–OAR– support the approval of these versions 2014–0754–0067. We never took final action on PM 71 USDA Forest Service, Guidance on the Use of BART, and did not respond to the comment. We are the Mesoscale Model Interface Program (MMIF) for of the CALPUFF model for use in responding to it today because of its relevance to Air Quality Related Values Long Range Transport making BART determinations. In this final action. Modeling Assessments (Aug. 2016). addition, if these versions of the model

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48347

were acceptable for use, EPA would results at distances of 400–1000 + km,73 consistent with our past approval of the have to reconsider whether using the while others opposed using CALPUFF BART screening modeling included in 98th percentile impact for determining beyond 300 km if the results did not the 2009 Texas Regional Haze SIP of impairment was appropriate. Therefore, screen a facility out of a full BART non-EGU BART sources.76 EPA does not believe the use of analysis. It has been asserted by the CALPUFF version 6.112 or 6.4 is A number of commenters also raised commenters that CALPUFF appropriate for this rulemaking. We concerns with the accuracy of the overestimates visibility impacts at believe we have made the appropriate CALPUFF model and several greater distances (greater than 300/400 choice in using CALPUFF version 5.8. uncertainty issues related to the km) and therefore some commenters For further discussion, see our Modeling CALPUFF model and results from the claimed that use of CALPUFF is RTC and the response to comments in model. We also received the comment conservative and acceptable for our previous New Mexico Final FIP in that CALPUFF’s regulatory status as a screening BART sources. We disagree 2011.72 preferred model recently changed and with this comment. EPA has seen Comment: We received a number of that this change raises a question of situations of both under-prediction and comments concerning the acceptable whether CALPUFF should have been over-prediction at these greater distances/range for which CALPUFF used for the Proposed Texas BART FIP. distances. EPA has indicated modeling results should be used for Response: As previously discussed historically that use of CALPUFF was BART screening. A number of and included in our record for our generally acceptable at 300 km and for commenters indicated that EPA has proposal we did use direct CALPUFF larger emissions sources with elevated repeatedly stated that 300 km should be modeling results of facilities out to 432 stacks. We and FLM representatives the maximum distance for CALPUFF km for some very large EGU facilities have also allowed or supported the use modeling results and even cited to some (very large emissions from tall stacks). of CALPUFF results beyond 400 km in past actions (several FIPs—Arkansas, We also used CALPUFF for model some cases other than the Texas actions Oklahoma, Montana, and New Mexico) plants for screening of sources beyond as pointed out by commenters.77 EPA where EPA has indicated that 300 km 360 km to a Class I Area, but the actual has a higher confidence level with was the general outer distance for distance to a Class I Area was 360 km results within 300 km and when CALPUFF. Commenters also raised past or less for each of the model plants used analysis of impacts at Class I areas promulgation of CALPUFF in 2003 and for screening of sources. In our 2014 within 300 km is sufficient to inform IWAQM guidance/reports to support the proposed action 74 and the 2015 final decisions on BART screening and BART claim that 300 km is the acceptable action 75 on Texas regional haze we determinations, we have often limited outer range of CALPUFF. TCEQ approved the use of CALPUFF to screen the use of CALPUFF results to within commented we should not use BART-eligible non-EGU sources at 300 km as there are fewer questions CALPUFF for distances beyond 400 km. distances of 400 to 614 km for some about the suitability of the results. Two commenters indicated that EPA sources. In those actions, we weighed However, that does not preclude the use had inappropriately reported CALPUFF the modeling results that were mostly of model results for sources beyond the results for distances of 412 km and well below 0.5 delta-dv with the 300 km range with some additional 436.1 km, well outside of 300 km. potential uncertainty of CALPUFF consideration of relevant issues such as Another commenter indicated we results at these greater distances outside stack height, size of emissions, etc. As included some model plants at the typical range of CALPUFF in one commenter pointed out, EPA and distances greater than 400 km in our deciding how to use the results in FLM representatives have utilized model plant screening analysis. screening of facilities. We disagree with CALPUFF results in a number of Other commenters indicated that we the comment that it was inappropriate different situations when the range was should use the modeling results from to rely on CALPUFF to screen BART- between 300–450 km. The model plants CALPUFF for BART screening at ranges eligible EGU sources at ranges beyond utilized in our model plant screening much greater than 400 km. They stated 400 km and that it would not be analysis were modeled at distances of that CALPUFF over-predicts visibility 300–360 km from the Class I area. In our impacts at distances greater than 300 73 For example, see comment from Andrew Gray, model plant analysis, we found that in km; therefore, CALPUFF is an Footnote 11, ‘‘For example, Texas used CALPUFF some situations there was a difference acceptable and conservative tool for to perform BART modeling for Alcoa Inc, RN100221472 (nearest Class I area 490 km); in whether or not a source screened out screening BART sources at large Equistar Chemicals LP, RN 100542281 (nearest based on the distance between the distances from Class I areas. We Class I area 517 km); ExxonMobil, RN102579307 model plant and the Class I area. Some received comments from several and RN102450756 (nearest Class I areas 526 and initial model plant runs were done at different companies (NRG, LCRA, 482 km, respectively); and Invista, RN104392626 and RN102663671 (nearest Class I areas 472 and distances of 201–300 km from a Class I Coleto Creek, and Luminant) that 614 km, respectively). See February 25, 2009 Texas Area and yielded higher Q/D ratios than provided contractor (AECOM) analysis Regional Haze Plan, Chapter 9 at pages 9–9 through the same model plant evaluation with with opinions on the acceptable range of 9–14, available at https://www.tceq.texas.gov/ the same modeled visibility impact at _ CALPUFF. AECOM’s report for LCRA airquality/sip/bart/haze sip.html. South Dakota 350–360 km (only 20% more than 300 used CALPUFF for Big Stone’s BART 78 included CALPUFF modeling results for determination, including its impact on multiple km). This difference and the lower Q/ 14 Class I areas with distances out to Class I areas further than 400 km away, including more than 1000 km and asserted that Isle Royale, which is more than 600 km away. See 76 We note that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals TCEQ and EPA had utilized CALPUFF 76 FR 76656. Nebraska relied on CALPUFF remanded the rule in its entirety. See Texas v. EPA, previously in screening out sources modeling to evaluate whether numerous power 829 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2016). plants were subject to BART where the ‘‘Class I 77 See comments from Andrew Gray, n 11 (which from being subject to a full BART areas [were] located at distances of 300 to 600 is listed in its entirety earlier in this document) analysis in the 2009 Texas regional haze kilometers or more from’’ the sources. See Best citing examples of modeled impacts from sources SIP submission, our 2014 proposal, and Available Retrofit Technology Dispersion Modeling at distances greater than 300 km in Texas, Nebraska, our 2015 final action. Some comments Protocol for Selected Nebraska Utilities, p. 3. EPA and South Dakota. Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2012–0158–0008. 78 We did iterative modeling with the model were supportive of using CALPUFF EPA has approved reliance on these models.’’ plants to model emissions at a level that would 74 79 FR 74818 (Dec. 16, 2014). yield a value just under the screening level of 0.5 72 76 FR 52388, 52431–52434 (Aug. 22, 2011). 75 81 FR 296 (Jan. 5, 2016). Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48348 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

D modeling for the model plant located range. We note that this screening concluded from these case studies the at a greater distance from the Class I modeling for these coal-fired facilities CALPUFF dispersion model had area indicated that using the model directly modeled with CALPUFF performed in a reasonable manner, and plant modeling at 300 km or less was beyond 300 km and also modeled with had no apparent bias toward over or overly conservative when we are CAMx is not pertinent to this final under prediction, so long as the evaluating facilities at distances of 360– action since these coal-fired sources are transport distance was limited to less 85 86 600 km. Therefore, we chose the range participating in the SO2 trading program than 300km. As discussed above that we thought was appropriate in the and we are not finalizing subject to EPA has indicated historically that use context of the distances of the sources BART determinations for these sources. of CALPUFF was generally acceptable at being evaluated with that model plant. Due to the comments we received 300 km and for larger emissions sources A distance of 300–360 km also fell requesting a BART alternative in lieu of with elevated stacks we and FLM within a range for which we have source-specific EGU BART representatives have also allowed or evaluated CALPUFF results a number of determinations, we are finalizing a SO2 supported the use of CALPUFF results times and felt comfortable with using trading program as an alternative to beyond 400 km in some cases. for large elevated point sources, and in source-by-source BART. With the NOX In promulgating the 2005 BART most cases the comparison of Q/D ratios BART coverage from CSAPR, all the guidelines, we responded to comments of the facility to model plant were not BART-eligible sources participating in concerning the limitations and 87 similar and the facility screened out the SO2 trading program only have PM appropriateness of using CALPUFF. In with a significant safety margin.79 emissions that have to be assessed for the 2005 BART Guidelines the selection We note that we also had direct screening and potential subject to PM of the 98th percentile value rather than CALPUFF screening of some coal-fired BART determinations. As discussed the maximum value was made to plants out to 412 km with NOX, SO2, elsewhere, we are approving the address concerns that the maximum and PM in our proposal. The impacts of determination in the 2009 Texas may be overly conservative and address these facilities in the proposal screening Regional Haze SIP that PM BART concerns with CALPUFF’s limitations.88 modeling were typically very large and emission limits are not required for any In the 2003 revisions to the Guideline well above the 0.5 del-dv, so even Texas EGUs. on Air Quality Models, CALPUFF was considering that there are more We disagree with the commenter’s added as an approved model for long uncertainties at distances greater than characterization of uncertainties raised range transport of primary pollutants. At 300 km the impacts were large enough that invalidate the CALPUFF modeling that time, we considered approving that it was clear that these facilities results. We respond to comments raised CALPUFF for assessing the impact from would have impacts above the threshold briefly here and in our Modeling RTC. secondary pollutants but determined based on impacts from the 3 We have also responded to a number of that it was not appropriate in the pollutants.80 The BART Guidelines these issues in our past FIP actions.81 context of a PSD review because the indicate other models may be used on In response to the court’s 2002 finding impact results could be used as the sole a case-by-case basis. CAMx is a in American Corn Growers Ass’n. v. determinant in denying a permit.89 photochemical modeling platform with EPA 82 that we failed to provide an However, the use of CALPUFF in the a full chemistry mechanism that is also option for BART evaluations on an context of the Regional Haze rule suited for assessing visibility impacts individual source-by-source basis, we provides results that can be used in a from single facilities/sources at longer had to identify the appropriate relative manner and are only one factor distances where CALPUFF is more analytical tools to estimate single-source in the overall BART determination. We uncertain (such as distances much visibility impacts. The 2005 BART determined the visibility results from greater than 300 km). Texas and EPA Guidelines recommended the use of CALPUFF could be used as one of the have previously approved the use of CALPUFF for assessing visibility CAMx for determining source impacts (secondary chemical impacts) but noted arcs of receptors at distances greater than 50km for BART screening purposes, and we that CALPUFF’s chemistry was fairly downwind. In some cases, short-term concentration sampling was available, such that the transport of also decided to supplement our simple and the model has not been fully CALPUFF analysis for some large coal- the tracer puff as it passed the arc could be tested for secondary formation and thus monitored. Differences on the order of 10 to 20 fired sources with CAMx modeling. Our is not fully approved for secondary- degrees were found between the location of the CAMx modeling of these coal-fired formed particulate. In the preamble of simulated and observed center of mass of the tracer puff. Most of the simulated centerline concentration sources in the proposal further the final 2005 BART guidelines, we supported the magnitude of the assessed maxima along each arc were within a factor of two identify CALPUFF as the best available of those observed.’’ 68 FR 18440, 18458 (April 15, impacts were well above 0.5 del-dv tool for analyzing the visibility effects of 2003), 2003 Revisions to Appendix W, Guideline on (NOX, SO2, and PM) for these facilities individual sources, but we also Air Quality Models. that fell into the greater than 300 km 85 Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality recognized that it is a model that Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary Report and includes certain assumptions and Recommendations for Modeling Long-Range del-dv, typically a value around 0.49 del-dv. In 83 these model distance sensitivity runs when we used uncertainties. Evaluation of CALPUFF Transport Impacts. Publication No. EPA–454/R–98– the same number of sources and stack parameters model performance for dispersion (no 019. Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, but varied the emissions to yield 98th percentile chemistry) to case studies using inert Research Triangle Park, NC. 1998. 86 68 FR 18440, 18458 (Apr. 15, 2003). (2003 max impacts of approximately 0.49 del-dv. We tracers has been performed.84 It was found that model plants at 350–360 km range had Revisions to Appendix W, Guideline on Air Quality lower resulting Q/Ds than the same model plants Models). at 300 km, thus sources more easily screened out 81 For example, see Arkansas FIP, 81 FR 66332, 87 70 FR 39104, 39121 (July 6, 2005). using model plants at 350–360 km. 66355- 66413 (Sept. 27, 2016) and the Response to 88 Id., at 39121. ‘‘Most important, the simplified 79 See our Screening of BART TSD.pdf (EPA-R06- Comments, Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0189. chemistry in the model tends to magnify the actual OAR-2016-0611-0005.pdf); most sources had Q/D 82 Am. Corn Growers Ass’n v. EPA, 291 F.3d 1 visibility effects of that source. Because of these values on the order 30–50% of the critical Q/D from (D.C. Cir. 2002). features and the uncertainties associated with the the model plant. 83 70 FR 39104, 39121 (July 6, 2005). model, we believe it is appropriate to use the 98th 80 Id. For example, Big Brown was 404 km from 84 ‘‘[M]ore recent series of comparisons has been percentile—a more robust approach that does not WIMO and the maximum impacts with NOX, SO2, completed for a new model, CALPUFF (Section give undue weight to the extreme tail of the and PM was 4.265 del-dv (over 8 times the 0.5 del- A.3). Several of these field studies involved three- distribution.’’ dv threshold). to-four hour releases of tracer gas sampled along 89 68 FR 18440 (Apr. 15, 2003).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48349

five factors in a BART evaluation and the degree of visibility benefit emission rate from the highest emitting the impacts should be utilized anticipated from controls as one of the day of the metrological period somewhat in a relative sense because factors under consideration in a five modeled,’’ the BART Guidelines do not CALPUFF was not explicitly approved factor BART analysis. Since almost all state that the time period analyzed must for full chemistry calculations.90 We states have completed their BART be restricted to 2000–2004. In fact, in note that since the BART Guidelines analyses and have either approved SIPs the context of analyzing cost effective were finalized in 2005 there has been or FIPs in place, there is a large set of control options, the BART Guidelines more modeling with CALPUFF for available data on modeled visibility recommend the use of emissions that BART and PSD primary impact impacts and benefits for comparison are a ‘‘realistic depiction of anticipated purposes and the general community with, and this data illuminates how annual emissions for the source.’’ 4 And has utilized CALPUFF in the 300–450 those model results were utilized to ‘‘[i]n the absence of enforceable km range many times (a number of screen out sources and as part of the limitations, you calculate baseline examples were pointed out by a five-factor analysis in making BART emissions based upon continuation of commenter) and EPA and FLM control determinations. past practice.’’ 5 EPA must also use representatives have weighed the The regulatory status of CALPUFF realistic emissions when determining additional potential uncertainties with was changed in the recent revisions to whether a unit causes or contributes to the magnitude of the modeled impacts the Guideline on Air Quality Models visibility impairment for BART. The use in comparison to screening/impact (GAQM) as far as the classification of of 15-year old NOX and SO2 data for thresholds on a case-by-case basis in CALPUFF as a preferred model for purposes of evaluating this threshold approving the use of CALPUFF results transport of pollutants for primary question is illogical and arbitrary and at these extended ranges. impacts, not impacts based on capricious. We disagree with the commenter’s chemistry. The recent GAQM changes We also received comments that general statement that there is an do not alter the original status of doubling the annual emissions of PM acknowledged over-prediction of the CALPUFF as discussed and approved was conservative and we should have CALPUFF model or an acknowledged for use in the 2005 BART guidelines. potentially used maximum heat input to inaccuracy at low impact levels, and The GAQM changes indicated that the estimate PM emission rates for subject that the actual visibility impacts from change in model preferred status had no to BART modeling. We also received the BART sources are lower. The impact on the use of CALPUFF for comments that the values we modeled CALPUFF model can both under-predict BART.92 based on CEM data may have included and over-predict visibility impacts Comment: We received comments emission rates during upset conditions, when compared to predicted visibility stating that we used out-of-date and thus the emission rates used may be impacts from photochemical grid unrealistic emissions for some units, larger than normal operations. models. See our Modeling RTC for more which artificially inflate the actual Response: We note that, as discussed detailed response.91 visibility impacts. The commenters state elsewhere, we are not making a subject- CALPUFF visibility modeling, that the data used is unrealistic due to to-BART determination for those performed using the regulatory the 2000–2004 time period selected and sources covered by the SO2 trading CALPUFF model version and following also due to reporting errors to CAMD. program. In our final rule, the relevant all applicable guidance and EPA/FLM Had more recent emissions been BART requirement for these recommendations, provides a consistent utilized in the screening analysis, these participating units will be encompassed tool for comparison with the 0.5 dv units would have been determined to by BART alternatives for NOX and SO2 subject-to-BART threshold. The not be subject to BART by the various such that we do not deem it necessary CALPUFF model, as recommended in screening methods applied by EPA. to finalize subject-to-BART findings for the BART guidelines, has been used for Commenters also state that a common these EGUs. In addition, we are almost every single-source BART sense reading of the Clean Air Act, approving the determination in the 2009 analysis in the country and has BART regulations, and BART TX RH SIP that none of these sources provided a consistent basis for assessing Guidelines indicate that the ‘‘subject to are subject to BART for PM. Therefore, BART’’ analysis should be based on the comments concerning the emissions 90 70 FR 39104, 39123–24 (July 6, 2005). ‘‘We utilized in our subject to BART most recently available emission data, understand the concerns of commenters that the modeling for the sources participating which EPA’s subject-to-BART analysis chemistry modules of the CALPUFF model are less in the SO trading program are no longer advanced than some of the more recent atmospheric does not use. Furthermore, the BART 2 relevant. For those BART-eligible EGUs chemistry simulations. To date, no other modeling Guidelines do not specifically mandate applications with updated chemistry have been that are not covered by the BART approved by EPA to estimate single source the use of the 2000–2004 emission rates. alternative for SO2, we are finalizing pollutant concentrations from long range Although the BART Guidelines determinations that those EGUs are not transport,’’ and in discussion of using other models recommend that for the purpose of subject-to-BART for NO , SO and PM with more advanced chemistry, ‘‘A discussion of screening BART-eligible sources, X 2 the use of alternative models is given in the as proposed, based on the ‘‘States use the 24-hour average actual Guideline on Air Quality in appendix W, section methodologies utilizing model plants 3.2.’’ and CALPUFF modeling as described in 91 For example, see Comparison of Single-Source 92 82 FR 5182, 5196 (Jan. 17, 2017). ‘‘As detailed Air Quality Assessment Techniques for Ozone, in the preamble of the proposed rule, it is important our proposed rule and BART Screening PM2.5, other Criteria Pollutants and AQRVs, to note that the EPA’s final action to remove TSD. ENVIRON, September 2012; and Anderson, B., K. CALPUFF as a preferred appendix A model in this We disagree with the commenter and Baker, R. Morris, C. Emery, A. Hawkins, E. Snyder Guideline does not affect its use under the FLM’s believe using emissions from the 2000– ‘‘Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of Use of guidance regarding AQRV assessments (FLAG 2010) Photochemical Grid Model Source Apportionment nor any previous use of this model as part of 2004 period is appropriate for Techniques for Prevention of Significant regulatory modeling applications required under determining if a source is subject to Deterioration of Air Quality Analysis the CAA. Similarly, this final action does not affect BART. Our analysis for facilities Requirements’’ Presentation for Community the EPA’s recommendation [See 70 FR 39104, followed the BART Guidelines and was Modeling and Analysis System (CMAS) 2010. 39122–23 (July 6, 2005)] that states use CALPUFF Annual Conference, (October 11–15, 2010) can be to determine the applicability and level of best consistent with the BART analyses done found at http://www.cmascenter.org/conference/ available retrofit technology in regional haze for all BART-eligible sources. The BART 2010/agenda.cfm. implementation plans.’’ Guidelines recommend that for the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48350 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

purpose of screening BART-eligible program. For the sources not period after the controls were installed sources, ‘‘States use the 24-hour average participating in the trading program, where applicable. Regardless of this actual emission rate from the highest they have been screened out with our issue, the underlying concern of the emitting day of the metrological period baseline emissions modeling, so commenters was whether their facility modeled’’ unless this rate reflects underlying concerns about emissions screened out of being subject to a full periods start-up, shutdown, or being high/non-representative would BART analysis. With CSAPR coverage malfunction. The emissions estimates not result in any differences to the for NOX and the SO2 intrastate trading used in the models are intended to sources being screened out from a full program coverage for BART for all reflect steady-state operating conditions BART analysis. BART-eligible coal-fired EGUs, and during periods of high capacity Comment: We received comments several BART-eligible gas-fired and gas/ utilization. Consistent with this that stated that the proposed PM BART fuel oil-fired EGUs, all the BART guidance, we utilized the 24-hr demonstration by Texas only considered eligible units screen out of a full BART maximum emission rate from the 2000– PM emissions because SO2 and NOX analysis for the pollutants not covered 2004 baseline period and modeled using emissions were to be controlled through by trading programs, thus the chief 2001–2003 meteorological data. We an alternative BART program, CAIR. concern that the modeling based on based our analysis on the CEM data Following the same type of approach, 2000–2004 maximum emissions and the from the baseline period 2000–2004 and EPA in this Proposed Rule finds that inclusion of NOX contributed to a removed what looked like questionably CSAPR for ozone season NOX is better determination that the source was high values that did not occur often as than BART. However, for the screen subject-to-BART, is no longer relevant. they were potentially upset values. As modeling used in the development of Concerning the inclusion of NOX discussed elsewhere we did review this Proposed Rule, instead of setting emissions in the screening analysis, sources to determine if they installed the NOX emission rate consistent with EPA’s position is that the modeling controls during the baseline period and CSAPR, EPA uses the maximum 24- must include both pollutants (NOX and when that occurred we only looked at hour NOX emission rates from the 2000– SO2) since they both compete for baseline emission data post controls. We 2004 time period. EPA ignores the ammonia. If we modeled only SO2, all received general comments that the continued application of CSAPR ozone of it would convert to ammonia sulfate values we used from CEM data might season budgets that apply to EGUs in (based on ammonia availability) and include upset values, but did not Texas. This methodology is inconsistent both baseline screening impacts for SO2 receive comments that indicated the with past practices and overestimates and visibility benefits from any control values used were specifically upset cumulative conditions and facility assessments would also be values during the baseline period and impacts. Commenters also state that overestimated. The chemical interaction should not be used. Facilities did not because NOX is to be controlled by between pollutants and background give us specific information to justify CSAPR, NOX related haze impacts species can lead to situations where the that the emission rates we used were not should not be considered in the reduction of emissions of a pollutant representative maximum 24-hour screening analysis. can actually lead to an increase or emission rates during the 2000–2004 Response: As discussed in our inaccurate assessment of the visibility period, so EPA considers the emission response to another comment, the impairment, if both NOX and SO2 are rates used were acceptable for the BART emission rates used in the modeling not included in CALPUFF modeling. screening process. should reflect maximum 24-hour Therefore, to fully assess the visibility We are not aware of any newly emission rates from the baseline period. benefit anticipated from the use of installed controls or limitations on CSAPR for ozone season NOX is a controls, all pollutants should be emissions that have been put in place seasonal NOX budget but does not modeled together. between the 2000–2004 baseline period effectively limit short-term emission BART screening modeling would also and now for any of the BART-eligible rates such that a newer maximum 24- include the PM emissions. BART sources not participating in the SO2 hour emission rate can be determined. screening is meant to be a conservative trading program that would affect the Therefore, even if it were appropriate to and inclusive test. We have always potential visibility impact from the consider any potential reductions due to considered combined NOX, SO2, and source. Furthermore, because all these CSAPR, it is not possible to accurately PM impacts even if the facility had NOX sources were shown to have visibility model any reductions/limits due to coverage or stringent NOX controls impacts less than the 0.5 dv threshold CSAPR on a short term basis. already installed. The BART guidelines using the maximum 24-hr actual Furthermore, emissions from a unit can state ‘‘You must look at SO2, NOX, and emissions during the 2000–2004, vary greatly over time as the CSAPR direct particulate matter (PM) emissions modeling of lower emissions due to any program allows sources to meet in determining whether sources cause or new controls or emissions limits would emission budgets in a given year by contribute to visibility impairment’’ also result in the same determination. using banked allowances from previous unless emissions of these pollutants We were also not provided any specific years or by purchasing allowances from from the source are less than de information where additional emission other sources within or outside of the minimis.93 The BART Guidelines then reductions/controls had been installed State allowing emissions from the provide three modeling options to and resulted in a short-term (24-hour) source to exceed their annual allocation determine which sources and pollutants maximum emission rate significantly level. We also note that we were not need to be subject to BART: 94 (1) less than modeled at any of these units. provided specific short-term emission Dispersion modeling to ‘‘determine an The overall concern of the rate limits from commenters that were individual source’s impact on visibility commenters was that the emissions based on the installation of new controls as a result of its emissions of SO2, NOX used in the modeling resulted in some or other reductions that were permanent and direct PM emissions’’; (2) model facilities being subject to a full BART reductions to short-term emission rates. plants to exempt individual sources analysis, but, as discussed elsewhere, Our proposal did assess if emission with common characteristics as we are not finalizing subject to BART controls were installed during the base determinations for the sources period and we utilized the maximum 93 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y, Section III.A.2. participating in the SO2 trading short-term emission rate from the base 94 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y, Section III.A.3.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48351

described in our BART Screening TSD; regard to the inclusion of NOX was that incorrect at facilities in our CALPUFF and (3) cumulative modeling on a this may have contributed to facilities and CAMx modeling. New stack height, pollutant by pollutant basis or for all not screening out from a full BART diameter, velocity values were given for visibility-impairing pollutants to show analysis. Because, in the final rule, some units. that no source in the State is subject to trading programs constitute BART Response: We reviewed the BART. The BART guidelines are clear alternatives for NOX and SO2, the information provided and note that that individual source modeling should facilities that were proposed as subject some facilities gave contradicting data evaluate impacts from NOX, SO2 and to BART now screen out for the within their comments. For those PM in determining if a source is subject pollutants not covered by a trading facilities for which we are relying on to BART and the pollutant-specific program. modeling to determine they are not analyses are directed as an option to Comment: We received a comment subject to BART, we have evaluated screen out the impacts of all BART from TCEQ that EPA should screen out potential changes where we may have sources in the State for a specific the Newman facility based on CALPUFF had an inaccurate number in our pollutant such as VOC or PM (in the modeling or use CAMx to appropriately proposal modeling. We have determined case of EGUs covered by trading screen Newman and determine its that the impacts from changes to stack programs for NOX and SO2). The BART visibility impacts. We also received parameters would be minimal and not Guidelines also state that in assessing comments from the owner of Newman, change our current assessment and the visibility benefits of controls EPEC, stating that the PM and SO2 decisions. BART limits for those gas-fired units ‘‘modeling should be conducted for SO2, 2. Modeling Related to Whether Coal- NOX, and direct PM emissions (PM2.5 that occasionally burn fuel oil, 95 Fired Sources Are Subject to BART and/or PM10).’’ In many cases a state applicable to Newman 2 and 3, of a fuel may have only a handful of sources and oil sulfur content of 0.7% is acceptable, Comment: We received comments on impacts from more linear species (VOC and that Newman 4 is restricted to burn the CALPUFF and CAMx modeling or PM) may be so small that they make only natural gas. EPEC has maintained utilized to determine which coal-fired up a very small contribution (on the on-site diesel fuel oil with a lesser EGUs are subject to BART. These included comments concerning order of a 0–2% of the NOX and SO2 sulfur content as emergency backup fuel impacts) to the visibility impacts at a for testing for preparedness purposes, emissions inputs, the metrics used, the Class I Area, therefore it may be and in the unlikely scenario of a natural post-processing methodology, and the acceptable to screen out pollutants that gas curtailment event or other situation model performance. have a minimal impact. This is not the that may compromise the steady flow of Response: Due to the comments we situation with NO , SO and PM the primary pipeline quality natural gas received requesting a BART alternative X 2 in lieu of source-specific EGU BART emissions from EGUs in Texas where fuel supply. EPEC also notes that these determinations, we are finalizing a SO some EGUs’ PM modeled impacts were units are only permitted to operate 876 2 trading program as an alternative to greater than 0.25 del-dv. EPA’s 2006 hours per year. source-by-source BART. This trading memorandum on this is clear that you Response: Based upon the comments program includes participation of all have to model both (NO and SO ) we received requesting a BART X 2 BART-eligible coal-fired EGUs such that because of technical and policy alternative in lieu of source-specific we do not deem it necessary to finalize concerns, and also reiterated that EGU BART determinations, we are subject-to-BART findings for these EGUs pollutant specific analysis was for the finalizing a SO2 trading program as an except for PM emissions. As a limited situation of addressing PM alternative to source-by-source BART. consequence, we believe that it is not when a large group of sources had We are not finalizing subject-to-BART necessary to respond to the merits of BART coverage for the non-linear determinations for BART eligible sources covered by the BART alternative comments concerning modeled baseline reacting pollutants (NOX and SO2) visibility impacts using CALPUFF or through a BART alternative.96 The for SO2 and NOX. In our final rule, the relevant BART requirement for these CAMx and determination of which coal- BART Guidelines specifically indicate fired sources are subject to BART. In that NO , SO and PM should be participating units, including the BART- X 2 eligible Newman units, will be satisfied this final action we are approving the modeled together when modeling BART determination in the Texas RH SIP that 97 by BART alternatives for NOX and SO2 eligible units at one facility. This is all EGU sources screen out of BART for similar to the BART eligibility test such that we do not deem it necessary to finalize subject-to-BART findings for PM. We are also finalizing the contemplated in the BART guidelines these EGUs. In addition, we are determination that all BART-eligible where if the emissions from the approving a determination that none of EGUs not participating in the trading identified units at source exceed a these sources are subject to BART for program screen out of BART for NOX, potential to emit of 250 tons per year for PM. Therefore, we do not find it SO2 and PM based on upon CALPUFF any single visibility-impairing pollutant, necessary to respond to the merits of modeling (direct source and Model the source is considered BART-eligible comments concerning screening Plant). We address all comments and may be subject to a BART review modeling for this source, because the pertinent to the use of CALPUFF (direct for all visibility impairing pollutants.98 outcome of that modeling is not source and Model Plant) for BART As previously discussed the dispositive to the source’s inclusion in screening for these sources in other commenter’s primary concern with the BART alternative or its allowance responses to comments. We note that thereunder. See discussion above for the comments expressing concerns 95 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y, Section IV.D.5 (emphasis added). assessment of previous CAMx PM about CALPUFF modeling were 96 EPA Memorandum from Joseph W. Paisie screening (Texas 2009 RH SIP) where associated with facilities that did not OAQPS to Kay Prince EPA Region 4, ‘‘Regional the Newman source was included in screen out from a full subject to BART Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Group 2 with a number of other sources analysis. Since we have determined that Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations’’, July 19, 2006. and screened out from being subject to no EGU sources are now subject to 97 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y, Section III.A.3. BART for PM. BART and a source-specific BART 98 See first example in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Comment: We received comments control analysis for pollutants not Y, Section II.A.4. that some of the stack parameters were covered by a BART alternative, the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48352 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

specific concerns raised by commenters 3. Modeling Related to Visibility Benefit installation of capital intensive controls about being determined to be subject to of Sources Subject-to-BART and will provide much more flexibility a BART control analysis because of Comment: We received comments on to sources than the source by source emissions inputs used, metrics used, the CALPUFF and CAMx modeling compliance we proposed. In fact, etc. are not relevant to this final action. utilized to estimate the visibility aggregate emissions of the covered See the Modeling RTC document for the benefits of controls. These included sources in 2016 were below the level entirety of the modeling comments and comments concerning the emissions called for by the trading program. In our responses. inputs, the metrics used, the post- addition, the supplemental allowance pool is expected to provide additional Comment: The 0.5 dv threshold used processing methodology, and the model flexibility to allow sources to run, if by EPA in its proposed determinations performance. necessary, in an emergency. We believe based on CAMx modeling of what Response: Based on the comments we that it is not necessary to respond on the sources are subject to BART is too low, received requesting a BART alternative merits to specific comments concerning given the uncertainties in the CAMx in lieu of source-specific EGU BART the impacts to grid reliability related to determinations, we are finalizing a SO2 modeling methods used to quantify the the requirements of the proposed visibility impacts of sources. trading program as an alternative to source-by-source BART. This trading source-specific controls, because we are Response: In our proposed action, we program includes participation of all not finalizing those requirements. utilized CAMx modeling to evaluate BART-eligible coal-fired EGUs and a visibility impacts from BART-eligible V. SO2 Trading Program and Its number of BART-eligible gas or gas/fuel Implications for Interstate Visibility sources that include BART eligible coal- oil-fired EGUs. It also includes a Transport, EGU BART, and Reasonable fired EGUs. Due to the comments we number of non-BART eligible EGUs. Progress received requesting a BART alternative The combination of the source coverage in lieu of source-specific EGU BART for this program, the total allocations for The Regional Haze Rule provides each determinations, we are finalizing a SO2 EGUs covered by the program, and state with the flexibility to adopt an trading program as an alternative to recent and foreseeable emissions from allowance trading program or other source-by-source BART. This trading EGUs not covered by the program will alternative measure instead of requiring program includes participation of all result in future EGU emissions in Texas source-specific BART controls, so long BART-eligible coal-fired EGUs such that that are similar to the SO2 emission as the alternative measure is we do not deem it necessary to finalize levels forecast in the 2012 better-than- demonstrated to achieve greater subject-to-BART findings for these BART demonstration for Texas EGU reasonable progress than BART. As sources except for PM emissions. emissions assuming CSAPR discussed in Section III.A.3 above, In this final action the only CAMx participation. We are not finalizing our based principally on comments modeling we are relying upon is CAMx evaluation of whether individual submitted by the State of Texas during modeling performed for TCEQ in sources are subject to BART. As a the comment period urging us to consider as a BART alternative the screening of EGU emissions of PM that consequence, we believe that it is not concept of system-wide emission caps was included in TCEQ’s 2009 SIP. Our necessary to respond to the merits of using CSAPR allocations as part of an approval of the CAMx PM screening of comments concerning source-specific intrastate trading program,100 we are EGUs is based on the original CENRAP visibility benefits of controls on these acknowledging the State’s preference modeling datasets, agreed modeling units, because we are not finalizing and exercising our authority to protocols and Texas’ use of the 0.5 del- requirements based on those controls. promulgate a BART alternative for SO2 dv to screen sources as agreed upon by I. Comments on Affordability and Grid for certain Texas EGUs. The TCEQ in 2007. Any potential concerns Reliability combination of the source coverage for with CAMx bias were considered in Comment: We received comments this program, the total allocations for 2007 and TCEQ, EPA and FLM from the State, EGU owners covered EGUs covered by the program, and representatives agreed to the approach under our proposal and environmental recent and foreseeable emissions from of using 0.5 del-dv to screen groups of groups concerning whether our proposal EGUs not covered by the program will sources using CAMx modeling. We note would cause EGUs to retire and thus result in future EGU emissions in Texas that the BART guidelines specifically cause grid reliability issues. These that are similar to what was forecast in state that ‘‘as a general matter, any comments included both criticisms of the 2012 better than BART threshold that you use for determining and support for our proposed position. demonstration for Texas EGU emissions whether a source ‘‘contributes’’ to Texas, in particular, stated that recent assuming CSAPR participation. visibility impairment should not be ERCOT studies have raised concerns higher than 0.5 deciviews.’’ 99 A. Background on the CSAPR as an that several units in Texas will no Alternative to BART Concept Furthermore, our action on the PM longer be economically viable if BART determinations in the 2009 Texas required to install capital intensive In 2012, the EPA amended the SIP submittal would not be any different controls. They also indicated that EPA’s Regional Haze Rule to provide that had we used a higher threshold since all IPM modeling supports this conclusion. participation by a state’s EGUs in a sources screened out based on the use Texas believed that if units shutdown CSAPR trading program for a given of the 0.5 dv threshold. Since we are not with little notice it could cause pollutant—qualifies as a BART relying on the CAMx modeling we had reliability concerns. alternative for those EGUs for that performed for our proposal, any Response: EPA takes very seriously pollutant.101 In promulgating this comments concerning the use of this concerns about grid reliability. We are 100 modeling are not pertinent to this final finalizing a SO2 trading program as an See Docket Item No. EPA–R06–OAR–2016– action and it is not necessary to respond alternative to source-by-source BART. 0611–0070, p. 3. to the merits of those comments. 101 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4); see also generally 77 FR We believe the program we have 33641 (June 7, 2012). Legal challenges to the designed will help address reliability CSAPR-better-than-BART rule from conservation 99 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y, Section III.A.1. concerns because it does not require groups and other petitioners are pending. Utility Air

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48353

CSAPR-better-than-BART rule (also provides for greater reasonable progress Circuit’s remand of certain CSAPR referred to as ‘‘Transport Rule as a than BART, the analysis included Texas budgets, we finalized the withdrawal of BART Alternative’’), the EPA relied on EGUs as subject to CSAPR for SO2 and the requirements for Texas’ EGUs to an analytic demonstration based on an annual NOX (as well as ozone-season participate in the annual SO2 and NOX 102 air quality modeling study showing NOX). CSAPR’s emissions limitations trading programs and also finalized our that CSAPR implementation meets the are defined in terms of emissions determination that the changes to the Regional Haze Rule’s criteria for a ‘‘budgets’’ for the collective emissions geographic scope of the CSAPR trading demonstration of greater reasonable from affected EGUs in each covered programs resulting from the remand progress than BART. In the air quality state. Sources have the ability to response do not affect the continued modeling study conducted for the 2012 purchase allowances from sources validity of participation in CSAPR as a analytic demonstration, the EPA outside of the state, so total projected BART alternative. This determination projected visibility conditions in emissions for a state may, in some cases, that CSAPR remains a viable BART affected Class I areas 103 based on 2014 exceed the state’s emission budget, but alternative despite changes in emissions projections for two control aggregate emissions from all sources in geographic scope resulting from EPA’s scenarios and on the 2014 base case a state should remain lower than or response to the CSAPR remand was emissions projections.104 One control equal to the state’s ‘‘assurance level.’’ based on a sensitivity analysis of the scenario represents ‘‘Nationwide BART’’ The final emission budget under CSAPR 2012 analytic demonstration used to and the other represents ‘‘CSAPR + for Texas was 294,471 tons per year for support the original CSAPR as better- BART-elsewhere.’’ In the base case, SO2, including 14,430 tons of than-BART rulemaking. A full neither BART controls nor the EGU SO2 allowances available in the new unit set explanation of the sensitivity analysis is 106 and NOX emissions reductions aside. The State’s ‘‘assurance level’’ included in the remand response attributable to CSAPR were reflected. To under CSAPR was 347,476 tons.107 proposal and final rule.109 project emissions under CSAPR, the Under CSAPR, the projected SO2 B. Texas SO2 Trading Program EPA assumed that the geographic scope emissions from the affected Texas EGUs and state emissions budgets for CSAPR in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere Texas is no longer in the CSAPR would be implemented as finalized and scenario were 266,600 tons per year. In program for annual SO2 emissions and amended in 2011 and 2012.105 The a 2012 sensitivity analysis memo, EPA accordingly cannot rely on CSAPR as a results of that analytic demonstration conducted a sensitivity analysis that BART alternative for SO2 under based on this air quality modeling confirmed that CSAPR would remain 51.308(e)(4).110 Therefore, informed by passed the two-pronged test set forth at better-than-BART if Texas EGU the TCEQ comments, we are proceeding 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). The first prong emissions increased to approximately to address the SO2 BART requirement ensures that the alternative program will 317,100 tons.108 for coal-fired, some gas-fired, and some not cause a decline in visibility at any As introduced in Section I.C, in the gas/fuel oil-fired units under a BART affected Class I area. The second prong EPA’s final response to the D.C. alternative, which we are justifying ensures that the alternative program according to the demonstration results in improvements in average 106 Units that are subject to CSAPR but that do not requirements under 51.308(e)(2). visibility across all affected Class I areas receive allowance allocations as existing units are eligible for a new unit set aside (NUSA) allowance 1. Identification of Sources Participating as compared to adopting source-specific allocation. NUSA allowance allocations are a batch in the Trading Program BART. Together, these tests ensure that of emissions allowances that are reserved for new the alternative program provides for units that are regulated by the CSAPR, but weren’t Under 51.308(e)(2), a State may opt to greater visibility improvement than included in the final rule allocations. The NUSA implement or require participation in an allowance allocations are removed from the original emissions trading program or other would source-specific BART. pool of regional allowances, and divided up For purposes of the 2012 analytic amongst the new units, so as not to exceed the alternative measure rather than to demonstration that CSAPR as finalized emissions cap set in the CSAPR. Each calendar require sources subject to BART to and amended in 2011 and 2012 year, EPA issues three pairs of preliminary and final install, operate, and maintain BART. notices of data availability (NODAs), which are Such an emissions trading program or determined and recorded in two ‘‘rounds’’ and are Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12–1342 (D.C. Cir. published in the Federal Register. In any year, if other alternative measure must achieve filed August 6, 2012). the NUSA for a given CSAPR state and program greater reasonable progress than would 102 See Technical Support Document for does not have enough new units after completion be achieved through the installation and Demonstration of the Transport Rule as a BART of the 2nd round, the remaining allowances are operation of BART. At the same time, Alternative, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– allocated to existing CSAPR-affected units. 107 the Texas trading program should be 0729–0014 (December 2011) (2011 CSAPR/BART See 40 CFR 97.710 for state SO2 Group 2 Technical Support Document), and memo entitled trading budgets, new unit set-asides, Indian country designed so as not to interfere with the ‘‘Sensitivity Analysis Accounting for Increases in new unit set-asides, and variability limits. validity of existing SIPs in other states Texas and Georgia Transport Rule State Emissions 108 For the projected annual SO2 emissions from that have relied on reductions from Budgets,’’ Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– Texas EGUs See Technical Support Document for 0729–0323 (May 29, 2012), both available in the Demonstration of the Transport Rule as a BART sources in Texas. As discussed docket for this action. Alternative, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– elsewhere, the Texas trading program is 103 The EPA identified two possible sets of 0729–0014 (December 2011) (2011 CSAPR/BART designed to provide the measures that ‘‘affected Class I areas’’ to consider for purposes of Technical Support Document), available in the are needed to address interstate the study and found that implementation of CSAPR docket for this action. at table 2–4. Certain CSAPR met the criteria for a BART alternative whichever budgets were increased after promulgation of the visibility transport requirements for set was considered. See 77 FR 33641, 33650 (June CSAPR final rule (and the increases were addressed several NAAQS and to be part of the 7, 2012). in the 2012 CSAPR/BART sensitivity analysis long-term strategy needed to meet the 104 For additional detail on the 2014 base case, memo. See memo entitled ‘‘Sensitivity Analysis reasonable progress requirements of the see the CSAPR Final Rule Technical Support Accounting for Increases in Texas and Georgia Document, available in the docket for this action. Transport Rule State Emissions Budgets,’’ Docket ID 105 CSAPR was amended three times in 2011 and No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729–0323 (May 29, 109 81 FR 78954 (Nov. 10, 2016) and final action 2012 to add five states to the seasonal NOX program 2012), available in the docket for this action. The signed September 21, 2017 available at and to increase certain state budgets. 76 FR 80760 increase in the Texas SO2 budget was 50,517 tons regulations.gov in Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR– (Dec. 27, 2011); 77 FR 10324 (Feb. 21, 2012); 77 FR which, when added to the Texas SO2 emissions 2016–0598. 34830 (June 12, 2012). The CSAPR-better-than- projected in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario 110 See final action signed September 21, 2017 BART final rule reflected consideration of these of 266,600 tons, yields total potential SO2 emissions available at regulations.gov in Docket No. EPA–HQ– changes to CSAPR. from Texas EGUs of approximately 317,100 tons. OAR–2016–0598.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48354 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

Regional Haze Rule.111 To meet all of TABLE 4—BART-ELIGIBLE EGUS PAR- (Parish Units 5, 6, and 7) that are these goals, the trading program must TICIPATING IN THE TRADING PRO- uncontrolled.115 Shifting of generation not only be inclusive of all BART- GRAM—Continued from the participating units at the Parish eligible sources that are treated as facility to Parish Unit 8 would result in satisfying the BART requirements Facility Unit a decrease in overall emissions from the through participation in a BART source. Similarly, J K Spruce Units 1 alternative, but must also include Stryker Creek (Luminant) ...... ST2. and 2 have high performing scrubbers additional emission sources such that WA Parish (NRG) ...... WAP4. and emit at emission rates much lower the trading program as a whole can be WA Parish (NRG) ...... WAP5. than the co-located BART-eligible coal- shown to both achieve greater WA Parish (NRG) ...... WAP6. fired units (J T Deely Units 1 and 2).116 reasonable progress than would be Welsh Power Plant (AEP) ...... 1. In addition, because these units not Welsh Power Plant (AEP) ...... 2. achieved through the installation and Wilkes Power Plant (AEP) ...... 1. covered by the program are on average operation of BART, and achieve the Wilkes Power Plant (AEP) ...... 2. better controlled for SO2 than the emission reductions relied upon by Wilkes Power Plant (AEP) ...... 3. covered sources and emit far less SO2 other states during consultation and per unit of energy produced, we assumed by other states in their own For a BART alternative that includes conclude that in general, based on the regional haze SIPs, including their an emissions trading program, the current emission rates of the EGUs, reasonable progress goals for their Class applicability provisions must be should a portion of electricity I areas. designed to prevent any significant generation shift to those units not The identification of EGUs in the potential shifting within the state of covered by the program, the net result trading program necessarily begins with production and emissions from sources would be a decrease in overall SO2 the list of BART-eligible EGUs for which in the program to sources outside the emissions, as these non-participating we intend to address the BART program. Shifting would be logistically units are on average much better requirements through a BART simplest among units in the same controlled. Relative to current emission alternative. As discussed elsewhere, we facility, because they are under common levels, should participating units determined that several BART-eligible management and have access to the increase their emissions rates and gas-fired and gas/oil-fired EGUs are not same transmission lines. In addition, decrease generation to comply with subject-to-BART for NOX, SO2, and PM, since a coal-fired EGU to which their allocation, emissions from non- therefore those BART-eligible sources electricity production could shift would participating units may see a small are not included in the trading program. increase. Therefore, we have not have a relatively high SO2 emission rate The table below lists those BART- (compared to a gas-fired EGU), such included Fayette Unit 3, WA Parish eligible EGUs identified for shifting could also shift substantive Unit 8 (WAP8), and J K Spruce Units 1 participation in the trading program. and 2 in the trading program. The table amounts of SO2 emissions. To prevent any significant shifting of generation below lists those coal-fired units that are TABLE 4—BART-ELIGIBLE EGUS PAR- co-located with BART-eligible units that and SO2 emissions from participating TICIPATING IN THE TRADING PRO- sources to non-participating sources have been identified for inclusion in the GRAM within the same facility, coal-fired EGUs trading program. that are not BART-eligible but are co- TABLE 5—COAL-FIRED EGUS CO-LO- Facility Unit located with BART-eligible EGUs have been included in the program. While CATED WITH BART-ELIGIBLE EGUS Big Brown (Luminant) ...... 1. AND PARTICIPATING IN THE TRADING Big Brown (Luminant) ...... 2. Fayette Unit 3, WA Parish Unit 8 Coleto Creek (Dynegy 112) ...... 1. (WAP8), and J K Spruce Units 1 and 2 PROGRAM Fayette (LCRA) ...... 1. were identified as coal-fired units that Fayette (LCRA) ...... 2. are not BART-eligible but are co-located Facility Unit Graham (Luminant) ...... 2. with BART-eligible EGUs, these units Harrington Station (Xcel) ...... 061B. Harrington Station (Xcel) ...... 063B. have scrubbers installed to control SO2 WA Parish (NRG) ...... WAP7. Harrington Station (Xcel) ...... 062B. emissions such that a shift in generation J T Deely (CPS Energy) ...... 1. Welsh Power Plant (AEP) ...... 3. J T Deely (CPS Energy) ...... 2. from the participating units to these Martin Lake (Luminant) ...... 1. units would not result in a significant In addition to these sources, we also Martin Lake (Luminant) ...... 2. increase in emissions. Fayette Unit 3 evaluated other EGUs for inclusion in Martin Lake (Luminant) ...... 3. has a high performing scrubber similar the trading program based on their Monticello (Luminant) ...... 1. to the scrubbers on Fayette Units 1 and potential to impact visibility at Class I Monticello (Luminant) ...... 2. 2,113 and has a demonstrated ability to areas. Addressing emissions from Monticello (Luminant) ...... 3. maintain SO2 emissions at or below 0.04 sources with the largest potential to Newman (El Paso Electric) ...... 2. 114 Newman (El Paso Electric) ...... 3. lbs/MMBtu. We find that any shifting impact visibility is required to make Newman (El Paso Electric) ...... 4. of generation from the participating progress towards the goal of natural O W Sommers (CPS Energy) ...... 1. units at the facility to Fayette Unit 3 visibility conditions and to address O W Sommers (CPS Energy) ...... 2. would result in an insignificant shift of emissions that may otherwise interfere emissions. The scrubber at Parish Unit 111 EPA is not determining at this time that this 8 maintains an emission rate four to five 115 Parish Units 5 and 6 are coal-fired BART- final action fully resolves the EPA’s outstanding times lower than the emission rate of eligible units. Parish Unit 7 is not BART-eligible, obligations with respect to reasonable progress that the other coal-fired units at the facility but is a co-located coal-fired EGU. Unlike Parish resulted from the Fifth Circuit’s remand of our Unit 8, these three units do not have an SO2 reasonable progress FIP. We intend to take future scrubber installed. action to address the Fifth Circuit’s remand. 113 See the BART FIP TSD, available in the docket 116 The annual average emission rate for 2016 for 112 Dynegy purchased the Coleto Creek power for this action (Document Id: EPA–R06–OAR–2016– J K Spruce Units 1 and 2 was 0.03 lb/MMBtu and plant from Engie in February, 2017. Note that 0611–0004), for evaluation of the performance of 0.01 lb/MMBtu, respectively. The annual average Coleto Creek may still be listed as being owned by scrubbers on Fayette Units 1 and 2. emission rate for 2016 for J T Deely Units 1 and 2 Engie in some of our supporting documentation 114 The annual average emission rate for 2016 for was 0.52 lb/MMBtu and 0.51 lb/MMBtu, which was prepared before that sale. this unit was 0.01 lb/MMBtu. respectively.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48355

with measures required to protect The table below summarizes the results most recent emissions from this facility visibility in other states. EPA, States, of that Q/D analysis for EGU sources in are small relative to other non-BART and RPOs have historically used a Q/D Texas with a Q/D value greater than 10 units included in the program and we analysis to identify those facilities that with respect to the nearest Class I area have not included Oklaunion in the have the potential to impact visibility at to the source. trading program. Finally, San Miguel is a Class I area based on their emissions identified as having a Q/D greater than and distance to the Class I area. Where, TABLE 6—Q/D ANALYSIS FOR TEXAS 10. The San Miguel facility consists of 1. Q is the annual emissions in tons EGUS one coal-fired unit that is not BART- per year (tpy), and [Q/D greater than 10, 2009 annual emissions] eligible. In our review of existing 2. D is the nearest distance to a Class controls at the facility performed as part I Area in kilometers (km). Facility Maximum Q/D of our action to address the remaining We used a Q/D value of 10 as a regional haze obligations for Texas, we threshold for identification of facilities H.W. Pirkey (AEP) ...... 35.8 found that the San Miguel facility has that may impact air visibility at Class I Big Brown (Luminant) ...... 182.9 upgraded its SO scrubber system to areas and could be included in the Sommers-Deely (CPS) ...... 56.9 2 perform at the highest level (94% trading program in order to meet the Coleto Creek (Dynegy) ...... 46.0 Fayette (LCRA) ...... 61.0 control efficiency) that can reasonably goals of achieving greater reasonable Gibbons Creek (TMPA) ...... 30.8 be expected based on the extremely high progress than BART and limiting Harrington Station (XCEL) .... 107.8 visibility transport. We selected this sulfur content of the coal being burned, San Miguel ...... 32.9 and the technology currently value of 10 based on guidance contained Limestone (NRG) ...... 85.1 122 in the BART Guidelines, which states: Martin Lake (Luminant) ...... 367.4 available. Since completion of all 123 Based on our analyses, we believe that Monticello (Luminant) ...... 425.4 scrubber upgrades, emissions from a State that has established 0.5 Oklaunion (AEP) ...... 85.0 the facility on a 30-day boiler operating deciviews as a contribution threshold Sandow (Luminant) ...... 63.0 day 124 rolling average basis have Tolk Station (XCEL) ...... 148.5 could reasonably exempt from the remained below 0.6 lb/MMBtu and the Twin Oaks ...... 14.2 2016 annual average emission rate was BART review process sources that emit WA Parish (NRG) ...... 84.3 less than 500 tpy of NOX or SO2 (or Welsh (AEP) ...... 230.1 0.44 lb/MMBtu. Therefore, we have combined NOX and SO2), as long as determined that the facility is well these sources are located more than 50 Based on the above Q/D analysis, we controlled and have not included San kilometers from any Class I area; and identified additional coal-fired EGUs for Miguel in the trading program. Other sources that emit less than 1000 tpy of participation in the SO2 trading program coal-fired EGUs in Texas that are not NOX or SO2 (or combined NOX and SO2) due to their emissions, proximity to included in the trading program either that are located more than 100 Class I areas, and potential to impact had Q/D values less than 10 based on kilometers from any Class I area.117 visibility at Class I areas. While Gibbons 2009 emissions or were not yet The approach described above Creek is identified by the Q/D analysis, operating in 2009. New units beginning corresponds to a Q/D threshold of 10. the facility does not include any BART- operation after 2009 would be permitted This approach has also been eligible EGUs and has installed very and constructed using emission control recommended by the Federal Land stringent controls such that current technology determined under either Managers’ Air Quality Related Values emissions are approximately 1% of BACT or LAER review, as applicable Work Group (FLAG) 118 as an initial what they were in 2009.121 Therefore, and we do not consider the potential screening test to determine if an we do not consider Gibbons Creek to visibility impacts from these units to be analysis is required to evaluate the have significant potential to impact significant relative to those coal-fired potential impact of a new or modified visibility at any Class I area and do not EGUs participating in the program. See source on air quality related value include it in the trading program. The Table 10 and accompanying discussion (AQRV) at a Class I area. For this Twin Oaks facility, consisting of two in the section below for additional purpose, a Q/D value is calculated using units, is also identified as having a Q/ information on coal-fired EGUs not the combined annual emissions in tons D greater than 10. However, the Q/D for included in the trading program. The per year of (SO2, NOX, PM10, and this facility is significantly lower than table below lists the additional units sulfuric acid mist (H2SO4) divided by that of the other facilities, the facility identified by the Q/D analysis described the distance to the Class I area in km. does not include any BART-eligible above as potentially significantly A Q/D value greater than 10 requires a EGUs, and the estimated Q/D for an impacting visibility and are included in 119 Class I area AQRV analysis. individual unit would be less than 10. the trading program. We note that all of We considered the results of an We do not consider the potential the other coal-fired units identified for available Q/D analysis based on 2009 visibility impacts from these units to be inclusion in the trading program due to emissions to identify facilities that may significant relative to the other coal- their BART-eligibility or by the fact that impact air visibility at Class I areas.120 fired EGUs in Texas with Q/Ds much they are co-located with BART-eligible greater than 10 and do not include it in coal units would also be identified for 117 See 40 CFR part 51, App. Y, § III (How to the trading program. The Oklaunion Identify Sources ‘‘Subject to BART’’). facility consists of one coal-fired unit 118 Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related 122 79 FR 74818 (Dec. 16, 2014). Values Work Group (FLAG), Phase I Report— that is not BART-eligible. Annual 123 San Miguel Electric Cooperative FGD Upgrade Revised (2010) Natural Resource Report NPS/ emissions of SO2 in 2016 from this Program Update, URS Corporation, June 30, 2014. NRPC/NRR—2010/232, October 2010. Available at source were 1,530 tons, less than 1% of Available in the docket for our December 2014 http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Pubs/pdf/flag/FLAG the total annual emissions for EGUs in Proposed action, 79 FR 74818 (Dec 16, 2014) as _2010.pdf. ‘‘TX166–008–066 San Miguel FGD Upgrade 119 We also note that TCEQ utilized a Q/D the state. We have determined that the Program.’’ threshold of 5 in its analysis of reasonable progress 124 A boiler operating day (BOD) is any 24-hour sources in the 2009 Texas Regional Haze SIP. See 16, 2014) and 2009statesum_Q_D.xlsx available in period between 12:00 midnight and the following Appendix 10–1. the docket for that action. midnight during which any fuel is combusted at 120 121 See the TX RH FIP TSD that accompanied our 2016 annual SO2 emissions were only 138 tons any time at the steam generating unit. See 70 FR December 2014 Proposed action 79 FR 74818 (Dec compared to 11,931 tons in 2009. 39172 (July 6, 2005).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48356 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

inclusion in the trading program if the covered by the alternative program.126 revisions by the State of Texas as Q/D analysis were applied to them. This coverage and our determinations contemplated in its request for the SO2 that the BART-eligible gas-fired and oil- BART alternative, will bring closure to TABLE 7—ADDITIONAL UNITS IDENTI- and-gas-fired EGUs not covered by the the reasonable progress requirement. FIED FOR INCLUSION IN THE TRADING program are not subject-to-BART for For these reasons, we find that it is not PROGRAM NOX, SO2 and PM satisfy the second necessary for us to make determinations requirement of § 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B). of BART for each source subject to Facility Unit Regarding the requirements of 40 CFR BART and covered by the program. In 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C), we are not making this context, 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C) provides H.W. Pirkey (AEP) ...... 1. determinations of BART for each source that we may ‘‘determine the best system Limestone (NRG) ...... 1. subject to BART and covered by the of continuous emission control Limestone (NRG) ...... 2. program. The demonstration for a BART technology and associated emission Sandow (Luminant) ...... 4. alternative does not need to include reductions for similar types of sources Tolk (Xcel) ...... 171B. determinations of BART for each source Tolk (Xcel) ...... 172B. within a source category based on both subject to BART and covered by the source-specific and category-wide program when the ‘‘alternative measure information, as appropriate.’’ In this As discussed in more detail below, has been designed to meet a action, we are relying on the the inclusion of all of these identified requirement other than BART.’’ The determinations of the best system of sources (Tables 4, 5, and 7 above) in an Texas trading program meets this continuous emission control technology intrastate SO trading program will 2 condition, as discussed elsewhere, and associated emission reductions for achieve emission levels that are similar because it has been designed to meet EGUs as was used in our 2012 to original projected participation by all multiple requirements other than BART. determination that showed that CSAPR Texas EGUs in the CSAPR program for This BART alternative extends beyond as finalized and amended in 2011 and trading of SO and achieve greater 2 all BART-eligible coal-fired units to 2012 achieves more reasonable progress reasonable progress than BART. In include a number of additional coal- than BART. These determinations were addition to being a sufficient alternative fired EGUs, and some BART-eligible based on category-wide information. to BART, the trading program secures gas-fired and oil-and-gas-fired units, Regarding the requirement of 40 CFR reductions consistent with visibility capturing the majority of emissions from 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D), our analysis is that transport requirements and is part of the EGUs in the State and is designed to the Texas trading program will long-term strategy to meet the provide the measures that are needed to effectively limit the aggregate annual reasonable progress requirements of the address interstate visibility transport SO emissions of the covered EGUs to Regional Haze Rule.125 The combination 2 requirements for several NAAQS. This be no higher than the sum of their of the source coverage for this program, is because for all sources covered by the allowances. As discussed elsewhere, the the total allocations for EGUs covered Texas SO2 trading program, those average total annual allowance by the program, and recent and sources’ CSAPR allocations for SO2 are allocation for covered sources is 238,393 foreseeable emissions from EGUs not incorporated into this finalized BART tons and an additional 10,000 tons for covered by the program will result in alternative, and the BART FIP obtains the Supplemental Allowance pool. In future EGU emissions in Texas that on more emission reductions of SO2 and addition, while the Supplemental average will be no greater than what was NOX than the level of emissions Allowance pool may grow over time as forecast in the 2012 better-than-BART reductions relied upon by other states unused supplemental allowances demonstration for Texas EGU emissions during consultation and assumed by remain available and allocations from assuming CSAPR participation. other states in their own regional haze retired units are placed in the 2. Texas SO2 Trading Program as a SIPs including their reasonable progress supplemental pool, the total number of BART Alternative goals for their Class I areas. This BART allowances that can be allocated in a alternative, addressing emissions from control period from the supplemental 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) contains the both BART eligible and non-BART pool is limited to a maximum 54,711 required plan elements and analyses for eligible sources, that in combination tons plus the amount of any allowances an emissions trading program or provides for greater reasonable progress placed in the pool that year from retired alternative measure designed as a BART than BART, is also designed to be part units and corrections. Therefore, annual alternative. of the long-term strategy needed to meet average emissions for the covered As discussed above, consistent with the reasonable progress requirements of sources will be less than or equal to our proposal, we are finalizing our list the Regional Haze Rule, which remain 248,393 tons with some year to year of all BART-eligible sources, in Texas, outstanding after the remand of our variability constrained by the number of which serves to satisfy reasonable progress FIP by the Fifth banked allowances and number of § 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A). Circuit Court of Appeals. Since the time allowances that can be allocated in a This action includes a list of all EGUs of our January 4, 2017 proposal on control period from the supplemental covered by the trading program, BART, we note that the Fifth Circuit pool. The projected SO2 emission satisfying the first requirement of Court of Appeals has remanded without reduction that will be achieved by the § 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B). All BART-eligible vacatur our prior action on the 2009 program, relative to any selected coal-fired units, some additional coal- Texas Regional Haze SIP and part of the historical baseline year, is therefore the 127 fired EGUs, and some BART-eligible Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP. We difference between the aggregate gas-fired and oil-and-gas-fired units are contemplate that future action on this historical baseline emissions of the remand, including action that may covered units and the average total merge with new development of SIP 125 EPA is not determining at this time that this annual allocation. For example, the final action fully resolves the EPA’s outstanding aggregate 2014 SO2 emissions of the obligations with respect to reasonable progress that 126 See Table 3 above for list of participating units covered EGUs were 309,296 tons per resulted from the Fifth Circuit’s remand of our and identification of BART-eligible participating reasonable progress FIP. We intend to take future units. year, while the average total annual action to address the Fifth Circuit’s remand. 127 Texas v. EPA, 829 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2016). allocation for the covered EGUs is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48357

248,393 tons/year.128 Therefore, than BART. However, the states Texas EGUs were still required to compared to 2014 emissions, the Texas participating in CSAPR are now slightly participate in CSAPR’s SO2 trading trading program is projected to achieve different than the geographic scope of program, it would be plainly consistent an average reduction of approximately CSAPR assumed in the 2012 analytic with previous findings and approvals 60,903 tons per year.129 We note that the demonstration. The changes to states that CSAPR is an acceptable BART trading program allows additional participating in both CSAPR NOX alternative. The Texas trading program sources to opt-in to the program. Should trading programs resulting from EPA’s will result in emissions from the sources choose to opt-in in the future, response to the D.C. Circuit’s remand covered EGUs and other EGUs in Texas the average total annual allocation could were found by us to have no adverse that are no higher than if Texas EGUs increase up to a maximum of 289,740. impact on the 2012 determination that were still required to participate in For comparison, the aggregate 2014 SO2 CSAPR participation remains better- CSAPR’s SO2 trading program, and thus 130 emissions of the covered EGUs than-BART. Regarding SO2 emissions the clear weight of evidence is that the including all potential opt-ins were from Texas, as detailed below, the Texas trading program will provide 343,425 tons per year. Therefore, BART alternative is projected to more reasonable progress than BART. compared to 2014 emissions, the Texas accomplish emission levels from Texas Still regarding 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), trading program including all potential EGUs that are similar to the emission we have considered the question of opt-ins is projected to achieve an levels from Texas EGUs that would have whether in applying this portion of the average reduction of approximately been realized from the SO2 trading Regional Haze Rule we should take as 53,685 tons per year. program under CSAPR. The changes to the baseline the application of source- Regarding the requirement of 40 CFR the geographic scope of the NOX CSAPR specific BART at the covered sources. 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), the BART alternative programs combined with the We interpret the rule to not require that being finalized today is supported by expectation that the Texas trading approach in this situation, given that our determination that the clear weight program will reduce the SO emissions 2 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C) provides for an of the evidence is that the trading of EGUs in Texas to levels similar to exception (which we are exercising) to program achieves greater reasonable CSAPR-participation levels, despite the requirement for source-specific progress than would be achieved slight differences in EGU participation BART determinations for the covered through the installation and operation of between the two SO programs, lead to 2 sources. We are not making any source- BART at the covered sources. The 2012 the finding here that post-remand specific BART determinations in this demonstration showed that CSAPR as CSAPR and the Texas BART alternative action, nor did Texas do so in its 2009 finalized and amended in 2011 and program are better-than-BART for Texas. 2012 meets the Regional Haze Rule’s The differences in Texas EGU SIP submission. criteria for a demonstration of greater participation in CSAPR and this BART Table 8 below identifies the reasonable progress than BART. This alternative are either not significant or, participating units and their unit-level 2012 demonstration is the primary in some cases, work to demonstrate the allocations under the Texas SO2 trading evidence that the Texas trading program relative stringency of the BART program. These allocations are the same achieves greater reasonable progress alternative as compared to CSAPR. If as under CSAPR.

TABLE 8—ALLOCATIONS FOR TEXAS EGUS SUBJECT TO THE FIP SO2 TRADING PROGRAM

Allocations Owner/operator Units (tpy)

AEP ...... Welsh Power Plant Unit 1 ...... 6,496 Welsh Power Plant Unit 2 ...... 7,050 Welsh Power Plant Unit 3 ...... 7,208 H W Pirkey Power Plant Unit 1 ...... 8,882 Wilkes Unit 1 ...... 14 Wilkes Unit 2 ...... 2 Wilkes Unit 3 ...... 3 CPS Energy ...... JT Deely Unit 1 ...... 6,170 JT Deely Unit 2 ...... 6,082 Sommers Unit 1 ...... 55 Sommers Unit 2 ...... 7 Dynegy ...... Coleto Creek Unit 1 ...... 9,057 El Paso Electric ...... Newman Unit 2 ...... 1 Newman Unit 3 ...... 1 Newman Unit 4 ...... 2 LCRA ...... Fayette/Sam Seymour Unit 1 ...... 7,979 Fayette/Sam Seymour Unit 2 ...... 8,019 Luminant ...... Big Brown Unit 1 ...... 8,473 Big Brown Unit 2 ...... 8,559 Martin Lake Unit 1 ...... 12,024 Martin Lake Unit 2 ...... 11,580 Martin Lake Unit 3 ...... 12,236 Monticello Unit 1 ...... 8,598

128 Texas sources were subject to CSAPR in 2015 51.308(e)(2), the analysis of achievable emission comparing aggregate baseline emissions to aggregate and 2016 but are no longer subject to CSAPR. We reductions could be more complicated. For allowances. therefore select 2014 as the appropriate most recent example, a program that involved economic 130 81 FR 78954, 78962 (November 10, 2016) and incentives instead of allowances or that involved year for this comparison. final action signed September 21, 2017 available at interstate allowance trading would present a more 129 We note that for other types of alternative complex situation in which achievable emission regulations.gov in Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR– programs that might be adopted under 40 CFR reductions could not be calculated simply be 2016–0598.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48358 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 8—ALLOCATIONS FOR TEXAS EGUS SUBJECT TO THE FIP SO2 TRADING PROGRAM—Continued

Allocations Owner/operator Units (tpy)

Monticello Unit 2 ...... 8,795 Monticello Unit 3 ...... 12,216 Sandow Unit 4 ...... 8,370 Stryker ST2 ...... 145 Graham Unit 2 ...... 226 NRG ...... Limestone Unit 1 ...... 12,081 Limestone Unit 2 ...... 12,293 WA Parish Unit WAP4 ...... 3 WA Parish Unit WAP5 ...... 9,580 WA Parish Unit WAP6 ...... 8,900 WA Parish Unit WAP7 ...... 7,653 Xcel ...... Tolk Station Unit 171B ...... 6,900 Tolk Station Unit 172B ...... 7,062 Harrington Unit 061B ...... 5,361 Harrington Unit 062B ...... 5,255 Harrington Unit 063B ...... 5,055

Total ...... 238,393

The total annual allocation for all allocation, pursuant to 40 CFR 97.912. 85% of the CSAPR allocations for sources in the Texas SO2 trading Under CSAPR, the total allocations for existing units. The Supplemental program is 238,393 tons. In addition, a all existing EGUs in Texas is 279,740 Allowance pool contains an additional Supplemental Allowance pool initially tons, with a total of 294,471 tons 10,000 tons, compared to the new unit holds an additional 10,000 tons for a including the new unit set aside of set aside (NUSA) allowance allocation maximum total annual allocation of 14,430 tons and the Indian country new under CSAPR of 14,430 tons. Examining 131 248,393 tons. The Administrator may unit set aside. As shown in Table 9 2016 emissions, the EGUs covered by allocate a limited number of additional below, the coverage of the Texas SO2 the program represent 89% of total allowances from this pool to sources trading program represents 81% of the Texas EGU emissions. whose emissions exceed their annual total CSAPR allocation for Texas and

TABLE 9—COMPARISON OF TEXAS SO2 TRADING PROGRAM ALLOCATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPLICABLE CSAPR ALLOCATIONS AND TO 2016 EMISSIONS

% of total Annual allocations in the previously applicable Texas Trading Program CSAPR 2016 emissions (tons per year) allocations (tons per year) (294,471 tons per year)

Texas SO2 Trading program sources ...... 238,393 81 218,291 Total EGU emissions ...... 245,737 Supplemental Allowance pool ...... 10,000 3.4 ...... Existing Sources not covered by trading program ...... * 16 27,446 * No allocation.

The remaining 11% of the total 2016 fired units participating in the trading participating units are on average much emissions due to sources not covered by program compared to 0.12 lb/MMBTU better controlled and emit far less SO2 the program come from coal-fired units for the coal-fired units not covered by per unit of energy produced. Relative to that on average are better controlled for the program. Therefore, we conclude current emission levels, should SO2 than the covered sources (26,795 that in general, based on the current participating units increase their tons in 2016) and gas units that rarely emission rates of the EGUs, should a emissions rates and decrease generation burn fuel oil (651 tons in 2016). The portion of electricity generation shift to to comply with their allocation, table below lists these coal-fired units. units not covered by the program, the emissions from non-participating units The average annual emission rate for net result would be a decrease in overall may see a small increase. 2016 is 0.50 lb/MMBTU for the coal- SO2 emissions, as these non-

131 An Indian Country new unit set-aside is provides allowances for future new units locating in Indian Country. The Indian Country new unit established for each state under the CSAPR that set-aside for Texas is 294 tons. See 40 CFR 97.710.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48359

TABLE 10—COAL-FIRED EGUS NOT COVERED BY THE TEXAS SO2 TRADING PROGRAM

Previously applicable 2016 annual average CSAPR allocation 2016 emissions emission rate (tons) (tons) (lb/MMBtu)

Fayette/Sam Seymour Unit 3 ...... 2,955 231 0.01 Gibbons Creek Unit 1 ...... 6,314 138 0.02 JK Spruce Unit 1 ...... 4,133 467 0.03 JK Spruce Unit 2 ...... 158 151 0.01 Oak Grove Unit 1 ...... 1,665 3,334 0.11 Oak Grove Unit 2 * ...... 3,727 0.12 Oklaunion Unit 1 ...... 4,386 1,530 0.11 San Miguel Unit 1 ...... 6,271 6,815 0.44 Sandow Station Unit 5A ...... 773 1,117 0.11 Sandow Station Unit 5B ...... 725 1,146 0.10 Sandy Creek Unit 1 * ...... 1,842 0.09 Twin Oaks Unit 1 ...... 2,326 1,712 0.21 Twin Oaks Unit 2 ...... 2,270 1,475 0.23 WA Parish Unit WAP8 ...... 4,071 3,112 0.16

Total ...... 36,047 26,795 ...... * Oak Grove Unit 2 and Sandy Creek Unit 1 received allocations from the new unit set aside under the CSAPR program.

The exclusion of a large number of provisions require some sources to therefore 293,104, which is the sum of gas-fired units that occasionally burn surrender two additional allowances per the 238,393 budget for existing units fuel oil further limits allowances in the ton beyond the amount equal to their plus 54,711. Annual average emissions program as compared to CSAPR because actual emissions, depending on their for the covered sources will be less than CSAPR allocated these units allowances emissions and annual allocation level. or equal to 248,393 tons with some year that are higher than their recent and In effect, under CSAPR, EGUs in Texas to year variability constrained by the current emissions. In 2016, these units could emit above the allocation if number of banked allowances and emitted 651 tons of SO2, but received willing to pay the market price of allowances available to be allocated allowances for over 5,000 tons. By allowances and the cost associated with during a control period from the excluding these sources from the each incremental ton of emissions could Supplemental Allowance pool. If program, those unused allowances are triple if in the aggregate they exceeded additional units opt into the program, not available for purchase by other the assurance level. The Texas trading additional allowances will be available EGUs. We note the trading program does program will have 248,393 tons of corresponding to the amounts that those allow non-participating sources that allowances allocated every year, with no units would have been allocated under previously had CSAPR allocations to ability to purchase additional CSAPR. The projected SO2 emissions opt-in to the trading program and allowances from sources outside of the from the affected Texas EGUs in the receive an allocation equivalent to the State, preventing an increase beyond CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario CSAPR level allocation. Should some that annual allocation.132 This includes were 266,600 tons per year. In a 2012 sources choose to opt-in to the program, an annual allocation of 10,000 sensitivity analysis memo, EPA the total number of allowances will allowances to the Supplemental conducted a sensitivity analysis that increase by that amount. This will serve Allowance pool. The Supplemental confirmed that CSAPR would remain to increase the percentage of CSAPR Allowance pool may grow over time as better-than-BART if Texas EGU allowances represented by the Texas unused supplemental allowances emissions increased to approximately 133 SO2 trading program and increase the remain available and allocations from 317,100 tons. Under the Texas SO2 portion of emissions covered by the retired units are placed in the trading program, annual average EGU program, more closely resembling the supplemental pool but the total number emissions are anticipated to remain well CSAPR program. of allowances that can be allocated in a below 317,100 tons per year as annual control period from in this Finally, the Texas SO trading allocations for participating units are 2 supplemental pool is limited to a program does not allow EGUs to maximum 54,711 tons plus the amount 133 purchase allowances from sources in For the projected annual SO2 emissions from of any allowances placed in the pool other states. Under CSAPR, Texas EGUs Texas EGUs see Technical Support Document for that year from retired units and Demonstration of the Transport Rule as a BART were allowed to purchase allowances corrections. The 54,711-ton value is Alternative, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– from other Group 2 states, a fact which 0729–0014 (December 2011) (2011 CSAPR/BART equal to 10,000 tons annually allocated Technical Support Document), available in the could, and was projected to, result in an to the pool plus 18% of the total annual increase in annual allowances used in docket for this action, at table 2–4. Certain CSAPR allocation for participating units, budgets were increased after promulgation of the the State above the state budget. CSAPR mirroring the variability limit from CSAPR final rule (and the increases were addressed also included a variability limit that was CSAPR. The total number of allowances in the 2012 CSAPR/BART sensitivity analysis set at 18% of the State budget and an memo), See memo titled ‘‘Sensitivity Analysis that can be allocated in a single year is Accounting for Increases in Texas and Georgia assurance level equal to the State’s Transport Rule State Emissions Budgets,’’ Docket ID budget plus variability limit. The 132 We note the trading program does allow non- No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729–0323 (May 29, assurance level for Texas was set at participating sources that previously had CSAPR 2012), available in the docket for this action. The 347,476 tons. The CSAPR assurance allocations to opt-in to the trading program and increase in the Texas SO2 budget was 50,517 tons provisions are triggered if the State’s receive an allocation equivalent to the CSAPR level which, when added to the Texas SO2 emissions allocation. Should some sources choose to opt-in to projected in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario emissions for a year exceed the the program, the total number of allowances will of 266,600 tons, yields total potential SO2 emissions assurance level. These assurance increase by that amount. from Texas EGUs of approximately 317,100 tons.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48360 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

held at 248,393 tons per year. Sources SO2 Trading Program provides which the total emissions reported for not covered by the program emitted less flexibility to affected units and sources its participating units exceed the total than 27,500 tons of SO2 in 2016 and are by allowing units and sources to allocations to its participating units not projected to significantly increase determine their own compliance path; (before any allocation from the from this level. Any new units would be this includes adding or operating Supplemental Allowance Pool). If the required to be well controlled and control technologies, upgrading or total amount of allowances available for similar to the existing units not covered improving controls, switching fuels, and allocation from the Supplemental by the program, they would not using allowances. Sources can buy and Allowance Pool for a control period is significantly increase total emissions of sell allowances and bank (save) less than the sum of these maximum SO2. Furthermore, as discussed above, allowances for future use as long as each allocations, sources will receive less any load shifting to these new non- source holds enough allowances to than the maximum supplemental participating units would be projected account for its emissions of SO2 by the allocation from the Supplemental to result in a net decrease in emissions end of the compliance period. Allowance Pool, where the amount of per unit of electricity generated and at Pursuant to the requirements of supplemental allocations for each most a small increase in total SO2 § 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A), the applicability of source is determined in proportion to emissions compared to them not having the Texas SO2 Trading Program is the sources’ respective maximum been brought into operation. We note defined in 40 CFR 97.904. Section allocations, with one exception. While that total emissions of SO2 from all EGU 97.904(a) identifies the subject units, all other sources required to participate sources in Texas in 2016 were 245,737 which include all BART-eligible coal- in the trading program have flexibility tons. fired EGUs, additional coal-fired EGUs, to transfer allowances among multiple We also note that state-wide EGU and several BART-eligible gas-fired and participating units under the same emissions in Texas have decreased gas/fuel oil-fired EGUs, all of which owner/operator when planning considerably since the 2002 baseline were previously covered by the CSAPR operations, Coleto Creek consists of only period, reflecting market changes and SO Group 2 Trading Program. one coal-fired unit and is the only coal- reductions due to requirements such as 2 Additionally, under 40 CFR 97.904(b), fired unit in Texas owned and operated CAIR/CSAPR. In 2002, Texas EGU the EPA is providing an opportunity for by Dynegy. To provide this source emissions were 560,860 tons of SO 2 any other unit in the State of Texas that additional flexibility, Coleto Creek will compared to emissions of 245,737 tons was subject to the CSAPR SO Group 2 be allocated its maximum supplemental in 2016, a reduction of over 56%. The 2 Trading Program to opt-in to the Texas allocation from the Supplemental Texas SO2 trading program locks in the large majority of these reductions by SO2 Trading Program. We discuss in Allowance Pool as long as there are limiting allocation of allowances to Section V.B above, how the sufficient allowances in the 248,393 tons per year for participating applicability results in coverage of the Supplemental Allowance Pool available sources. While the Texas program does Texas SO2 trading program representing for allocation, and its actual allocation not include all EGU sources in the State, 81% of the total CSAPR allocation for will not be reduced in proportion with as discussed above, the EGUs outside of Texas and 85% of the CSAPR any reductions made to the the program contribute relatively little allocations for existing units, and how supplemental allocations to other to the total state emissions and these potential shifts in generation would sources. Section 97.921 establishes how units on average are better controlled for result in an insignificant change in the Administrator will record the emissions. The Texas SO2 Trading allowances for the Texas SO2 Trading SO2 than the units subject to the Texas program. Program establishes the statewide SO2 Program and ensures that the budget for the subject units at 40 CFR Administrator will not record more C. Specific Texas SO2 Trading Program 97.910(a). This budget is equal to the allowances than are available under the Features allowances for each subject unit program consistent with 40 CFR The Texas SO2 Trading Program is an identified under §§ 97.904(a) and 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(B). The monitoring, intrastate cap-and-trade program for 97.911(a). As units opt-in to the Texas recordkeeping, and reporting provisions listed covered sources in the State of SO2 Trading under § 97.904(b), the for the Texas SO2 Trading Program at 40 Texas. The EPA is promulgating the allowances for each of these units will CFR 97.930–97.935 are consistent with Texas SO2 Trading Program under 40 equal their CSAPR SO2 Group 2 those requirements in the CSAPR SO2 CFR 52.2312 and subpart FFFFF of part allowances under § 97.911(b). Group 2 Trading Program. The 97. The State of Texas may choose to Additionally, the EPA has established a provisions in 40 CFR 97.930–97.935 remain under the Texas SO2 Trading Supplemental Allowance Pool with a require the subject units to comply with Program or replace it with an budget of 10,000 tons of SO2 to provide the monitoring, recordkeeping, and appropriate SIP. If the State of Texas is compliance assistance to subject units reporting requirements for SO2 interested in pursuing delegation of the and sources. Section 40 CFR 97.912 emissions in 40 CFR part 75; thereby Texas SO2 Trading Program, the request establishes how allowances are satisfying the requirements of would need to provide a demonstration allocated from the Supplemental § 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(C)–(E). The Texas SO2 of the State’s statutory authority to Allowance Pool to sources (collections Trading Program will be implemented implement any delegated elements. of participating units at a facility) that by the EPA using the Allowance The Texas SO2 Trading Program is have reported total emissions for that Management System. The use of the modeled after the EPA’s CSAPR SO2 control period exceeding the total Allowance Management System will Group 2 Trading Program and satisfies amounts of allowances allocated to the provide a consistent approach to the requirements of § 51.308(e)(2)(vi). participating units at the source for that implementation and tracking of Similar to the CSAPR SO2 Group 2 control period (before any allocation allowances and emissions for the EPA, Trading Program, the Texas SO2 Trading from the Supplemental Allowance subject sources, and the public Program sets an SO2 emission budget for Pool). For any control period, the consistent with the requirements of 40 the State of Texas. Authorizations to maximum supplemental allocation from CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(F). Additionally, emit SO2, known as allowances, are the Supplemental Allowance Pool that a the EPA is promulgating requirements at allocated to affected units. The Texas source may receive is the amount by 40 CFR 97.913–97.918 for designated

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48361

and alternate designated representatives 40 CFR 51.308(g) to evaluate progress emissions exceed their allocations. The that satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR towards the reasonable progress goals amount of allocations to the 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(G) and are consistent for Class I areas located within the State Supplemental Allowance Pool each year with the EPA’s other trading programs and Class I areas located outside the is less than the portion of the Texas under 40 CFR part 97. Allowance State affected by emissions from within budget under the CSAPR SO2 Group 2 transfer provisions for the Texas SO2 the State. Because the Texas SO2 Trading Program that would have been Trading Program at 40 CFR 97.922 and Trading Program is a BART-alternative set aside each year for new units (and 97.923 provide procedures that allow for Texas’ Regional Haze obligations, which would have been allocated to timely transfer and recording of this program is required to be reviewed existing units to the extent not needed allowances; these provisions will in each progress report. We anticipate by new units). this progress report will provide the minimize administrative barriers to the VI. Final Action operation of the allowance market and information needed to assess program ensure that such procedures apply performance, as required by 40 CFR A. Regional Haze uniformly to all sources and other 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(L). As previously discussed, the EPA We are finalizing our identification of potential participants in the allowance BART-eligible EGUs. We are approving market, consistent with 40 CFR modeled the Texas SO2 Trading the portion of the Texas Regional Haze 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(H). Compliance Program after the EPA’s CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program. Relying on a SIP that addresses the BART provisions for the Texas SO Trading 2 trading program structure that is already requirement for EGUs for PM. As Program at 40 CFR 97.924 prohibit a in effect enables the EPA, the subject discussed elsewhere in this preamble, source from emitting a total tonnage of sources, and the public to benefit from we are replacing Texas’ reliance on SO that exceeds the tonnage value of its 2 the use of the Allowance Management CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to SO allowance holdings as required by 2 System, forms, and monitoring, address the NOX BART requirements for 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(I). The Texas recordkeeping, and reporting EGUs. To address the SO2 BART SO2 Trading Program includes requirements. However, there are a few requirements for EGUs, we are automatic allowance surrender features of the Texas SO2 Trading promulgating a FIP to replace Texas’ provisions at 40 CFR 97.924(d) that Program that are separate and unique reliance on CAIR with reliance on an apply consistently from source to source from the EPA’s CSAPR. First, the intrastate SO2 trading program for and the tonnage value of the allowances program does not address new units that certain EGUs identified in Table 11 deducted shall equal at least three times are built after the inception of the below. This FIP is codified under 40 the tonnage of the excess emissions, program; these units would be CFR 52.2312 and subpart FFFFF of part consistent with the penalty provisions permitted and constructed using 97. We are finalizing our determination at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(J). The Texas emission control technology determined that BART-eligible EGUs not covered by SO2 Trading Program provides for under either BACT or LAER review, as the intrastate SO2 trading program are banking of allowances under 40 CFR applicable. Second, the Texas SO2 not subject-to-BART. This final action is 97.926; Texas SO2 Trading Program Trading Program provides that sources also part of the long-term strategy to allowances are valid for compliance in that were previously covered under the address the reasonable progress the control period of issuance or may be CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program, requirements for Texas EGUs, which banked for future use, consistent with but are not subject to the requirements remain outstanding after the remand of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(K). The EPA is of subpart FFFFF of part 97 can opt-in our reasonable progress FIP by the Fifth promulgating the Texas SO2 Trading to the Texas SO2 Trading Program at the Circuit Court of Appeals. However, Program as a BART-alternative for allocation level established under further assessment and analysis of the Texas’ Regional Haze obligations. The CSAPR. Finally, the Texas SO2 Trading CAA’s reasonable progress factors will CAA and EPA’s implementing Program includes a Supplemental be needed before the Regional Haze regulations require periodic review of Allowance Pool to provide some Rule’s reasonable progress requirements the state’s regional haze approach under compliance assistance to units whose will be fully addressed for Texas.

TABLE 11—TEXAS EGUS SUBJECT TO THE FIP SO2 TRADING PROGRAM

Owner/operator Units

AEP ...... Welsh Power Plant Units 1, 2, and 3. H W Pirkey Power Plant Unit 1. Wilkes Units 1 *, 2 *, and 3 *. CPS Energy ...... JT Deely Units 1 and 2, Sommers Units 1 * and 2 *. Dynegy ...... Coleto Creek Unit 1. LCRA ...... Fayette/Sam Seymour Units 1 and 2. Luminant ...... Big Brown Units 1 and 2. Martin Lake Units 1, 2, and 3. Monticello Units 1, 2, and 3. Sandow Unit 4. Stryker ST2 *. Graham Unit 2 *. NRG ...... Limestone Units 1 and 2. WA Parish Units WAP4 *, WAP5, WAP6, WAP7. Xcel ...... Tolk Station Units 171B and 172B. Harrington Units 061B, 062B, and 063B. El Paso Electric ...... Newman Units 2 *, 3 *, and 4 *. * Gas-fired or gas/fuel oil-fired units.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48362 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

B. Interstate Visibility Transport B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing regulatory burden for all directly Regulations and Controlling Regulatory regulated small entities. In our January 5, 2016 final action 134 Costs we disapproved the portion of Texas’ E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act SIP revisions intended to address This action is not an Executive Order (UMRA) interstate visibility transport for six 13771 regulatory action because this This action does not contain an NAAQS, including the 1997 8-hour action is not significant under Executive Order 12866. unfunded mandate of $100 million or ozone and 1997 PM .135 That 2.5 more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. rulemaking was challenged, however, C. Paperwork Reduction Act 1531–1538, and does not significantly or and in December 2016, following the The Office of Management and Budget uniquely affect small governments. submittal of a request by the EPA for a (OMB) has determined that this action voluntary remand of the parts of the rule imposes a collection burden that is F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism under challenge, the Fifth Circuit Court subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of Appeals remanded the rule in its This action does not have federalism (PRA). An agency may not conduct or implications. It will not have substantial entirety without vacatur.136 In our sponsor, and a person is not required to direct effects on the states, on the January 4, 2017 proposed action we respond to, a collection of information relationship between the national proposed to reconsider the basis of our unless it displays a currently valid OMB government and the states, or on the prior disapproval of Texas’ SIP revisions control number. Therefore, the EPA will distribution of power and addressing interstate visibility transport obtain a valid OMB control number responsibilities among the various under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for unless OMB determines that these six NAAQS. We have reconsidered the collection activities are covered under levels of government. basis of our prior disapproval and are an existing information collection G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation disapproving Texas’ SIP revisions request (ICR) and associated OMB and Coordination With Indian Tribal addressing interstate visibility transport control number. If the EPA obtains a Governments under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for new OMB control number or amends an six NAAQS. We are finalizing a FIP to existing ICR with a valid OMB control This rule does not have tribal fully address Texas’ interstate visibility number, the EPA will provide notice in implications, as specified in Executive transport obligations for the following the Federal Register as required by the Order 13175. It will not have substantial six NAAQS: (1) 1997 8-hour ozone, (2) PRA and the implementing regulations, direct effects on tribal governments. 1997 PM2.5 (annual and 24 hour), (3) with burden estimates, and, if Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 2006 PM2.5 (24-hour), (4) 2008 8-hour necessary, publish a technical apply to this rule. amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display ozone, (5) 2010 1-hour NO2 and (6) 2010 the new OMB control number for the H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 1-hour SO2. The BART FIP emission information collection activities Children From Environmental Health reductions are consistent with the level Risks and Safety Risks of emission reductions relied upon by contained in this final rule. other states during Regional Haze D. Regulatory Flexibility Act Executive Order 13045: Protection of consultation, and it is therefore Children From Environmental Health I certify that this action will not have adequate to ensure that emissions from Risks and Safety Risks 137 applies to any a significant impact on a substantial rule that: (1) Is determined to be Texas do not interfere with measures to number of small entities. In making this economically significant as defined protect visibility in nearby states in determination, the impact of concern is under Executive Order 12866; and (2) accordance with CAA section any significant adverse economic 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). impact on small entities. An agency may concerns an environmental health or certify that a rule will not have a safety risk that we have reason to VII. Statutory and Executive Order believe may have a disproportionate Reviews significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if effect on children. EPA interprets EO A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory the rule relieves regulatory burden, has 13045 as applying only to those Planning and Overview, Executive Order no net burden or otherwise has a regulatory actions that concern health or 13563: Improving Regulation and positive economic effect on the small safety risks, such that the analysis Regulatory Review entities subject to the rule. This rule required under Section 5–501 of the EO does not impose any requirements or has the potential to influence the This action is not a ‘‘significant create impacts on small entities. This regulation. This action is not subject to regulatory action’’ under the terms of FIP action under Section 110 of the Executive Order 13045 because it is not Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, CAA will not create any new economically significant as defined in October 4, 1993) and is therefore not requirement with which small entities Executive Order 12866, and because the subject to review under Executive must comply. Accordingly, it affords no EPA does not believe the environmental Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, opportunity for the EPA to fashion for health or safety risks addressed by this January 21, 2011). small entities less burdensome action present a disproportionate risk to compliance or reporting requirements or children. This action is not subject to 134 81 FR 296 (Jan. 5, 2016). timetables or exemptions from all or EO 13045 because it implements 135 Specifically, we previously disapproved the part of the rule. The fact that the CAA specific standards established by relevant portion of these Texas’ SIP submittals: prescribes that various consequences Congress in statutes. However, to the April 4, 2008: 1997 8-hour Ozone, 1997 PM2.5 (24- hour and annual); May 1, 2008: 1997 8-hour Ozone, (e.g., emission limitations) may or will extent this rule will limit emissions of 1997 PM2.5 (24-hour and annual); November 23, flow from this action does not mean that SO2, the rule will have a beneficial 2009: 2006 24-hour PM2.5; December 7, 2012: 2010 the EPA either can or must conduct a effect on children’s health by reducing NO ; December 13, 2012: 2008 8-hour Ozone; May 2 regulatory flexibility analysis for this air pollution. 6, 2013: 2010 1-hour SO2 (Primary NAAQS). 79 FR 74818, 74821; 81 FR 296, 302. action. We have therefore concluded 136 Texas v. EPA, 829 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2016). that, this action will have no net 137 62 FR 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48363

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That specified; however, any alternative Intergovernmental relations, Interstate Significantly Affect Energy Supply, methods must be approved through the transport of pollution, Nitrogen dioxide, Distribution, or Use petition process under 40 CFR 75.66 Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional This action is not subject to Executive before they are used. haze, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxides, Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Visibility. 2001)), because it is not a significant Actions To Address Environmental regulatory action under Executive Order Justice in Minority Populations and 40 CFR Part 97 12866. Low-Income Populations Environmental protection, J. National Technology Transfer and The EPA believes that this action does Administrative practice and procedure, Advancement Act (NTTAA) not have disproportionately high and Air pollution control, Intergovernmental This action involves technical adverse human health or environmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting standards. The EPA has decided to use effects on minority populations, low- and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur the applicable monitoring requirements income populations and/or indigenous dioxides. peoples, as specified in Executive Order of 40 CFR part 75. Part 75 already Dated: September 29, 2017. incorporates a number of voluntary 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). E. Scott Pruitt, consensus standards. Consistent with We have determined that this rule will the Agency’s Performance Based not have disproportionately high and Administrator. Measurement System (PBMS), part 75 adverse human health or environmental 40 CFR parts 52 and 97 are amended sets forth performance criteria that effects on minority or low-income as follows: allow the use of alternative methods to populations because it increases the the ones set forth in part 75. The PBMS level of environmental protection for all PART 52—APPROVAL AND approach is intended to be more flexible affected populations without having any PROMULGATION OF and cost-effective for the regulated disproportionately high and adverse IMPLEMENTATION PLANS community; it is also intended to human health or environmental effects encourage innovation in analytical on any population, including any ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 technology and improved data quality. minority or low-income population. The continues to read as follows: At this time, EPA is not recommending rule limits emissions of SO2 from Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. any revisions to part 75; however, EPA certain facilities in Texas. periodically revises the test procedures L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) Subpart SS—Texas set forth in part 75. When EPA revises the test procedures set forth in part 75 This rule is exempt from the CRA ■ 2. In § 52.2270, the second table in in the future, EPA will address the use because it is a rule of particular paragraph (e) is amended by adding the of any new voluntary consensus applicability. entry ‘‘Texas Regional Haze BART standards that are equivalent. Currently, List of Subjects Requirement for EGUs for PM’’ at the even if a test procedure is not set forth end of the table to read as follows: in part 75, EPA is not precluding the use 40 CFR Part 52 of any method, whether it constitutes a Environmental protection, Air § 52.2270 Identification of plan. voluntary consensus standard or not, as pollution control, Best available retrofit * * * * * long as it meets the performance criteria technology, Incorporation by reference, (e) * * *

EPA APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE TEXAS SIP

Applicable geographic or State submittal Name of SIP provision nonattainment date/effective EPA approval date Comments area date

******* Texas Regional Haze BART Requirement for Statewide ...... 3/31/2009 10/17/2017, [insert Federal EGUs for PM. Register citation].

■ 3. Section 52.2304 is amended by disapproval of the regional haze plan fully addressing Texas’ obligations with adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: submitted by Texas on March 31, 2009, respect to best available retrofit and EPA’s disapprovals in paragraph (d technology under section 169A of the § 52.2304 Visibility protection. of this section), are satisfied by Act and the deficiencies associated with * * * * * § 52.2312. EPA’s disapprovals in § 52.2304(d) and (f) Measures addressing disapproval ■ 4. Add § 52.2312 to subpart SS to read partially addressing Texas’ obligations associated with NOX and SO2. (1) The as follows: with respect to reasonable progress deficiencies associated with NO under section 169A of the Act, as those X § 52.2312 Requirements for the control of identified in EPA’s limited disapproval obligations relate to emissions of sulfur SO2 emissions to address in full or in part of the regional haze plan submitted by requirements related to BART, reasonable dioxide (SO2) from electric generating Texas on March 31, 2009, and EPA’s progress, and interstate visibility transport. units (EGUs). disapprovals in paragraph (d) of this (a) The Texas SO2 Trading Program (b) The provisions of subpart FFFFF section, are satisfied by § 52.2283(d). provisions set forth in subpart FFFFF of of part 97 of this chapter apply to (2) The deficiencies associated with part 97 of this chapter constitute the sources in Texas but not sources in SO2 identified in EPA’s limited Federal Implementation Plan provisions Indian country located within the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48364 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

borders of Texas, with regard to 97.931 Initial monitoring system Allowance Management System emissions in 2019 and each subsequent certification and recertification established by the Administrator for year. procedures. purposes of recording the allocation, 97.932 Monitoring system out-of-control periods. holding, transfer, or deduction of Texas PART 97—FEDERAL NOX BUDGET SO2 Trading Program allowances. TRADING PROGRAM, CAIR NO AND 97.933 Notifications concerning X monitoring. Allowance transfer deadline means, SO2 TRADING PROGRAMS, CSAPR 97.934 Recordkeeping and reporting. for a control period in a given year, NOX AND SO2 TRADING PROGRAMS, 97.935 Petitions for alternatives to midnight of March 1 (if it is a business AND TEXAS SO2 TRADING PROGRAM monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting day), or midnight of the first business requirements. day thereafter (if March 1 is not a ■ 5. The authority citation for part 97 business day), immediately after such continues to read as follows: Subpart FFFFF—Texas SO2 Trading Program control period and is the deadline by Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, which a Texas SO2 Trading Program 7426, 7601, and 7651, et seq. § 97.901 Purpose. allowance transfer must be submitted ■ 6. Revise the part heading for part 97 This subpart sets forth the general, for recordation in a Texas SO2 Trading to read as set forth above. designated representative, allowance, Program source’s compliance account in ■ 7. Add subpart FFFFF consisting of and monitoring provisions for the Texas order to be available for use in §§ 97.901 through 97.935 to read as SO2 Trading Program under sections complying with the source’s Texas SO2 follows: 110 and 169A of the Clean Air Act and Trading Program emissions limitation

Subpart FFFFF—Texas SO2 Trading 40 CFR 52.2312, as a means of for such control period in accordance Program addressing Texas’ obligations with with §§ 97.906 and 97.924. Sec. respect to BART, reasonable progress, Alternate designated representative 97.901 Purpose. and interstate visibility transport as means, for a Texas SO2 Trading Program 97.902 Definitions. those obligations relate to sulfur dioxide source and each Texas SO2 Trading 97.903 Measurements, abbreviations, and emissions from electricity generating Program unit at the source, the natural acronyms. units. person who is authorized by the owners 97.904 Applicability. and operators of the source and all such § 97.902 Definitions. 97.905 Retired unit exemptions. units at the source, in accordance with 97.906 General provisions. The terms used in this subpart shall 97.907 Computation of time. this subpart, to act on behalf of the have the meanings set forth in this designated representative in matters 97.908 Administrative appeal procedures. section as follows: 97.909 [Reserved] pertaining to the Texas SO2 Trading Acid rain program means a multi- 97.910 Texas SO2 Trading Program and Program. If the Texas SO2 Trading Supplemental Allowance Pool Budgets. state SO2 and NOX air pollution control Program source is also subject to the 97.911 Texas SO Trading Program and emission reduction program 2 Acid Rain Program or CSAPR NOX allowance allocations. established by the Administrator under Ozone Season Group 2 Trading 97.912 Texas SO2 Trading Program title IV of the Clean Air Act and parts Program, then this natural person shall Supplemental Allowance Pool. 72 through 78 of this chapter. be the same natural person as the 97.913 Authorization of designated Administrator means the representative and alternate designated Administrator of the United States alternate designated representative as representative. Environmental Protection Agency or the defined in the respective program. 97.914 Responsibilities of designated Authorized account representative representative and alternate designated Director of the Clean Air Markets Division (or its successor determined by means, for a general account, the natural representative. person who is authorized, in accordance 97.915 Changing designated representative the Administrator) of the United States and alternate designated representative; Environmental Protection Agency, the with this subpart, to transfer and changes in owners and operators; Administrator’s duly authorized otherwise dispose of Texas SO2 trading changes in units at the source. representative under this subpart. Program allowances held in the general 97.916 Certificate of representation. Allocate or allocation means, with account and, for a Texas SO2 Trading 97.917 Objections concerning designated regard to Texas SO Trading Program Program source’s compliance account, representative and alternate designated 2 allowances, the determination by the the designated representative of the representative. source. 97.918 Delegation by designated Administrator, State, or permitting representative and alternate designated authority, in accordance with this Automated data acquisition and representative. subpart or any SIP revision submitted handling system or DAHS means the 97.919 [Reserved] by the State approved by the component of the continuous emission 97.920 Establishment of compliance Administrator, of the amount of such monitoring system, or other emissions accounts and general accounts. Texas SO2 Trading Program allowances monitoring system approved for use 97.921 Recordation of Texas SO2 Trading to be initially credited, at no cost to the under this subpart, designed to interpret Program allowance allocations. recipient, to a Texas SO2 Trading and convert individual output signals 97.922 Submission of Texas SO2 Trading Program allowance transfers. Program unit. from pollutant concentration monitors, flow monitors, diluent gas monitors, 97.923 Recordation of Texas SO2 Trading Allowance management system Program allowance transfers. means the system by which the and other component parts of the 97.924 Compliance with Texas SO2 Trading Administrator records allocations, monitoring system to produce a Program emissions limitations. transfers, and deductions of Texas SO2 continuous record of the measured 97.925 [Reserved] Trading Program allowances under the parameters in the measurement units 97.926 Banking. Texas SO2 Trading Program. Such required by this subpart. 97.927 Account error. Business day means a day that does 97.928 Administrator’s action on allowances are allocated, recorded, submissions. held, transferred, or deducted only as not fall on a weekend or a federal 97.929 [Reserved] whole allowances. holiday. 97.930 General monitoring, recordkeeping, Allowance management system Clean Air Act means the Clean Air and reporting requirements. account means an account in the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48365

Coal means ‘‘coal’’ as defined in record of CO2 emissions, in percent CO2; liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from § 72.2 of this chapter. and such material. Commence commercial operation (5) An O2 monitoring system, Fossil-fuel-fired means, with regard to means, with regard to a Texas SO2 consisting of an O2 concentration a unit, combusting any amount of fossil Trading Program unit, to have begun to monitor and an automated data fuel in 2005 or any calendar year produce steam, gas, or other heated acquisition and handling system and thereafter. medium used to generate electricity for providing a permanent, continuous General account means an Allowance sale or use, including test generation. record of O2, in percent O2. Management System account, Common stack means a single flue Control period means the period established under this subpart, which is through which emissions from 2 or starting January 1 of a calendar year, not a compliance account. more units are exhausted. except as provided in § 97.906(c)(3), and Generator means a device that Compliance account means an ending on December 31 of the same produces electricity. Allowance Management System year, inclusive. Heat input means, for a unit for a account, established by the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 specified period of unit operating time, Administrator for a Texas SO2 Trading Trading Program means a multi-state the product (in mmBtu) of the gross Program source under this subpart, in NOX air pollution control and emission calorific value of the fuel (in mmBtu/lb) which any Texas SO2 Trading Program reduction program established in fed into the unit multiplied by the fuel allowance allocations to the Texas SO2 accordance with subpart EEEEE of this feed rate (in lb of fuel/time) and unit Trading Program units at the source are part and § 52.38(b)(1), (b)(2)(i) and (iii), operating time, as measured, recorded, recorded and in which are held any (b)(6) through (11), and (b)(13) of this and reported to the Administrator by the Texas SO2 Trading Program allowances chapter (including such a program that designated representative and as available for use for a control period in is revised in a SIP revision approved by modified by the Administrator in a given year in complying with the the Administrator under § 52.38(b)(7) or accordance with this subpart and source’s Texas SO2 Trading Program (8) of this chapter or that is established excluding the heat derived from emissions limitation in accordance with in a SIP revision approved by the preheated combustion air, recirculated §§ 97.906 and 97.924. Administrator under § 52.38(b)(6) or (9) flue gases, or exhaust. Continuous emission monitoring of this chapter), as a means of mitigating Heat input rate means, for a unit, the system or CEMS means the equipment interstate transport of ozone and NOX. quotient (in mmBtu/hr) of the amount of required under this subpart to sample, Designated representative means, for heat input for a specified period of unit analyze, measure, and provide, by a Texas SO2 Trading Program source operating time (in mmBtu) divided by means of readings recorded at least once and each Texas SO2 Trading Program unit operating time (in hr) or, for a unit every 15 minutes and using an unit at the source, the natural person and a specific fuel, the amount of heat automated data acquisition and who is authorized by the owners and input attributed to the fuel (in mmBtu) handling system (DAHS), a permanent operators of the source and all such divided by the unit operating time (in record of SO2 emissions, stack gas units at the source, in accordance with hr) during which the unit combusts the volumetric flow rate, stack gas moisture this subpart, to represent and legally fuel. content, and O2 or CO2 concentration (as bind each owner and operator in matters Indian country means ‘‘Indian applicable), in a manner consistent with pertaining to the Texas SO2 Trading country’’ as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. part 75 of this chapter and §§ 97.930 Program. If the Texas SO2 Trading Life-of-the-unit, firm power through 97.935. The following systems Program source is also subject to the contractual arrangement means a unit are the principal types of continuous Acid Rain Program or CSAPR NOX participation power sales agreement emission monitoring systems: Ozone Season Group 2 Trading under which a utility or industrial (1) A flow monitoring system, Program, then this natural person shall customer reserves, or is entitled to consisting of a stack flow rate monitor be the same natural person as the receive, a specified amount or and an automated data acquisition and designated representative as defined in percentage of nameplate capacity and handling system and providing a the respective program. associated energy generated by any permanent, continuous record of stack Emissions means air pollutants specified unit and pays its proportional gas volumetric flow rate, in standard exhausted from a unit or source into the amount of such unit’s total costs, cubic feet per hour (scfh); atmosphere, as measured, recorded, and pursuant to a contract: (2) A SO2 monitoring system, reported to the Administrator by the (1) For the life of the unit; consisting of a SO2 pollutant designated representative, and as (2) For a cumulative term of no less concentration monitor and an modified by the Administrator: than 30 years, including contracts that automated data acquisition and (1) In accordance with this subpart; permit an election for early termination; handling system and providing a and or permanent, continuous record of SO2 (2) With regard to a period before the (3) For a period no less than 25 years emissions, in parts per million (ppm); unit or source is required to measure, or 70 percent of the economic useful life (3) A moisture monitoring system, as record, and report such air pollutants in of the unit determined as of the time the defined in § 75.11(b)(2) of this chapter accordance with this subpart, in unit is built, with option rights to and providing a permanent, continuous accordance with part 75 of this chapter. purchase or release some portion of the record of the stack gas moisture content, Excess emissions means any ton of nameplate capacity and associated in percent H2O; emissions from the Texas SO2 Trading energy generated by the unit at the end (4) A CO2 monitoring system, Program units at a Texas SO2 Trading of the period. consisting of a CO2 pollutant Program source during a control period Monitoring system means any concentration monitor (or an O2 monitor in a given year that exceeds the Texas monitoring system that meets the plus suitable mathematical equations SO2 Trading Program emissions requirements of this subpart, including from which the CO2 concentration is limitation for the source for such control a continuous emission monitoring derived) and an automated data period. system, an alternative monitoring acquisition and handling system and Fossil fuel means natural gas, system, or an excepted monitoring providing a permanent, continuous petroleum, coal, or any form of solid, system under part 75 of this chapter.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48366 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

Nameplate capacity means, starting unavailable for service and that the Texas SO2 Trading Program means an from the initial installation of a unit’s owners and operators do not SO2 air pollution control and emission generator, the maximum electrical expect to return to service in the future. reduction program established in generating output (in MWe, rounded to Permitting authority means accordance with this subpart and 40 the nearest tenth) that the generator is ‘‘permitting authority’’ as defined in CFR 52.2312 (including such a program capable of producing on a steady state §§ 70.2 and 71.2 of this chapter. that is revised in a SIP revision basis and during continuous operation Receive or receipt of means, when approved by the Administrator), or (when not restricted by seasonal or referring to the Administrator, to come established in a SIP revision approved other deratings) as of such installation into possession of a document, by the Administrator, as a means of as specified by the manufacturer of the information, or correspondence addressing the State’s obligations with generator or, starting from the (whether sent in hard copy or by respect to BART, reasonable progress, completion of any subsequent physical authorized electronic transmission), as and interstate visibility transport as change in the generator resulting in an indicated in an official log, or by a those obligations relate to emissions of increase in the maximum electrical notation made on the document, SO2 from electricity generating units. generating output that the generator is information, or correspondence, by the Texas SO2 Trading Program capable of producing on a steady state Administrator in the regular course of allowance means a limited basis and during continuous operation business. authorization issued and allocated by (when not restricted by seasonal or Recordation, record, or recorded the Administrator under this subpart, or other deratings), such increased means, with regard to Texas SO2 by a State or permitting authority under maximum amount (in MWe, rounded to Trading Program allowances, the a SIP revision approved by the the nearest tenth) as of such completion moving of Texas SO2 Trading Program Administrator, to emit one ton of SO2 as specified by the person conducting allowances by the Administrator into, during a control period of the specified the physical change. out of, or between Allowance calendar year for which the Natural gas means ‘‘natural gas’’ as Management System accounts, for authorization is allocated or of any defined in § 72.2 of this chapter. purposes of allocation, transfer, or calendar year thereafter under the Texas Natural person means a human being, deduction. SO2 Trading Program. as opposed to a legal person, which may Reference method means any direct Texas SO2 Trading Program be a private (i.e., business entity or non- test method of sampling and analyzing allowance deduction or deduct Texas governmental organization) or public for an air pollutant as specified in SO2 Trading Program allowances means (i.e., government) organization. § 75.22 of this chapter. the permanent withdrawal of Texas SO2 Operate or operation means, with Replacement, replace, or replaced Trading Program allowances by the regard to a unit, to combust fuel. means, with regard to a unit, the Administrator from a compliance Operator means, for a Texas SO2 demolishing of a unit, or the permanent account (e.g., in order to account for Trading Program source or a Texas SO2 retirement and permanent disabling of a compliance with the Texas SO2 Trading Trading Program unit at a source unit, and the construction of another Program emissions limitation). respectively, any person who operates, unit (the replacement unit) to be used Texas SO2 Trading Program controls, or supervises a Texas SO2 instead of the demolished or retired unit allowances held or hold Texas SO2 Trading Program unit at the source or (the replaced unit). Trading Program allowances means the the Texas SO2 Trading Program unit and Serial number means, for a Texas SO2 Texas SO2 Trading Program allowances shall include, but not be limited to, any Trading Program allowance, the unique treated as included in an Allowance holding company, utility system, or identification number assigned to each Management System account as of a plant manager of such source or unit. Texas SO2 Trading Program allowance specified point in time because at that Owner means, for a Texas SO2 by the Administrator. time they: Trading Program source or a Texas SO2 Source means all buildings, (1) Have been recorded by the Trading Program unit at a source, any of structures, or installations located in Administrator in the account or the following persons: one or more contiguous or adjacent transferred into the account by a (1) Any holder of any portion of the properties under common control of the correctly submitted, but not yet legal or equitable title in a Texas SO2 same person or persons. This definition recorded, Texas SO2 Trading Program Trading Program unit at the source or does not change or otherwise affect the allowance transfer in accordance with the Texas SO2 Trading Program unit; definition of ‘‘major source’’, ‘‘stationary this subpart; and (2) Any holder of a leasehold interest source’’, or ‘‘source’’ as set forth and (2) Have not been transferred out of in a Texas SO2 Trading Program unit at implemented in a title V operating the account by a correctly submitted, the source or the Texas SO2 Trading permit program or any other program but not yet recorded, Texas SO2 Trading Program unit, provided that, unless under the Clean Air Act. Program allowance transfer in expressly provided for in a leasehold State means Texas. accordance with this subpart. agreement, ‘‘owner’’ shall not include a Submit or serve means to send or Texas SO2 Trading Program emissions passive lessor, or a person who has an transmit a document, information, or limitation means, for a Texas SO2 equitable interest through such lessor, correspondence to the person specified Trading Program source, the tonnage of whose rental payments are not based in accordance with the applicable SO2 emissions authorized in a control (either directly or indirectly) on the regulation: period by the Texas SO2 Trading revenues or income from such Texas (1) In person; Program allowances available for SO2 Trading Program unit; and (2) By United States Postal Service; or deduction for the source under (3) Any purchaser of power from a (3) By other means of dispatch or § 97.924(a) for such control period. Texas SO2 Trading Program unit at the transmission and delivery; Texas SO2 Trading Program source source or the Texas SO2 Trading (4) Provided that compliance with any means a source that includes one or Program unit under a life-of-the-unit, ‘‘submission’’ or ‘‘service’’ deadline more Texas SO2 Trading Program units. firm power contractual arrangement. shall be determined by the date of Texas SO2 Trading Program unit Permanently retired means, with dispatch, transmission, or mailing and means a unit that is subject to the Texas regard to a unit, a unit that is not the date of receipt. SO2 Trading Program under § 97.904.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48367

Unit means a stationary, fossil-fuel- section may submit an opt-in (b) Special provisions. (1) A unit fired boiler, stationary, fossil-fuel-fired application seeking authorization for the exempt under paragraph (a) of this combustion turbine, or other stationary, unit to participate in the Texas SO2 section shall not emit any SO2, starting fossil-fuel-fired combustion device. A Trading Program, provided that the unit on the date that the exemption takes unit that undergoes a physical change or has operated in the calendar year effect. is moved to a different location or preceding submission of the opt-in (2) For a period of 5 years from the source shall continue to be treated as application. Opt-in applications must be date the records are created, the owners the same unit. A unit (the replaced unit) submitted in a format specified by the and operators of a unit exempt under that is replaced by another unit (the Administrator no later than October 1 of paragraph (a) of this section shall retain, replacement unit) at the same or a the year preceding the first control at the source that includes the unit, different source shall continue to be period for which authorization to records demonstrating that the unit is treated as the same unit, and the participate in the Texas SO2 Trading permanently retired. The 5-year period replacement unit shall be treated as a Program is sought. for keeping records may be extended for separate unit. (3) The Administrator shall review cause, at any time before the end of the Unit operating day means, with applications for opt-in units and period, in writing by the Administrator. regard to a unit, a calendar day in which respond in writing to the designated The owners and operators bear the the unit combusts any fuel. representative within 30 business days. burden of proof that the unit is Unit operating hour or hour of unit The Administrator will authorize the permanently retired. operation means, with regard to a unit, unit to participate in the Texas SO2 (3) The owners and operators and, to an hour in which the unit combusts any Trading Program if the provisions of the extent applicable, the designated fuel. paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section representative of a unit exempt under are satisfied. paragraph (a) of this section shall § 97.903 Measurements, abbreviations, (4) Following submission of an opt-in comply with the requirements of the and acronyms. application and authorization in Texas SO2 Trading Program concerning Measurements, abbreviations, and accordance with paragraphs (b)(2) and all periods for which the exemption is acronyms used in this subpart are (3) of this section, the unit shall be a not in effect, even if such requirements defined as follows: Texas SO2 Trading Program unit, and arise, or must be complied with, after BART—best available retrofit the source that includes the unit shall the exemption takes effect. technology be a Texas SO2 Trading Program source, (4) A unit exempt under paragraph (a) Btu—British thermal unit subject to the requirements of this of this section shall lose its exemption CO2—carbon dioxide subpart starting on the next January 1. on the first date on which the unit CSAPR—Cross-State Air Pollution Rule The unit shall remain subject to the resumes operation. A retired unit that H2O—water requirements of this subpart for the life resumes operation will not receive an hr—hour of the source, with the exception for allowance allocation under § 97.911. lb—pound retired units under § 97.905. The unit may receive allowances from mmBtu—million Btu (5) Opt-in units shall receive the Supplemental Allowance Pool MWe—megawatt electrical allowance allocations as provided in pursuant to § 97.912. All other NOX—nitrogen oxides § 97.911(b). These allocations shall be provisions of Subpart FFFFF regarding O2—oxygen recorded into a source’s compliance monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping ppm—parts per million account per the recordation schedule in and compliance will apply on the first scfh—standard cubic feet per hour § 97.921. date on which the unit resumes SIP—State implementation plan (6) The Administrator will maintain a operation. SO2—sulfur dioxide publicly accessible record of all units that become Texas SO Trading Program § 97.906 General provisions. § 97.904 Applicability. 2 units under paragraph (b) of this section (a) Designated representative (a) Each of the units in Texas listed in and of all allocations of allowances to requirements. The owners and operators the table in § 97.911(a)(1) shall be a such units. Such public access may be shall comply with the requirement to Texas SO2 Trading Program unit, and provided through posting of information have a designated representative, and each source that includes one or more on a Web site. may have an alternate designated such units shall be a Texas SO2 Trading representative, in accordance with Program source, subject to the § 97.905 Retired unit exemptions. §§ 97.913 through 97.918. requirements of this subpart. (a)(1) Any Texas SO2 Trading Program (b) Emissions monitoring, reporting, (b) Opt-in provisions. (1) The unit that is permanently retired shall be and recordkeeping requirements. (1) provisions of paragraph (b) of this exempt from § 97.906(b) and (c)(1), The owners and operators, and the section apply to each unit in Texas that: § 97.924, and §§ 97.930 through 97.935. designated representative, of each Texas (i) Is listed in the table entitled ‘‘Unit (2) The exemption under paragraph SO2 Trading Program source and each Level Allocations under the CSAPR FIPs (a)(1) of this section shall become Texas SO2 Trading Program unit at the after Tolling,’’ EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– effective the day on which the Texas source shall comply with the 0491–5028, available at SO2 Trading Program unit is monitoring, reporting, and www.regulations.gov; permanently retired. Within 30 days of recordkeeping requirements of §§ 97.930 (ii) Is not a Texas SO2 Trading the unit’s permanent retirement, the through 97.935. Program unit under paragraph (a) of this designated representative shall submit a (2) The emissions data determined in section; and statement to the Administrator. The accordance with §§ 97.930 through (iii) Has not received a determination statement shall state, in a format 97.935 shall be used to calculate of non-applicability under 40 CFR prescribed by the Administrator, that allocations of Texas SO2 Trading 97.404(c), 97.504(c), 97.704(c), or the unit was permanently retired on a Program allowances under § 97.912 and 97.804(c). specified date and will comply with the to determine compliance with the Texas (2) The designated representative of a requirements of paragraph (b) of this SO2 Trading Program emissions unit described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. limitation under paragraph (c) of this

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48368 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

section, provided that, for each (c)(1)(i) of this section for a control This paragraph explicitly provides that monitoring location from which mass period in a given year must be a Texas the addition of, or change to, a unit’s emissions are reported, the mass SO2 Trading Program allowance that description as described in the prior emissions amount used in calculating was allocated for such control period or sentence is eligible for minor permit such allocations and determining such a control period in a prior year. modification procedures in accordance compliance shall be the mass emissions (ii) A Texas SO2 Trading Program with §§ 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) and amount for the monitoring location allowance held for compliance with the 71.7(e)(1)(i)(B) of this chapter. determined in accordance with requirements under paragraph (e) Additional recordkeeping and §§ 97.930 through 97.935 and rounded (c)(1)(ii)(A) of this section for a control reporting requirements. (1) Unless to the nearest ton, with any fraction of period in a given year must be a Texas otherwise provided, the owners and a ton less than 0.50 being deemed to be SO2 Trading Program allowance that operators of each Texas SO2 Trading zero and any fraction of a ton greater was allocated for a control period in a Program source and each Texas SO2 than or equal to 0.50 being deemed to prior year or the control period in the Trading Program unit at the source shall be a whole ton. given year or in the immediately keep on site at the source each of the (c) SO2 emissions requirements—(1) following year. following documents (in hardcopy or Texas SO2 Trading Program emissions (4) Allowance Management System electronic format) for a period of 5 years limitation. (i) As of the allowance requirements. Each Texas SO2 Trading from the date the document is created. transfer deadline for a control period in Program allowance shall be held in, This period may be extended for cause, a given year, the owners and operators deducted from, or transferred into, out at any time before the end of 5 years, in of each Texas SO2 Trading Program of, or between Allowance Management writing by the Administrator. source and each Texas SO2 Trading System accounts in accordance with (i) The certificate of representation Program unit at the source shall hold, in this subpart. under § 97.916 for the designated (5) Limited authorization. A Texas the source’s compliance account, Texas representative for the source and each SO Trading Program allowance is a SO2 Trading Program allowances 2 Texas SO Trading Program unit at the limited authorization to emit one ton of 2 available for deduction for such control source and all documents that SO during the control period in one period under § 97.924(a) in an amount 2 demonstrate the truth of the statements year. Such authorization is limited in its not less than the tons of total SO2 in the certificate of representation; use and duration as follows: emissions for such control period from provided that the certificate and (i) Such authorization shall only be all Texas SO2 Trading Program units at documents shall be retained on site at used in accordance with the Texas SO the source. 2 the source beyond such 5-year period (ii) If total SO emissions during a Trading Program; and 2 until such certificate of representation control period in a given year from the (ii) Notwithstanding any other and documents are superseded because Texas SO Trading Program units at a provision of this subpart, the 2 of the submission of a new certificate of Texas SO Trading Program source are Administrator has the authority to 2 representation under § 97.916 changing in excess of the Texas SO Trading terminate or limit the use and duration 2 the designated representative. Program emissions limitation set forth of such authorization to the extent the in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, Administrator determines is necessary (ii) All emissions monitoring then: or appropriate to implement any information, in accordance with this (A) The owners and operators of the provision of the Clean Air Act. subpart. (iii) Copies of all reports, compliance source and each Texas SO2 Trading (6) Property right. A Texas SO2 Program unit at the source shall hold Trading Program allowance does not certifications, and other submissions and all records made or required under, the Texas SO2 Trading Program constitute a property right. allowances required for deduction (d) Title V permit requirements. (1) No or to demonstrate compliance with the under § 97.924(d); and title V permit revision shall be required requirements of, the Texas SO2 Trading (B) The owners and operators of the for any allocation, holding, deduction, Program. source and each Texas SO2 Trading or transfer of Texas SO2 Trading (2) The designated representative of a Program unit at the source shall pay any Program allowances in accordance with Texas SO2 Trading Program source and fine, penalty, or assessment or comply this subpart. each Texas SO2 Trading Program unit at with any other remedy imposed, for the (2) A description of whether a unit is the source shall make all submissions same violations, under the Clean Air required to monitor and report SO2 required under the Texas SO2 Trading Act, and each ton of such excess emissions using a continuous emission Program, except as provided in § 97.918. emissions and each day of such control monitoring system (under subpart B of This requirement does not change, period shall constitute a separate part 75 of this chapter), an excepted create an exemption from, or otherwise violation of this subpart and the Clean monitoring system (under appendices D affect the responsible official Air Act. and E to part 75 of this chapter), a low submission requirements under a title V (2) Compliance periods. A Texas SO2 mass emissions excepted monitoring operating permit program in parts 70 Trading Program unit shall be subject to methodology (under § 75.19 of this and 71 of this chapter. the requirements under paragraph (c)(1) chapter), or an alternative monitoring (f) Liability. (1) Any provision of the of this section for the control period system (under subpart E of part 75 of Texas SO2 Trading Program that applies starting on the later of January 1, 2019 this chapter) in accordance with to a Texas SO2 Trading Program source or the deadline for meeting the unit’s §§ 97.930 through 97.935 may be added or the designated representative of a monitor certification requirements to, or changed in, a title V permit using Texas SO2 Trading Program source shall under § 97.930(b) and for each control minor permit modification procedures also apply to the owners and operators period thereafter. in accordance with §§ 70.7(e)(2) and of such source and of the Texas SO2 (3) Vintage of Texas SO2 Trading 71.7(e)(1) of this chapter, provided that Trading Program units at the source. Program allowances held for the requirements applicable to the (2) Any provision of the Texas SO2 compliance. (i) A Texas SO2 Trading described monitoring and reporting (as Trading Program that applies to a Texas Program allowance held for compliance added or changed, respectively) are SO2 Trading Program unit or the with the requirements under paragraph already incorporated in such permit. designated representative of a Texas SO2

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48369

Trading Program unit shall also apply to Trading Program, to begin before the Allowance Pool for the control periods the owners and operators of such unit. occurrence of an act or event shall be in 2019 and thereafter are as follows: (g) Effect on other authorities. No computed so that the period ends the (1) The Texas SO Trading Program provision of the Texas SO Trading 2 2 day before the act or event occurs. budget for the control period in 2019 Program or exemption under § 97.905 (c) Unless otherwise stated, if the final and each future control period is shall be construed as exempting or day of any time period, under the Texas 238,393 tons. excluding the owners and operators, SO2 Trading Program, is not a business and the designated representative, of a day, the time period shall be extended (2) The Texas SO2 Trading Program Texas SO2 Trading Program source or to the next business day. Supplemental Allowance Pool budget Texas SO2 Trading Program unit from for the control period in 2019 and each compliance with any other provision of § 97.908 Administrative appeal future control period is 10,000 tons. procedures. the applicable, approved State (b) [reserved] implementation plan, a federally The administrative appeal procedures enforceable permit, or the Clean Air Act. for decisions of the Administrator under § 97.911 Texas SO2 Trading Program allowance allocations. § 97.907 Computation of time. the Texas SO2 Trading Program are set forth in part 78 of this chapter. (a) Unless otherwise stated, any time (a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph period scheduled, under the Texas SO2 § 97.909 [Reserved] (a)(2) of this section, Texas SO2 Trading Trading Program, to begin on the Program allowances from the Texas SO2 occurrence of an act or event shall begin § 97.910 Texas SO2 Trading Program and Trading Program budget will be on the day the act or event occurs. Supplemental Allowance Pool Budgets. allocated, for the control periods in (b) Unless otherwise stated, any time (a) The budgets for the Texas SO2 2019 and each year thereafter, as period scheduled, under the Texas SO2 Trading Program and Supplemental provided in the following table:

Texas SO2 trading Texas SO2 trading program units ORIS code program allocation

Big Brown Unit 1 ...... 3497 8,473 Big Brown Unit 2 ...... 3497 8,559 Coleto Creek Unit 1 ...... 6178 9,057 Fayette/Sam Seymour Unit 1 ...... 6179 7,979 Fayette/Sam Seymour Unit 2 ...... 6179 8,019 Graham Unit 2 ...... 3490 226 H W Pirkey Power Plant Unit 1 ...... 7902 8,882 Harrington Unit 061B ...... 6193 5,361 Harrington Unit 062B ...... 6193 5,255 Harrington Unit 063B ...... 6193 5,055 JT Deely Unit 1 ...... 6181 6,170 JT Deely Unit 2 ...... 6181 6,082 Limestone Unit 1 ...... 298 12,081 Limestone Unit 2 ...... 298 12,293 Martin Lake Unit 1 ...... 6146 12,024 Martin Lake Unit 2 ...... 6146 11,580 Martin Lake Unit 3 ...... 6146 12,236 Monticello Unit 1 ...... 6147 8,598 Monticello Unit 2 ...... 6147 8,795 Monticello Unit 3 ...... 6147 12,216 Newman Unit 2 ...... 3456 1 Newman Unit 3 ...... 3456 1 Newman Unit 4 ...... 3456 2 Sandow Unit 4 ...... 6648 8,370 Sommers Unit 1 ...... 3611 55 Sommers Unit 2 ...... 3611 7 Stryker Unit ST2 ...... 3504 145 Tolk Station Unit 171B ...... 6194 6,900 Tolk Station Unit 172B ...... 6194 7,062 WA Parish Unit WAP4 ...... 3470 3 WA Parish Unit WAP5 ...... 3470 9,580 WA Parish Unit WAP6 ...... 3470 8,900 WA Parish Unit WAP7 ...... 3470 7,653 Welsh Power Plant Unit 1 ...... 6139 6,496 Welsh Power Plant Unit 2 ...... 6139 7,050 Welsh Power Plant Unit 3 ...... 6139 7,208 Wilkes Unit 1 ...... 3478 14 Wilkes Unit 2 ...... 3478 2 Wilkes Unit 3 ...... 3478 3

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1) paragraph (a)(1) of this section does not such unit will not be allocated the Texas of this section, if a unit provided an operate, starting after 2018, during the SO2 Trading Program allowances allocation pursuant to the table in control period in two consecutive years, provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48370 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

section for the unit for the control Texas SO2 Trading Program allowances emissions for that control period periods in the fifth year after the first allocated for the same or a prior control exceeds the total amount of allowances such year and in each year after that period equal to the amount of such allocated for that control period under fifth year. All Texas SO2 Trading already recorded Texas SO2 Trading § 97.911. Program allowances that would Program allowances. The authorized (3)(i) For Coleto Creek (ORIS 6178), if otherwise have been allocated to such account representative shall ensure that the source is identified under paragraph unit will be allocated under the Texas there are sufficient Texas SO2 Trading (a)(1) of this section, the Administrator Supplemental Allowance Pool under 40 Program allowances in such account for will allocate and record in the source’s CFR 97.912. completion of the deduction. compliance account an amount of (b)(1) A unit that becomes a Texas (4) If the Administrator already allowances from the Supplemental SO2 Trading Program unit pursuant to recorded such Texas SO2 Trading Allowance Pool equal to the lesser of § 97.904(b) will receive an allocation of Program allowances under § 97.921 and the amount calculated for the source Texas SO2 Trading Program allowances if the Administrator makes the under paragraph (a)(2) of this section or equal to the SO2 allocation shown for determination under paragraph (c)(1) of the total number of allowances in the the unit in the table referenced in this section after making deductions for Supplemental Allowance Pool available § 97.404(b)(1) (ignoring the years shown the source that includes such recipient for allocation under paragraph (b) of this in the column headings in the table) for under § 97.924(b) for such control section. the control period in each year while period, then the Administrator will not (ii) For any Texas SO2 Trading the unit is a Texas SO2 Trading Program make any deduction to take account of Program sources identified under unit, provided that the unit has operated such already recorded Texas SO2 paragraph (a)(1) of this section other during the calendar year immediately Trading Program allowances. than Coleto Creek (ORIS 6178), the preceding the year of each such control (5) With regard to the Texas SO2 Administrator will allocate and record period. Trading Program allowances that are not allowances from the Supplemental (2) If a unit that becomes a Texas SO2 recorded, or that are deducted as an Allowance Pool as follows: Trading Program unit pursuant to incorrect allocation, in accordance with (A) If the total for all such sources of § 97.904(b) does not operate during a paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section the amounts calculated under paragraph given calendar year, no Texas SO2 for a recipient under paragraph (a) of (a)(2) of this section is less than or equal Trading Program allowances will be this section, the Administrator will to the total number of allowances in the allocated to that unit for the control transfer such Texas SO2 Trading Supplemental Allowance Pool available period in the following year or any Program allowances to the Texas for allocation under paragraph (b) of this subsequent year, nor will any Supplemental Allowance Pool under 40 section that remain after any allocation allowances that would otherwise have CFR 97.912. With regard to the Texas under paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate and been allocated to such unit under SO2 Trading Program allowances that paragraph (b)(1) of this section be made are not recorded, or that are deducted as record in the compliance account for available for use by any other unit under an incorrect allocation, in accordance each such source an amount of the Texas Supplemental Allowance Pool with paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this allowances from the Supplemental or otherwise. section for a recipient under paragraph Allowance Pool equal to the amount (c) Units incorrectly allocated Texas (b) of this section, the Administrator calculated for the source under SO2 Trading Program allowances. (1) paragraph (a)(2) of this section. will retire such Texas SO2 Trading For each control period in 2019 and Program allowances. (B) If the total for all such sources of thereafter, if the Administrator the amounts calculated under paragraph determines that Texas SO2 Trading § 97.912 Texas SO2 Trading Program (a)(2) of this section is greater than the Program allowances were incorrectly Supplemental Allowance Pool. total number of allowances in the allocated under paragraph (a) or (b) of (a) For each control period in 2019 Supplemental Allowance Pool available this section, or under a provision of a and thereafter, the Administrator will for allocation under paragraph (b) of this SIP revision approved by the allocate Texas SO2 Trading Program section that remain after any allocation Administrator, then the Administrator allowances from the Texas SO2 Trading under paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, will notify the designated representative Program Supplemental Allowance Pool then the Administrator will calculate of the recipient and will act in as follows: each such source’s allocation of accordance with the procedures set (1) No later than February 15, 2020 allowances from the Supplemental forth in paragraphs (c)(2) through (5) of and each subsequent February 15, the Allowance Pool by dividing the amount this section: Administrator will review all the calculated under paragraph (a)(2) of this (2) Except as provided in paragraph quarterly SO2 emissions reports section for the source by the sum of the (c)(3) or (4) of this section, the provided under § 97.934(d) for each amounts calculated under paragraph Administrator will not record such Texas SO2 Trading Program unit for the (a)(2) of this section for all such sources, Texas SO2 Trading Program allowances previous control period. The then multiplying by the number of under § 97.921. Administrator will identify each Texas allowances in the Supplemental (3) If the Administrator already SO2 Trading Program source for which Allowance Pool available for allocation recorded such Texas SO2 Trading the total amount of emissions reported under paragraph (b) of this section that Program allowances under § 97.921 and for the units at the source for that remain after any allocation under if the Administrator makes the control period exceeds the total amount paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section and determination under paragraph (c)(1) of of allowances allocated to the units at rounding to the nearest allowance. The this section before making deductions the source for that control period under Administrator will then record the for the source that includes such § 97.911. calculated allocations of allowances in recipient under § 97.924(b) for such (2) For each Texas SO2 Trading the applicable compliance accounts. control period, then the Administrator Program source identified under (iii) Any unallocated allowances will deduct from the account in which paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the remaining in the Supplemental such Texas SO2 Trading Program Administrator will calculate the amount Allowance Pool after the allocations allowances were recorded an amount of by which the total amount of reported determined under paragraphs (a)(3)(i)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48371

and (ii) of this section will be representative and such owners and designated representative or alternate maintained in the Supplemental operators; and designated representative: ‘‘I am Allowance Pool. These allowances will (ii) The owners and operators of the authorized to make this submission on be available for allocation by the source and each Texas SO2 Trading behalf of the owners and operators of Administrator in subsequent control Program unit at the source shall be the source or units for which the periods to the extent consistent with bound by any decision or order issued submission is made. I certify under paragraph (b) of this section. to the designated representative by the penalty of law that I have personally (4) The Administrator will notify the Administrator regarding the source or examined, and am familiar with, the designated representative of each Texas any such unit. statements and information submitted SO2 Trading Program source when the (b) Except as provided under § 97.915, in this document and all its allowances from the Supplemental each Texas SO2 Trading Program source attachments. Based on my inquiry of Allowance Pool have been recorded. may have one and only one alternate those individuals with primary (b) The total amount of allowances in designated representative, who may act responsibility for obtaining the on behalf of the designated the Texas SO2 Trading Program information, I certify that the statements Supplemental Allowance Pool available representative. The agreement by which and information are to the best of my for allocation for a control period is the alternate designated representative knowledge and belief true, accurate, and is selected shall include a procedure for equal to the sum of the Texas SO2 complete. I am aware that there are Trading Program Supplemental authorizing the alternate designated significant penalties for submitting false Allowance Pool budget under representative to act in lieu of the statements and information or omitting § 97.910(a)(2), any allowances from designated representative. required statements and information, retired units pursuant to § 97.911(a)(2) (1) The alternate designated including the possibility of fine or and from corrections pursuant to representative shall be selected by an imprisonment.’’ § 97.911(c)(5), and any allowances agreement binding on the owners and (b) The Administrator will accept or maintained in the Supplemental operators of the source and all Texas act on a submission made for a Texas Allowance Pool pursuant to paragraph SO2 Trading Program units at the source SO Trading Program source or a Texas and shall act in accordance with the 2 (a)(3)(iii) of this section, but cannot SO2 Trading Program unit only if the exceed by more than 44,711 tons the certification statement in submission has been made, signed, and sum of the budget provided under § 97.916(a)(4)(iii). certified in accordance with paragraph § 97.910(a)(2) and any portion of the (2) Upon and after receipt by the (a) of this section and § 97.918. budget provided under § 97.910(a)(1) Administrator of a complete certificate not otherwise allocated for that control of representation under § 97.916, § 97.915 Changing designated (i) The alternate designated representative and alternate designated period under § 97.911(a)(1). If the representative; changes in owners and number of allowances in the representative shall be authorized; (ii) Any representation, action, operators; changes in units at the source. Supplemental Allowance Pool exceeds inaction, or submission by the alternate this level then the Administrator may (a) Changing designated designated representative shall be only allocate allowances up to this level representative. The designated deemed to be a representation, action, for the control period. representative may be changed at any inaction, or submission by the time upon receipt by the Administrator § 97.913 Authorization of designated designated representative; and of a superseding complete certificate of representative and alternate designated (iii) The owners and operators of the representation under § 97.916. representative. source and each Texas SO2 Trading Notwithstanding any such change, all (a) Except as provided under § 97.915, Program unit at the source shall be representations, actions, inactions, and each Texas SO2 Trading Program source, bound by any decision or order issued submissions by the previous designated including all Texas SO2 Trading to the alternate designated representative before the time and date Program units at the source, shall have representative by the Administrator when the Administrator receives the one and only one designated regarding the source or any such unit. superseding certificate of representation representative, with regard to all matters (c) Except in this section, § 97.902, shall be binding on the new designated and §§ 97.914 through 97.918, whenever under the Texas SO2 Trading Program. representative and the owners and the term ‘‘designated representative’’ is (1) The designated representative operators of the Texas SO2 Trading used in this subpart, the term shall be shall be selected by an agreement Program source and the Texas SO2 binding on the owners and operators of construed to include the designated Trading Program units at the source. representative or any alternate the source and all Texas SO2 Trading designated representative. (b) Changing alternate designated Program units at the source and shall act representative. The alternate designated in accordance with the certification § 97.914 Responsibilities of designated representative may be changed at any statement in § 97.916(a)(4)(iii). representative and alternate designated time upon receipt by the Administrator (2) Upon and after receipt by the representative. of a superseding complete certificate of Administrator of a complete certificate (a) Except as provided under § 97.918 representation under § 97.916. of representation under § 97.916: concerning delegation of authority to Notwithstanding any such change, all (i) The designated representative shall make submissions, each submission representations, actions, inactions, and be authorized and shall represent and, under the Texas SO2 Trading Program submissions by the previous alternate by his or her representations, actions, shall be made, signed, and certified by designated representative before the inactions, or submissions, legally bind the designated representative or time and date when the Administrator each owner and operator of the source alternate designated representative for receives the superseding certificate of and each Texas SO2 Trading Program each Texas SO2 Trading Program source representation shall be binding on the unit at the source in all matters and Texas SO2 Trading Program unit for new alternate designated representative, pertaining to the Texas SO2 Trading which the submission is made. Each the designated representative, and the Program, notwithstanding any such submission shall include the owners and operators of the Texas SO2 agreement between the designated following certification statement by the Trading Program source and the Texas

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48372 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

SO2 Trading Program units at the § 97.916 Certificate of representation. representative’, as applicable, and of the source. (a) A complete certificate of agreement by which I was selected to (c) Changes in owners and operators. representation for a designated each owner and operator of the source (1) In the event an owner or operator of representative or an alternate designated and of each Texas SO2 Trading Program a Texas SO2 Trading Program source or representative shall include the unit at the source; and Texas SO2 a Texas SO2 Trading Program unit at the following elements in a format Trading Program allowances and source is not included in the list of prescribed by the Administrator: proceeds of transactions involving owners and operators in the certificate (1) Identification of the Texas SO2 Texas SO2 Trading Program allowances of representation under § 97.916, such Trading Program source, and each Texas will be deemed to be held or distributed owner or operator shall be deemed to be SO2 Trading Program unit at the source, in proportion to each holder’s legal, subject to and bound by the certificate for which the certificate of equitable, leasehold, or contractual of representation, the representations, representation is submitted, including reservation or entitlement, except that, actions, inactions, and submissions of source name, source category and if such multiple holders have expressly the designated representative and any NAICS code (or, in the absence of a provided for a different distribution of alternate designated representative of NAICS code, an equivalent code), State, Texas SO2 Trading Program allowances the source or unit, and the decisions plant code, county, latitude and by contract, Texas SO2 Trading Program and orders of the Administrator, as if longitude, unit identification number allowances and proceeds of transactions the owner or operator were included in and type, identification number and involving Texas SO2 Trading Program such list. nameplate capacity (in MWe, rounded allowances will be deemed to be held or (2) Within 30 days after any change in to the nearest tenth) of each generator distributed in accordance with the served by each such unit, and actual the owners and operators of a Texas SO2 contract.’’ date of commencement of commercial Trading Program source or a Texas SO2 (5) The signature of the designated Trading Program unit at the source, operation, and a statement of whether representative and any alternate including the addition or removal of an such source is located in Indian designated representative and the dates owner or operator, the designated country. signed. representative or any alternate (2) The name, address, email address (b) Unless otherwise required by the designated representative shall submit a (if any), telephone number, and Administrator, documents of agreement facsimile transmission number (if any) revision to the certificate of referred to in the certificate of of the designated representative and any representation under § 97.916 amending representation shall not be submitted to alternate designated representative. the list of owners and operators to the Administrator. The Administrator (3) A list of the owners and operators shall not be under any obligation to reflect the change. of the Texas SO Trading Program (d) Changes in units at the source. 2 review or evaluate the sufficiency of source and of each Texas SO2 Trading such documents, if submitted. Within 30 days of any change in which Program unit at the source. units are located at a Texas SO2 Trading (4) The following certification § 97.917 Objections concerning Program source (including the addition statements by the designated designated representative and alternate (see § 97.904(b)) or removal of a unit), representative and any alternate designated representative. the designated representative or any designated representative— (a) Once a complete certificate of alternate designated representative shall (i) ‘‘I certify that I was selected as the representation under § 97.916 has been submit a certificate of representation designated representative or alternate submitted and received, the under § 97.916 amending the list of designated representative, as applicable, Administrator will rely on the certificate units to reflect the change. by an agreement binding on the owners of representation unless and until a (1) If the change is the addition of a and operators of the source and each superseding complete certificate of unit (see § 97.904(b)) that operated Texas SO2 Trading Program unit at the representation under § 97.916 is (other than for purposes of testing by the source.’’ received by the Administrator. manufacturer before initial installation) (ii) ‘‘I certify that I have all the (b) Except as provided in paragraph before being located at the source, then necessary authority to carry out my (a) of this section, no objection or other the certificate of representation shall duties and responsibilities under the communication submitted to the identify, in a format prescribed by the Texas SO2 Trading Program on behalf of Administrator concerning the Administrator, the entity from whom the owners and operators of the source authorization, or any representation, the unit was purchased or otherwise and of each Texas SO2 Trading Program action, inaction, or submission, of a obtained (including name, address, unit at the source and that each such designated representative or alternate telephone number, and facsimile owner and operator shall be fully bound designated representative shall affect number (if any)), the date on which the by my representations, actions, any representation, action, inaction, or unit was purchased or otherwise inactions, or submissions and by any submission of the designated obtained, and the date on which the decision or order issued to me by the representative or alternate designated unit became located at the source. Administrator regarding the source or representative or the finality of any (2) If the change is the removal of a unit.’’ decision or order by the Administrator unit, then the certificate of (iii) ‘‘Where there are multiple under the Texas SO2 Trading Program. representation shall identify, in a format holders of a legal or equitable title to, or (c) The Administrator will not prescribed by the Administrator, the a leasehold interest in, a Texas SO2 adjudicate any private legal dispute entity to which the unit was sold or that Trading Program unit, or where a utility concerning the authorization or any otherwise obtained the unit (including or industrial customer purchases power representation, action, inaction, or name, address, telephone number, and from a Texas SO2 Trading Program unit submission of any designated facsimile number (if any)), the date on under a life-of-the-unit, firm power representative or alternate designated which the unit was sold or otherwise contractual arrangement, I certify that: I representative, including private legal obtained, and the date on which the have given a written notice of my disputes concerning the proceeds of unit became no longer located at the selection as the ‘designated Texas SO2 Trading Program allowance source. representative’ or ‘alternate designated transfers.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48373

§ 97.918 Delegation by designated be effective, with regard to the authorized account representative to act representative and alternate designated designated representative or alternate in lieu of the authorized account representative. designated representative identified in representative. (a) A designated representative may such notice, upon receipt of such notice (ii) A complete application for a delegate, to one or more natural persons, by the Administrator and until receipt general account shall include the his or her authority to make an by the Administrator of a superseding following elements in a format electronic submission to the notice of delegation submitted by such prescribed by the Administrator: Administrator provided for or required designated representative or alternate (A) Name, mailing address, email under this subpart. designated representative, as address (if any), telephone number, and (b) An alternate designated appropriate. The superseding notice of facsimile transmission number (if any) representative may delegate, to one or delegation may replace any previously of the authorized account representative more natural persons, his or her identified agent, add a new agent, or and any alternate authorized account authority to make an electronic eliminate entirely any delegation of representative; submission to the Administrator authority. (B) An identifying name for the provided for or required under this (e) Any electronic submission covered general account; subpart. by the certification in paragraph (c)(4)(i) (C) A list of all persons subject to a (c) In order to delegate authority to a of this section and made in accordance binding agreement for the authorized natural person to make an electronic with a notice of delegation effective account representative and any alternate submission to the Administrator in under paragraph (d) of this section shall authorized account representative to accordance with paragraph (a) or (b) of be deemed to be an electronic represent their ownership interest with this section, the designated submission by the designated respect to the Texas SO2 Trading representative or alternate designated representative or alternate designated Program allowances held in the general representative, as appropriate, must representative submitting such notice of account; submit to the Administrator a notice of delegation. (D) The following certification delegation, in a format prescribed by the statement by the authorized account Administrator, that includes the § 97.919 [Reserved] representative and any alternate following elements: § 97.920 Establishment of compliance authorized account representative: ‘‘I (1) The name, address, email address, accounts and general accounts. certify that I was selected as the telephone number, and facsimile authorized account representative or the transmission number (if any) of such (a) Compliance accounts. Upon alternate authorized account designated representative or alternate receipt of a complete certificate of representative, as applicable, by an designated representative; representation under § 97.916, the (2) The name, address, email address, Administrator will establish a agreement that is binding on all persons telephone number, and facsimile compliance account for the Texas SO2 who have an ownership interest with transmission number (if any) of each Trading Program source for which the respect to Texas SO2 Trading Program such natural person (referred to in this certificate of representation was allowances held in the general account. section as an ‘‘agent’’); submitted, unless the source already has I certify that I have all the necessary (3) For each such natural person, a list a compliance account. The designated authority to carry out my duties and of the type or types of electronic representative and any alternate responsibilities under the Texas SO2 submissions under paragraph (a) or (b) designated representative of the source Trading Program on behalf of such of this section for which authority is shall be the authorized account persons and that each such person shall delegated to him or her; and representative and the alternate be fully bound by my representations, (4) The following certification authorized account representative actions, inactions, or submissions and statements by such designated respectively of the compliance account. by any decision or order issued to me representative or alternate designated (b) General accounts—(1) Application by the Administrator regarding the representative: for general account. (i) Any person may general account.’’ (i) ‘‘I agree that any electronic apply to open a general account, for the (E) The signature of the authorized submission to the Administrator that is purpose of holding and transferring account representative and any alternate made by an agent identified in this Texas SO2 Trading Program allowances, authorized account representative and notice of delegation and of a type listed by submitting to the Administrator a the dates signed. for such agent in this notice of complete application for a general (iii) Unless otherwise required by the delegation and that is made when I am account. Such application shall Administrator, documents of agreement a designated representative or alternate designate one and only one authorized referred to in the application for a designated representative, as account representative and may general account shall not be submitted appropriate, and before this notice of designate one and only one alternate to the Administrator. The Administrator delegation is superseded by another authorized account representative who shall not be under any obligation to notice of delegation under 40 CFR may act on behalf of the authorized review or evaluate the sufficiency of 97.918(d) shall be deemed to be an account representative. such documents, if submitted. electronic submission by me.’’ (A) The authorized account (2) Authorization of authorized (ii) ‘‘Until this notice of delegation is representative and alternate authorized account representative and alternate superseded by another notice of account representative shall be selected authorized account representative. (i) delegation under 40 CFR 97.918(d), I by an agreement binding on the persons Upon receipt by the Administrator of a agree to maintain an email account and who have an ownership interest with complete application for a general to notify the Administrator immediately respect to Texas SO2 Trading Program account under paragraph (b)(1) of this of any change in my email address allowances held in the general account. section, the Administrator will establish unless all delegation of authority by me (B) The agreement by which the a general account for the person or under 40 CFR 97.918 is terminated.’’ alternate authorized account persons for whom the application is (d) A notice of delegation submitted representative is selected shall include submitted, and upon and after such under paragraph (c) of this section shall a procedure for authorizing the alternate receipt by the Administrator:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48374 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

(A) The authorized account representative’’ is used in this subpart, account representative or any alternate representative of the general account the term shall be construed to include authorized account representative shall shall be authorized and shall represent the authorized account representative or submit a revision to the application for and, by his or her representations, any alternate authorized account a general account amending the list of actions, inactions, or submissions, representative. persons having an ownership interest legally bind each person who has an (3) Changing authorized account with respect to the Texas SO2 Trading ownership interest with respect to Texas representative and alternate authorized Program allowances in the general SO2 Trading Program allowances held account representative; changes in account to include the change. in the general account in all matters persons with ownership interest. (i) The (4) Objections concerning authorized pertaining to the Texas SO2 Trading authorized account representative of a account representative and alternate Program, notwithstanding any general account may be changed at any authorized account representative. (i) agreement between the authorized time upon receipt by the Administrator Once a complete application for a account representative and such person. of a superseding complete application general account under paragraph (b)(1) (B) Any alternate authorized account for a general account under paragraph of this section has been submitted and representative shall be authorized, and (b)(1) of this section. Notwithstanding received, the Administrator will rely on any representation, action, inaction, or any such change, all representations, the application unless and until a submission by any alternate authorized actions, inactions, and submissions by superseding complete application for a account representative shall be deemed the previous authorized account general account under paragraph (b)(1) to be a representation, action, inaction, representative before the time and date of this section is received by the or submission by the authorized account when the Administrator receives the Administrator. representative. superseding application for a general (ii) Except as provided in paragraph (C) Each person who has an account shall be binding on the new (b)(4)(i) of this section, no objection or ownership interest with respect to Texas authorized account representative and other communication submitted to the SO2 Trading Program allowances held the persons with an ownership interest Administrator concerning the in the general account shall be bound by with respect to the Texas SO2 Trading authorization, or any representation, any decision or order issued to the Program allowances in the general action, inaction, or submission of the authorized account representative or account. authorized account representative or alternate authorized account (ii) The alternate authorized account any alternate authorized account representative by the Administrator representative of a general account may representative of a general account shall regarding the general account. be changed at any time upon receipt by affect any representation, action, (ii) Except as provided in paragraph the Administrator of a superseding inaction, or submission of the (b)(5) of this section concerning complete application for a general authorized account representative or delegation of authority to make account under paragraph (b)(1) of this any alternate authorized account submissions, each submission section. Notwithstanding any such representative or the finality of any concerning the general account shall be change, all representations, actions, decision or order by the Administrator made, signed, and certified by the inactions, and submissions by the under the Texas SO2 Trading Program. authorized account representative or previous alternate authorized account (iii) The Administrator will not any alternate authorized account representative before the time and date adjudicate any private legal dispute representative for the persons having an when the Administrator receives the concerning the authorization or any ownership interest with respect to Texas superseding application for a general representation, action, inaction, or SO2 Trading Program allowances held account shall be binding on the new submission of the authorized account in the general account. Each such alternate authorized account representative or any alternate submission shall include the following representative, the authorized account authorized account representative of a certification statement by the authorized representative, and the persons with an general account, including private legal account representative or any alternate ownership interest with respect to the disputes concerning the proceeds of authorized account representative: ‘‘I Texas SO2 Trading Program allowances Texas SO2 Trading Program allowance am authorized to make this submission in the general account. transfers. on behalf of the persons having an (iii)(A) In the event a person having (5) Delegation by authorized account ownership interest with respect to the an ownership interest with respect to representative and alternate authorized Texas SO2 Trading Program allowances Texas SO2 Trading Program allowances account representative. (i) An held in the general account. I certify in the general account is not included authorized account representative of a under penalty of law that I have in the list of such persons in the general account may delegate, to one or personally examined, and am familiar application for a general account, such more natural persons, his or her with, the statements and information person shall be deemed to be subject to authority to make an electronic submitted in this document and all its and bound by the application for a submission to the Administrator attachments. Based on my inquiry of general account, the representation, provided for or required under this those individuals with primary actions, inactions, and submissions of subpart. responsibility for obtaining the the authorized account representative (ii) An alternate authorized account information, I certify that the statements and any alternate authorized account representative of a general account may and information are to the best of my representative of the account, and the delegate, to one or more natural persons, knowledge and belief true, accurate, and decisions and orders of the his or her authority to make an complete. I am aware that there are Administrator, as if the person were electronic submission to the significant penalties for submitting false included in such list. Administrator provided for or required statements and information or omitting (B) Within 30 days after any change under this subpart. required statements and information, in the persons having an ownership (iii) In order to delegate authority to including the possibility of fine or interest with respect to Texas SO2 a natural person to make an electronic imprisonment.’’ Trading Program allowances in the submission to the Administrator in (iii) Except in this section, whenever general account, including the addition accordance with paragraph (b)(5)(i) or the term ‘‘authorized account or removal of a person, the authorized (ii) of this section, the authorized

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48375

account representative or alternate (v) Any electronic submission covered SO2 Trading Program source’s authorized account representative, as by the certification in paragraph compliance account the Texas SO2 appropriate, must submit to the (b)(5)(iii)(D) of this section and made in Trading Program allowances allocated Administrator a notice of delegation, in accordance with a notice of delegation to the Texas SO2 Trading Program units a format prescribed by the effective under paragraph (b)(5)(iv) of at the source in accordance with Administrator, that includes the this section shall be deemed to be an § 97.911(a) for the control periods in following elements: electronic submission by the authorized 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022. The (A) The name, address, email address, account representative or alternate Administrator may delay recordation of telephone number, and facsimile authorized account representative Texas SO2 Trading Program allowances transmission number (if any) of such submitting such notice of delegation. for the specified control periods if the authorized account representative or (6) Closing a general account. (i) The State of Texas submits a SIP revision alternate authorized account authorized account representative or before the recordation deadline. representative; alternate authorized account (b) By July 1, 2019 and July 1 of each (B) The name, address, email address, representative of a general account may year thereafter, the Administrator will telephone number, and facsimile submit to the Administrator a request to record in each Texas SO2 Trading transmission number (if any) of each close the account. Such request shall Program source’s compliance account such natural person (referred to in this include a correctly submitted Texas SO2 the Texas SO2 Trading Program section as an ‘‘agent’’); Trading Program allowance transfer allowances allocated to the Texas SO (C) For each such natural person, a 2 under § 97.922 for any Texas SO2 Trading Program units at the source in list of the type or types of electronic Trading Program allowances in the accordance with § 97.911(a) for the submissions under paragraph (b)(5)(i) or account to one or more other Allowance control period in the fourth year after (ii) of this section for which authority is Management System accounts. the year of the applicable recordation delegated to him or her; (ii) If a general account has no Texas (D) The following certification deadline under this paragraph. The SO2 Trading Program allowance Administrator may delay recordation of statement by such authorized account transfers to or from the account for a 12- the Texas SO2 Trading Program representative or alternate authorized month period or longer and does not account representative: ‘‘I agree that any allowances for the applicable control contain any Texas SO2 Trading Program electronic submission to the periods if the State of Texas submits a allowances, the Administrator may SIP revision by May 1 of the year of the Administrator that is made by an agent notify the authorized account identified in this notice of delegation applicable recordation deadline under representative for the account that the this paragraph. and of a type listed for such agent in account will be closed after 30 days this notice of delegation and that is (c) By February 15, 2020, and after the notice is sent. The account will February 15 of each year thereafter, the made when I am an authorized account be closed after the 30-day period unless, representative or alternate authorized Administrator will record in each Texas before the end of the 30-day period, the SO Trading Program source’s account representative, as appropriate, Administrator receives a correctly 2 and before this notice of delegation is compliance account the allowances submitted Texas SO2 Trading Program superseded by another notice of allocated from the Texas SO2 Trading allowance transfer under § 97.922 to the Program Supplemental Allowance Pool delegation under 40 CFR account or a statement submitted by the 97.920(b)(5)(iv) shall be deemed to be an in accordance with § 97.912 for the authorized account representative or control period in the year of the electronic submission by me.’’; and alternate authorized account (E) The following certification applicable recordation deadline under representative demonstrating to the statement by such authorized account this paragraph, . satisfaction of the Administrator good representative or alternate authorized (d) By July 1, 2019 and July 1 of each cause as to why the account should not account representative: ‘‘Until this year thereafter, the Administrator will be closed. notice of delegation is superseded by (c) Account identification. The record in each Texas SO2 Trading another notice of delegation under 40 Administrator will assign a unique Program source’s compliance account CFR 97.920(b)(5)(iv), I agree to maintain identifying number to each account the Texas SO2 Trading Program an email account and to notify the established under paragraph (a) or (b) of allowances allocated to the Texas SO2 Administrator immediately of any this section. Trading Program units at the source in change in my email address unless all (d) Responsibilities of authorized accordance with § 97.911(b). delegation of authority by me under 40 account representative and alternate (e) When recording the allocation of CFR 97.920(b)(5) is terminated.’’ authorized account representative. After Texas SO2 Trading Program allowances (iv) A notice of delegation submitted the establishment of a compliance to a Texas SO2 Trading Program unit in under paragraph (b)(5)(iii) of this account or general account, the an Allowance Management System section shall be effective, with regard to Administrator will accept or act on a account, the Administrator will assign the authorized account representative or submission pertaining to the account, each Texas SO2 Trading Program alternate authorized account including, but not limited to, allowance a unique identification representative identified in such notice, submissions concerning the deduction number that will include digits upon receipt of such notice by the or transfer of Texas SO Trading identifying the year of the control Administrator and until receipt by the 2 Program allowances in the account, only period for which the Texas SO2 Trading Administrator of a superseding notice of if the submission has been made, Program allowance is allocated. delegation submitted by such signed, and certified in accordance with authorized account representative or § 97.922 Submission of Texas SO2 Trading §§ 97.914(a) and 97.918 or paragraphs Program allowance transfers. alternate authorized account (b)(2)(ii) and (b)(5) of this section. representative, as appropriate. The (a) An authorized account superseding notice of delegation may § 97.921 Recordation of Texas SO2 representative seeking recordation of a replace any previously identified agent, Trading Program allowance allocations. Texas SO2 Trading Program allowance add a new agent, or eliminate entirely (a) By November 1, 2018, the transfer shall submit the transfer to the any delegation of authority. Administrator will record in each Texas Administrator.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48376 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

(b) A Texas SO2 Trading Program (1) A decision not to record the (2) First-in, first-out. The allowance transfer shall be correctly transfer, and Administrator will deduct Texas SO2 submitted if: (2) The reasons for such non- Trading Program allowances under (1) The transfer includes the following recordation. paragraph (b) or (d) of this section from elements, in a format prescribed by the the source’s compliance account in Administrator: § 97.924 Compliance with Texas SO2 Trading Program emissions limitations. accordance with a complete request (i) The account numbers established under paragraph (c)(1) of this section or, by the Administrator for both the (a) Availability for deduction for in the absence of such request or in the transferor and transferee accounts; compliance. Texas SO2 Trading Program case of identification of an insufficient (ii) The serial number of each Texas allowances are available to be deducted amount of Texas SO Trading Program for compliance with a source’s Texas 2 SO2 Trading Program allowance that is allowances in such request, on a first-in, in the transferor account and is to be SO2 Trading Program emissions first-out accounting basis in the transferred; and limitation for a control period in a given following order: year only if the Texas SO2 Trading (iii) The name and signature of the (i) Any Texas SO2 Trading Program authorized account representative of the Program allowances: allowances that were recorded in the (1) Were allocated for such control transferor account and the date signed; compliance account pursuant to period or a control period in a prior and § 97.921 and not transferred out of the year; and (2) When the Administrator attempts compliance account, in the order of to record the transfer, the transferor (2) Are held in the source’s compliance account as of the allowance recordation; and then account includes each Texas SO2 transfer deadline for such control (ii) Any other Texas SO2 Trading Trading Program allowance identified Program allowances that were by serial number in the transfer. period. (b) Deductions for compliance. After transferred to and recorded in the compliance account pursuant to this § 97.923 Recordation of Texas SO2 the recordation, in accordance with subpart, in the order of recordation. Trading Program allowance transfers. § 97.923, of Texas SO2 Trading Program (a) Within 5 business days (except as allowance transfers submitted by the (d) Deductions for excess emissions. provided in paragraph (b) of this allowance transfer deadline for a control After making the deductions for compliance under paragraph (b) of this section) of receiving a Texas SO2 period in a given year, the Trading Program allowance transfer that Administrator will deduct from each section for a control period in a year in which the Texas SO2 Trading Program is correctly submitted under § 97.922, source’s compliance account Texas SO2 the Administrator will record a Texas Trading Program allowances available source has excess emissions, the SO Trading Program allowance transfer under paragraph (a) of this section in Administrator will deduct from the 2 source’s compliance account an amount by moving each Texas SO2 Trading order to determine whether the source of Texas SO2 Trading Program Program allowance from the transferor meets the Texas SO2 Trading Program account to the transferee account as emissions limitation for such control allowances, allocated for a control specified in the transfer. period, as follows: period in a prior year or the control period in the year of the excess (b) A Texas SO2 Trading Program (1) Until the amount of Texas SO2 allowance transfer to or from a Trading Program allowances deducted emissions or in the immediately following year, equal to three times the compliance account that is submitted equals the number of tons of total SO2 number of tons of the source’s excess for recordation after the allowance emissions from all Texas SO2 Trading transfer deadline for a control period Program units at the source for such emissions. (e) Recordation of deductions. The and that includes any Texas SO2 control period; or Administrator will record in the Trading Program allowances allocated (2) If there are insufficient Texas SO2 for any control period before such Trading Program allowances to appropriate compliance account all allowance transfer deadline will not be complete the deductions in paragraph deductions from such an account under recorded until after the Administrator (b)(1) of this section, until no more paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section. completes the deductions from such Texas SO2 Trading Program allowances § 97.925 [Reserved] compliance account under § 97.924 for available under paragraph (a) of this the control period immediately before section remain in the compliance § 97.926 Banking. such allowance transfer deadline. account. (a) A Texas SO2 Trading Program (c) Where a Texas SO2 Trading (c)(1) Identification of Texas SO2 allowance may be banked for future use Program allowance transfer is not Trading Program allowances by serial or transfer in a compliance account or correctly submitted under § 97.922, the number. The authorized account general account in accordance with Administrator will not record such representative for a source’s compliance paragraph (b) of this section. transfer. account may request that specific Texas (b) Any Texas SO2 Trading Program (d) Within 5 business days of SO2 Trading Program allowances, allowance that is held in a compliance recordation of a Texas SO2 Trading identified by serial number, in the account or a general account will Program allowance transfer under compliance account be deducted for remain in such account unless and until paragraphs (a) and (b) of the section, the emissions or excess emissions for a the Texas SO2 Trading Program Administrator will notify the authorized control period in a given year in allowance is deducted or transferred account representatives of both the accordance with paragraph (b) or (d) of under § 97.911(c), § 97.923, § 97.924, transferor and transferee accounts. this section. In order to be complete, § 97.927, or § 97.928. (e) Within 10 business days of receipt such request shall be submitted to the of a Texas SO2 Trading Program Administrator by the allowance transfer § 97.927 Account error. allowance transfer that is not correctly deadline for such control period and The Administrator may, at his or her submitted under § 97.922, the include, in a format prescribed by the sole discretion and on his or her own Administrator will notify the authorized Administrator, the identification of the motion, correct any error in any account representatives of both accounts Texas SO2 Trading Program source and Allowance Management System subject to the transfer of: the appropriate serial numbers. account. Within 10 business days of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48377

making such correction, the requirements of this subpart and part 75 (d) Prohibitions. (1) No owner or Administrator will notify the authorized of this chapter applicable to the operator of a Texas SO2 Trading account representative for the account. monitoring systems under paragraph Program unit shall use any alternative (a)(1) of this section; and monitoring system, alternative reference § 97.928 Administrator’s action on (3) Record, report, and quality-assure submissions. method, or any other alternative to any the data from the monitoring systems requirement of this subpart without (a) The Administrator may review and under paragraph (a)(1) of this section. having obtained prior written approval conduct independent audits concerning (b) Compliance deadlines. Except as in accordance with § 97.935. any submission under the Texas SO2 provided in paragraph (e) of this (2) No owner or operator of a Texas Trading Program and make appropriate section, the owner or operator of a Texas SO Trading Program unit shall operate adjustments of the information in the 2 SO2 Trading Program unit shall meet the the unit so as to discharge, or allow to submission. monitoring system certification and be discharged, SO to the atmosphere (b) The Administrator may deduct 2 other requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) without accounting for all such SO in Texas SO Trading Program allowances 2 2 and (2) of this section on or before the accordance with the applicable from or transfer Texas SO Trading 2 later of the following dates and shall provisions of this subpart and part 75 of Program allowances to a compliance record, report, and quality-assure the this chapter. account, based on the information in a data from the monitoring systems under (3) No owner or operator of a Texas submission, as adjusted under paragraph (a)(1) of this section on and SO Trading Program unit shall disrupt paragraph (a) of this section, and record 2 after: the continuous emission monitoring such deductions and transfers. (1) For a Texas SO2 Trading Program system, any portion thereof, or any other § 97.929 [Reserved] unit under § 97.904(a), January 1, 2019; approved emission monitoring method, or and thereby avoid monitoring and § 97.930 General monitoring, (2) For a Texas SO2 Trading Program recording SO mass discharged into the recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. 2 unit under § 97.904(b), January 1 of the atmosphere or heat input, except for The owners and operators, and to the first control period for which the unit is periods of recertification or periods extent applicable, the designated a Texas SO2 Trading Program unit. when calibration, quality assurance representative, of a Texas SO2 Trading (3) The owner or operator of a Texas testing, or maintenance is performed in Program unit, shall comply with the SO2 Trading Program unit for which accordance with the applicable monitoring, recordkeeping, and construction of a new stack or flue or provisions of this subpart and part 75 of reporting requirements as provided in installation of add-on SO2 emission this chapter. this subpart and subparts F and G of controls is completed after the (4) No owner or operator of a Texas part 75 of this chapter. For purposes of applicable deadline under paragraph SO2 Trading Program unit shall retire or applying such requirements, the (b)(1) or (2) of this section shall meet the permanently discontinue use of the definitions in § 97.902 and in § 72.2 of requirements of § 75.4(e)(1) through (4) continuous emission monitoring system, this chapter shall apply, the terms of this chapter, except that: any component thereof, or any other ‘‘affected unit,’’ ‘‘designated (i) Such requirements shall apply to approved monitoring system under this representative,’’ and ‘‘continuous the monitoring systems required under subpart, except under any one of the emission monitoring system’’ (or § 97.930 through § 97.935, rather than following circumstances: ‘‘CEMS’’) in part 75 of this chapter shall the monitoring systems required under (i) During the period that the unit is be deemed to refer to the terms ‘‘Texas part 75 of this chapter; covered by an exemption under § 97.905 SO2 Trading Program unit,’’ ‘‘designated (ii) SO2 concentration, stack gas that is in effect; representative,’’ and ‘‘continuous moisture content, stack gas volumetric (ii) The owner or operator is emission monitoring system’’ (or flow rate, and O2 or CO2 concentration monitoring emissions from the unit with ‘‘CEMS’’) respectively as defined in data shall be determined and reported, another certified monitoring system § 97.902. The owner or operator of a rather than the data listed in § 75.4(e)(2) approved, in accordance with the unit that is not a Texas SO2 Trading of this chapter; and applicable provisions of this subpart Program unit but that is monitored (iii) Any petition for another and part 75 of this chapter, by the under § 75.16(b)(2) of this chapter shall procedure under § 75.4(e)(2) of this Administrator for use at that unit that comply with the same monitoring, chapter shall be submitted under provides emission data for the same recordkeeping, and reporting § 97.935, rather than § 75.66 of this pollutant or parameter as the retired or requirements as a Texas SO2 Trading chapter. discontinued monitoring system; or Program unit. (c) Reporting data. The owner or (iii) The designated representative (a) Requirements for installation, operator of a Texas SO2 Trading submits notification of the date of certification, and data accounting. The Program unit that does not meet the certification testing of a replacement owner or operator of each Texas SO2 applicable compliance date set forth in monitoring system for the retired or Trading Program unit shall: paragraph (b) of this section for any discontinued monitoring system in (1) Install all monitoring systems monitoring system under paragraph accordance with § 97.931(d)(3)(i). required under this subpart for (a)(1) of this section shall, for each such (e) Long-term cold storage. The owner monitoring system, determine, record, monitoring SO2 mass emissions and or operator of a Texas SO2 Trading individual unit heat input (including all and report maximum potential (or, as Program unit is subject to the applicable systems required to monitor SO2 appropriate, minimum potential) values provisions of § 75.4(d) of this chapter concentration, stack gas moisture for SO2 concentration, stack gas flow concerning units in long-term cold content, stack gas flow rate, CO2 or O2 rate, stack gas moisture content, fuel storage. concentration, and fuel flow rate, as flow rate, and any other parameters applicable, in accordance with §§ 75.11 required to determine SO2 mass § 97.931 Initial monitoring system and 75.16 of this chapter); emissions and heat input in accordance certification and recertification procedures. (2) Successfully complete all with § 75.31(b)(2) or (c)(3) of this (a) The owner or operator of a Texas certification tests required under chapter or section 2.4 of appendix D to SO2 Trading Program unit shall be § 97.931 and meet all other part 75 of this chapter, as applicable. exempt from the initial certification

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48378 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

requirements of this section for a shall recertify the monitoring system in accordance with the requirements of monitoring system under § 97.930(a)(1) accordance with § 75.20(b) of this part 75 of this chapter, will be if the following conditions are met: chapter. Furthermore, whenever the considered valid quality-assured data (1) The monitoring system has been owner or operator makes a replacement, (retroactive to the date and time of previously certified in accordance with modification, or change to the flue gas provisional certification), provided that part 75 of this chapter; and handling system or the unit’s operation the Administrator does not invalidate (2) The applicable quality-assurance that may significantly change the stack the provisional certification by issuing a and quality-control requirements of flow or concentration profile, the owner notice of disapproval within 120 days of § 75.21 of this chapter and appendices or operator shall recertify each the date of receipt of the complete B and D to part 75 of this chapter are continuous emission monitoring system certification application by the fully met for the certified monitoring whose accuracy is potentially affected Administrator. system described in paragraph (a)(1) of by the change, in accordance with (iv) Certification application approval this section. § 75.20(b) of this chapter. Examples of process. The Administrator will issue a (b) The recertification provisions of changes to a continuous emission written notice of approval or this section shall apply to a monitoring monitoring system that require disapproval of the certification system under § 97.930(a)(1) that is recertification include replacement of application to the owner or operator exempt from initial certification the analyzer, complete replacement of within 120 days of receipt of the requirements under paragraph (a) of this an existing continuous emission complete certification application under section. monitoring system, or change in paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section. In the (c) [Reserved] location or orientation of the sampling event the Administrator does not issue (d) Except as provided in paragraph probe or site. Any fuel flowmeter system such a notice within such 120-day (a) of this section, the owner or operator under § 97.930(a)(1) is subject to the period, each monitoring system that of a Texas SO2 Trading Program unit recertification requirements in meets the applicable performance shall comply with the following initial § 75.20(g)(6) of this chapter. requirements of part 75 of this chapter certification and recertification (3) Approval process for initial and is included in the certification procedures, for a continuous monitoring certification and recertification. For application will be deemed certified for system (i.e., a continuous emission initial certification of a continuous use under the Texas SO2 Trading monitoring system and an excepted monitoring system under § 97.930(a)(1), Program. monitoring system under appendix D to paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (v) of this (A) Approval notice. If the part 75 of this chapter) under section apply. For recertifications of certification application is complete and § 97.930(a)(1). The owner or operator of such monitoring systems, paragraphs shows that each monitoring system a unit that qualifies to use the low mass (d)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section and meets the applicable performance emissions excepted monitoring the procedures in § 75.20(b)(5) and (g)(7) requirements of part 75 of this chapter, methodology under § 75.19 of this of this chapter (in lieu of the procedures then the Administrator will issue a chapter or that qualifies to use an in paragraph (d)(3)(v) of this section) written notice of approval of the alternative monitoring system under apply, provided that in applying certification application within 120 subpart E of part 75 of this chapter shall paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (iv) of this days of receipt. comply with the procedures in section, the words ‘‘certification’’ and (B) Incomplete application notice. If paragraph (e) or (f) of this section ‘‘initial certification’’ are replaced by the certification application is not respectively. the word ‘‘recertification’’ and the word complete, then the Administrator will (1) Requirements for initial ‘‘certified’’ is replaced by with the word issue a written notice of incompleteness certification. The owner or operator ‘‘recertified’’. that sets a reasonable date by which the shall ensure that each continuous (i) Notification of certification. The designated representative must submit monitoring system under § 97.930(a)(1) designated representative shall submit the additional information required to (including the automated data to the appropriate EPA Regional Office complete the certification application. If acquisition and handling system) and the Administrator written notice of the designated representative does not successfully completes all of the initial the dates of certification testing, in comply with the notice of certification testing required under accordance with § 97.933. incompleteness by the specified date, § 75.20 of this chapter by the applicable (ii) Certification application. The then the Administrator may issue a deadline in § 97.930(b). In addition, designated representative shall submit notice of disapproval under paragraph whenever the owner or operator installs to the Administrator a certification (d)(3)(iv)(C) of this section. a monitoring system to meet the application for each monitoring system. (C) Disapproval notice. If the requirements of this subpart in a A complete certification application certification application shows that any location where no such monitoring shall include the information specified monitoring system does not meet the system was previously installed, initial in § 75.63 of this chapter. performance requirements of part 75 of certification in accordance with § 75.20 (iii) Provisional certification date. The this chapter or if the certification of this chapter is required. provisional certification date for a application is incomplete and the (2) Requirements for recertification. monitoring system shall be determined requirement for disapproval under Whenever the owner or operator makes in accordance with § 75.20(a)(3) of this paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(B) of this section is a replacement, modification, or change chapter. A provisionally certified met, then the Administrator will issue a in any certified continuous emission monitoring system may be used under written notice of disapproval of the monitoring system under § 97.930(a)(1) the Texas SO2 Trading Program for a certification application. Upon issuance that may significantly affect the ability period not to exceed 120 days after of such notice of disapproval, the of the system to accurately measure or receipt by the Administrator of the provisional certification is invalidated record SO2 mass emissions or heat input complete certification application for by the Administrator and the data rate or to meet the quality-assurance and the monitoring system under paragraph measured and recorded by each quality-control requirements of § 75.21 (d)(3)(ii) of this section. Data measured uncertified monitoring system shall not of this chapter or appendix B to part 75 and recorded by the provisionally be considered valid quality-assured data of this chapter, the owner or operator certified monitoring system, in beginning with the date and hour of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48379

provisional certification (as defined a unit elects to certify a fuel flowmeter submit written notice to the under § 75.20(a)(3) of this chapter). system for heat input determination, the Administrator in accordance with (D) Audit decertification. The owner or operator shall also meet the § 75.61 of this chapter. Administrator may issue a notice of certification and recertification disapproval of the certification status of requirements in § 75.20(g) of this § 97.934 Recordkeeping and reporting. a monitor in accordance with chapter. (a) General provisions. The designated § 97.932(b). (f) The designated representative of representative of a Texas SO2 Trading (v) Procedures for loss of certification. each unit for which the owner or Program unit shall comply with all If the Administrator issues a notice of operator intends to use an alternative recordkeeping and reporting disapproval of a certification monitoring system approved by the requirements in paragraphs (b) through application under paragraph Administrator under subpart E of part (e) of this section, the applicable (d)(3)(iv)(C) of this section or a notice of 75 of this chapter shall comply with the recordkeeping and reporting disapproval of certification status under applicable notification and application requirements in subparts F and G of part paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(D) of this section, procedures of § 75.20(f) of this chapter. 75 of this chapter, and the requirements then: of § 97.914(a). (A) The owner or operator shall § 97.932 Monitoring system out-of-control (b) Monitoring plans. The owner or periods. substitute the following values, for each operator of a Texas SO2 Trading disapproved monitoring system, for (a) General provisions. Whenever any Program unit shall comply with the each hour of unit operation during the monitoring system fails to meet the requirements of § 75.62 of this chapter. period of invalid data specified under quality-assurance and quality-control (c) Certification applications. The § 75.20(a)(4)(iii), § 75.20(g)(7), or requirements or data validation designated representative shall submit § 75.21(e) of this chapter and continuing requirements of part 75 of this chapter, an application to the Administrator until the applicable date and hour data shall be substituted using the within 45 days after completing all specified under § 75.20(a)(5)(i) or (g)(7) applicable missing data procedures in initial certification or recertification of this chapter: subpart D or appendix D to part 75 of tests required under § 97.931, including (1) For a disapproved SO2 pollutant this chapter. the information required under § 75.63 concentration monitor and disapproved (b) Audit decertification. Whenever of this chapter. flow monitor, respectively, the both an audit of a monitoring system (d) Quarterly reports. The designated maximum potential concentration of and a review of the initial certification representative shall submit quarterly SO2 and the maximum potential flow or recertification application reveal that reports, as follows: any monitoring system should not have rate, as defined in sections 2.1.1.1 and (1) The designated representative been certified or recertified because it 2.1.4.1 of appendix A to part 75 of this shall report the SO mass emissions data did not meet a particular performance 2 chapter. and heat input data for a Texas SO (2) For a disapproved moisture specification or other requirement under 2 Trading Program unit, in an electronic monitoring system and disapproved § 97.931 or the applicable provisions of quarterly report in a format prescribed diluent gas monitoring system, part 75 of this chapter, both at the time by the Administrator, for each calendar respectively, the minimum potential of the initial certification or quarter beginning with the later of: moisture percentage and either the recertification application submission (i) The calendar quarter covering maximum potential CO2 concentration and at the time of the audit, the January 1, 2019 through March 31, 2019; or the minimum potential O2 Administrator will issue a notice of or concentration (as applicable), as defined disapproval of the certification status of (ii) The calendar quarter in sections 2.1.5, 2.1.3.1, and 2.1.3.2 of such monitoring system. For the corresponding to the earlier of the date appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. purposes of this paragraph, an audit of provisional certification or the (3) For a disapproved fuel flowmeter shall be either a field audit or an audit applicable deadline for initial system, the maximum potential fuel of any information submitted to the certification under § 97.930(b). flow rate, as defined in section 2.4.2.1 Administrator or any State or permitting of appendix D to part 75 of this chapter. authority. By issuing the notice of (2) The designated representative (B) The designated representative disapproval, the Administrator revokes shall submit each quarterly report to the shall submit a notification of prospectively the certification status of Administrator within 30 days after the certification retest dates and a new the monitoring system. The data end of the calendar quarter covered by certification application in accordance measured and recorded by the the report. Quarterly reports shall be with paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and (ii) of this monitoring system shall not be submitted in the manner specified in section. considered valid quality-assured data § 75.64 of this chapter. (C) The owner or operator shall repeat from the date of issuance of the (3) For Texas SO2 Trading Program all certification tests or other notification of the revoked certification units that are also subject to the Acid requirements that were failed by the status until the date and time that the Rain Program or CSAPR NOX Ozone monitoring system, as indicated in the owner or operator completes Season Group 2 Trading Program, Administrator’s notice of disapproval, subsequently approved initial quarterly reports shall include the no later than 30 unit operating days certification or recertification tests for applicable data and information after the date of issuance of the notice the monitoring system. The owner or required by subparts F through H of part of disapproval. operator shall follow the applicable 75 of this chapter as applicable, in (e) The owner or operator of a unit initial certification or recertification addition to the SO2 mass emission data, qualified to use the low mass emissions procedures in § 97.931 for each heat input data, and other information (LME) excepted methodology under disapproved monitoring system. required by this subpart. § 75.19 of this chapter shall meet the (4) The Administrator may review and applicable certification and § 97.933 Notifications concerning conduct independent audits of any recertification requirements in monitoring. quarterly report in order to determine §§ 75.19(a)(2) and 75.20(h) of this The designated representative of a whether the quarterly report meets the chapter. If the owner or operator of such Texas SO2 Trading Program unit shall requirements of this subpart and part 75

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 48380 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

of this chapter, including the (e) Compliance certification. The approval to apply an alternative to any requirement to use substitute data. designated representative shall submit requirement of §§ 97.930 through (i) The Administrator will notify the to the Administrator a compliance 97.934. designated representative of any certification (in a format prescribed by (b) A petition submitted under determination that the quarterly report the Administrator) in support of each paragraph (a) of this section shall fails to meet any such requirements and quarterly report based on reasonable include sufficient information for the specify in such notification any inquiry of those persons with primary evaluation of the petition, including, at corrections that the Administrator responsibility for ensuring that all of the a minimum, the following information: believes are necessary to make through unit’s emissions are correctly and fully (1) Identification of each unit and resubmission of the quarterly report and monitored. The certification shall state source covered by the petition; a reasonable time period within which that: the designated representative must (1) The monitoring data submitted (2) A detailed explanation of why the respond. Upon request by the were recorded in accordance with the proposed alternative is being suggested designated representative, the applicable requirements of this subpart in lieu of the requirement; Administrator may specify reasonable and part 75 of this chapter, including (3) A description and diagram of any extensions of such time period. Within the quality assurance procedures and equipment and procedures used in the the time period (including any such specifications; and proposed alternative; extensions) specified by the (2) For a unit with add-on SO2 (4) A demonstration that the proposed Administrator, the designated emission controls and for all hours alternative is consistent with the representative shall resubmit the where SO2 data are substituted in purposes of the requirement for which quarterly report with the corrections accordance with § 75.34(a)(1) of this the alternative is proposed and with the specified by the Administrator, except chapter, the add-on emission controls purposes of this subpart and part 75 of to the extent the designated were operating within the range of this chapter and that any adverse effect representative provides information parameters listed in the quality of approving the alternative will be de demonstrating that a specified assurance/quality control program minimis; and correction is not necessary because the under appendix B to part 75 of this (5) Any other relevant information quarterly report already meets the chapter and the substitute data values that the Administrator may require. requirements of this subpart and part 75 do not systematically underestimate SO2 (c) Use of an alternative to any of this chapter that are relevant to the emissions. specified correction. requirement referenced in paragraph (a) (ii) Any resubmission of a quarterly § 97.935 Petitions for alternatives to of this section is in accordance with this report shall meet the requirements monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting subpart only to the extent that the applicable to the submission of a requirements. petition is approved in writing by the quarterly report under this subpart and (a) The designated representative of a Administrator and that such use is in accordance with such approval. part 75 of this chapter, except for the Texas SO2 Trading Program unit may deadline set forth in paragraph (d)(2) of submit a petition under § 75.66 of this [FR Doc. 2017–21947 Filed 10–16–17; 8:45 am] this section. chapter to the Administrator, requesting BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 Vol. 82 Tuesday, No. 199 October 17, 2017

Part III

The President

Proclamation 9659—National Energy Awareness Month, 2017 Executive Order 13813—Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition Across the United States

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\17OCD0.SGM 17OCD0 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PRES DOCS VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\17OCD0.SGM 17OCD0 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PRES DOCS 48383

Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 82, No. 199

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Title 3— Proclamation 9659 of October 12, 2017

The President National Energy Awareness Month, 2017

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation During National Energy Awareness Month, we commit to achieving an Amer- ica First energy policy that will lower energy costs for hardworking Ameri- cans, protect our national security, and promote responsible stewardship of the environment. The United States is blessed with extraordinary energy abundance, and we must encourage policies that allow innovative Americans to unleash our Nation’s energy potential and drive robust job growth and expansion in every sector of our economy. It is time we make America’s energy dominance a priority. Since 1954, America has been a net importer of energy. My Administration is working to change that and make America become a net energy exporter by 2026. We must empower Americans to access the vast reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas stored across our land, and to develop nuclear, hydropower, and all other types of clean and renewable energy. Recently, the Department of Energy approved applications to expand our exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and establish our Nation as a top LNG supplier to the world. We are also starting to see the effects of ending the war on coal. In the first months of my Administration, United States coal exports have increased by nearly 60 percent from the same time period last year. Together with the Congress and with our State and local partners, we can better enable improvements in energy infrastructure, streamline our Nation’s complex regu- lations, and we can become energy dominant. An America First energy policy goes hand-in-hand with responsible environ- mental protection. Protecting our streams, lakes, and air, and preserving all of our natural habitats, will always be high priority for my Administration. Since 1970, aggregate emissions of six common air pollutants have fallen by 73 percent. We have aggressively fought pollution and reduced emissions even as our population, energy use, and energy production have all grown. Innovative technologies focused on achieving affordable and reliable energy— from Alaska’s North Slope to the Great Plains and the Gulf of Mexico— will continue to allow our country to protect our environment, while also reducing our trade deficits, strengthening energy security, raising wages, and supporting job growth for the hundreds of thousands of Americans currently employed in the energy sector. During National Energy Awareness Month, we are mindful of our energy use and determined to safeguard our energy security. We must remember that some countries do not share our belief in universal access to clean and affordable energy. We thus recommit to freeing our Nation from reliance on the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) cartel and to helping our friends and allies overseas reduce their dependence on those who seek to use energy as a weapon. An energy dominant America is good for Americans—and good for the world. NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 2017 as National Energy Awareness Month.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\17OCD0.SGM 17OCD0 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PRES DOCS 48384 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Presidential Documents

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twelfth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand seventeen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty- second.

[FR Doc. 2017–22676 Filed 10–16–17; 11:15 am] Billing code 3295–F8–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\17OCD0.SGM 17OCD0 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PRES DOCS Trump.EPS Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Presidential Documents 48385 Presidential Documents

Executive Order 13813 of October 12, 2017

Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition Across the United States

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Policy. (a) It shall be the policy of the executive branch, to the extent consistent with law, to facilitate the purchase of insurance across State lines and the development and operation of a healthcare system that provides high-quality care at affordable prices for the American people. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), however, has severely limited the choice of healthcare options available to many Americans and has produced large premium increases in many State individual markets for health insurance. The average exchange premium in the 39 States that are using www.healthcare.gov in 2017 is more than double the average overall individual market premium recorded in 2013. The PPACA has also largely failed to provide meaningful choice or competition between insurers, resulting in one-third of America’s counties having only one insurer offering coverage on their applicable government-run exchange in 2017. (b) Among the myriad areas where current regulations limit choice and competition, my Administration will prioritize three areas for improvement in the near term: association health plans (AHPs), short-term, limited-duration insurance (STLDI), and health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). (i) Large employers often are able to obtain better terms on health insurance for their employees than small employers because of their larger pools of insurable individuals across which they can spread risk and administra- tive costs. Expanding access to AHPs can help small businesses overcome this competitive disadvantage by allowing them to group together to self- insure or purchase large group health insurance. Expanding access to AHPs will also allow more small businesses to avoid many of the PPACA’s costly requirements. Expanding access to AHPs would provide more afford- able health insurance options to many Americans, including hourly wage earners, farmers, and the employees of small businesses and entrepreneurs that fuel economic growth. (ii) STLDI is exempt from the onerous and expensive insurance mandates and regulations included in title I of the PPACA. This can make it an appealing and affordable alternative to government-run exchanges for many people without coverage available to them through their workplaces. The previous administration took steps to restrict access to this market by reducing the allowable coverage period from less than 12 months to less than 3 months and by preventing any extensions selected by the policy- holder beyond 3 months of total coverage. (iii) HRAs are tax-advantaged, account-based arrangements that employers can establish for employees to give employees more flexibility and choices regarding their healthcare. Expanding the flexibility and use of HRAs would provide many Americans, including employees who work at small businesses, with more options for financing their healthcare. (c) My Administration will also continue to focus on promoting competi- tion in healthcare markets and limiting excessive consolidation throughout the healthcare system. To the extent consistent with law, government rules and guidelines affecting the United States healthcare system should:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\17OCE0.SGM 17OCE0 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PRES DOCS 48386 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Presidential Documents

(i) expand the availability of and access to alternatives to expensive, mandate-laden PPACA insurance, including AHPs, STLDI, and HRAs; (ii) re-inject competition into healthcare markets by lowering barriers to entry, limiting excessive consolidation, and preventing abuses of market power; and (iii) improve access to and the quality of information that Americans need to make informed healthcare decisions, including data about healthcare prices and outcomes, while minimizing reporting burdens on affected plans, providers, or payers. Sec. 2. Expanded Access to Association Health Plans. Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Labor shall consider proposing regula- tions or revising guidance, consistent with law, to expand access to health coverage by allowing more employers to form AHPs. To the extent permitted by law and supported by sound policy, the Secretary should consider expand- ing the conditions that satisfy the commonality-of-interest requirements under current Department of Labor advisory opinions interpreting the definition of an ‘‘employer’’ under section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Secretary of Labor should also consider ways to promote AHP formation on the basis of common geography or industry. Sec. 3. Expanded Availability of Short-Term, Limited-Duration Insurance. Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretaries of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services shall consider proposing regulations or revising guidance, consistent with law, to expand the availability of STLDI. To the extent permitted by law and supported by sound policy, the Secretaries should consider allowing such insurance to cover longer periods and be renewed by the consumer. Sec. 4. Expanded Availability and Permitted Use of Health Reimbursement Arrangements. Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Secretaries of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services shall consider proposing regulations or revising guidance, to the extent permitted by law and supported by sound policy, to increase the usability of HRAs, to expand employers’ ability to offer HRAs to their employees, and to allow HRAs to be used in conjunction with nongroup coverage. Sec. 5. Public Comment. The Secretaries shall consider and evaluate public comments on any regulations proposed under sections 2 through 4 of this order. Sec. 6. Reports. Within 180 days of the date of this order, and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Labor and the Federal Trade Commis- sion, shall provide a report to the President that: (a) details the extent to which existing State and Federal laws, regulations, guidance, requirements, and policies fail to conform to the policies set forth in section 1 of this order; and (b) identifies actions that States or the Federal Government could take in furtherance of the policies set forth in section 1 of this order. Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\17OCE0.SGM 17OCE0 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PRES DOCS Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Presidential Documents 48387

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE, October 12, 2017.

[FR Doc. 2017–22677 Filed 10–16–17; 11:15 am] Billing code 3295–F8–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\17OCE0.SGM 17OCE0 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PRES DOCS Trump.EPS i

Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 82, No. 199 Tuesday, October 17, 2017

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING OCTOBER

Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations At the end of each month the Office of the Federal Register General Information, indexes and other finding 202–741–6000 publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which aids lists parts and sections affected by documents published since Laws 741–6000 the revision date of each title. 1101...... 45697 Presidential Documents 2 CFR Proposed Rules: Executive orders and proclamations 741–6000 Proposed Rules: 211...... 47164 The United States Government Manual 741–6000 1201...... 46716 238...... 47164 740...... 46173 Other Services 3 CFR Electronic and on-line services (voice) 741–6020 Proclamations: 13 CFR Privacy Act Compilation 741–6050 9646...... 46353 102...... 46369 Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 741–6043 9647...... 46355 120...... 47958 9648...... 46357 Proposed Rules: ELECTRONIC RESEARCH 9649...... 46359 Ch. I ...... 47645 9650...... 46361 World Wide Web 9651...... 46653 14 CFR 9652...... 47361 25...... 48193 Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publications 9653...... 47943 36...... 46123 is located at: www.fdsys.gov. 9654...... 47945 39 ...... 45697, 45701, 45703, Federal Register information and research tools, including Public 9655...... 47947 45705, 45710, 46379, 46382, Inspection List, indexes, and Code of Federal Regulations are 9656...... 47949 46669, 47084, 47091, 47094, located at: www.ofr.gov. 9657...... 47951 47363, 47367, 47371 9658...... 48191 71 ...... 45713 45714, 45715, E-mail 9659...... 48383 45716, 45717, 45719, 45720, FEDREGTOC (Daily Federal Register Table of Contents Electronic Executive Orders: 45957, 45958, 46893, 46894, Mailing List) is an open e-mail service that provides subscribers 13522 (Revoked by 46895, 46897, 47097, 47098, with a digital form of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The EO 13812)...... 46367 47103, 47104, 47611, 47612, digital form of the Federal Register Table of Contents includes 13708 (Superseded by 47959, 47960, 47961, 47962 HTML and PDF links to the full text of each document. EO 13811)...... 46363 73 ...... 45721, 46898, 47964 13805 (Revoked by 91...... 46123 To join or leave, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/ EO 13811)...... 46363 97...... 46385, 46386 USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your email address, then 13811...... 46363 Proposed Rules: follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your 13812...... 46367 Ch. I ...... 45750 subscription. 13813...... 48385 39 ...... 45743, 46719, 46722, PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail Administrative Orders: 46725, 46727, 46729, 46938, service that notifies subscribers of recently enacted laws. Memorandums: 47405 To subscribe, go to http://listserv.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html Memorandum of 71 ...... 45747, 45749, 46426, and select Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow September 25, 48010, 48011 the instructions. 2017 ...... 46649 97...... 46738 Ch. II ...... 45750 FEDREGTOC and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannot 5 CFR Ch. III ...... 45750 respond to specific inquiries. 1201...... 47083 15 CFR Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the Federal Register system to: [email protected] 7 CFR 730...... 45959 732...... 45959 15a...... 46655 The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or 734...... 45959 319...... 45955 regulations. 736...... 45959 CFR Checklist. Effective January 1, 2009, the CFR Checklist no Proposed Rules: 738...... 45959 longer appears in the Federal Register. This information can be 33...... 46425 740...... 45959 found online at http://bookstore.gpo.gov/. 35...... 46425 742...... 45959 10 CFR 743...... 45959 FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, OCTOBER 744...... 45959 20...... 46666 746...... 45959 45679–45954...... 2 Proposed Rules: 748...... 45959 45955–46122...... 3 50...... 46717 750...... 45959 754...... 45959 46123–46368...... 4 11 CFR 46369–46654...... 5 756...... 45959 Proposed Rules: 758...... 45959 46655–46892...... 6 110...... 46937 760...... 45959 46893–47082...... 10 762...... 45959 47083–47362...... 11 12 CFR 764...... 45959 47363–47610...... 12 271...... 45679 766...... 45959 47611–47952...... 13 Ch. II ...... 46668 768...... 45959 47953–48192...... 16 Ch. V...... 47083 770...... 45959 48193–48388...... 17 1002...... 45680 772...... 45959 1024...... 47953 774...... 45959

VerDate Sep 11 2014 20:13 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\17OCCU.LOC 17OCCU sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with FRONT MATTER CU ii Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Reader Aids

Proposed Rules: 31 CFR 180 ...... 45730, 46685, 46926, 47 CFR 30...... 46739 0...... 47105 46929, 47996, 48000 1...... 46688 261...... 45736 16 CFR 23...... 47107 2...... 46688, 47155 721...... 45990 15...... 46688 Proposed Rules: 33 CFR Proposed Rules: 27...... 47155 Ch. II ...... 46740 100 ...... 45977, 45979, 46413, 52 ...... 45762, 46010, 46433, 51...... 47161 1250...... 47645 46672, 47615 46434, 46444, 46450, 46453, 64...... 48203 117 ...... 45728, 45729, 45980, 46741, 46742, 46951, 47169, 17 CFR 90 ...... 46688, 46690, 47400, 45981, 47112, 47615, 47974, 47170, 47662, 48030, 48033, 48005 227...... 45722 47975 48034, 48035 95...... 46688 230...... 45722 155...... 47975 60...... 48035 97...... 46688 62...... 47421 165 ...... 45729, 45981, 45984, Proposed Rules: 18 CFR 70...... 46453 45986, 45988, 46132, 46901, 1...... 46011 80...... 46174 Proposed Rules: 47113, 47374, 47616, 47618, 20...... 46011, 47663 180...... 47422 35...... 46940, 48013 47620, 47623 52...... 47669 271...... 46454 801...... 47407 326...... 47623 74...... 47683 711...... 47423 Proposed Rules: 76...... 47683 21 CFR 110...... 46004 41 CFR 78...... 47683 866...... 47965, 47967 117...... 46948 870...... 46900 165...... 46007 Proposed Rules: 876...... 45725, 47969 Ch. 301 ...... 47663 48 CFR 882...... 47373 34 CFR App. C...... 47663 Proposed Rules: 1308...... 47971 668...... 48195 304...... 47663 Ch. 12 ...... 45750 Proposed Rules: 674...... 48195 305...... 47663 682...... 48195 306...... 47663 101...... 45753 49 CFR 112...... 47656 685...... 48195 42 CFR 174...... 48006 23 CFR 37 CFR 405...... 46138 831...... 47401 409...... 46163 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 411...... 46163 Ch. I ...... 45750 201...... 47415 Ch. I ...... 45750 412...... 46138 Ch. II ...... 45750 202...... 47415 Ch. II ...... 45750 413...... 46138, 46163 Ch. III ...... 45750 Ch. III ...... 45750 38 CFR 414...... 46138 490...... 46427 Ch. V...... 45750 Proposed Rules: 416...... 46138 Ch. VI...... 45750 25 CFR 17...... 45756, 48018 424...... 46163 Ch. VII...... 45750 486...... 46138 Ch. VIII...... 45750 Proposed Rules: 39 CFR 488...... 46138, 46163 517...... 48205 Ch. X...... 45750 111...... 47628 489...... 46138 Ch. XI...... 45750 26 CFR 266...... 47115 495...... 46138 1102...... 45771 Proposed Rules: 1 ...... 46388, 46671, 46672 Proposed Rules: 111...... 46010, 47659 416...... 46181 54...... 47792, 47838 50 CFR 3050...... 46950, 47168 418...... 46181 Proposed Rules: 424...... 46181 17...... 46691 1...... 47408, 48013 40 CFR 482...... 46181 622 ...... 46170, 47162, 47640, 54...... 47656, 47658 9...... 45990 483...... 46181 47641 301...... 48013 52 ...... 45995, 45997, 46134, 485...... 46181 635...... 46000, 46934 511...... 46182 27 CFR 46136, 46415, 46417, 46420, 648 ...... 46002, 46936, 48007, 46672, 46674, 46679, 46681, 48008 43 CFR Proposed Rules: 46682, 46903, 46915, 46917, 665...... 47642 4...... 47164, 47165 46919, 46921, 46923, 47122, Proposed Rules: 679 ...... 46171, 46422, 47162, 24...... 47165, 47167 47145, 47147, 47149, 47154, 3160...... 46458 47402, 47403, 48204 3170...... 46458 29 CFR 47376, 47378, 47380, 47383, Proposed Rules: 47385, 47393, 47396, 47397, 17 ...... 45779, 46183, 46197, 45 CFR 2590...... 47792, 47838 47629, 47630, 47631, 47634, 46618, 46748 4022...... 47613 47635, 47636, 47640, 47930, 147...... 47792, 47838 20...... 46011 Proposed Rules: 47936, 47981, 47983, 47985, Proposed Rules: 36...... 45793 2560...... 47409 47988, 47992, 47993, 48324 160...... 46182 229...... 47424 60...... 48202 162...... 46182 300...... 46016 30 CFR 62...... 47398 622...... 46205 56...... 46411 63...... 47328, 48156 46 CFR 648...... 46749 57...... 46411 70...... 46420 Proposed Rules: 660...... 46209 583...... 45962 97...... 48324 Ch. II ...... 45750 679...... 46016

VerDate Sep 11 2014 20:13 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\17OCCU.LOC 17OCCU sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with FRONT MATTER CU Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / Reader Aids iii

in today’s List of Public enacted public laws. To Laws. subscribe, go to http:// LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS Public Laws Electronic listserv.gsa.gov/archives/ Last List October 12, 2017 Notification Service publaws-l.html (PENS) Note: No public bills which Note: This service is strictly have become law were for E-mail notification of new received by the Office of the PENS is a free electronic mail laws. The text of laws is not Federal Register for inclusion notification service of newly available through this service. PENS cannot respond to specific inquiries sent to this address.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 20:13 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\17OCCU.LOC 17OCCU sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with FRONT MATTER CU