[Federal Register: August 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 148)]
[Notices]
[Page 38667]
[DOCID:fr04au09-73]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0714]

National Maritime Security Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee (NMSAC) will
conduct a meeting by teleconference on August 24, 2009. This
teleconference will be open to the public.

DATES: The Committee will meet on August 24, 2009 from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
This meeting may close early if all business is finished. Written
material and requests to make oral presentations should reach the Coast
Guard on or before August 17, 2009. Requests to have a copy of your
material distributed to each member of the committee or subcommittee
should reach the Coast Guard on or before August 17, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The NMSAC teleconference calls will be hosted in room 6228,
U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second St., SW., Washington, DC
20593. Public participation is limited to monitoring the teleconference
only, except at the time allotted by the chairperson for public
comment; special note, the number of teleconference lines is limited
and available on a first-come, first-served basis. For call-in
information or to send written material and requests to make oral
presentations contact Mr. Ryan Owens, Executive Secretary of NMSAC, at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Commandant (CG-5441), ATTN NMSAC DFO/EA, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2100 2nd St., SW., STOP 7581, Washington, DC 20593-7581.
This notice is available in our online docket, USCG-2009-0714, at
http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan F. Owens Executive Secretary of
NMSAC at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).

Agenda of Meeting

    The agenda for the August 24 Committee meeting is as follows:
    (1) Maritime Information Sharing Taskforce Briefing
    (2) Discussion of a Certain Dangerous Cargo (CDC) Tasking for the
Committee

Procedural

    This meeting is open to the public. Please note that the meeting
may close early if all business is finished. At the Chair's discretion,
members of the public may make oral presentations during the meeting.
If you would like to make an oral presentation at a meeting, please
notify the Executive Secretary no later than August 17. Written
material for distribution at a meeting should reach the Coast Guard no
later than August 17. If you would like a copy of your material
distributed to each member of the committee or subcommittee in advance
of a meeting, please submit 25 copies to the Executive Secretary no
later than August 17.

Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
the Executive Secretary as soon as possible.

    Dated: 28 July, 2009.
Ryan F. Owens,
Acting Designated Federal Official, U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Port
and Facility Activities.
[FR Doc. E9-18511 Filed 8-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


Date Time GENERAL March 19, 2002 CONTACT I 4: 30  6: 00 P. M. REPORT Name / Organization Chemical Control Division / Chemical Testing & Information Branch Name of EPARep. Cheek 1Contact Ininator Richard Leukroth ( OPPTS/ OPPT); Michel Stevens, and Robert DeWoskin ( ORD/ NCEA) Type of Contact Telephone X Meeting at SOT Nashville, TN ~ Other Name of MFG IOrg Rep. 0 Check if Contact Initiator HAP Task Force: Mike Gargus, and Lisa Sweeney ( Sapphire Group), and Ross Jones ( Occidental Chemicals)

Topic Covered: Note any resolutions and/ or additional Actions Required on this Form.

At the request ofthe HAP Task Force, EPA provided an opportunity for a technical consultation meeting to discuss points raised in EPA correspondence dated March 1, 2002 ( see attachments). EPAs letter raised four points related to Appendix C of the draft ECA on ethylene dichioride that needed further clarification by the HAP Task Force.

Point # 1: Discussion focused on the use of GSH depletion as the dose metric for GSH conjugation and whether or not to include additional measures for specific urine metabolites. Gargas supported the view that GSH depletion was a good surrogate since not all ofthe metabolites were known and it would be difficult to estimate concentrations of the putative toxic glutathione conjugate from concentrations ofmetabolites downstream. Gargas and DeWoskin exchanged literature citations and reached agreement that it would be challenging to develop a complete listing of EDC metabolites and to characterize the uniqueness of those metabolites to EDC metabolism. Gargas noted that previous modeling efforts made effective use of the GSH depletion approach. It was noted that Appendix Cl of the draft ECA omits discussion of the rational for selecting this approach. Gargas indicated that this could be included in a revised Appendix Cl along with detailed citations ofrelevant journal publications and submission of supporting data.

Point # 2: Gargas supported the view that GSH depletion was a good surrogate since not all of the metabolites were known and it would be difficult to estimate concentrations of the putative toxic glutathione conjugate from concentrations of metabolites downstream. Gargas and DeWoskin exchanged literature citations and reached agreement that it would be challenging to develop a complete listing of EDC metabolites and to characterize the uniqueness of those metabolites to EDC metabolism. In addition, he noted that the protocol indicted that predictions of brain concentration would be determined from model simulations and that frozen tissue for several organs ( including brain) would be set aside in the event follow up measurements may be needed following the Tier I Program Review. Concern was raised that Appendix C was silent on the handling of the frozen samples. Gargas explained that the tissues from treated animals will be frozen along with spike samples to determine Page 1 of 2 RECEIVED OPPT NCIC 2003 MAR12 4: 47PM OPPT 2003 0010 0051 GENERAL CONTACT REPORT continued March 19, 2002 possible effect of freezing on future EDC measurements. Gargas suggested that additional detail regarding the disposition of the frozen samples and additional explanation supporting the use ofcirculating blood concentration as a measure for brain concentration could be included in Appendix C.

Point# 3: DeWoskin noted that Appendix C was not clear on how the PKIMECH data would support extrapolation from water and oil gavage to drinking water ad libitum. Gargas noted that periodicity would be determined from the planned studies and that certain additional assumptions would be applied. Gargas supported the view that GSH depletion was a good surrogate since not all of the metabolites were known and it would be difficult to estimate concentrations of the putative toxic glutathione conjugate from concentrations of metabolites downstream. Gargas and DeWoskin exchanged literature citations and reached agreement that it would be challenging to develop a complete listing of EDC metabolites and to characterize the uniqueness of those metabolites to EDC metabolism. Gargas agreed that the rationale could be added to a revised Appendix C.

Point # 4: Gargas noted that the correct citation to include in Table 1 footnote # 5 is D'Souza et al., ( 1987, 1988). EPA will revise Table 1 accordingly.

h i addition, Gargas noted that the HAP Task Force has recently discovered that the highest achievable concentration in water for EDC is lower than originally stated. This relates directly to the physiochemical properties of EDC. The maximum achievable concentration in water will be about 40 50 mg/ kg.. This will be reflected in the revised Appendix C.

Next Steps: The HAP Task Force will take these discussions into consideration in preparing a response to EPAs letter ofMarch 1, 2002.

Attachment # 1: 3/ 1/ 02 letter to the HAP Task Force Attachment # 2: 3/ 11/ 0 1 c mails between Peter Voytek and Rich Leukroth KEY WORDS: HAPs ECA, ethylene dichloride, PKJMECH Signature of EPA Official & Date: Page 2 of 2 Richard Leukroth, Robert DeWoskin 3/ 26/ 02 . teo Si 4 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 n~. ~ ~ `_~ If..~_~   ~ ~~` 0 / _ flP~/ ~ o ~ 4gPRO1~ ° / (_/ ( f f c_ n ~

 2/ op March 1, 2002 OFFICE~ F PREVENTION, PE~ t~ IDESAND TOXIC SUBStfi~ i4CES Dr. Peter Voytek HAP Task Force, Manager Regulatory Sciences International King Street Station 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 500 Alexandria, VA. 22~. 14 2808 RE: PBPK Testing Protocols for Ethylene Dichloride ( EDC) ( OPPTS  42l97C)

Dear Dr. Voytek:

EPA has completed review of the HAP Task Force comments on the draft ECA agreement and testing protocols for the ethylene dichloride ( EDC) HAP testing program, as presented in the October 30, 2001, submission by the HAP Task Force. This letter focuses on remaining technical points identified during our review of the testing protocols. Overall, the testing program looks acceptable and concurs with discussions and suggestions for improvement made to date. However, there are still several points of clarification and additional changes to the Appendix C protocols that EPA believes are needed before the draft ECA can be finalized. These are detailed below.

Technical agreement on the following point is confirmed, with notation of potential impact at the Tier I Program Review:

° The HAP Task Force would use GSH depletion as a dose metric for GSH conjugate formation, based on the practical argument that it is too difficult and expensive to directly monitor the multitude of GSH conjugate metabolites, or even a " representative" metabolite directly. EPA notes that the HAP Task Force should be aware that not monitoring metabolites may hinder the ability of the model to effectively perform the route to route extrapolations. This point will receive due attention during discussions at the Tier I Program Review stage of the testing program. Additional thought and even a written rationale by the Task Force on this issue would be appreciated.

SI I OC~ T~ N,. \~~,

I Ii I 40020@ 00022 ~

Internet Address ( URL) http:// wwwepa. gov. .3 Recycled/ Recyclable . Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Re~' cI f~ aper~. Miñin~ um 25% Postconsurner) Doc~ U $ E~ UO? 44 Technical points that need resolution:

° Details about the assay for parent compound in the brain tissue needs clarification. At present, the protocols in Appendix C. 1 state only that brain tissue will be collected and frozen for possible subsequent assay. As noted in footnote 9 of Table 1 " model simulations are to provide point and uncertainty estimates for internal dose metrics ( parent chemical peak and AUC) concentrations in blood and brain. The HAP Task Force protocol must specify the assay( s) to be performed on the frozen brain tissues. Also needed is some assurance that any assays done on these frozen tissues will accurately reflect what is present in the non frozen brain at the time of its removal.

° The HAP Task Force Appendix C protocols support development of PK/ MIECH data from oral gavage and do not include development of PK/ MECH data to support exposure from ad libitum drinking water. EPA notes that the rationale and data to support using only a gavage PK study for the drinking water exposure extrapolation must be adequately described since the extant studies to be used for Tier II route to route extrapolation include ad libitum drinking water.

° There is a discrepancy in the ECA Table 1, footnote 5 vis a vis Appendix C. 5 as to which model will be refined through the testing done under this ECA   the Table lists Gargas et al., ( 1989, 1990) and the Appendix cites D'Souza et al. ( 1987, 1988). This discrepancy needs to be resolved and the full referenced titles and citations included in the Appendix. ( Additionally, copies of these references need to be supplied by the Task Force).

Based on the significant progress made to date in developing this ECA, I anticipate that these technical additions and changes to the protocols can be addressed within a 60 day turnaround I look forward to successfully concluding a signed ECA for EDC within the near future. If you have any questions please contact John Schaeffer at ( 202) 564 8173 or Richard Leukroth at ( 202) 564 8167.

Sincerel Charles M. Auer, Director Chemical Control Division cc: Michel Stevens Richard W. Leukroth, Jr. W. Caffey Norman, III John Schaeffer Docket OPPTS 42197C To: Rich Leukroth/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Mike Gargas < mlg@ thesapphiregroup. com>, John Schaeffer/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Sublect: Response to ERAs Review Letter on PBPK Testing Protocols for EDC We have reviewed your comments concerning the three technical points that you raised that need resolution as defined in your letter dated March I, 2002. Secondly, we are particularly concerned regarding the monitoring of glutatione metabolites and how they may hinder the ability of the model to effectively perform route to route extrapolations. We would be interested in EPA identifring appropriate metabolites [ via GSHanctoxidat. ive pathways] and providing the rationale and relevance as to how The use of these metabolites would better validate the model and better estimate potential EDC health risk over what has been proposed in the draft ECA.

In order to address these issues in a timely manner, I propose that we have another meeting at the upcoming SOT meeting in Nashville. Let me know if this is acceptable to you so I can have the appropriate technical people present.

Peter Peter Voytek < pvoytek@ crosslink. n et>

03/ 11/ 02 04: 20 PM Rich Leukroth To: pvoytek © crosslink. net ~ 03/ 12/ 02 1245 PM cc: Charles Auer/ DC/ USEPA/ U5 © EPA, Frank \ ~ . Kover/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Michel ~ ° . Stevens/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EpA, Rob Dewoskin/ RTP/ USEPA/ US © EPA, John Schaeffer/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Subject: Re: SOT Technical Consult Meeting on EDO Response to 3/ 11/ 02 e~ mailfrom Peter Voytek Li Dear Peter:

An SOT Technical Consult Meeting is an excellent suggestion and an efficient use of travel resources. This will provide an opportunity to discuss your questions on EPA comments on the appendices to the draft ECA for ethylene dichloride as noted in EPAs March 1, 2002 response to the HAP Task Force. It is my understanding that this technical consult meeting will focus on the following four points:

1) The use of GSH depletion as the dose metric for GSH conjugate formation and possible implications for not including a specific measure( s) of metabolite( s),

2) Details regarding how parent compound will be measured in brain tissue,

3) Consideration for ad// b/ turn drinking water in the PK/ MECH data development, and 4) Clarification of citations used in Table 1, footnote 5 and Appendix 0.5 of the draft ECA.

Representing EPA will be: Richard Leukroth, Michel Stevens, and Robert DeWoskin.

I suggest that we plan to meet either Monday 3/ 18/ 02 12: 30~ 1: 30p. m. or Tuesday 3/ 19/ 02 4: 30 6: 00 p. m. Will either of these times work for your representative( s)? Any suggestions for a convenient meeting place entry way to the exhibit hall? As an alternative, we could meet in my room since Ill be staying within the convention complex.

Richard W. Leukroth, Jr. Environmental Scientist / Toxicologist Chemical Control Division U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Mall Stop 7405; Room 4328 5 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202~ 564~ 8167 FAX: 202~ 564~ 4765 E mail: leukroth. rich © epa. gov


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 182 (Thursday, September 21, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44099-44101]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20066]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2017-0044; FRL-9968-05-Region 2]

Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Jersey, 2011
Periodic Emission Inventory SIP for the Ozone Nonattainment and PM2.5/
Regional Haze Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection. The SIP revision consists of
the following: 2011 calendar year ozone precursor emission inventories
for volatile organic compounds (VOC), oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and carbon monoxide (CO) for the New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island area classified as Moderate ozone nonattainment for
the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, and the Philadelphia-

Wilmington-Atlantic City ozone nonattainment area classified as
Marginal ozone nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. In
addition, the SIP revision also consists of the 2011 calendar year
statewide periodic emissions inventory for particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns
(PM2.5) and the associated PM2.5 and/or Regional
Haze precursors. The pollutants included in this inventory include VOC,
NOX, PM2.5, particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns
(PM10), ammonia (NH3) and sulfur dioxide (SO2).
Emission inventories are needed to develop and assess new control
strategies that the states may use in attainment demonstration SIPs for
the new National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and
PM2.5. The inventory may also serve as part of statewide
inventories for purposes of regional modeling in ozone and Regional
Haze transport areas. The inventory plays an important role in modeling
demonstrations for areas classified as nonattainment for ozone, CO and
PM2.5.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 23, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2017-0044. All documents in the docket are
listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available through www.regulations.gov,
or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
New York 10007-1866, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The supplementary Information section is
arranged as follows:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What comments did EPA receive on its proposal?
III. What is EPA's final action?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    The New Jersey emissions inventory SIP revision will ensure that
the requirements for emissions inventory measures and reporting are
adequately met. To comply with the emissions inventory requirements,
New Jersey submitted a complete inventory containing point, area, on-
road, and non-road mobile source data, and accompanying documentation.
EPA is approving the SIP revision submittal as meeting the essential
reporting requirements for emission inventories. EPA has also
determined that the SIP revision meets the requirements for emission
inventories in accordance with EPA guidance.
    Therefore, EPA is approving a revision to the New Jersey SIP which
pertains to the following: 2011 calendar year summer season daily and
annual ozone precursor emission inventories for VOC, NOX and
CO for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island and the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic ozone nonattainment areas. In
addition, the EPA is approving the 2011 calendar year PM2.5/
Regional Haze emissions inventory that was developed statewide for New
Jersey. The pollutants included in the inventory are annual emissions
for VOC, NOX, PM2.5, PM10, NH3 and
SO2. The reader is referred to the April 10, 2017 (82 FR
17166) proposal for details on this rulemaking.

II. What comments did EPA receive on its proposal?

    EPA did not receive any comments on the April 10, 2017 proposed
approval of New Jersey's 2011 emissions inventory.

III. What is EPA's final action?

    EPA is approving a revision to the New Jersey SIP which pertains to
the following: 2011 calendar year summer season daily and annual ozone
precursor emission inventories for VOC, NOX and CO for the
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island and the Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Atlantic City ozone nonattainment areas. In addition, the
EPA is approving the 2011 calendar year PM2.5/Regional Haze
emissions inventory that was developed statewide for New Jersey. The
pollutants included in the inventory are annual emissions for VOC,
NOX, PM2.5, PM10, NH3 and
SO2.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition,
this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not
approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes
that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments
or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will
submit a report containing this action and other required information
to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the
Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the
rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60
days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not
a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 20, 2017. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 6, 2017.
 Catherine R. McCabe,
 Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart FF--New Jersey

0
2. Section 52.1570(e), is amended by adding entries for ``2011 VOC,
NOX and CO ozone summer season and annual emissions
inventory'' and ``2011 PM2.5/Regional Haze and associated
precursors annual emissions inventory'' at the end of the table to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.1570   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                      EPA-Approved New Jersey Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applicable
                                  geographic or     New Jersey submittal
          SIP element             nonattainment             date           EPA approval date      Explanation
                                       area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
2011 VOC, NOX and CO ozone      New York-Northern  June 1, 2015..........  9/21/2017,
 summer season and annual        New Jersey-Long                            [Insert Federal
 emissions inventory.            Island and the                             Register
                                 Philadelphia-                              citation].
                                 Wilmington-
                                 Atlantic City
                                 ozone
                                 nonattainment
                                 areas.
2011 PM2.5/Regional Haze and    State-wide.......  June 1, 2015..........  9/21/2017,
 associated precursors annual                                               [Insert Federal
 emissions inventory.                                                       Register
                                                                            citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-20066 Filed 9-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P