Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 48469 

1. Timing. The exemption in 

§ 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(B) applies with respect to 

a single periodic statement or coupon book 

following an event listed in 

§ 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(A). For example, assume 

that a mortgage loan has a monthly billing 

cycle, each payment due date is on the first 

day of the month following its respective 

billing cycle, and each payment due date has 

a 15-day courtesy period. In this scenario: 

i. If an event listed in § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(A) 

occurs on October 6, before the end of the 15- 

day courtesy period provided for the October 

1 payment due date, and the servicer has not 

yet provided a periodic statement or coupon 

book for the billing cycle with a November 

1 payment due date, the servicer is exempt 

from providing a periodic statement or 

coupon book for that billing cycle. The 

servicer is required thereafter to resume 

providing periodic statements or coupon 

books that comply with the requirements of 

§ 1026.41 by providing a modified or 

unmodified periodic statement or coupon 

book for the billing cycle with a December 1 

payment due date within a reasonably 

prompt time after November 1 or the end of 

the 15-day courtesy period provided for the 

November 1 payment due date. See 

§ 1026.41(b). 

ii. If an event listed in 

§ 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(A) occurs on October 20, 

after the end of the 15-day courtesy period 

provided for the October 1 payment due date, 

and the servicer timely provided a periodic 

statement or coupon book for the billing 

cycle with the November 1 payment due 

date, the servicer is not required to correct 

the periodic statement or coupon book 

already provided and is exempt from 

providing the next periodic statement or 

coupon book, which is the one that would 

otherwise be required for the billing cycle 

with a December 1 payment due date. The 

servicer is required thereafter to resume 

providing periodic statements or coupon 

books that comply with the requirements of 

§ 1026.41 by providing a modified or 

unmodified periodic statement or coupon 

book for the billing cycle with a January 1 

payment due date within a reasonably 

prompt time after December 1 or the end of 

the 15-day courtesy period provided for the 

December 1 payment due date. See 

§ 1026.41(b). 

2. Duplicate coupon books not required. If 

a servicer provides a coupon book instead of 

a periodic statement under § 1026.41(e)(3), 

§ 1026.41 requires the servicer to provide a 

new coupon book after one of the events 

listed in § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(A) occurs only to 

the extent the servicer has not previously 

provided the consumer with a coupon book 

that covers the upcoming billing cycle. 

3. Subsequent triggering events. The singlestatement exemption in § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(B) 

might apply more than once over the life of 

a loan. For example, assume the exemption 

applies beginning on April 14 because the 

consumer files for bankruptcy on that date 

and the bankruptcy plan provides that the 

consumer will surrender the dwelling, such 

that the mortgage loan becomes subject to the 

requirements of § 1026.41(f). See 

§ 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(A)(1). If the consumer later 

exits bankruptcy on November 2 and has not 

discharged personal liability for the mortgage 

loan pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 727, 1141, 1228, 

or 1328, such that the mortgage loan ceases 

to be subject to the requirements of 

§ 1026.41(f), the single-statement exemption 

would apply again beginning on November 2. 

See § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(A)(2). 

* * * * * 

Dated: October 2, 2017. 

Richard Cordray, 

Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21907 Filed 10–17–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office 

37 CFR Part 2 

[Docket No. PTO–T–2017–0032] 

RIN 0651–AD23 

Removal of Rules Governing 

Trademark Interferences 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Consistent with Executive 

Order 13777, ‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory 

Reform Agenda,’’ and Executive Order 

13771, ‘‘Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs,’’ the 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office (USPTO or Office) proposes to 

amend the Rules of Practice in 

Trademark Cases to remove the rules 

governing trademark interferences. This 

proposed rule implements the USPTO’s 

work to identify and propose 

regulations for removal, modification, 

and streamlining because they are 

outdated, unnecessary, ineffective, 

costly, or unduly burdensome on the 

agency or the private sector. The 

revisions proposed herein would put 

into effect the work the USPTO has 

done, in part through its participation in 

the Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task 

Force) established by the Department of 

Commerce (Department or Commerce) 

pursuant to Executive Order 13777, to 

review and identify regulations that are 

candidates for removal. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 17, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the changes 

set forth in this proposed rulemaking 

should be sent by electronic mail 

message to TMFRNotices@uspto.gov. 

Written comments also may be 

submitted by mail to the Commissioner 

for Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, 

Alexandria, VA 22313–1451, attention 

Catherine Cain; by hand delivery to the 

Trademark Assistance Center, 

Concourse Level, James Madison 

Building-East Wing, 600 Dulany Street, 

Alexandria, VA 22314, attention 

Catherine Cain. Comments concerning 

ideas to improve, revise, and streamline 

other USPTO regulations, not discussed 

in this proposed rulemaking, should be 

submitted to RegulatoryReformGroup@

uspto.gov. 

Comments may also be submitted via 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov. See the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site for 

additional instructions on providing 

comments via the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal. 

Although comments may be 

submitted by postal mail, the Office 

prefers to receive comments by 

electronic mail message over the 

Internet because the Office may easily 

share such comments with the public. 

Electronic comments are preferred to be 

submitted in plain text, but also may be 

submitted in ADOBE® portable 

document format or MICROSOFT 

WORD® format. Comments not 

submitted electronically should be 

submitted on paper in a format that 

facilitates convenient digital scanning 

into ADOBE® portable document 

format. 

The comments will be available for 

public inspection at the Office of the 

Commissioner for Trademarks, Madison 

East, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany Street, 

Alexandria, VA 22314. Comments also 

will be available for viewing via the 

Office’s Internet Web site (http://

www.uspto.gov) and at http://

www.regulations.gov. Because 

comments will be made available for 

public inspection, information that the 

submitter does not desire to make 

public, such as an address or phone 

number, should not be included in the 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine Cain, Office of the Deputy 

Commissioner for Trademark 

Examination Policy, by email at 

TMFRNotices@uspto.gov, or by 

telephone at (571) 272–8946. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13777, ‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory 

Reform Agenda,’’ the Department 

established a Task Force, comprising, 

among others, agency officials from the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, the Bureau of Industry 

and Security, and the USPTO, and 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
48470 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

charged with evaluating existing 

regulations and identifying those that 

should be repealed, replaced, or 

modified because they are outdated, 

unnecessary, ineffective, costly, or 

unduly burdensome to both government 

and private-sector operations. 

To support its regulatory reform 

efforts on the Task Force, the USPTO 

assembled a Working Group on 

Regulatory Reform (Working Group), 

consisting of subject-matter experts from 

each of the business units that 

implement the USPTO’s regulations, to 

consider, review, and recommend ways 

that the regulations could be improved, 

revised, and streamlined. In considering 

the revisions, the USPTO, through its 

Working Group, incorporated into its 

analyses all presidential directives 

relating to regulatory reform, but 

primarily focused on Executive Order 

13771, ‘‘Presidential Executive Order on 

Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs.’’ The Working Group 

reviewed existing regulations, both 

discretionary and required by statute or 

judicial order. The USPTO also solicited 

comments from stakeholders through a 

Web page established to provide 

information on the USPTO’s regulatory 

reform efforts and through the 

Department’s Federal Register Notice 

titled ‘‘Impact of Federal Regulations on 

Domestic Manufacturing’’ (82 FR 12786, 

Mar. 7, 2017), which addressed the 

impact of regulatory burdens on 

domestic manufacturing. These efforts 

led to the development of candidate 

regulations for removal based on the 

USPTO’s assessment that these 

regulations were not needed and/or that 

elimination could improve the USPTO’s 

body of regulations. This rule proposes 

to remove trademark-related regulations. 

Other proposals to remove regulations 

on other subject areas may be published 

separately. 

II. Regulations Proposed for Removal 

This proposed rule revises the 

regulations concerning trademark 

interferences codified at 37 CFR 2.91– 

2.93, 2.96, and 2.98. A trademark 

interference is a proceeding in which 

the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board 

(Board) determines which, if any, of the 

owners of conflicting applications (or of 

one or more applications and one or 

more conflicting registrations) is 

entitled to registration. 15 U.S.C. 1066. 

A trademark interference can be 

declared only upon petition to the 

Director of the USPTO (Director). 

However, the Director will grant such a 

petition only if the petitioner can show 

extraordinary circumstances that would 

result in a party being unduly 

prejudiced in the absence of an 

interference. 37 CFR 2.91(a). The 

availability of an opposition or 

cancellation proceeding to determine 

rights to registration ordinarily 

precludes the possibility of such undue 

prejudice to a party. Id. Thus, a 

petitioner must show that there is some 

extraordinary circumstance that would 

make the remedy of opposition or 

cancellation inadequate or prejudicial to 

the party’s rights. 

Trademark interferences have 

generally been limited to situations 

where a party would otherwise be 

required to engage in successive or a 

series of opposition or cancellation 

proceedings involving substantially the 

same issues. Trademark Manual of 

Examining Procedure § 1507. Where 

searchable, USPTO reviewed its paper 

and electronic records of petitions and 

found that since 1983, the USPTO has 

received an average of approximately 1 

such petition a year, and almost all of 

them have been denied except for three 

petitions that were granted in 1985 (32 

years ago). The USPTO has been unable 

to identify a situation since that time in 

which the Director has granted a 

petition to declare a trademark 

interference. Given the extremely low 

rate of filing over this long period of 

time, and because parties would still 

retain an avenue for seeking a 

declaration of interference if the 

trademark interference regulations are 

removed, the USPTO considers them 

unnecessary. 

The trademark interference 

regulations proposed in this rule for 

removal achieve the objective of making 

the USPTO regulations more effective 

and more streamlined, while enabling 

the USPTO to fulfill its mission goals. 

The USPTO’s analysis shows that while 

the removal of these regulations is not 

expected to substantially reduce the 

burden on the impacted community, 

they are nonetheless being eliminated 

because they are ‘‘outdated, 

unnecessary, or ineffective’’ regulations 

that are encompassed by the directives 

in Executive Order 13777. 

Section 16 of the Trademark Act, 15 

U.S.C. 1066, states that the Director may 

declare an interference ‘‘[u]pon petition 

showing extraordinary circumstances.’’ 

Although eliminating §§ 2.91–2.93, 2.96, 

and 2.98 removes the regulations 

regarding the requirements for declaring 

a trademark interference, the statutory 

authority will remain. On the rare 

occasion that the Office receives a 

request that the Director declare a 

trademark interference, it is currently 

submitted as a petition under 37 CFR 

2.146, a more general regulation on 

petitions. In the unlikely event that a 

need for an interference arose, it would 

still be possible for a party to seek 

institution of a trademark interference 

by petitioning the Director under 37 

CFR 2.146(a)(4), whereby a petitioner 

may seek relief in any case not 

specifically defined and provided for by 

Part 2 of Title 37. Thus, if the trademark 

interference regulations are removed, 

parties would still retain an avenue for 

seeking a declaration of interference. 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rules 

Changes 

The USPTO proposes to remove and 

reserve §§ 2.91–2.93, 2.96, and 2.98. 

Rulemaking Considerations 

A. Administrative Procedure Act: The 

changes in this proposed rulemaking 

involve rules of agency practice and 

procedure, and/or interpretive rules. See 

Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, 135 S. Ct. 

1199, 1204 (2015) (Interpretive rules 

‘‘advise the public of the agency’s 

construction of the statutes and rules 

which it administers.’’ (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted)); Nat’l 

Org. of Veterans’ Advocates v. Sec’y of 

Veterans Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1375 

(Fed. Cir. 2001) (Rule that clarifies 

interpretation of a statute is 

interpretive.); Bachow Commc’ns Inc. v. 

FCC, 237 F.3d 683, 690 (D.C. Cir. 2001) 

(Rules governing an application process 

are procedural under the Administrative 

Procedure Act.); Inova Alexandria Hosp. 

v. Shalala, 244 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 

2001) (Rules for handling appeals were 

procedural where they did not change 

the substantive standard for reviewing 

claims.). 

Accordingly, prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment for the 

changes in this proposed rulemaking are 

not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) 

or (c), or any other law. See Perez, 135 

S. Ct. at 1206 (Notice-and-comment 

procedures are required neither when 

an agency ‘‘issue[s] an initial 

interpretive rule’’ nor ‘‘when it amends 

or repeals that interpretive rule.’’); 

Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 

1330, 1336–37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating 

that 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus 35 U.S.C. 

2(b)(2)(B), does not require notice and 

comment rulemaking for ‘‘interpretative 

rules, general statements of policy, or 

rules of agency organization, procedure, 

or practice’’ (quoting 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(A))). The Office, however, is 

publishing these proposed changes for 

comment as it seeks the benefit of the 

public’s views on the Office’s proposed 

implementation of the proposed rule 

changes. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: For the 

reasons set forth herein, the Senior 

Counsel for Regulatory and Legislative 

Affairs, Office of General Law, of the 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 48471 

USPTO has certified to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration that changes 

proposed in this notice will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. See 

5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

This proposed rule would remove the 

regulations addressing trademark 

interferences codified at 37 CFR 2.91– 

2.93, 2.96, and 2.98. In trademark 

interferences, the Board determines 

which, if any, of the owners of 

conflicting applications (or of one or 

more applications and one or more 

conflicting registrations) is entitled to 

registration. 15 U.S.C. 1066. Where 

searchable, USPTO reviewed its paper 

and electronic records of petitions and 

found that since 1983, USPTO has 

received an average of approximately 1 

such petition a year, and almost all of 

them have been denied except for three 

petitions that were granted in 1985 (32 

years ago). Because these regulations 

have rarely been invoked in the last 32 

years, the USPTO considers these 

regulations unnecessary and has 

determined to remove them. Removing 

the trademark interference regulations 

proposed in this rule achieves the 

objective of making the USPTO 

regulations more effective and more 

streamlined, while enabling the USPTO 

to fulfill its mission goals. The removal 

of these regulations is not expected to 

substantively impact parties as, in the 

unlikely event that a need for a 

trademark interference arose, a party 

would be able to institute an 

interference by petitioning the Director 

under 37 CFR 2.146(a)(4). For these 

reasons, this rulemaking will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

C. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review): This rulemaking 

has been determined to be not 

significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866. 

D. Executive Order 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review): The 

Office has complied with Executive 

Order 13563. Specifically, the Office 

has, to the extent feasible and 

applicable: (1) Made a reasoned 

determination that the benefits justify 

the costs of the rule; (2) tailored the rule 

to impose the least burden on society 

consistent with obtaining the regulatory 

objectives; (3) selected a regulatory 

approach that maximizes net benefits; 

(4) specified performance objectives; (5) 

identified and assessed available 

alternatives; (6) involved the public in 

an open exchange of information and 

perspectives among experts in relevant 

disciplines, affected stakeholders in the 

private sector and the public as a whole, 

and provided on-line access to the 

rulemaking docket; (7) attempted to 

promote coordination, simplification, 

and harmonization across government 

agencies and identified goals designed 

to promote innovation; (8) considered 

approaches that reduce burdens and 

maintain flexibility and freedom of 

choice for the public; and (9) ensured 

the objectivity of scientific and 

technological information and 

processes. 

E. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs): This proposed rule is expected to 

be an Executive Order 13771 

deregulatory action. 

F. Executive Order 13132 

(Federalism): This rulemaking does not 

contain policies with federalism 

implications sufficient to warrant 

preparation of a Federalism Assessment 

under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 

1999). 

G. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation): This rulemaking will not: 

(1) Have substantial direct effects on one 

or more Indian tribes; (2) impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

Indian tribal governments; or (3) 

preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal 

summary impact statement is not 

required under Executive Order 13175 

(Nov. 6, 2000). 

H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy 

Effects): This rulemaking is not a 

significant energy action under 

Executive Order 13211 because this 

rulemaking is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, 

a Statement of Energy Effects is not 

required under Executive Order 13211 

(May 18, 2001). 

I. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform): This rulemaking meets 

applicable standards to minimize 

litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and 

reduce burden as set forth in sections 

3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 

12988 (Feb. 5, 1996). 

J. Executive Order 13045 (Protection 

of Children): This rulemaking does not 

concern an environmental risk to health 

or safety that may disproportionately 

affect children under Executive Order 

13045 (Apr. 21, 1997). 

K. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of 

Private Property): This rulemaking will 

not affect a taking of private property or 

otherwise have taking implications 

under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 15, 

1988). 

L. Congressional Review Act: Under 

the Congressional Review Act 

provisions of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), prior to 

issuing any final rule, the USPTO will 

submit a report containing the final rule 

and other required information to the 

United States Senate, the United States 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the Government 

Accountability Office. The changes in 

this notice are not expected to result in 

an annual effect on the economy of 100 

million dollars or more, a major increase 

in costs or prices, or significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and 

export markets. Therefore, this notice is 

not expected to result in a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

M. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995: The changes set forth in this 

notice do not involve a Federal 

intergovernmental mandate that will 

result in the expenditure by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or 

more in any one year, or a Federal 

private sector mandate that will result 

in the expenditure by the private sector 

of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or 

more in any one year, and will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, no actions are 

necessary under the provisions of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. See 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. 

N. National Environmental Policy 

Act: This rulemaking will not have any 

effect on the quality of the environment 

and is thus categorically excluded from 

review under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. See 

42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. 

O. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act: The requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are not 

applicable because this rulemaking does 

not contain provisions that involve the 

use of technical standards. 

P. Paperwork Reduction Act: This 

rulemaking involves information 

collection requirements which are 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The collection 

of information involved in this rule has 

been reviewed and previously approved 

by OMB under control number 0651– 

0054. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, no person is required to respond 

to nor shall a person be subject to a 

penalty for failure to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act unless that collection of 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
48472 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

information displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. 

List of Subjects for 37 CFR Part 2 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Trademarks. 

For the reasons stated in the preamble 

and under the authority contained in 15 

U.S.C. 1123 and 35 U.S.C. 2, as 

amended, the Office proposes to amend 

part 2 of title 37 as follows: 

PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE IN 

TRADEMARK CASES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1123 and 35 U.S.C. 2 

unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Remove and reserve § 2.91. 

§ 2.91 [Reserved] 

■ 3. Remove and reserve § 2.92. 

§ 2.92 [Reserved] 

■ 4 . Remove and reserve § 2.93. 

§ 2.93 [Reserved] 

■ 5. Remove and reserve § 2.96. 

§ 2.96 [Reserved] 

■ 6. Remove and reserve § 2.98. 

§ 2.98 [Reserved] 

Dated: October 10, 2017. 

Joseph D. Matal, 

Associate Solicitor, Performing the Functions 

and Duties of the Under Secretary of 

Commerce for Intellectual Property and 

Director of the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22394 Filed 10–17–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0701; FRL–9969–50– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; District 

of Columbia; Interstate Transport 

Requirements for the 2010 1-Hour 

Sulfur Dioxide Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the 

state implementation plan revision 

submitted by the District of Columbia. 

This revision pertains to the 

infrastructure requirement for interstate 

transport pollution with respect to the 

2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide national 

ambient air quality standards. In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the District’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A more detailed description 

of the state submittal and EPA’s 

evaluation is included in a technical 

support document (TSD) prepared in 

support of this rulemaking action. A 

copy of the TSD is available, upon 

request, from the individual listed in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this document or is also 

available electronically within the 

Docket for this rulemaking action. If no 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this action, no further 

activity is contemplated. If EPA receives 

adverse comments, the direct final rule 

will be withdrawn and all public 

comments received will be addressed in 

a subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing by November 17, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2014–0701 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

stahl.cynthia@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov. follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

confidential business information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph Schulingkamp, (215) 814–2021, 

or by email at schulingkamp.joseph@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

further information, please see the 

information provided in the direct final 

action, with the same title, regarding the 

District’s interstate transport 

requirements for sulfur dioxide, that is 

located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ 

section of this Federal Register 

publication as well as the TSD that 

accompanies this rulemaking action at 

www.regulations.gov. 

Dated: September 29, 2017. 

Cecil Rodrigues, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22252 Filed 10–17–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0034; FRL–9969–58– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Minnesota; Regional Haze Progress 

Report 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

regional haze progress report as a 

revision to the Minnesota State 

Implementation Plan. The progress 

report examines Minnesota’s progress in 

implementing its regional haze plan 

during the first half of the first 

implementation period. Minnesota has 

met the requirements for submitting a 

periodic report describing its progress 

toward reasonable progress goals 

established for regional haze. It also 

provided a determination of the 

adequacy of its plan in addressing 

regional haze with its negative 

declaration submitted with the progress 

report. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 17, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2015–0034 at https://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

blakley.pamela@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS