Federal Register Vol. 82, No.116,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 116 (June 19, 2017)

Page Range27771-27966
FR Document

82_FR_116
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 27965 - Effective Date in Executive Order 13780PDF
82 FR 27963 - Flag Day and National Flag Week, 2017PDF
82 FR 27827 - Sunshine Act NoticePDF
82 FR 27775 - Safety Zones, Recurring Marine Events in Captain of the Port Long Island Sound ZonePDF
82 FR 27827 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking ActivitiesPDF
82 FR 27815 - Minnesota: Notice of Determination of Adequacy of Minnesota's Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) Permit Provisions for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLF)PDF
82 FR 27814 - Illinois: Notice of Determination of Adequacy of Illinois' Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) Permit Provisions for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLF)PDF
82 FR 27816 - Office of Research and Development; Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods: Designation of One New Reference Method and One New Equivalent MethodPDF
82 FR 27819 - Alternative Method for Calculating Off-Cycle Credits Under the Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Program: Applications From BMW Group, Ford Motor Company, and Hyundai Motor GroupPDF
82 FR 27832 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
82 FR 27777 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Revised 2017 Recreational Fishing Season for Red Snapper Private Angling Component in the Gulf of MexicoPDF
82 FR 27817 - Re-Proposal of an NPDES General Permit for Offshore Seafood Processors in Federal Waters Off the Washington and Oregon Coast (Permit Number WAG520000)PDF
82 FR 27816 - Michigan: Notice of Determination of Adequacy of Michigan's Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) Permit Provisions for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLF)PDF
82 FR 27882 - Biweekly Notice: Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards ConsiderationsPDF
82 FR 27876 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 27798 - Notice on Procedures for Attending or Viewing Remotely the Public Hearing on Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of AluminumPDF
82 FR 27860 - Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1018-0102; National Wildlife Refuge Special Use Permit Applications and ReportsPDF
82 FR 27866 - Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1018-0066; Marine Mammal Marking, Tagging, and Reporting Certificates, and Registration of Certain Dead Marine Mammal Hard PartsPDF
82 FR 27867 - Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1028-NEW; Current and Future Landsat User RequirementsPDF
82 FR 27879 - Information Collection: 10 CFR Part 81, “Standard Specifications for Granting of Patent Licenses”PDF
82 FR 27863 - Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1018-0023; Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program and Migratory Bird SurveysPDF
82 FR 27948 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Certification Procedures for Products and PartsPDF
82 FR 27854 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) ProgramPDF
82 FR 27856 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Allocation of Operating Subsidies Under the Operating Fund Formula: Data CollectionPDF
82 FR 27859 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Grant Drawdown Payment Request/LOCCS/VRS Voice ActivatedPDF
82 FR 27859 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Requirements for Designating Housing ProjectsPDF
82 FR 27828 - Granting of Requests for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the Premerger Notification RulesPDF
82 FR 27947 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Certification: Mechanics, Repairman, Parachute RiggersPDF
82 FR 27949 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Implementation to the Equal Access to Justice ActPDF
82 FR 27943 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) ApplicationPDF
82 FR 27944 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST) Customer Service SurveyPDF
82 FR 27950 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Office of Dispute Resolution Procedures for Protests and Contact DisputesPDF
82 FR 27946 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Noise Certification Standards for Subsonic Jet Airplanes and Subsonic Transport Category Large AirplanesPDF
82 FR 27950 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Competition Plans, Passenger Facility ChargesPDF
82 FR 27872 - Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of Records; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 27945 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Safe Disposition of Life-Limited Aircraft PartsPDF
82 FR 27951 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: NAS Data Release RequestPDF
82 FR 27813 - Boulder Canyon Project-Rate Order No. WAPA-178PDF
82 FR 27946 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: National Air Tour Safety StandardsPDF
82 FR 27949 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Experimental Permits for Reusable Suborbital RocketsPDF
82 FR 27880 - Honeywell International, Inc.; Metropolis WorksPDF
82 FR 27944 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Verification of Authenticity of Foreign License, Rating, and Medical CertificationPDF
82 FR 27959 - Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping RequirementsPDF
82 FR 27858 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: FHA-Insured Mortgage Loan Servicing for Performing Loans Including: Collection and Payment of Mortgage Insurance Premiums, Escrow Administration, Providing Loan Information and Customer Services, Assessment of Post Endorsement Fees and Charges and Servicing Section 235 LoansPDF
82 FR 27949 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Performance and Handling Requirements for RotocraftPDF
82 FR 27833 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 27879 - Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978PDF
82 FR 27871 - Certain Carbon Spine Board, Cervical Collar, CPR Masks and Various Medical Training Manikin Devices, and Trademarks, Copyrights of Product Catalogues, Product Inserts and Components Thereof; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order Against Three Respondents Found in Default; Issuance of a Cease and Desist Order; Termination of the InvestigationPDF
82 FR 27822 - Notice of Final Approval for an Alternative Means of Emission Limitation at Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LPPDF
82 FR 27857 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: HUD Conditional Commitment/Direct Statement of Appraised ValuePDF
82 FR 27947 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Aircraft Noise Certification Documents for International OperationsPDF
82 FR 27855 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Contractor's Requisition-Project MortgagesPDF
82 FR 27948 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: FAA Safety Briefing Readership SurveyPDF
82 FR 27856 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Multifamily Project Monthly Accounting ReportsPDF
82 FR 27945 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Certification: Pilots and Flight InstructorsPDF
82 FR 27943 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: National Flight Data Center Web PortalPDF
82 FR 27807 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 27807 - Notice of Commission Staff AttendancePDF
82 FR 27805 - NextEra Energy Bluff Point, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 27808 - Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Sabine Pass Expansion ProjectPDF
82 FR 27812 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
82 FR 27835 - Reallotment of Fiscal Year 2016 Funds for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)PDF
82 FR 27799 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Final Clarification of the Scope of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty OrdersPDF
82 FR 27808 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
82 FR 27803 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 27809 - Supplemental Notice of Technical ConferencePDF
82 FR 27805 - Records Governing Off-the-Record CommunicationsPDF
82 FR 27809 - CB Energy Park, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted For Filing And Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, And Competing ApplicationsPDF
82 FR 27801 - Northern States Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
82 FR 27803 - Wells Rural Electric Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Fishway PrescriptionsPDF
82 FR 27804 - GT Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory OrderPDF
82 FR 27802 - Innovative Solar 42, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 27805 - United Energy Trading, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 27806 - Coachella Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 27802 - Ryckman Creek Resources, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 27812 - Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the St. James Supply ProjectPDF
82 FR 27806 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 27797 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 8-Toledo, OH, Authorization of Production Activity, Whirlpool Corporation (Washing Machines), Clyde and Green Springs, OHPDF
82 FR 27798 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 177-Evansville, Indiana; Authorization of Production Activity; Toyota Motor Manufacturing Indiana, Inc.; (Automotive Vehicles and Sub-Assemblies Production); Princeton, IndianaPDF
82 FR 27797 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 7-Mayaguez, Puerto Rico; Authorization of Production Activity; Romark Global Pharma, LLC; (Pharmaceuticals); Manatí, Puerto RicoPDF
82 FR 27797 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 68-El Paso, Texas; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; PGTEX USA, Inc.; (Fiber Glass Fabrics); El Paso, TexasPDF
82 FR 27796 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 283-West Tennessee Area; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; MTD Consumer Group Inc. (Landscaping Equipment and Off-Road Utility Vehicles); Martin, TennesseePDF
82 FR 27797 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 29-Louisville, Kentucky Authorization of Production Activity; Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc., (Automotive Fuel Injection Assemblies); Harrodsburg, KentuckyPDF
82 FR 27796 - Approval of Subzone Status; Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.; Inwood, New YorkPDF
82 FR 27781 - Periodic ReportingPDF
82 FR 27794 - Notice of Request for a Renewal of a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
82 FR 27794 - WTO Agricultural Quantity-Based Safeguard Trigger LevelsPDF
82 FR 27782 - United States Standards for Grades of Carcass BeefPDF
82 FR 27786 - Plants for Planting Whose Importation Is Not Authorized Pending Pest Risk Analysis; Notice of Addition of Taxa of Plants for Planting to List of Taxa Whose Importation Is Not Authorized Pending Pest Risk AnalysisPDF
82 FR 27878 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Contractor Budget, Representation, and CertificationPDF
82 FR 27793 - Notice of Request for Reinstatement of an Information Collection; National Animal Health Monitoring System; Equine Herpesvirus StudyPDF
82 FR 27792 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Johne's Disease in Domestic AnimalsPDF
82 FR 27939 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB ReviewPDF
82 FR 27953 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for a New Information CollectionPDF
82 FR 27951 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for a New Information CollectionPDF
82 FR 27954 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Request for Extension of Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
82 FR 27955 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for a New Information CollectionPDF
82 FR 27952 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Request for Approval of a New Information CollectionPDF
82 FR 27958 - Notice of Request for Revisions of an Information CollectionPDF
82 FR 27956 - Notice of Request for Revisions of an Information CollectionPDF
82 FR 27957 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
82 FR 27956 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
82 FR 27834 - Announcement of the Award of Six Single-Source Program Expansion Supplement Grants Under the Unaccompanied Children's ProgramPDF
82 FR 27903 - New Postal ProductsPDF
82 FR 27853 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Permission To Reapply for Admission Into the United States After Deportation or Removal, Form I-212; Revision of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
82 FR 27942 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Medical History and Examination for Foreign ServicePDF
82 FR 27872 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed New Information Collection Activity; Comment Request, Proposed Study Entitled “Evaluation of the Bureau of Justice Assistance Sexual Assault Kit Initiative”PDF
82 FR 27836 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Orphan Drugs; Common European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration Application Form for Orphan Drug Medicinal Product DesignationPDF
82 FR 27838 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Electronic Records; Electronic SignaturesPDF
82 FR 27771 - Special Conditions: Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation GVII-G500; Airbag Systems on Multiple-Place and Single-Place Side-Facing SeatsPDF
82 FR 27849 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Amended Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 27850 - National Institute on Aging; Amended Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 27939 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of MississippiPDF
82 FR 27938 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of New YorkPDF
82 FR 27841 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Pharmacogenomic Data SubmissionPDF
82 FR 27873 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 27875 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 27840 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Data To Support Drug Product Communications as Used by the Food and Drug AdministrationPDF
82 FR 27842 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Experimental Study of Risk Information Amount and Location in Direct-to-Consumer Print AdsPDF
82 FR 27845 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Disclosures of Descriptive Presentations in Professional Oncology Prescription Drug PromotionPDF
82 FR 27874 - Proposed Collection, Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 27852 - Revision of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Sensitive Security Information Threat AssessmentsPDF
82 FR 27868 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Suspensions Pending Appeal and BondingPDF
82 FR 27851 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 27850 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 27850 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences Amended; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 27849 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 27848 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 27915 - Triloma EIG Energy Income Fund, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
82 FR 27920 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend BOX Rule 7240 (Complex Orders) To Expand the Price Range Within Which Complex Orders Can TradePDF
82 FR 27904 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Article 23, Rule 13, Consolidated Audit Trail-Fee Dispute ResolutionPDF
82 FR 27912 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX PEARL Fee SchedulePDF
82 FR 27910 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX PEARL Fee SchedulePDF
82 FR 27907 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Rule 5.5PDF
82 FR 27917 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use on Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.PDF
82 FR 27925 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Permit the Listing and Trading of Managed Portfolio Shares; and To List and Trade Shares of the Following Under Proposed Rule 14.11(k): ClearBridge Appreciation ETF; ClearBridge Large Cap ETF; ClearBridge MidCap Growth ETF; ClearBridge Select ETF; and ClearBridge All Cap Value ETFPDF
82 FR 27938 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of IndianaPDF
82 FR 27776 - Safety Zones; Recurring Annual Events Held in Coast Guard Sector Boston Captain of the Port ZonePDF
82 FR 27939 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 27878 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 27895 - Excepted ServicePDF
82 FR 27773 - Port of Miami Anchorage Area; Atlantic Ocean, Miami Beach, FLPDF
82 FR 27831 - Notice of Changes in Permit Application To Import a Dog Inadequately Immunized Against RabiesPDF

Issue

82 116 Monday, June 19, 2017 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service NOTICES U.S. Grade Standards: Carcass Beef, 27782-27786 2017-12647 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Commodity Credit Corporation

See

Foreign Agricultural Service

Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Johne's Disease in Domestic Animals, 27792-27793 2017-12643 National Animal Health Monitoring System; Equine Herpesvirus Study, 27793-27794 2017-12644 List of Plants for Planting Whose Importation is Not Authorized Pending Pest Risk Analysis: Addition of Taxa of Plants, 27786-27792 2017-12646 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27832-27833 2017-12736 Permit Applications; Changes: Import Dog Inadequately Immunized Against Rabies, 27831-27832 2017-12439 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27833-27834 2017-12691 Reallotment of Fiscal Year 2016 Funds for Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, 27835-27836 2017-12675 Single-Source Grants: Unaccompanied Children's Program, 27834-27835 2017-12627 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Anchorage Areas: Port of Miami, Atlantic Ocean, Miami Beach, FL, 27773-27775 2017-12573 Safety Zones: Recurring Annual Events Held in Coast Guard Sector Boston Captain of the Port Zone, 27776-27777 2017-12581 Recurring Marine Events in Captain of the Port Long Island Sound Zone, 27775-27776 2017-12743 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Commodity Credit Commodity Credit Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27794 2017-12649 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

See

Western Area Power Administration

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency NOTICES Adequacy Determinations: Illinois; Research, Development and Demonstration Permit Provisions for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 27814-27815 2017-12739 Michigan; Research, Development and Demonstration Permit Provisions for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 27816 2017-12733 Minnesota; Research, Development and Demonstration Permit Provisions for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 27815-27816 2017-12740 Alternative Means of Emission Limitation at Chevron Phillips Chemical Co., LP; Final Approval, 27822-27827 2017-12688 Alternative Method for Calculating Off-Cycle Credits Under the Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Program: Applications From BMW Group, Ford Motor Co., and Hyundai Motor Group, 27819-27822 2017-12737 Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods: Designation of One New Reference Method and One New Equivalent Method, 27816-27817 2017-12738 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permits: Offshore Seafood Processors in Federal Waters off Washington and Oregon Coast: Re-Proposal, 27817-27819 2017-12734 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Special Conditions: Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation GVII-G500; Airbag Systems on Multiple-Place and Single-Place Side-Facing Seats, 27771-27773 2017-12617 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Aircraft Noise Certification Documents for International Operations, 27947 2017-12686 Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation Customer Service Survey, 27944 2017-12710 Certification Procedures for Products and Parts, 27948 2017-12723 Certification: Mechanics, Repairman, Parachute Riggers, 27947 2017-12715 Certification: Pilots and Flight Instructors, 27945 2017-12682 Competition Plans, Passenger Facility Charges, 27950 2017-12705 Experimental Permits for Reusable Suborbital Rockets, 27949-27950 2017-12697 Safety Briefing Readership Survey, 27948 2017-12684 Implementation to Equal Access to Justice Act, 27949 2017-12714 NAS Data Release Request, 27951 2017-12701 National Air Tour Safety Standards, 27946-27947 2017-12699 National Flight Data Center Web Portal, 27943 2017-12681 Noise Certification Standards for Subsonic Jet Airplanes and Subsonic Transport Category Large Airplanes, 27946 2017-12707 Office of Dispute Resolution Procedures for Protests and Contact Disputes, 27950-27951 2017-12709 Passenger Facility Charge Application, 27943-27944 2017-12712 Performance and Handling Requirements for Rotorcraft, 27949 2017-12692 Safe Disposition of Life-Limited Aircraft Parts, 27945-27946 2017-12702 Verification of Authenticity of Foreign License, Rating, and Medical Certification, 27944-27945 2017-12695 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 27827 2017-12785 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 27803, 27806-27808, 27812-27813 2017-12660 2017-12672 2017-12673 2017-12676 2017-12680 Declaratory Orders; Petitions: GT Pipeline, LLC, 27804-27805 2017-12666 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline, LLC, Sabine Pass Expansion Project, 27808-27809 2017-12677 St. James Supply Project; Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co., LLC, 27812 2017-12661 Hydroelectric Applications: Northern States Power Co., 27801 2017-12668 Wells Rural Electric Co., 27803-27804 2017-12667 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Coachella Wind, LLC, 27806 2017-12663 Innovative Solar 42, LLC, 27802 2017-12665 NextEra Energy Bluff Point, LLC, 27805 2017-12678 United Energy Trading, LLC, 27805 2017-12664 Meetings: Developments in Natural Gas Index Liquidity and Transparency, Price Discovery in Natural Gas and Electric Markets, Natural Gas Price Formation, etc.; Technical Conference, 27809-27812 2017-12671 Permit Applications: CB Energy Park, LLC, 27809 2017-12669 Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications, 27805-27806 2017-12670 Requests Under Blanket Authorizations: Ryckman Creek Resources, LLC, 27802-27803 2017-12662 Staff Attendances, 27807 2017-12679 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27951-27955 2017-12636 2017-12637 2017-12638 2017-12639 2017-12640 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities, 27827-27828 2017-12741 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Early Termination of Waiting Period Under Premerger Notification Rules; Approvals, 27828-27831 2017-12717 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27956-27959 2017-12632 2017-12633 2017-12634 2017-12635 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Marine Mammal Marking, Tagging, and Reporting Certificates, and Registration of Certain Dead Marine Mammal Hard Parts, 27866-27867 2017-12727 Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program and Migratory Bird Surveys, 27863-27866 2017-12724 National Wildlife Refuge Special Use Permit Applications and Reports, 27860-27863 2017-12728 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Data To Support Drug Product Communications as Used by Food and Drug Administration, 27840-27841 2017-12601 Disclosures of Descriptive Presentations in Professional Oncology Prescription Drug Promotion, 27845-27848 2017-12599 Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures, 27838-27840 2017-12619 Experimental Study of Risk Information Amount and Location in Direct-to-Consumer Print Ads, 27842-27845 2017-12600 Guidance for Industry on Pharmacogenomic Data Submission, 27841-27842 2017-12604 Orphan Drugs; Common European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration Application Form for Orphan Drug Medicinal Product Designation, 27836-27838 2017-12620 Foreign Agricultural Foreign Agricultural Service NOTICES WTO Agricultural Quantity-Based Safeguard Trigger Levels, 27794-27796 2017-12648 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Production Activities: Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 29, Louisville, KY, 27797 2017-12654 MTD Consumer Group Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 283, West Tennessee Area, 27796 2017-12655 PGTEX USA, Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 68, El Paso, TX, 27797-27798 2017-12656 Romark Global Pharma, LLC, Foreign-Trade Zone 7, Mayaguez, PR, 27797 2017-12657 Toyota Motor Manufacturing Indiana, Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 177, Evansville, IN, 27798 2017-12658 Whirlpool Corp. (Washing Machines), Clyde and Green Springs, OH, 27797 2017-12659 Subzone Status; Approvals: Expeditors International of Washington, Inc., Inwood, NY, 27796-27797 2017-12653 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Current and Future Landsat User Requirements, 27867-27868 2017-12726 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Transportation Security Administration

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Allocation of Operating Subsidies Under Operating Fund Formula: Data Collection, 27856-27857 2017-12720 Contractor's Requisition-Project Mortgages, 27855-27856 2017-12685 Family Self-Sufficiency Program, 27854-27855 2017-12721 FHA-Insured Mortgage Loan Servicing for Performing Loans, etc., 27858-27859 2017-12693 Grant Drawdown Payment Request/LOCCS/VRS Voice Activated, 27859-27860 2017-12719 HUD Conditional Commitment/Direct Statement of Appraised Value, 27857-27858 2017-12687 Multifamily Project Monthly Accounting Reports, 27856 2017-12683 Requirements for Designating Housing Projects, 27859 2017-12718 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Hearings: Procedures for Attending or Viewing Remotely Public Hearing on National Security Investigation of Imports of Aluminum, 27798-27799 2017-12729 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Geological Survey

See

Office of Natural Resources Revenue

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China, 27799-27801 2017-12674 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Carbon Spine Board, Cervical Collar, CPR Masks and Various Medical Training Manikin Devices, and Trademarks, Copyrights of Product Catalogues, Product Inserts and Components Thereof, 27871-27872 2017-12689 Justice Department Justice Department See

National Institute of Justice

NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records; Correction, 27872 2017-12703
Labor Department Labor Department See

Labor Statistics Bureau

Labor Statistics Labor Statistics Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27873-27876 2017-12598 2017-12602 2017-12603 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Records Schedules; Availability, 27876-27877 2017-12730 National Credit National Credit Union Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Contractor Budget, Representation, and Certification, 27878 2017-12645 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27959-27960 2017-12694 National Institute Justice National Institute of Justice NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Proposed Study Entitled Evaluation of Bureau of Justice Assistance Sexual Assault Kit Initiative, 27872-27873 2017-12623 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 27848-27849 2017-12591 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 27849-27850 2017-12592 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 27849 2017-12616 National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 27850 2017-12593 National Institute of Mental Health, 27850-27852 2017-12594 2017-12595 National Institute on Aging, 27850 2017-12615 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Reef Fish Fishery of Gulf of Mexico; Revised 2017 Recreational Fishing Season for Red Snapper Private Angling Component in Gulf of Mexico, 27777-27780 2017-12735 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27878-27879 2017-12577 Antarctic Conservation Act Permits, 27879 2017-12690 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Standard Specifications for Granting of Patent Licenses, 27879-27880 2017-12725 Facility Operating and Combined Licenses: Applications and Amendments Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations, etc., 27882-27895 2017-12732 License Renewal Applications: Honeywell International, Inc., Metropolis Works, 27880-27882 2017-12696 Natural Resources Office of Natural Resources Revenue NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Suspensions Pending Appeal and Bonding, 27868-27871 2017-12596 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Excepted Service, 27895-27903 2017-12576 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Periodic Reporting, 27781 2017-12652 NOTICES New Postal Products, 27903-27904 2017-12626 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: Flag Day and National Flag Week (Proc. 9623), 27961-27964 2017-12900 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Executive Order 13780: Effective Date Guidance (Memorandum of June 14, 2017), 27965-27966 2017-12901 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Triloma EIG Energy Income Fund, et al., 27915-27917 2017-12590 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 27917-27919, 27925-27938 2017-12583 2017-12584 BOX Options Exchange, LLC, 27920-27925 2017-12589 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 27907-27910 2017-12585 Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 27904-27907 2017-12588 MIAX PEARL, LLC, 27910-27915 2017-12586 2017-12587 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27939 2017-12642 Disaster Declarations: Indiana, 27938-27939 2017-12582 Mississippi, 27939 2017-12606 New York, 27938 2017-12605 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27939-27942 2017-12580 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Medical History and Examination for Foreign Service, 27942-27943 2017-12624 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Security Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Sensitive Security Information Threat Assessments, 27852-27853 2017-12597 U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Permission To Reapply for Admission Into United States After Deportation or Removal, 27853-27854 2017-12625 Western Western Area Power Administration NOTICES Rate Orders: Boulder Canyon Project, 27813-27814 2017-12700 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Presidential Documents, 27961-27966 2017-12900 2017-12901 Reader Aids

Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.

82 116 Monday, June 19, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0240; Special Conditions No. 25-691-SC] Special Conditions: Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation GVII-G500; Airbag Systems on Multiple-Place and Single-Place Side-Facing Seats AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream) GVII-G500 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is airbag systems on multiple-place and single-place side-facing seats. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Gulfstream on June 19, 2017. We must receive your comments by August 3, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0240 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alan Sinclair, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2195; facsimile 425-227-1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

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

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

Background

On March 29, 2012, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation applied for a type certificate for their new Model GVII-G500 airplane. The Model GVII-G500 airplane will be a twin-engine, transport-category business jet capable of accommodating up to 19 passengers. The Model GVII-G500 airplane will have a maximum takeoff weight of 76,850 lbs.

Type Certification Basis

Under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Gulfstream must show that the Model GVII-G500 airplane meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-129.

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

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

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

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Feature

The Model GVII-G500 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

Airbag systems on multiple-place and single-place side-facing seats.

Discussion

Side facing seats are considered a novel design for transport-category airplanes that include 14 CFR part 25, Amendment 25-64, in their certification bases, because this feature was not anticipated when those airworthiness standards were issued. Therefore, the existing regulations do not provide adequate or appropriate safety standards for occupants of side-facing seats. For the Model GVII-G500 airplane, FAA Special Conditions No. 25-618-SC, “Technical Criteria for Approving Side-Facing Seats,” proposed special conditions to address the certification of single- and multiple-place side-facing seats. Those proposed special conditions include condition 2(e), which requires the axial rotation of the upper leg (femur) to be limited to 35 degrees in either direction from the nominal seat position. To accommodate that requirement, Gulfstream has developed a new airbag system that will be installed close to the floor, and which is designed to limit the axial rotation of the occupant's upper legs.

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

Applicability

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

Conclusion

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

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

The Special Conditions

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

In addition to the requirements of §§ 25.562 and 25.785, and Special Conditions No. 25-495-SC, the following special conditions are part of the type certification basis for the Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplane with leg-flail airbags installed on side-facing seats.

1. For seats with a leg-flail airbag system, the system must deploy and provide protection under crash conditions where it is necessary to prevent serious injury. The means of protection must take into consideration a range of stature from a 2-year-old child to a 95th-percentile male. At some buttock popliteal length and effective seat-bottom depth, the lower legs will not be able to form a 90-degree angle relative to the upper leg; at this point, the lower leg flail would not occur. The leg-flail airbag system must provide a consistent approach to prevention of leg flail throughout that range of occupants whose lower legs can form a 90-degree angle relative to the upper legs when seated upright in the seat. Items that need to be considered include, but are not limited to, the range of occupants' popliteal height, the range of occupants' buttock popliteal length, the design of the seat effective height above the floor, and the effective depth of the seat-bottom cushion.

2. The leg-flail airbag system must provide adequate protection for each occupant regardless of the number of occupants of the seat assembly, considering that unoccupied seats may have an active leg-flail airbag system.

3. The leg-flail airbag system must not be susceptible to inadvertent deployment as a result of wear and tear, or inertial loads resulting from in-flight or ground maneuvers (including gusts and hard landings), and other operating and environmental conditions (vibrations, moisture, etc.) likely to occur in service.

4. Deployment of the leg-flail airbag system must not introduce injury mechanisms to the seated occupant, nor result in injuries that could impede rapid egress.

5. Inadvertent deployment of the leg-flail airbag system, during the most critical part of the flight, must either meet the requirement of § 25.1309(b), or not cause a hazard to the airplane or its occupants.

6. The leg-flail airbag system must not impede rapid egress of occupants from the airplane 10 seconds after airbag deployment.

7. The leg-flail airbag system must be protected from lightning and high-intensity radiated fields (HIRF). The threats to the airplane specified in existing regulations regarding lightning (§ 25.1316) and HIRF (§ 25.1317) are incorporated by reference for the purpose of measuring lightning and HIRF protection.

8. The leg-flail airbag system must function properly after loss of normal airplane electrical power, and after a transverse separation of the fuselage at the most critical location. A separation at the location of the leg-flail airbag system does not have to be considered.

9. The leg-flail airbag system must not release hazardous quantities of gas or particulate matter into the cabin.

10. The leg-flail airbag system installation must be protected from the effects of fire such that no hazard to occupants will result.

11. A means must be available to verify the integrity of the leg-flail airbag system's activation system prior to each flight, or the leg-flail airbag system's activation system must reliably operate between inspection intervals. The FAA considers that the loss of the leg-flail airbag system's deployment function alone (i.e., independent of the conditional event that requires the leg-flail airbag system's deployment) is a major-failure condition.

12. The airbag inflatable material may not have an average burn rate of greater than 2.5 inches per minute when tested using the horizontal flammability test defined in part 25, appendix F, part I, paragraph (b)(5).

13. The leg-flail airbag system, once deployed, must not adversely affect the emergency-lighting system (i.e., must not block floor-proximity lights to the extent that the lights no longer meet their intended function).

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 8, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-12617 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0729] RIN 1625-AA01 Port of Miami Anchorage Area; Atlantic Ocean, Miami Beach, FL AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is dividing its Miami anchorage ground into two separate anchorage areas. This action is necessary to reduce potential damage to threatened coral posed by anchoring vessels. The area for vessels to anchor will be reduced by approximately 3 square nautical miles, but this rule still leaves vessels with approximately 1.5 square miles of anchorage areas.

DATES:

This rule is effective from July 19, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2015-0729 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Paul Lehmann, Coast Guard Seventh District Prevention Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (305) 415-6796, email [email protected]

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

On December 1, 2015, the Coast Guard published a notice of study that indicated we were evaluating amending the Miami Anchorage, based on the location of coral reefs off the coast of Florida. The Coast Guard received four comments in response to the notice of study during the period that ended on February 1, 2016. In coordination with several interested parties, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on May 10, 2016 (81 FR 28788). Four additional comments were received in response to the NPRM. The comment period for the NPRM closed on July 11, 2016.

Through continued cooperation and research with stakeholders, the Coast Guard amended the original locations and requirements stated in the NPRM, and published these changes in a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM), on February 22, 2017 (82 FR 11329). We received five written submissions on the SNPRM during the comment period that ended on March 24, 2017. We did not receive any oral comments.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 471. The Seventh District Commander has determined that the new locations of the anchorage provide both a safe anchorage ground for vessels, as well as provide for protection of the coral reef and uphold the environmental protection mission of the Coast Guard.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

On December 1, 2015, the Coast Guard published a notice of study that indicated we were evaluating amending the Miami Anchorage to divide the anchorage into two smaller anchorage areas. The proposed amendment was designed in coordination with a variety of local stakeholders, including the South East Florida Coral Reef Initiative (SEFCRI). Comment provided by these stakeholders, academic research, and environmental reports have raised concerns with the Coast Guard about the potential for damage to the Florida Reef in the Miami Anchorage. Examples of the body of work that influenced the Coast Guard in proposing this amendment may be found in the docket.

In response to the notice of study, the Coast Guard received four comments. These comments were addressed in an NPRM published on May 10, 2016. In response to the NPRM, we received four additional comments. Two of the comments, one by the local non-profit Miami Waterkeeper and the other by a private citizen, supported our planned modification of the Miami Anchorage. The third and fourth comments were submitted by the Biscayne Bay Pilots Association.

The Biscayne Bay Pilots Association (pilots) submitted a comment, through Becky Hope of the Port of Miami, on May 17, 2016. This comment requested the Coast Guard evaluate changes in the proposed anchorage, including shifting the outer anchorage west and shifting the southern boundary of the outer anchorage north. In response to these comments, the Coast Guard met with the Pilots to discuss the requests and the basis at which we arrived at the current anchorage configuration. During the meeting the Coast Guard agreed to shift the western boundary of the outer anchorage approximately 300 feet to the west to provide more room for large anchoring vessels. This change does not have any effect on coral or hard bottom as the sea floor in that area is sand.

On June 11, 2016, the Pilots submitted a follow up comment to the public docket expressing concern that the outer anchorage would expose vessels to increased current and waves and, they claim, could increase the chance a vessel would drag anchor. In order to properly assess environmental conditions and risk of an anchor drag, the Coast Guard consulted with the National Weather Service and Maersk training center. The National Weather Service conducted a study, analyzing the previous year's current in the vicinity of the anchorage. The Weather Service found that the average current in the area of the outer anchorage over the previous year was approximately 1.2 knots, with currents ranging plus or minus half a knot from the mean current seventy percent of the time. This information was provided to the Maersk training center in Svendborg, Denmark. Subject matter experts at the training school indicated that the conditions posed no significant hazard and that captains would have the training and experience to set an anchor in the deeper waters of the outer anchorage.

Due to the additional changes requested by the various parties involved, we published a Supplemental Notice to Proposed Rulemaking on February 22, 2017. The Coast Guard received five comments in response to this SNPRM. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection supports this project as a means to reduce coral reef and hardbottom impacts. The additional comments were in support of the rule, citing the desire to protect natural resources while acknowledging perceived minimal impact to industry and commerce.

The District Commander is amending the Miami Anchorage by dividing the anchorage into two smaller anchorage areas. The coordinates will establish two anchorage areas with a combined area of approximately 1.5 square miles and reduce the total anchorage area by approximately 3 square nautical miles. The anchorage areas will be established with the following coordinates:

Small Inner Western Anchorage [Approximate water depths: 45 ft] Latitude Longitude NW Corner 25°47′57.687″ N. 080°05′37.225″ W. NE Corner 25°47′57.341″ N. 080°05′26.466″ W. SE Corner 25°46′31.443″ N. 080°05′27.069″ W. SW Corner 25°46′31.557″ N. 080°05′37.868″ W. Large Outer Eastern Anchorage [Approximate water depths: 120 ft] Latitude Longitude NW Corner 25°48′13.841″ N. 080°04′59.155″ W. NE Corner 25°48′04.617″ N. 080°04′04.582″ W. SE Corner 25°46′32.712″ N. 080°04′28.387″ W. SW Corner 25°46′43.770″ N. 080°05′02.360″ W.

We made minor changes to the anchorage regulations in response to comments received from the Biscayne Bay Pilots Association and others during the NPRM stage. Those changes were incorporated into the language of the SNPRM. For example, vessels anchored in the Miami Anchorage are required to maintain a 24-hour bridge watch with a licensed or credentialed deck officer proficient in English, vessels are prohibited from anchoring with engines off or in a “dead ship” status, and vessels are required to seek permission of the Captain of the Port Miami prior to anchoring for longer than 72 hours. Also, we amended the language that utilized the Biscayne Bay Pilots via VHF-FM channel 12 or 16 to contact the Captain of the Port Miami in order to simplify the process and improve consistency. Now mariners may contact the Captain of the Port Miami directly via VHF-FM channel 16. In addition to the above changes, the anchoring regulations have been reordered and reworded. Finally, the Coast Guard will be submitting amendments to the local Coast Pilot that provides improved guidance to vessels planning to anchor in the outer anchorage.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the relatively minor change being made to the regulation. This regulatory action determination is based on the relatively minor changes being proposed to the regulation such as notice and watch keeping requirements.

The regulation will however ensure 1.5 square miles of anchorage areas continue to exist. Some other changes are that vessels will be prohibited from anchoring with engines off or in a “dead ship” status and vessels will be required to seek permission of the Captain of the Port Miami prior to anchoring for longer than 72 hours.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that it is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule reduces the size of an existing anchorage area. It is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 34(f) of the Instruction, which pertains to minor regulatory changes that are editorial or procedural in nature. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

Anchorage grounds.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110—ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows: Authority:

33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. Revise § 110.188 to read as follows:
§ 110.188 Atlantic Ocean off Miami and Miami Beach, Fla.

(a) The anchorage areas. (1) Anchorage A. All area of the Atlantic Ocean, encompassed by a line connecting the points of the following North America Datum 83 coordinates:

Latitude Longitude 25°47′57.687″ N. 080°05′37.225″ W. 25°47′57.341″ N. 080°05′26.466″ W. 25°46′31.443″ N. 080°05′27.069″ W. 25°46′31.557″ N. 080°05′37.868″ W.

(2) Anchorage B. All area of the Atlantic Ocean, encompassed by a line connecting the points of the following North America Datum 83 coordinates:

Latitude Longitude 25°48′13.841″ N. 080°04′59.155″ W. 25°48′04.617″ N. 080°04′04.582″ W. 25°46′32.712″ N. 080°04′28.387″ W. 25°46′43.770″ N. 080°05′02.360″ W.

(b) The regulations. (1) Vessels in the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of Port of Miami must anchor only within the anchorage areas hereby defined and established, except in cases of emergency.

(2) Prior to entering the anchorage areas, all vessels must notify the Coast Guard Captain of the Port via VHF-FM channel 16.

(3) All vessels within the designated anchorages must maintain a 24-hour bridge watch by a licensed or credentialed deck officer proficient in English, monitoring VHF-FM channel 16. This individual must confirm that the ship's crew performs frequent checks of the vessel's position to ensure the vessel is not dragging anchor.

(4) Vessels may anchor anywhere within the designated anchorage areas provided that: Such anchoring does not interfere with the operations of any other vessels currently at anchorage; and all anchor and chain or cable is positioned in such a manner to preclude dragging over reefs.

(5) No vessel may anchor in a “dead ship” status (that is, propulsion or control unavailable for normal operations) without the prior approval of the Captain of the Port. Vessels experiencing casualties, such as main propulsion, main steering, or anchoring equipment malfunction, or which are planning to perform main propulsion engine repairs or maintenance, must immediately notify the Coast Guard Captain of the Port via Coast Guard Sector Miami on VHF-FM channel 16.

(6) No vessel may anchor within the designated anchorages for more than 72 hours without the prior approval of the Captain of the Port. To obtain this approval, contact the Coast Guard Captain of the Port via VHF-FM channel 16.

(7) The Coast Guard Captain of the Port may close the anchorage areas and direct vessels to depart the anchorage during periods of adverse weather or at other times as deemed necessary in the interest of port safety or security.

(8) Commercial vessels anchoring under emergency circumstances outside the anchorage areas must shift to new positions within the anchorage areas immediately after the emergency ceases.

(9) Whenever the maritime or commercial interests of the United States so require, the Captain of the Port, U.S. Coast Guard, Miami, Florida, may direct relocation of any vessel anchored within the anchorage areas. Once directed, such vessel must get underway at once or signal for a tug, and must change position as directed.

Dated: June 12, 2017. S.A. Buschman, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-12573 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2012-1036] Safety Zones, Recurring Marine Events in Captain of the Port Long Island Sound Zone AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce five safety zones for fireworks displays in the Sector Long Island Sound area of responsibility on the date and time listed in the table below. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the events. During the enforcement periods, no person or vessel may enter the safety zones without permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative.

DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 165.151 Table 1 will be enforced during the following dates and times listed in the table in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this notice, call or email Petty Officer Katherine Linnick, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound; telephone 203-468-4565, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.151 Table 1 on the specified dates and times as indicated.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.151, the fireworks displays listed below are established as safety zones. During the enforcement period, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, mooring, or anchoring within these safety zones unless they receive permission from the COTP or designated representative.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners or marine information broadcasts. If the COTP determines that these safety zones need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

7.1 Point O'Woods Fire Company Summer Fireworks • Date: July 3, 2017. • Rain Date: July 5, 2017. • Time: 08:45 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. • Location: Waters of the Great South Bay, Point O'Woods, NY in approximate position 40°39′18.57″ N., 073°08′5.73″ W. (NAD 83). 7.6 Sag Harbor Fireworks • Date: July 1, 2017. • Rain Date: July 2, 2017. • Time: 8:30 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. • Location: Waters of Sag Harbor Bay off Havens Beach, Sag Harbor, NY in approximate position 41°00′26″ N., 072°17′9″ W. (NAD 83). 7.29 Mashantucket Pequot Fireworks • Date: July 8, 2017. • Rain Date: July 9, 2017. • Time: 8:45 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. • Location: Waters of the Thames River, New London, CT in approximate positions Barge 1, 41°21′03.03″ N., 072°5′24.5″ W. Barge 2, 41°20′51.75″ N., 072°5′18.90″ W. (NAD 83). 7.33 Groton Long Point Yacht Club Fireworks • Date: July 15, 2017. • Rain Date: July 17, 2017. • Time: 9:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. • Location: Waters of Long Island Sound, Groton, CT in approximate position 41°18′05″ N., 072°02′08″ W. (NAD 83). 7.40 Rowayton Fireworks • Date: July 4, 2017. • Rain Date: July 5, 2017. • Time: 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. • Location: Waters of Long Island Sound south of Bayley Beach Park, Rowayton, CT in approximate position 41°03′11″ N., 073°26′41″ W. (NAD 83). Dated: June 5, 2017. A.E. Tucci, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Long Island Sound.
[FR Doc. 2017-12743 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0506] Safety Zones; Recurring Annual Events Held in Coast Guard Sector Boston Captain of the Port Zone AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce eleven safety zones within the Captain of the Port Boston zone on the specified dates and times. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels, spectators and participants from hazards associated with fireworks displays and swim events. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel, except for the safety vessels assisting with the events, may enter the safety zones without permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP) or his designated on-scene representative.

DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 165.118 and 33 CFR 165.119 will be enforced for the safety zones identified in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for the dates and times specified.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Mark Cutter, Sector Boston Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 617-223-4000, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones listed in Table 1 from 33 CFR 165.118 and in 33 CFR 165.119(a)(2) and (3) on the specified dates and times specified:

Table 1 From 33 CFR 165.118 Name Location Date Time 6.5 Hull Youth Football Carnival Fireworks All waters within a 450-foot radius of the fireworks barge located approximately 500 feet of off Nantasket Beach, Hull MA located at position 42°16.6′ N., 070°51.7′ W. (NAD 83) June 24, 2017 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. 6.3 Surfside Fireworks All waters of the Atlantic Ocean near Salisbury Beach, MA, within a 350-yard radius of the fireworks barge located at position 42°50.6′ N., 070°48.4′ W. (NAD 83) Every Saturday between June 24 to September 9 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. 7.1 City of Lynn 4th of July Celebration Fireworks All waters of Nahant Bay, within a 350-yard radius of the fireworks barge located at position 42°27.62′ N., 070°55.58′ W. (NAD 83) July 3, 2017 7 p.m.-10 p.m. 7.4 Weymouth 4th of July Celebration Fireworks All waters of Weymouth Fore River, within a 350-yard radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 42°15.5′ N., 070°56.1′ W. (NAD 83) July 3, 2017 8:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. 7.5 Beverly 4th of July Celebration Fireworks All waters of Beverly Harbor within a 350-yard radius of the fireworks launch barge located at position 42°32.62′ N., 070°52.15′ W. (NAD 83) July 4, 2017 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. 7.9 Marblehead 4th of July Fireworks All waters of Marblehead Harbor within a 350-yard radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 42°30.34′ N., 070°50.13′ W. (NAD 83) July 4, 2017 9:30-10:30 p.m. 7.10 Plymouth 4th of July Fireworks All waters of Plymouth Harbor within a 350-yard radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 42°57.3′ N., 070°38.3′ W. (NAD 83) July 4, 2017 9:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. 7.8 City of Salem Fireworks All waters of Salem Harbor, within a 350-yard radius of the fireworks launch site located on Derby Wharf at position 42°31.15′ N., 070°53.13′ W. (NAD 83) July 4, 2017 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. 7.19 Swim Across America Boston All waters of Boston Harbor between Rowes Warf and Little Brewster Island within the following points (NAD 83):
  • 42°21.4′ N., 071°03.0′ W.
  • 42°21.5′ N., 071°02.9′ W.
  • 42°19.8′ N., 070°53.6′ W.
  • 42°19.6′ N., 070°53.4′ W.
  • July 7, 2017 6 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    33 CFR 165.119 Fan Pier Safety Zone All U.S. navigable waters of Boston Inner Harbor within a 700-foot radius of the fireworks barge in the approximate position 42°21′23.2″ N., 071°02′26″ W. (NAD 1983), located off of the Fan Pier, South Boston, MA June 12, 2017 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. 33 CFR 165.119(a)(2) Long Wharf Safety Zone All U.S. navigable waters of Boston Inner Harbor within a 700-foot radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 42°21′41.2″ N., 071°02′36.5″ W. (NAD 1983), located off of Long Wharf, Boston MA July 1, 2017 9 p.m. to 10 p.m.

    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.118, 33 CFR 165.119, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide mariners with advanced notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners.

    Dated: June 9, 2017. C.C. Gelzer, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Boston.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12581 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 140818679-5356-02] RIN 0648-XF499 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Revised 2017 Recreational Fishing Season for Red Snapper Private Angling Component in the Gulf of Mexico AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; re-opening.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is re-opening the private angling component for red snapper in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) through this temporary rule. The Federal recreational season for red snapper in the Gulf EEZ re-opens at 12:01 a.m., local time, on June 16, 2017. For recreational harvest by the private angling component, from June 16, 2017, through Labor Day, September 4, 2017, the season will be closed Monday through Thursday with the exception of July 3, July 4, and September 4. After September 4, 2017, the private angling component will be closed through the end of the current fishing year. For recreational harvest by the Federal for-hire component, the season is unchanged and closes at 12:01 a.m., local time, on July 20, 2017. This temporary rule supersedes the previously announced Gulf red snapper 2017 private angling component season.

    DATES:

    The reopening is effective each weekend, from 12:01 a.m., local time, Fridays, through 12:01 a.m., local time, Mondays, beginning June 16, 2017, until 12:01 a.m., local time, September 5, 2017. The reopening is also effective from 12:01 a.m., local time, July 3, 2017, until 12:01 a.m., local time, July 5, 2017; and from 12:01 a.m., local time, September 4, 2017, until 12:01 a.m., local time, September 5, 2017. The recreational fishing season will then be closed until it reopens on June 1, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Samuel D. Rauch, III, NMFS Office of the Assistant Administrator, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Gulf reef fish fishery, which includes red snapper, is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

    The commercial and recreational sectors are managed by separate quotas. Amendment 26 to the FMP established an individual fishing quota program for commercial red snapper fishermen (71 FR 67447, November 22, 2006). Amendment 27 to the FMP established an annual June 1 start date for the recreational season that currently applies to both recreational components of the sector (73 FR 5117, January 29, 2008). The final rule implementing Amendment 40 to the FMP established two components within the recreational sector fishing for Gulf red snapper: the private angling component and the Federal for-hire component (80 FR 22422, April 22, 2015).

    Currently, the Gulf of Mexico stock of red snapper is overfished. In 2005 (Amendment 22), NMFS adopted a rebuilding plan enacted by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) that was designed to rebuild the stock by 2032. Since implementation of the rebuilding plan, red snapper are larger and more abundant and are also expanding their range to areas of Florida where they have not been prevalent for some time.

    This has increased economic opportunity for the commercial red snapper industry. That industry contains a limited number of tightly regulated vessels that are able to closely monitor their catches and stay within their allotted quota. As the quotas have increased to reflect improved stock health, the commercial catches have gone up and the commercial fishery has been able to reap the economic benefit of improved stock status. The ex-vessel value of commercial red snapper landings has increased from $10 million dollars in 2007 to nearly $30 million dollars in 2015.

    The same cannot be said of private recreational fishermen. Red snapper is harvested recreationally throughout the Gulf, with proportionally larger landings in the eastern Gulf. The desire for recreational fishing generates economic activity as consumers spend their income on various goods and services needed for recreational fishing. This spurs significant economic activity in the region where recreational red snapper fishing from charter vessels and private anglers generates at least $47 million dollars annually (output/sales in 2014 dollars) from West Florida through Texas.

    A decade ago, recreational fishermen could fish for red snapper for more than 6 months. As the stock has grown, anglers are catching more and larger fish across a broader geographic range. Catch per day has increased because of abundance and fish size, but also more concentrated fishing effort as the season has become compressed. Further, angler access in Federal waters has declined as the Federal recreational season has shrunk. On the commercial side, more fish has resulted in higher catch rates and higher profits. On the private recreational side, abundance has meant fewer and fewer days to fish in Federal waters, which is at the heart of the recreational fishing experience. While explicable, this situation is untenable. The decreasing number of days allowed for the private angler component in Federal waters has resulted in derby style fishing that forces anglers to take increased risks to fish in bad weather and concentrates fishing effort in a narrow time window. States have responded by setting State seasons for the private angling component that are far longer than the Federal season, greatly complicating fishery management and further reducing the available days in Federal waters. The current situation has undermined the Federal-State partnership on management of this transboundary stock and threatens to undermine the very fabric of Federal fisheries management in the Gulf and elsewhere.

    Red snapper is primarily a deeper water species, although it does occur patchily in deeper parts of state waters. Given that it occurs and is caught within the jurisdiction of the 5 Gulf states and in Federal waters, a unified approach to management is critical to preserve the sustainability of the stock while maximizing the economic and recreational value of the stock. The increasingly short Federal recreational season has undermined that needed cohesiveness. As the federal seasons have become shorter, the states have allowed for longer and longer state water seasons. Since state catches “come off the top”, the long state seasons have made the Federal season even shorter, further exacerbating the problem. So while the amount of red snapper that can be caught by private anglers is near an all-time high, more than 81 percent of those fish will be caught during state seasons under status quo management.

    This incongruous management has a number of direct and indirect negative effects on the fishery. Managing the private recreational fishery is far more difficult than managing the commercial fishery. The commercial fishery is comprised of relatively few boats that fill out regular reports and land their fish in a limited number of places. Their landings can be cross-checked with dealer reports at the limited number of licensed fish dealers and it is feasible to know where the vessel was when it caught the fish. In comparison, there are hundreds of thousands of private anglers who can decide to put a fishing line in the water from shore anywhere on the coast or get in a private boat to go virtually anywhere off shore from a public boat ramp or a dock on private property, making it difficult to reliably track angler catches and fishing effort.

    As a result, understanding what is happening in the vast recreational fishery and then appropriately managing it is not something the Federal government can do alone. We rely on the states as integral partners in the co-management effort. The States license fishermen and collect significant amounts of independent science data that goes into the stock assessment process. If the states are not partners in a cohesive management scheme, the management system will not work for anyone.

    The lack of a unified approach can also significantly increase the burden on the taxpayer from duplicative or overlapping management structures. Historically, the states and Federal government have cooperated in a unified management, survey and data collection program to estimate fishing effort and overall stock abundance of red snapper and other Gulf stocks. The effect of the non-uniform management approach existent today is essentially the creation of six individual management and science regimes for a single species of fish. Each of the five states is creating or has created a unique way of collecting data on and managing red snapper, which is somewhat independent of the Federal system. This has not always been the case and the state and Federal managers are trying to ensure that the various systems are compatible. Nevertheless, the disparate approaches do increase the overall cost to the taxpayer and create inconsistent data results, further undermining the integrity of the system.

    Against this backdrop, the agreement reached today between the Secretary of Commerce and the five states is extraordinary. For the first time since 2007, the five States have agreed amongst themselves on a singular private recreational summer fishing season of 39 essentially weekend days. In addition, Florida and Alabama have committed to forgoing fall seasons, eliminating the vast majority of private angler catch that has occurred in the fall. Mississippi and Louisiana have also committed to reviewing their fall seasons in light of the catch from the combined summer season, and may decide not to allow fall fishing for red snapper. Texas, which accounts for less than half a percent of private angler catch of red snapper in its fall season, expects to remain open. While slightly disparate, the emergency actions by all five States to bring their State water seasons into alignment with the Federal water season for the rest of the summer, when the bulk of private recreational angling occurs, is a significant step forward in building a new Federal-State partnership in managing this transboundary fish stock. The Secretary believes this increased Federal-State cooperation will benefit the long term recovery of the red snapper stock while maximizing the economic benefits from recreational fishing in the Gulf region.

    The States have now recommitted themselves to cohesive and unified management. If Federal waters will stay open for the same amount of time, they will modify their various individual seasons and adopt a singular uniform season Gulf-wide through September 4. There will no longer be any incentive to fish in closed Federal waters when State waters are open. State and Federal managers and data collectors can once again work as partners trying to achieve the same management objective.

    This is extraordinary and the States are sacrificing substantial near shore fishing opportunities to allow this to happen. Many States will forgo weeks or months of fishing in State waters in exchange for better fishing opportunities and larger fish in Federal waters. This represents a significant commitment from the States to restore a shared vision of uniform management.

    Both the States and the Federal government understand what is at risk with this approach. The stock is still overfished. While the stock is ahead of its rebuilding target, if employed for a short period of time, this approach may delay the ultimate rebuilding of the stock by as many as 6 years. This approach likely could not be continued through time without significantly delaying the rebuilding timeline. Similarly, the approach will necessarily mean that the private recreational sector will substantially exceed its annual catch limit, which was designed to prevent overfishing the stock. Nevertheless, NMFS calculates that the stock will continue to grow, although at substantially more modest pace if this approach is adopted for one year. Given the precipitous drop in Federal red snapper fishing days for private anglers notwithstanding the growth of the stock, the increasing harm to the coastal economies of Gulf States, and that the current disparate approaches to management are undermining the very integrity of the management structure, creating ever-increasing uncertainty in the future of the system, the Secretary of Commerce has determined that a more modest rebuilding pace for the stock is a risk worth taking.

    As such, in coordination with the five Gulf States, the Secretary of Commerce has determined to re-open the Federal private recreational season. The 2017 Federal recreational season was previously closed at 12:01 a.m., local time, on June 4, 2017, for the private angling component. The Federal for-hire component will close at 12:01 a.m. local time, on July 20, 2017 (86 FR 21140, May 5, 2017). All five Gulf States have indicated they will adopt State recreational fishing seasons through September 4, 2017, compatible with the Federal season announced through this temporary rule. The 2017 Federal recreational season for the private angling component is revised through this temporary rule and will be open an additional 39 days for a total of 42 days. In 2017, the private angling component will be open from June 1 through 4, June 16 through 18, June 23 through 25, June 30 through July 4, July 7 through 9, July 14 through 16, July 21 through 23, July 28 through 30, August 4 through 6, August 11 through 13, August 18 through 20, August 25 through 27, and September 1 through 4. The Federal season for the Federal for-hire component will remain the same and close at 12:01 a.m., local time, July 20, 2017. The commercial individual fishing quota program and the 2017 commercial quota remain unchanged through this temporary rule. The 2018 Federal recreational fishing seasons for the respective components will begin on June 1, 2018.

    When the recreational component is closed, the bag and possession limits for red snapper in the respective component are zero. Additionally, when the Federal charter vessel/headboat component or entire recreational sector is closed, these bag and possession limits apply in the Gulf on board a vessel for which a valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested, i.e., in State or Federal waters.

    Classification

    This action is taken under 50 CFR part 622 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.

    The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to provide additional recreational private angling fishing season days constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule implementing the requirement to close the recreational components have already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closures. Providing prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest because of the need for timely re-opening of the Federal private angling component season. In addition, prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and many of those affected by the length of the recreational fishing season, particularly vacationing private anglers and associated businesses that are dependent on private anglers, need as much advance notice as NMFS is able to provide to adjust their personal and business plans to account for the recreational fishing season.

    For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: June 14, 2017. Samuel D. Rauch III, Acting Assistant Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12735 Filed 6-14-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 116 Monday, June 19, 2017 Proposed Rules POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR Part 3050 [Docket No. RM2017-5; Order No. 3959] Periodic Reporting AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is noticing a recent filing requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to an analytical method for use in periodic reporting (Proposal One). This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: July 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Proposal One III. Notice and Comment IV. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction

    On June 7, 2017, the Postal Service filed a petition, pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11, requesting that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider a change to an analytical method used in periodic reporting.1 The Petition labels the proposed analytical method change filed in this docket as Proposal One.

    1 Petition of the United States Postal Service Requesting Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider a Proposed Change in Analytical Principles (Proposal One), June 7, 2017 (Petition).

    II. Proposal One

    The Postal Service currently utilizes statistical sampling estimates from the Origin Destination Information System—Revenue, Pieces, and Weight (ODIS-RPW) to measure national revenue and pieces for insured, collect on delivery (COD), and registered extra services on domestic mailpieces bearing PC Postage indicia. Proposal One at 3. The Postal Service proposes to replace the ODIS-RPW estimates with census transactional data from the Retail Data Mart reporting system. Id. at 5.

    The Postal Service summarizes the effect that Proposal One would have had in fiscal year 2016 (FY 2016) in Table A of the Petition. Id. at 7. Reported revenues for insured mail and registered mailpieces with PC Postage indicia would have increased by 126 percent and 67 percent, respectively. COD revenues for PC Postage mailpieces would have been calculated to be 1,967 percent higher, resulting in almost double the total COD revenue reported in the FY 2016 RPW and Cost and Revenue Analysis Report.2 The Postal Service notes that this increase in COD revenue would have substantially improved the FY 2016 cost coverage of COD, which was discussed in the Commission's FY 2016 ACD.3

    2 FY 2016 COD revenue was reported to be $2,029,090. See Docket No. ACR2016, Annual Compliance Determination, March 28, 2017, at 61 (FY 2016 ACD). The Postal Service calculates that Proposal One would have added an additional $2,004,000 in revenue for the same period. Proposal One at 6.

    3 FY 2016 ACD at 61-62.

    The Postal Service states that this change will improve accuracy by eliminating sampling errors. Proposal One at 5. For this reason, the Postal Service avers that Proposal One will provide “equal or improved data quality.” Id.

    III. Notice and Comment

    The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2017-5 for consideration of matters raised by the Petition. More information on the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's Web site at http://www.prc.gov. Interested persons may submit comments on the Petition and Proposal One no later than July 19, 2017. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Lyudmila Bzhilyanskaya is designated as the Public Representative in this proceeding.

    IV. Ordering Paragraphs

    It is ordered:

    1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2017-5 for consideration of the matters raised by the Petition of the United States Postal Service Requesting Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider a Proposed Change in Analytical Principles (Proposal One), filed June 7, 2017.

    2. Comments by interested persons in this proceeding are due no later than July 19, 2017.

    3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Lyudmila Bzhilyanskaya to serve as the Public Representative in this docket.

    4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register.

    By the Commission.

    Stacy L. Ruble, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12652 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    82 116 Monday, June 19, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Doc. No. AMS-LPS-16-0060-0001] United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is proposing amendments to the United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef (beef standards). Specifically, AMS is proposing amendments to the beef standards that would allow dentition and documentation of actual age as additional methods of classifying maturity of carcasses presented to USDA for official quality grading. Currently, the standards include only skeletal and muscular evidence as a determination of classifying maturity of carcasses for the purposes of official USDA quality grading. Official USDA quality grading is used as an indication of meat palatability and is a major determining factor in live cattle and beef value.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before August 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. Written comments may be sent to: Beef Carcass Revisions, Standardization Branch, Quality Assessment Division (QAD); Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program (LPS), AMS, USDA; 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 3932-S, STOP 0258, Washington, DC 20250-0258. Comments may also be emailed to [email protected] Submitted comments will be available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov, or during regular business hours at the above address. Please be advised that the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be made public on the Internet at the address provided above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bucky Gwartney, International Marketing Specialist, Standardization Branch, QAD, LPS, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 3932-S, STOP 0258, Washington, DC 20250-0258, phone (202) 720-1424, or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.), directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities. While the beef standards do not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, they—along with other official standards—are maintained by USDA at https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards. Copies of official standards are also available upon request. To propose changes to the beef standards, AMS utilizes the procedures it published in the August 13, 1997, Federal Register, and that appear in 7 CFR part 36.

    Background

    The beef standards and associated voluntary, fee-for-service beef grading service program are authorized under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended. The primary purpose of official USDA grade standards is to divide the population of a commodity into uniform groups (of similar quality, yield, value, etc.) to facilitate marketing. The USDA's voluntary, fee-for-service grading programs are designed to provide an independent, objective determination as to whether a given product is in conformance with the applicable official standard. When beef is voluntarily graded to the beef standards under the grading service, the official grade consists of a quality grade and/or a yield grade.

    The quality grades are intended to identify differences in the palatability or eating satisfaction of cooked beef principally through the characteristics of marbling and physiological maturity groupings. As noted in the standards referenced above, the principal official USDA quality grades for young (maturity groups “A” and “B”) cattle and carcasses are Prime, Choice, and Select, in descending order in terms of historic market value. USDA recognizes that the beef standards must be relevant in order to be of greatest value to stakeholders and, therefore, recommendations for changes in the standards may be initiated by USDA or by interested parties at any time to achieve that goal.

    For beef, USDA quality grades provide a simple, effective means of describing product that is easily understood by both buyers and sellers. By identifying separate and distinct segments of beef, grades enable buyers to obtain the particular kind of beef that meets their individual needs. For example, certain restaurants may choose to only sell officially graded USDA Prime beef so as to provide their customers with a product that meets a very consistent level of overall palatability. At the same time, grades are important in transmitting information to cattle producers to help ensure informed production, feeding, and marketing decisions are made. For example, the market preference and price paid for a particular grade of beef is communicated to cattle producers so they can adjust their production accordingly. In such a case, if the price premium being paid for a grade, such as USDA Prime beef, merits producers making the investments required in cattle genetics and feeding to produce more USDA Prime beef, such marketing decisions can be made with justification.

    Current Process for Determining Maturity

    Since its inclusion in the beef standards, physiological maturity based on skeletal and muscular evidence has been the means for establishing age of animals in both marketing standards and in research. USDA graders examine signs of physiological maturity (e.g., size, shape, and ossification of the bones and cartilages—especially the split chine bones—and color, texture, and firmness of the lean flesh) in order to assign a maturity grouping. Although never intended to be a definitive method to determine the chronological age of cattle at the time of slaughter and instead utilized to predict beef palatability, the maturity groupings have historically been roughly correlated to different age ranges and categories: Maturity grouping A was correlated with beef from cattle between 9 and 30 months of age (MOA) at time of slaughter, maturity grouping B was correlated with beef from cattle between 30 and 42 MOA at time of slaughter, maturity grouping C was correlated with beef from cattle between 42 and 72 MOA at time of slaughter, maturity grouping D was correlated with beef from cattle between 72 and 96 MOA at time of slaughter, and maturity grouping E was correlated with beef from cattle more than 96 MOA at time of slaughter. However, these are rough approximations that are influenced by other factors including sex, nutrition, growth promotant administration, reproductive status, breed, and a variety of other environmental factors. Therefore, cattle that are younger than 30 MOA may have a physiological maturity grouping of B or greater due to the factors listed above.

    Generally, A-maturity carcasses are eligible for Prime, Choice, Select, and Standard quality grades; B-maturity carcasses are eligible for Prime, Choice, or Standard; and C-, D-, or E-maturity carcasses are eligible for Commercial, Utility, Cutter, or Canner. In most fed beef plants, carcasses that fit the C-, D-, or E-maturity categories (often referred to as “hard bones”) are not presented for USDA grading.

    The beef standards have had past revisions made to the maturity grouping requirements, and these revisions resulted in classifications that were designed to reduce the variability of eating quality within the grades. The most recent such change occurred in 1997 when certain carcasses from the B-maturity grouping were no longer eligible for the USDA Select quality grade. The official standards have never relied upon any other indicator besides physiological maturity to determine maturity grouping or the resulting USDA quality grade. This was primarily because the use of physiological maturity was not intended to be used to predict the age of an animal at time of slaughter but rather the resulting palatability of the meat.

    Many years of research have demonstrated a correlation between physiological maturity and beef palatability, and the factors affecting the physiological maturity of a beef animal are numerous. It is well-documented that elevated levels of estrogen, found in heifers and heiferettes (females that have calved once), result in advanced skeletal ossification. Estrogen is also higher in those animals being administered growth implants containing estrogen and estrogen-like compounds and possibly those animals fed and exposed to naturally occurring estrogens in their diet. Animals having an elevated exposure to estrogen are much more likely to result in B- or C-maturity carcasses, and this advanced skeletal maturity is more prevalent the closer the animal is to 30 MOA.

    The scientific literature also indicates that the meat in younger cattle contains immature and soluble collagen that when cooked does not negatively impact the tenderness of the product. As an animal matures, the collagen will become more mature and have more thermally stable cross-links, resulting in a tougher product. However, when grain-finished cattle are evaluated at various ages (12 to 35 months) and skeletal maturities (A to C), the resulting differences in tenderness are minimal. Scientific studies support this phenomenon, explained by the faster turnover of both the muscle fibers and the connective tissue within the animal due to faster growth and higher concentrate diets. An overview of many of these factors is discussed by Tatum, 2011.1

    1 J.D. Tatum, 2011. Animal Age, physiological maturity, and associated effects on beef tenderness. White Paper funded by the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board.

    Dentition

    Although not used as part of the voluntary grading process, dentition has been used in the U.S. since 2004 by the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) in all federally inspected plants to determine whether an animal is less than or older than 30 MOA. FSIS Directive 6100.4 explains that “[i]nspection program personnel are to consider cattle to be 30 months and older when the examination of the dentition of the animal shows that at least one of the second set of permanent incisors (I2) has erupted above the gum line.” Cattle older than 30 MOA must have certain specified risk materials, such as the vertebral column, removed from their carcasses before the sale of the resulting beef cuts. In addition to the visual inspection of permanent incisors, FSIS personnel will accept documentation showing the actual age of the animal. Age verification involves providing the proper paperwork or other proof of an animal's actual age (e.g., less than 30 MOA) and is also used for a variety of purposes, including meeting foreign market requirements for U.S. beef from cattle under a certain age.

    Current research has indicated that carcasses from grain-fed steers and heifers that are identified as less than 30 MOA based on dentition are similar in palatability to A-maturity carcasses determined via physiological maturity and thus could be classified A-maturity for grading purposes even though the physiological maturity characteristics of B- or older maturity groupings may be present. When comparisons involve grain-finished steers and heifers that are less than 30 MOA, the age of the animal has been shown to have little effect on beef tenderness. In addition, numerous studies have evaluated the relationship between the skeletal maturity of an animal and its dentition pattern. In two experiments, described by Lawrence et al., 2001, 1,464 cattle were evaluated for physiological maturity and dentition characteristics.2 These studies showed that 97.5 percent of cattle with 2 permanent incisors (the cutoff point for less than 30 MOA) were classified as A-maturity carcasses. In that study, the authors suggest that dentition is a more accurate determinant of carcass maturity, although they have no evidence that dentition is better able to predict palatability. This is supported by other research showing that dentition is more closely related to actual chronological age than is physiological maturity.

    2 Lawrence, T.E., J.D. Whatley, T.H. Montgomery and L.J. Perino. 2001. A comparison of the USDA ossification based maturity system to a system based on dentition. Journal of Animal Science, 79:1683-1690.

    Two recent studies funded by the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board evaluated the relationship between eating quality and the skeletal maturity of carcasses that were classified by dentition as either less than 30 MOA or greater than 30 MOA. The first study 3 (Acheson et. al., 2014) sampled 450 grain-finished steer and heifer carcasses classified as less than 30 MOA through dentition, with varying skeletal maturity and marbling scores. Trained sensory panels and slice shear force (SSF) testing were conducted and neither analysis determined a difference between steaks from the A-maturity versus the B- through C-maturity carcasses. Marbling categories were effective in stratifying carcasses according to differences in tenderness and juiciness. Results from that study suggest A-C-maturity carcasses have similar sensory and SSF scores when they originate from grain-finished cattle classified as less than 30 MOA by dentition.

    3 Acheson, R.J., Woerner, D.R., and Tatum, J.D. 2014. Effects of USDA carcass maturity on sensory attributes of beef produced by grain-finished steers and heifers classified as less than 30 months old using dentition. Journal of Animal Science, 92:1792-1799.

    The second study 4 (Semler et. al., 2016) evaluated the tenderness of steaks from 600 steer and heifer carcasses that varied in marbling, skeletal maturity, and age by dentition. Tenderness was also evaluated by trained sensory panels and SSF testing. The results were consistent with those from the first study and showed that the tenderness between USDA maturity classifications (A versus B-D) was not different within dental age (less than 30 MOA or greater than 30 MOA). Steaks from carcasses greater than 30 MOA did have more intense grassy and bloody/serum flavors and decreased tenderness within the slight degree of marbling group. As in the first study, the degree of marbling was effective in stratifying carcasses according to differences in tenderness and juiciness.

    4 Semler, M.L, D.R. Woerner, K.E. Belk, K.J. Enns, and J.D. Tatum. 2016. Journal of Animal Science, 94:2207-2217. Effects of United States Department of Agriculture carcass maturity on sensory attributes of steaks produced by cattle representing two dental age classes.

    Request for a Change to the Beef Standards

    On April 13, 2016, representatives from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the U.S. Meat Export Federation, and the American Farm Bureau Federation petitioned USDA to amend the beef standards. The petition to amend the beef standards (the petition) seeks to amend them by allowing age verification or dentition-based assessment to determine carcass maturity in fed steers and heifers. Both the petition and associated research are available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/beef-request-for-comments.

    In consideration of the body of research, the petition requested that USDA revise the beef standards by adding the following language to section 54.104(k) of the beef standards that describes the skeletal maturity:

    Carcasses of grain-fed steers and heifers determined to be less than 30 months old either by dentition (assessed at the time of slaughter under the supervision of USDA-FSIS) or by documentation of actual age (verified through a USDA Process Verified Program or USDA Quality System Assessment) are included in the youngest maturity group for carcasses recognized as “beef” (A and B maturity) regardless of skeletal evidences of maturity.

    The petition stated that approximately 7.2 percent of cattle classified as less than 30 months of age exhibit premature skeletal ossification, and so rather than qualifying as A-maturity (the youngest maturity classification in the beef standards), they qualify as B-maturity or older and are subject to discounts that reduce the overall value of the carcass.

    AMS was also provided a large data set from a recent study of beef packing plant slaughter and performed a statistical and economic analysis on the data to determine the possible impact should the proposed change to the beef standards be adopted. The results of this review were published in a May 19, 2016, document, “Economic Assessment of the Request to Modernize the U.S. Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef”, and is available at the aforementioned Web site. The study period ranged from the beginning of May 2014 through the end of April 2015. Extrapolating the study data across the total population of cattle graded each year by AMS—approximately 21 million—resulted in the following:

    • Seventy-two percent were slaughtered in facilities participating in the study;

    • Ninety-seven percent were found to be less than 30 MOA using dentition;

    • Less than 3 percent (2.8) were found to be equal to or greater than 30 MOA;

    • Less than 2 percent (1.68) were deemed to be age-discounted when using skeletal ossification as the measure of maturity grouping; and

    • Less than one-half of 1 percent of the total cattle graded were age-verified.

    According to the study, had there been an allowance to use dentition as a means to override physiological characteristics of advanced maturity grouping, as was proposed, roughly an additional 1 percent of those cattle would have been eligible for grading. Of these cattle, 4.5 percent would have been graded Prime, 63.6 percent Choice, and 31.9 percent Select. Within the Choice category, 24.4 percent of all newly graded carcasses would have been placed in the top two-thirds Choice category (branded Choice programs), and 39.2 percent of all added carcasses would have been placed in the bottom of the Choice category. In addition, lean and skeletal maturity requirements are referenced throughout many of the current USDA Certified Beef Programs and the General Schedules. Upon request, USDA provides certification of meat carcasses for a number of marketing programs that make claims concerning breed and carcass characteristics. If the proposed changes to the beef standards are made, users of these certified programs should evaluate their specifications closely and recommend any needed changes to USDA.

    The grade composition of the carcasses being added by using dentition as a measure of age was not much different than the grade composition of carcasses graded using physiological maturity, and overall, these data show an increase of 1.05 percent for Prime beef, 0.91 percent for Choice, and 1.29 percent for Select. According to calculations made from wholesale beef elasticity, wholesale beef prices could decline between 1 to 1.5 percent for each of the grade categories as a result of the increased supply of graded beef. Using this data, AMS found a net gain to producers of nearly $55 million, primarily due to reduced hard bone discounts for quality grade maturity grouping done by the current physiological maturity approach alone.

    Previous Solicitation for Comments

    This information was published by USDA in a Notice in the Federal Register (81 FR 57877) on August 24, 2016, which sought public comment on whether or not to amend the beef standards. AMS received 236 total comments. Of those comments, 179 commenters favored revising the beef standards to include dentition and documented age as additional methods for maturity classification. There were 53 commenters who did not support making the changes. Two comments were submitted in duplicate and one comment was submitted in triplicate; each of these respective submissions was counted only once. It is noteworthy that 160 of the 179 favorable comments were the same form letter and were from producers. Comments can be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=AMS-LPS-16-0060-0001.

    The vast majority of comments were received from the producer segment of the industry. Commenters who supported the changes cited an anticipated increase in the number of carcasses that would qualify for USDA grades of Prime, Choice, and Select without a significant reduction in palatability for those grades; the anticipated profitability producers would gain by having carcasses grade or grade higher; and support for the science-based Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board-funded research. Many agricultural associations, which represent a majority of cattle producers, provided favorable comments in support of the changes. In addition, most major packing companies provided positive comments in support of the changes. The potential increase in Prime and Choice carcasses, along with premiums to the producers, were the primary factors cited for their support.

    Commenters opposed to changing the beef standard identified various issues of concern, and these are further discussed below. Although there were 53 individual comments that did not support a revision to the beef standards, many responses raised multiple issues. Therefore, as we examine each category of concern, the total figures mentioned will exceed a sum of 53. Seventeen commenters believed the populations in the referenced studies were too small. In response, AMS has determined that all studies referenced herein—including those that found that carcasses exhibiting advanced skeletal maturity when determined by dentition to be under 30 MOA produced meat that was as palatable in taste tests as meat produced from carcasses that did not exhibit signs of advanced skeletal maturity—were peer-reviewed and adequately designed to answer the study objectives and hypotheses. Statistical significance and statistical power of the test will in fact increase with an increased sample size, in small increments, but add significant costs.

    There were 24 commenters who questioned the value of dentition in predicting age, and 1 commenter pointed out that the beef standards are not designed to predict age, but instead palatability. In response, AMS notes that recent research suggests that dentition is a more accurate determinant of carcass maturity and is more closely related to actual chronological age than is USDA physiological maturity. As briefly discussed above, studies by Lawrence showed that 97.5 percent of cattle with 2 permanent incisors (the cutoff point for less than 30 MOA) were classified as A-maturity carcasses.

    One commenter suggested that a change to the beef standards was not warranted given the relatively small percentage of cattle (and subsequent carcasses) affected by the change. While the economic study performed by USDA shows an approximate potential increase of 1 percent in the Choice and Prime categories, AMS believes this is a significant value proposition for both the beef production and processing sectors. USDA is not proposing this change because of the number of cattle that will be affected or the economic benefit. Instead, USDA is proposing to revise the beef standards because current scientific research has presented another acceptable means for determining the maturity of a beef carcass.

    Thirteen commenters expressed concern about the dentition process overseen by FSIS and the perceived lack of training for the employees responsible for this procedure. FSIS has clear guidelines and procedures for the evaluation of dentition on cattle, and this procedure has been ongoing for many years with little to no concerns being raised by domestic or international users of U.S. beef products. Several of these commenters also suggested that, while they believe FSIS is properly overseeing the dentition process through trained plant personnel, they believe AMS must have involvement in the process if that dentition determination will ultimately become a factor in the application of a voluntary USDA grade. In response to this concern, AMS would require that plants provide their procedures for marking and identification of cattle greater than 30 MOA. AMS would also verify these procedures are being adhered to through a Quality Systems Assessment audit or other means. AMS is also proposing a procedure and change to the standard that would allow the AMS grader to refrain from grading an under-30-MOA carcass that exhibits advanced skeletal maturity (e.g., D- and E-skeletal maturity). While this may occur infrequently, providing a procedure for AMS graders to evaluate advanced skeletal carcasses that are identified as under 30 MOA protects the grading system and ensures that carcasses exhibiting advanced skeletal maturity never qualify for Prime, Choice, Select, or Standard.

    Twenty commenters suggested that these changes would cheapen U.S. beef. It is important to note that the majority of grain-finished cattle are harvested at 12 to 24 MOA and usually produce A-maturity beef. In other words, the vast majority of cattle offered for grading will not be affected at all by this proposed change. That said, a percentage of carcasses that today are evaluated as B- or C-maturity but are produced from cattle under 30 MOA would be eligible for grading under the proposed system. Based on AMS's estimates outlined in “Economic Assessment of the Request to Modernize the U.S. Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef,” roughly an additional 1 percent of cattle would be eligible for grading. The research outlined here does not show any trends towards an inferior product being produced if dentition is implemented.

    Lastly, 15 commenters raised concerns over how the proposed changes would be implemented and differ from current practices. Implementing the use of dentition in plants for the determination of beef quality grades would require minimal changes to an AMS grader's day-to-day activities. There may be plant-specific requirements and changes needed regarding the identification procedures for carcasses less than 30 MOA and greater than 30 MOA, but these procedures are currently being carried out in-plant. Carcasses deemed less than 30 MOA would be sorted and the grader would then perform his or her normal marbling assessment to apply the final quality grade. Consistent with the current practices, any carcasses deemed greater than 30 MOA would be marked by the plant and graded by an AMS grader using skeletal and lean characteristics to determine maturity and then marbling.

    Summary of Proposed Changes to the Beef Standards

    In consideration of the approximately three-fourths of commenters who supported revising the beef standards, as well as the research supporting their modernization, USDA is issuing this Notice outlining proposed changes. These changes would allow dentition and documentation of actual age to be used to classify beef carcasses as A-maturity and determine eligibility for all quality grade classifications, with the exception of those carcasses exhibiting advanced skeletal maturity traits (as described for D- and E-maturity).

    USDA proposes to provide additional oversight of the dentition process used to classify carcasses as either less than 30 MOA or greater than 30 MOA. FSIS approves plant personnel to examine the dentition and FSIS inspectors to monitor the process to ensure carcasses greater than 30 MOA have been correctly identified. However, because this process would now be instrumental to the subsequent application of a USDA quality grade, AMS personnel must have knowledge of the process including marking and identification techniques for cattle greater than 30 MOA. AMS would review this process on a regular basis through an existing Quality System Assessment audit or other means. In many beef packing plants, AMS already reviews the dentition process as part of an export verification audit and the applicant makes these procedures available to the USDA grader.

    USDA proposes to allow carcasses identified as less than 30 MOA through dentition or actual documented age (through an approved USDA Process Verified Program or Quality System Assessment Program) to qualify for the USDA Prime, Choice, Select and Standard grades, regardless of skeletal and lean characteristics. This proposal means that for carcasses deemed less than 30 MOA, the amount and distribution of marbling will become the primary characteristics for determining the final USDA quality grade. Carcasses identified as greater than 30 MOA through dentition are eligible for all USDA grades, with application of skeletal and lean characteristics factored in the determination, as currently described in the beef standards.

    USDA is not proposing any changes to the requirements for carcasses exhibiting dark cutting lean, regardless of age verification method. Carcasses exhibiting dark cutting lean will be graded as currently described in the beef standards.

    Proposed amendments to the beef standards are described below:

    United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef 54.104—Application of Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef

    1. Amend 54.104 by revising paragraph (k) to read as follows:

    (k) For steer, heifer, and cow beef, quality of the lean is evaluated by considering its marbling, color, and firmness as observed in a cut surface, in relation to carcass evidences of maturity. The maturity of the carcass is determined through one of three methods:

    (1) Dentition as monitored by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). Carcasses determined to be less than 30 months of age (MOA) will be classified as A-maturity, and with the exception of dark cutting lean characteristics, the final quality grade will be determined by the degree of marbling. Any carcasses under 30 MOA exhibiting advanced skeletal maturity traits (as described for D- and E-maturity) will not be eligible for the Prime, Choice, Select, or Standard grades and will be graded according to their skeletal, lean, and marbling traits accordingly;

    (2) Documentation of age as verified through USDA-approved programs and by FSIS at the slaughter facility. Carcasses determined to be less than 30 MOA by age verification will be classified as A-maturity and, with the exception of dark cutting lean characteristics, the final quality grade will be determined by the degree of marbling. Any carcasses under 30 MOA exhibiting advanced skeletal maturity traits (as described for D- and E-maturity) will not be eligible for the Prime, Choice, Select, or Standard grades and will be graded according to their skeletal, lean, and marbling traits accordingly; or

    (3) Through evaluation of the size, shape, and ossification of the bones and cartilages, especially the split chine bones, and the color and texture of the lean flesh. Carcasses determined to be greater than 30 MOA will be eligible for all quality grade classifications with the final quality grade being determined by the evaluation of the degree of marbling and any adjustment factors based on advanced skeletal maturity characteristics. In the split chine bones, ossification changes occur at an earlier stage of maturity in the posterior portion of the vertebral column (sacral vertebrae) and at progressively later stages of maturity in the lumbar and thoracic vertebrae. The ossification changes that occur in the cartilages on the ends of the split thoracic vertebrae are especially useful in evaluating maturity and these vertebrae are referred to frequently in the standards. Unless otherwise specified in the standards, whenever reference is made to the ossification of cartilages on the thoracic vertebrae, this shall be construed to refer to the cartilages attached to the thoracic vertebrae at the posterior end of the forequarter. The size and shape of the rib bones are also important considerations in evaluating differences in maturity. In the very youngest carcasses considered as “beef,” the cartilages on the ends of the chine bones show no ossification, cartilage is evident on all of the vertebrae of the spinal column, and the sacral vertebrae show distinct separation. In addition, the split vertebrae usually are soft and porous and very red in color. In such carcasses, the rib bones have only a slight tendency toward flatness. In progressively more mature carcasses, ossification changes become evident first in the bones and cartilages of the sacral vertebrae, then in the lumbar vertebrae, and still later in the thoracic vertebrae. In beef that is very advanced in maturity, all the split vertebrae will be devoid of red color and very hard and flinty, and the cartilages on the ends of all the vertebrae will be entirely ossified. Likewise, with advancing maturity, the rib bones will become progressively wider and flatter, which is shown in very mature beef whose ribs will be very wide and flat.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.

    Dated: June 14, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12647 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2012-0076] Plants for Planting Whose Importation Is Not Authorized Pending Pest Risk Analysis; Notice of Addition of Taxa of Plants for Planting to List of Taxa Whose Importation Is Not Authorized Pending Pest Risk Analysis AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    We are advising the public that we are adding 22 taxa of plants for planting that are quarantine pests and 34 taxa of plants for planting that are hosts of 8 quarantine pests to our lists of taxa of plants for planting whose importation is not authorized pending pest risk analysis. A previous notice made datasheets that detailed the scientific evidence we evaluated in making the determination that the taxa are quarantine pests or hosts of quarantine pests available to the public for review and comment. This notice responds to the comments we received and makes available final versions of the datasheets, with changes in response to comments.

    DATES:

    Effective June 19, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Indira Singh, Botanist, Plants for Planting Policy, IRM, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-2020 or Ms. Lydia Colon, Senior Regulatory Specialist, Plants for Planting Policy, IRM, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-2302.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Under the regulations in “Subpart—Plants for Planting” (7 CFR 319.37 through 319.37-14, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits or restricts the importation of plants for planting (including living plants, plant parts, seeds, and plant cuttings) to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States. Quarantine pest is defined in § 319.37-1 as a plant pest or noxious weed that is of potential economic importance to the United States and not yet present in the United States, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled.

    The regulations in § 319.37-2a provide for the listing of plants for planting whose importation is not authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) in order to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States. Those regulations establish two lists of taxa whose importation is NAPPRA: A list of taxa of plants for planting that are quarantine pests, and a list of taxa of plants for planting that are hosts of quarantine pests. For taxa of plants for planting that have been determined to be quarantine pests, the list includes the names of the taxa, which will be NAPPRA from all countries and regions. For taxa of plants for planting that are hosts of quarantine pests, the list includes the names of the taxa, the foreign places from which the taxa's importation is not authorized, and the quarantine pests of concern.

    Paragraph (b) of § 319.37-2a describes the process for adding taxa to the NAPPRA lists. In accordance with that process, we published a notice 1 in the Federal Register on May 6, 2013 (78 FR 26316-26317, Docket No. APHIS-2012-0076) that announced our determination that 22 taxa of plants for planting are quarantine pests and 37 taxa of plants for planting are hosts of 9 quarantine pests. That notice also made available datasheets that detail the scientific evidence we evaluated in making the determination that the taxa are quarantine pests or hosts of a quarantine pest.

    1 To view the notice, the datasheets, and the comments we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0076.

    We solicited comments concerning the notice and the datasheets for 60 days ending July 5, 2013. We reopened and extended the deadline for comments until August 12, 2013, in a document published in the Federal Register on July 12, 2013 (78 FR 41908). We received 26 comments by that date. They were from producers, importers, industry groups, representatives of State and foreign governments, and private citizens. They are discussed below by topic.

    General Comments Sound Science

    One commenter expressed concern regarding the quality of scientific literature used to justify the listing of taxa to the NAPPRA category, citing a perceived lack of original evidence and data. The commenter further stated that the Center for Plant Health Science Technology (CPHST) of APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) program must be involved in literature reviews and the process to remove taxa from the NAPPRA list.

    The literature searches used to develop the NAPPRA datasheets are designed to determine whether the pest of concern qualifies as a quarantine pest, that damage to U.S. agriculture and/or the environment is likely from introduction of the quarantine pest, and that the hosts of the listed quarantine pest are natural hosts and not artificially or laboratory induced. The types of references used were defined in the original NAPPRA rule, and included such review articles as those produced by the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization and the Weed Science Society of America, both well-respected pest description and management organizations. Review articles provide stakeholders with information to determine the damage potential of the pest, nomenclature, and its quarantine status. These reviews provide references to scientific articles used to justify a taxon's inclusion on the NAPPRA list. All datasheets for NAPPRA listing are reviewed by qualified PPQ staff, including CPHST staff. CPHST staff have also been involved in the review of NAPPRA datasheets and will be involved in the event of removal of plant taxa from the NAPPRA category. Within CPHST, the science and technology division is responsible for conducting pest risk assessments (PRA). The purpose of the PRA is to determine the risk of quarantine pests following the pathway and to develop appropriate phytosanitary measures that reduce the pest risk to an acceptable level.

    Harmonization With Canada

    Several commenters stated that the United States should seek greater harmonization with Canada in terms of regulated taxa and countries of origin for regulated taxa. One commenter stated this is especially important due to the possibility of transshipment when a taxon is prohibited from all places except Canada.

    To the greatest extent possible, we are working towards harmonizing our NAPPRA listings with those of Canada. For example, APHIS exempts particular plant taxa from Canada from NAPPRA if Canada is free of the quarantine pest for which the plants are hosts and when Canada's import regulations are harmonized with those of the United States or when Canada has significant trade history with the United States in a particular taxa. However, some differences will probably always exist due to differences in national priorities and acceptable levels of protection with respect to certain pests. While transshipment remains a concern when an exporter is not truthful about the origin of the plant material being moved, third country plants that have entered Canada that are on the NAPPRA list of the United States are prohibited from ever being exported to the United States and vice versa. APHIS relies on the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Canada as well as other NPPOs to prevent unauthorized transshipments just as we rely on exporters to truthfully state the origin of shipments.

    One commenter stated that, for many of the taxa listed in the May 2013 notice, the taxa originate in the United States and are grown in Canada. Therefore, the commenter stated that these plants should be eligible for re-export to the United States without the burden of a required PRA.

    While taxa may have been exported only from the United States, there is the possibility that they may have been exposed to pests of concern by being commingled with other taxa of either Canadian origin or third country origin that have NAPPRA status for the United States. Therefore, we believe a PRA is necessary for such taxa before being re-exported to the United States.

    Federal Orders

    One commenter stated that a Federal order should not be used to list taxa on the NAPPRA list without first conducting a formal PRA.

    When we find evidence that the importation of a taxon of plants for planting that is currently being imported poses a risk of introducing a quarantine pest, we restrict or prohibit its importation through the issuance of a Federal import quarantine order, also referred to as a Federal order. The information and restrictions in the Federal order for plants for planting are based on a technical evaluation document that contains the same information found in the NAPPRA datasheet. The Federal order is used to rapidly take action to prevent the introduction of a quarantine pest, and is generally followed by notice and an opportunity for public comment. If comments present information that leads us to determine that the importation of the taxon does not pose a risk of introducing a quarantine pest into the United States, APHIS will rescind the Federal order and not add the taxon to the NAPPRA list.

    Significant Trade

    Certain taxa that are hosts of quarantine pests are exempt from NAPPRA listing when there is “significant trade” between the exporting country and the United States. We defined significant trade as the importation of 10 or more plants of a taxon in each of the previous 3 fiscal years. However, one commenter suggested that, due to ebbs and flows in importation, significant trade should instead be defined as the importation of 10 or more plants for 3 of the last 5 or 10 years. The commenter also suggested that plant taxa imported under a current Departmental permit or a controlled import permit (CIP) be either exempt from NAPPRA listing or count toward the 10 or more threshold for determining significant trade.

    We are open to reconsidering how we define significant trade. However, if we were to consider the commenter's suggestion for redefining significant trade as the importation of 10 or more plants for 3 out of 5 years, we would most likely also consider raising the base number of plants from 10 to a higher level to differentiate trade from random imports. Imports under a Departmental permit or CIP are not counted toward the 10 or more threshold for determining significant trade because these imports are generally prohibited taxa and are not available for general import. While these imports are likely to continue, they must adhere to additional conditions or mitigations to reduce pest risk.

    One commenter stated that banning plants from a country with no scientific evidence that it harbors the quarantine pest of concern does not satisfy the APHIS requirement of “necessity” and that the datasheets used to place a taxon on the NAPPRA list must provide scientific evidence that the excluded countries are likely to harbor the pest. Several commenters stated that certain taxa from specific countries should be exempted from NAPPRA listing because the pest of concern is not present in that country and/or the host plant has not been a source of pest introductions. Some commenters requested that, if exemption could not be accomplished, a more thorough review of the literature used to justify listing the taxa be undertaken.

    Our policy in implementing the NAPPRA category is to prevent the importation of hosts from any country, regardless of current pest status, with the following exceptions: (1) Taxa of hosts of quarantine pests whose importation we proposed to allow to continue under a Federal order; (2) hosts of quarantine pests currently being imported from a country in which the pest is not present; and (3) taxa from countries with significant trade in those taxa with the United States. If a country has significant trade in a taxon that is a host of a quarantine pest, we undertake measures other than addition to the NAPPRA category to address the risk associated with that taxon when such measures are available. In general, it is appropriate to add hosts of quarantine pests from all countries to the NAPPRA category because pests can spread quickly from country to country through the movement of plants for planting, and the importation of plants for planting is a high-risk pathway for the introduction of quarantine pests. For taxa that have not previously been imported, we are following International Plant Protection Convention guidelines by requiring a PRA prior to the importation of a plant taxon from a new country or region. As mentioned previously, the datasheets used to justify adding a taxon to the NAPPRA category already include a literature review that establishes the scientific evidence that the taxon is either a quarantine pest or a host of a quarantine pest. The datasheets also take into account available import history as evidence of significant trade in the taxon between the exporting country and the United States in order to make NAPPRA policy decisions. A country may submit copies of issued phytosanitary certificates as evidence of significant import history to demonstrate that a pest of concern is not present in that country and/or a taxon has not been a source of pest introductions.

    Several commenters asked that certain taxa from specific countries be exempted from NAPPRA listing due to significant trade in those taxa between the exporting country and the United States or because the taxa are currently being imported under a Departmental permit or CIP.

    If sufficient data can be provided for APHIS to verify that significant trade exists, we will consider amending the datasheet and publishing a Federal Register notice indicating the host plant may be imported from a particular country without being subject to a PRA. For example, based on additional information presented after the publication of the NAPPRA final notice published on April 18, 2013, we have determined that the import history for Hibiscus spp. from Denmark meets the threshold for significant trade. Based on comments received on the May 2013 notice, we have determined that Annona, Camellia, Cercidiphyllum, and Pennisetum spp. from Canada also meet the threshold for significant trade. Therefore, we are exempting Hibiscus spp. from Denmark and Annona, Camellia, Cercidiphyllum, and Pennisetum spp. from Canada from NAPPRA listing. The importation of taxa under a Departmental permit or CIP is not considered to be trade because the taxa are not subject to the same restrictions as commercial shipments of taxa.

    One commenter stated that many of the listed taxa are produced under controlled conditions, including clean stock programs and rigorous phytosanitary conditions, and that it is in the interest of the producer/distributor to ensure that plants and seed are free of pests and diseases prior to export. Two commenters asked if there could be some way to continue shipments of host taxa with the added assurance of a survey or testing regime to determine freedom from specific quarantine pests.

    If an exporting country does not have enough of an import history with the United States to qualify for the significant trade exemption, they can request that a PRA be conducted that would identify possible pest and disease mitigations. Such mitigations may include clean stock programs or a rigorous surveillance regime.

    Removal of Taxa

    One commenter stated that data collection must be improved and that if a taxon is placed on the NAPPRA list as a result of faulty data, the error must be quickly and transparently corrected to prevent disruption to trade. The commenter further stated that a plant taxon must be removed from the NAPPRA category if a mitigation is presented that addresses the quarantine pest that justified the taxon's inclusion on the NAPPRA list. The commenter also asked for clarification on the process by which stakeholders may contact APHIS to remove a taxon erroneously added to the NAPPRA list.

    The identification of trade that was not recorded in our import databases is one of the purposes of publishing proposed NAPPRA candidates in the Federal Register for public comment. This information is utilized to make adjustments to host/country combinations placed on NAPPRA. If a taxon has been determined to have been added to the NAPPRA list erroneously, stakeholders may submit evidence in support of that conclusion during the NAPPRA notice's comment period. They may also submit that information to the program contact(s) listed in the Federal Register notice. As stated previously, a PRA may be conducted to identify possible pest and disease mitigations for a taxon that has been determined to be the host of a quarantine pest. Under these mitigations, a taxon may be imported into the United States.

    Precautionary Principle

    One commenter stated that APHIS should avoid the “precautionary principle,” which the commenter described as prohibiting the broad importation of taxa until proof of no or low risk is determined. The commenter cites the prohibition of all species of a plant genus when only a subset or a single species of that genus has been found to be associated with a pathogen.

    When a plant is added to the NAPPRA list, a datasheet is prepared containing scientific evidence that the plant is a host of a plant pest or pathogen of quarantine significance, or that the plant itself is a pest of quarantine significance. It has been APHIS' policy to regulate hosts of quarantine pests at the genus level for decades. When a new species is identified as a host, additional scientific studies will often identify other host species within that genus. Therefore, regulating all species within the genus is the preferred course of action until a PRA is conducted. As noted previously, we are not prohibiting the importation of taxa on the NAPPRA list indefinitely. NAPPRA listing only requires that a PRA be conducted to remove host plants from NAPPRA listing and to ensure that all quarantine pests that may follow that pathway are appropriately mitigated prior to importation.

    Partnership With Industry

    One commenter stated that APHIS must include industry in the NAPPRA process in order for the process to be successful. However, the commenter also stated that industry does not have the capacity to review the literature sources used to justify a taxon's inclusion on the NAPPRA list and should not be required to do so. One commenter stated that they would like the opportunity to work on joint pest risk assessments with APHIS to increase the ability to respond to pest threats.

    APHIS has always welcomed industry cooperation in its programs and would especially welcome the expertise, knowledge, and overseas experience of industry members in identifying quarantine pests, their distribution, natural hosts, and potential mitigations that would allow for the continued importation of hosts from established trading partners. APHIS does not require stakeholders to review literature sources. However, if contradictory scientific information is known but not considered in the data sheet, then this information should be presented as a public comment. If a stakeholder does not have access to the sources cited in the literature review, copies can be made available upon request. We release draft PRAs on the APHIS Web site for stakeholder consultation prior to their publication.

    Timeline of PRAs

    Two commenters expressed concern about the amount of time it takes to complete a PRA, stating that this results in taxa being prohibited unnecessarily and that APHIS should look for better and faster ways of conducting PRAs. One commenter stated that requiring a PRA is likely to be expensive to the exporting industry as well as causing a significant time delay.

    We strive to complete all PRAs in a timely manner. However, the length of time it takes to complete a PRA is dependent on several factors, some of which are not in APHIS' control:

    • The availability of data on the taxon;

    • The timeliness with which the foreign NPPO responds to our requests for information; and

    • The prioritization of APHIS' limited resources available for developing PRAs.

    If a foreign country wishes to be able to conduct trade in a taxon with the United States, we would expect that its NPPO would provide information to APHIS in a timely manner, thus helping to reduce the time necessary to complete the PRA and any expenses resulting from a delay. Industry could help foreign NPPOs by working with them to assemble and provide the necessary information. We do not anticipate that requiring a PRA would result in significant expense to the exporting industry, as we do not require the importer to pay money to complete a PRA. In addition, importers that have established a history of significant trade in a taxon will be able to continue importing that taxon without interruption.

    Plants for Planting Regulations Overhaul

    One commenter asked why we took public comment on the taxa listed in the May 2013 notice because these taxa will be included in a future comprehensive revision to the plants for planting regulations (§§ 319.37 through 319.37-14) where public comment will also be solicited.

    The revision to the plants for planting regulations is merely a restructuring of the current regulations by moving specific restrictions on the importation of taxa to the Plants for Planting Manual. It also adds a framework for integrated pest management measures. However, that revision does not change any specific restrictions on the movement of taxa on the NAPPRA list. Therefore, it is more appropriate to address public comments regarding the May 2013 NAPPRA notice in this document.

    Potential Economic Effects

    Several commenters expressed concern that the addition of taxa to the NAPPRA lists could have a negative impact on the U.S. industry by making it difficult to access new plant varieties.

    The fundamental underlying principle of NAPPRA is to safeguard U.S. agriculture with the least possible effect on trade. While there is the possibility that the addition of taxa to the NAPPRA lists may make it more difficult to access new plant varieties, the negative impact that it could have on U.S. industry is outweighed by the devastating effect the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States could have on U.S. agriculture. Taxa added to the NAPPRA list are only prohibited entry to the United States if they are determined to be quarantine pests or until a PRA is conducted that has identified appropriate mitigation measures to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests for which they are hosts. In addition, an importer may apply for a CIP to import small quantities of a prohibited or restricted taxon for developmental purposes.

    Specific Comments

    We made available datasheets detailing the scientific evidence we considered in making the determination that 22 taxa of plants for planting are quarantine pests and 37 are hosts of 9 quarantine pests. The comments are discussed below by taxon.

    Abies, Larix, Picea, and Pinus. One commenter asked why the importation of Abies, Larix, Picea, and Pinus is restricted only for those plants imported from Europe and Japan when these genera, which are hosts of Dendroctonus micans, are being imported from other countries where D. micans is known to occur.

    While the commenter is correct that Abies, Larix, Picea, and Pinus spp. were not included on the NAPPRA list in the May 2013 notice, this is because those genera were already prohibited entry in either the April 2013 NAPPRA notice or in previous rulemaking. The regulations currently prohibit the importation of Abies spp. from all countries except Canada, while Larix, Picea, and Pinus spp. were added to the NAPPRA list in the April 2013 NAPPRA notice. Therefore, it was not necessary to relist Abies, Larix, Picea, and Pinus spp. in the May 2013 NAPPRA notice.

    Callistephus. One commenter stated that chrysanthemum stem necrosis virus (CSNV) is not likely to enter the United States from Canada on Callistephus plants because Canada is free of the pathogen; imports of Callistephus plants to Canada are only from the United States, which is free of the pathogen; and propagation is via seed, which is not known to carry the pathogen.

    In the May 2013 NAPPRA notice, we added Callistephus, Chrysanthemum, and Eustoma spp. to the NAPPRA list because they have been proven to be hosts for CSNV. Due to additional information received since publication of the previous notice, we have decided to remove all three genera from the NAPPRA list while we conduct a commodity import evaluation document (CIED) for Chrysanthemum. We will address CSNV in that CIED and release the results of the analysis when it is complete.

    Camellia. One commenter stated that the pest datasheets supporting the listing of Camellia under NAPPRA are problematic because they base that rationale on one paper and a British PRA, both of which do not provide adequate scientific justification that Camellia is a host of Phytophthora kernoviae.

    The paper referred to by the commenter was written by Dr. Clive Brasier, a well-known and respected authority on the genus Phytophthora who also discovered and named the new taxon P. kernoviae. Based on this expertise, we consider this reference scientifically adequate. The datasheet does not cite the PRA mentioned by the commenter as a reference documenting Camellia as a host for P. kernoviae. Camellia is already listed as NAPPRA from all countries, except Canada, for citrus longhorned beetle (Anoplophora chinensis, CLB) and is also regulated for P. ramorum. Therefore, removing Camellia from the NAPPRA list as a host of P. kernoviae would not remove this taxon from the NAPPRA list.

    Cercidiphyllum. One commenter asked why importations of Cercidiphyllum from the Netherlands are not listed as NAPPRA. The commenter stated that Asian longhorned beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis, ALB) has been discovered there and that plants from the Netherlands are high risk due to that country's practices of importing large plants in soil and consolidating plants.

    Based upon significant import history, Cercidiphyllum from the Netherlands is excluded from the NAPPRA list. However, a Federal order published on May 9, 2013, and effective on May 20, 2013 (DA-2013-18) established mitigations for countries, including the Netherlands, where ALB and CLB are present. Cercidiphyllum from the Netherlands is enterable into the United States only under the conditions of the CLB/ALB Federal order.

    Chrysanthemum. Several commenters objected to the temporary hold on importations of Chrysanthemum plants for planting from all countries except Canada. In particular, the commenters objected to the hold on importations of Chrysanthemum from the Netherlands due to the presence in that country of CSNV. One commenter stated that a hold on imports of Chrysanthemum should not be applied to countries where the distribution of CSNV is unknown. Two commenters stated that the screening and certification process for CSNV in the Netherlands is sufficient to detect the pathogen and that CSNV has either not been found within mother plants from production areas within the country or that CSNV is not present within the European Union, of which the Netherlands is a part. Therefore, the commenters state that the risk of introducing CSNV to the United States via Chrysanthemum breeding stock from the Netherlands is minimal and that Chrysanthemum growers within the United States will be harmed by not having access to new cultivars. One commenter stated that free trade and competition will be harmed, leading to a monopoly that will eventually harm the flower industry.

    We agree with many of the commenters on the need to look at the Chrysanthemum regulations in general. As stated previously, we are therefore removing Chrysanthemum from the NAPPRA list and conducting a CIED for Chrysanthemum. CSNV disease will be addressed in that evaluation. We will release the results of that analysis when it is completed.

    On August 3, 2012, APHIS published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking 2 in the Federal Register to solicit public comment on whether and how we should amend our process for responding to domestic chrysanthemum white rust (CWR) outbreaks and the importation of plant material that is a host of CWR. One commenter stated that we should let this process continue before taking further regulatory action. The commenter also stated that, if this is not possible, the NAPPRA provisions should only be applied to chrysanthemum imports from Brazil, Iran, and Japan for the immediate future. The commenter further stated that excluding cut flowers from the NAPPRA restrictions is not based on sound science because cut flowers can also be hosts for CSNV.

    2http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0001.

    The CIED we are conducting for chrysanthemum will also address CWR.

    One commenter asked that the genus Chrysanthemum be included on the NAPPRA list and a PRA conducted to assess the risk of introducing CSNV on chrysanthemum cuttings.

    As mentioned above, we are removing Chrysanthemum from the NAPPRA list while we conduct a CIED. The CIED will address CSNV.

    One commenter asked that APHIS provide advance notice to industry when new regulations are approved in order to minimize trade disruptions for chrysanthemum growers.

    Any changes to our regulations regarding Chrysanthemum as a result of the CIED will be communicated to the industry prior to going into effect.

    Eucalyptus. One commenter asked that the ban on eucalyptus plants from Australia be lifted, but did not present any evidence for why the ban is unfounded.

    We are not making any changes based on this comment.

    Fagus and Ilex. In the datasheets accompanying the May 2013 NAPPRA notice, we inadvertently omitted the Netherlands from the list of countries authorized to export Fagus and Ilex species. Those omissions have been corrected.

    Hedera. One commenter asked for a more thorough review of the literature justifying the NAPPRA listing of the genus Hedera. The commenter stated that there appears to be no scientific justification for listing Hedera as a natural host of P. kernoviae other than a statement that stem necrosis has been observed. Two commenters stated that Hedera spp. have been imported from Denmark and the Netherlands without pest problems and that this should preclude NAPPRA listing of Hedera due to its presence in trade.

    We would be happy to review any additional literature sources or other scientific information presented by the commenters to support their objection to listing Hedera. However, Hedera was added to the NAPPRA list via the NAPPRA notice published in April 2013 and is currently regulated under NAPPRA as a host of CLB. It is only authorized for importation into the United States from certain countries. We inadvertently omitted one of those countries, Kenya, from the list of countries authorized for importation in the datasheets made available with the May 2013 NAPPRA notice. We are correcting that omission in this notice.

    Pennisetum. One commenter stated that exports of Pennisetum spp. from Canada should be exempt from NAPPRA restrictions for Indian peanut clump and peanut clump viruses because Canada is free from these pathogens of concern, all propagative material imported from Canada originates either in Canada or the United States, and there has been ongoing trade of Pennisetum spp. between the United States and Canada for several years.

    Based upon significant trade history documented by the NPPO of Canada since publication of the May 2013 NAPPRA notice, we have determined Pennisetum from Canada meets the threshold to be considered exempt from NAPPRA listing. As with Pennisetum, additional documentation from the NPPO of Canada has also confirmed significant trade history in Annona, Camellia, and Cercidiphyllum spp. between Canada and the United States. Therefore, these genera from Canada will also be exempt from NAPPRA listing.

    Vaccinium. Several commenters expressed concern regarding the addition of the genus Vaccinium to the NAPPRA list. One commenter stated that the NAPPRA listing of Vaccinium from all countries except Canada and Australia would create a competitive disadvantage for U.S. growers who would be unable to access the latest Vaccinium varieties. One commenter stated that, since Vaccinium spp. are already subject to a quarantine period of two growing seasons following importation, imports of Vaccinium spp. should only be excluded from countries where P. kernoviae is known to occur. The commenter requested that, if Vaccinium cannot be excluded from the NAPPRA listing, small quantities be allowed to be imported for evaluation and plant breeding purposes under a CIP stating the plants will be maintained under quarantine and tested for the presence of P. kernoviae in cooperation with USDA inspectors.

    Vaccinium spp. are not consistently being exported from any country except Canada and Australia. Therefore, we do not believe adding Vaccinium to the NAPPRA list for all countries except Canada and Australia would negatively impact U.S. growers. However, we are not indefinitely prohibiting Vaccinium spp. or any other host taxon from importation through NAPPRA. Host taxa (genus or species) listed as NAPPRA only require a PRA before trade in those taxa can be initiated to ensure that all quarantine pests of the host that may follow this pathway are appropriately mitigated. An importer may also apply for a CIP to import small quantities of a prohibited or restricted taxon for experimental or developmental purposes provided that adequate pest mitigation measures can be identified and implemented.

    Two commenters stated that APHIS should remove Vaccinium from the NAPPRA list as a host of P. kernoviae because the data sheet used to add Vaccinium to the NAPPRA list does not provide evidence that the entire genus is a host of the pathogen. The commenters stated that the pathogen justifying the prohibition of Vaccinium spp., P. kernoviae, has only been associated with a single Vaccinium species, V. myrtillus (bilberry), and that the pathogen has only been found in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and New Zealand. Therefore, only bilberry from those countries should be added to the NAPPRA list.

    As stated previously, APHIS' policy is to regulate hosts of quarantine pests at the genus level. This is because many pests or pathogens are not specific to one particular species within a taxon. When a new host species is identified as a host, additional scientific studies will often identify other host species within that genus. Therefore, regulating all species within the genus is the preferred course of action until a PRA is conducted. Only countries where significant trade with the United States in Vaccinium spp. has been established will be exempt from NAPPRA listing.

    Quarantine Pests

    One commenter asked for clarification of a statement made in the datasheet for Moniliophthora perniciosa that “geographical variations within the pathogen impact resistance.” The commenter asked whether this means there are geographical variations in the virulence of the pathogen.

    Evidence does seem to suggest that the pathogen may be more virulent in some regions than in others. A PRA conducted for a host taxon from a country where M. perniciosa is present would provide more information regarding virulence as well as any possible mitigations related to that information.

    One commenter stated that Monochamus alternatus is also present in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Taiwan, and Hong Kong and asked why host taxa from those countries, specifically Acer and Cryptomeria, were not included on the NAPPRA list.

    Acer is already listed on the NAPPRA list for all countries except Canada, the Netherlands, and New Zealand, and Cryptomeria is already listed on the NAPPRA list for all countries except Canada. These additions were made in the April 2013 NAPPRA notice.

    Phytophthora kernoviae. One commenter asked that exemption from NAPPRA listing be considered for tissue culture when testing is conducted that shows freedom from specific pests. The commenter cited a study suggesting that it is possible to test tissue cultures for the presence of P. kernoviae.

    While properly tissue-cultured plants are pest-free, plants that are infected with disease prior to tissue culture are likely to be infected when the plant comes out of tissue culture as well. Plants that are added to the NAPPRA list may be hosts of quarantine plant pests for which tissue culturing is not an adequate mitigation, or for which there may be special requirements for tissue culturing. In order to fully consider whether tissue culture is an adequate mitigation for all the pests associated with a taxon of plants for planting, we would need to conduct a PRA. Therefore, we cannot exempt the importation of tissue cultures of plant taxa listed as NAPPRA.

    One commenter stated that restricting the importation of host plant taxa based on the occurrence of P. kernoviae in only one location in England does not warrant restrictions on the importation of host taxa from all countries.

    As mentioned in the datasheet made available with the May 6, 2013, NAPPRA notice, P. kernoviae has been found in Ireland and New Zealand as well as in England. This may be evidence of the spread of the pest through the global movement of plants. This, coupled with the number of confirmed hosts and the lack of specific control measures available for the disease, led us to add host taxa from all countries without significant trade in those host taxa to the NAPPRA list. When requested, a PRA will help determine the risk of this pest on host material from a country without a history of significant trade.

    ALB and CLB

    Two commenters stated that host taxa of ALB and CLB should be exempted from NAPPRA listing when host plants and cuttings are less than 10 mm in diameter, a size that is not susceptible to ALB and CLB infestation. One commenter stated that this exemption should also apply to host plants and cuttings when imported from countries where ALB and CLB are not present.

    We have used the biology of the pest to institute sufficient phytosanitary measures to mitigate the risk for taxa that are being traded in significant amounts from countries where we have import history to determine the presence of other quarantine pests. We are not, however, exempting any plant material less than 10mm in diameter from an ALB or CLB host taxon from the NAPPRA category, as NAPPRA listing does not address mitigation measures for pests. In order to authorize the importation of plant material from a new source, we would need to conduct a PRA to analyze all the relevant risks associated with their importation. A PRA is required to determine all quarantine pests that would follow that host pathway and to determine appropriate phytosanitary measures, including size exemptions, for all pests of concern.

    Summary of Changes

    Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in § 319.37-2a(b)(2), we are adding 22 taxa of plants for planting that are quarantine pests and 34 taxa of plants for planting that are hosts of 8 quarantine pests to the list of taxa whose importation is NAPPRA. These taxa include all taxa listed in the May 2013 notice except for Callistephus, Chrysanthemum, and Eustoma spp., which we are removing from the NAPPRA list. A complete list of taxa added to the NAPPRA list and the restrictions placed on their importation can be found at the address in footnote 1 of this document or on the PPQ Web site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/plant_imports/Q37/nappra/index.shtml. We are also exempting Hibiscus spp. from Denmark and Annona, Camellia, Cercidiphyllum, and Pennisetum spp. from Canada from NAPPRA listing.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of June 2017. Michael C. Gregoire, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12646 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2017-0045] Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Johne's Disease in Domestic Animals AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with its efforts to control Johne's disease in the United States.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or August 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0045.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2017-0045, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0045 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on Johne's disease, contact Dr. Michael Carter, Assistant Director, Cattle Health Center, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 43, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-3510. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Johne's Disease in Domestic Animals.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0338.

    Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: Under the authority of the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture is authorized, among other things, to prohibit or restrict the importation and interstate movement of animals and animal products to prevent the introduction into and dissemination within the United States of livestock diseases and pests.

    Disease prevention is the most effective method for maintaining a healthy animal population and for enhancing APHIS' ability to compete in the world market of animal and animal product trade. Johne's disease affects cattle, sheep, goats, and other ruminants. It is an incurable and contagious disease that results in progressive wasting and eventual death. The disease is nearly always introduced into a healthy herd by an infected animal that is not showing symptoms of the disease.

    The regulations in 9 CFR part 80 pertain specifically to the interstate movement of domestic animals that are positive to an official test for Johne's disease. These regulations provide that cattle, sheep, goats, and other domestic animals that are positive to an official test for Johne's disease may generally be moved interstate only to a recognized slaughtering establishment or to an approved livestock facility for sale to such an establishment. However, they may also be moved for purposes other than slaughter under certain conditions. Moving Johne's-positive livestock interstate for slaughter or for other purposes without increasing the risk of disease spread requires a movement permit or an owner-shipper statement, official ear tags, and a permission to move request. Permission may also be sought, in writing, for movement of animals that do not have a permit, owner-shipper statement, or ear tags.

    To more accurately reflect the current activities, APHIS has revised the title of this information collection from “Voluntary Bovine Johne's Disease Control Program” to “Johne's Disease in Domestic Animals.”

    We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.69 hours per response.

    Respondents: Accredited veterinarians, herd owners, and livestock shippers.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 7.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 2.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 13.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 9 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of June 2017. Michael C. Gregoire, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12643 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2017-0008] Notice of Request for Reinstatement of an Information Collection; National Animal Health Monitoring System; Equine Herpesvirus Study AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Reinstatement of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request the reinstatement of an information collection for a National Animal Health Monitoring System Equine Herpesvirus Study to support the equine industry in the United States.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0008.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2017-0008, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0008 or in our reading room, which is located in Room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the Equine Herpesvirus Study, contact Mr. Bill Kelley, Supervisory Analyst, Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health, VS, APHIS, 2150 Centre Avenue, Building B MS 2E6, Fort Collins, CO 80526; (970) 494-7270. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: National Animal Health Monitoring System; Equine Herpesvirus Study.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0399.

    Type of Request: Reinstatement of an approved information collection.

    Abstract: Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is authorized, among other things, to protect the health of U.S. livestock and poultry populations by preventing the introduction and interstate spread of serious diseases and pests of livestock and for eradicating such diseases from the United States when feasible. In connection with this mission, APHIS operates the National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS), which collects nationally representative, statistically valid, and scientifically sound data on the prevalence and economic importance of livestock diseases and associated risk factors.

    NAHMS' epidemiologic investigations are a collaborative industry and government initiative to help determine the most effective means of preventing and controlling livestock disease outbreaks. APHIS is the only agency responsible for collecting data on livestock health. Participation in any NAHMS study is voluntary, and all data are confidential.

    APHIS conducts an equine herpesvirus myeloencephalopathy (EHM) study as part of an ongoing series of NAHMS studies on the U.S. livestock population. The purpose of this study is to collect information using questionnaires to identify risk factors for EHM, the neurologic form of equine herpesvirus (EHV-1) in horses. EHV-1 is an infection of horses that can cause respiratory disease, abortion in mares, neonatal foal death, and/or neurologic disease. The virus can spread through direct horse-to-horse contact, through the air in equine environments, and on contaminated equipment, clothing, and hands. EHM is endemic to the United States and outbreaks are usually handled by the States affected; USDA becomes involved in cases involving multiple States or interstate movement of horses.

    In person or by telephone interview, APHIS-designated data collectors will administer questionnaires to horse owners and trainers of horses infected with EHV-1 during outbreaks that include cases of EHM and horses that are noninfected to serve as case controls. The information collected is used to understand the risk factors for EHM, make recommendations for disease control, and provide guidance on the best ways to avoid future outbreaks based on a thorough analysis of the data.

    We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.79 hours per response.

    Respondents: Horse owners and horse trainers.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 626.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 1.57.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 982.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 778 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of June 2017. Michael C. Gregoire, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12644 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Commodity Credit Corporation Notice of Request for a Renewal of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY:

    Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Commodity Credit Corporation's (CCC) intention to request a revision for a currently approved information collection in support of the CCC Export Credit Guarantee (GSM-102) Program based on current program levels and participants.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by August 18, 2017 to be assured consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    We invite you to submit comments as requested in this document. In your comment, include the volume, date, and page number of this issue of the Federal Register. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail, hand delivery, or courier: Jonathan Doster, Branch Chief, Credit Program Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-1025, STOP 1025; or by email at [email protected]; or by telephone at (202) 720-2074.

    Comments will be available for inspection online at http://www.regulations.gov and at the mail address listed above between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays.

    Persons with disabilities who require an alternative means for communication of information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jonathan Doster, Branch Chief, Credit Program Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, AgStop 1025, Washington, DC 20250-1025, telephone (202) 720-2074.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: CCC Export Credit Guarantee (GSM-102) Program.

    OMB Number: 0551-0004.

    Expiration Date of Approval: November 30, 2017.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: The primary objective of the GSM-102 program is to expand U.S. agricultural exports by making available export credit guarantees to encourage U.S. private sector financing of foreign purchases of U.S. agricultural commodities on credit terms. The CCC currently has programs operating in at least 144 countries and regions with 167 exporters eligible to participate. Under 7 CFR part 1493, exporters, foreign banks, and U.S. banks are required to submit the following: (1) Information about the exporter, foreign banks, and U.S. banks for program participation; (2) applications for payment guarantees; (3) notices of assignment; (4) repurchase agreements; (5) information regarding the actual export of the commodity (evidence of export report); (6) notice of default and claims for loss; and (7) appeals. In addition, each exporter and exporter's assignee (U.S. financial institution) must maintain records on all information submitted to CCC and in connection with sales made under the GSM-102 program. The information collected is used by CCC to manage, plan, evaluate, and account for government resources. The reports and records are required to ensure the proper and judicious use of public funds.

    Estimate of Burden: The public reporting burden for these collections is estimated to average 0.38 hours per response.

    Respondents: U.S. exporters, U.S. financial institutions, and foreign financial institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 88 per annum.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 42.05 per annum.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden of Respondents: 1,423 hours.

    Request for Comments: Send comments regarding (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including validity of the methodology and assumption used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Connie Ehrhart, the Agency Information Collection Coordinator, at (202) 690-1690 or email at [email protected]

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: May 24, 2017. Holly Higgins, Acting Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service, and Acting Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12649 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Foreign Agricultural Service WTO Agricultural Quantity-Based Safeguard Trigger Levels AGENCY:

    Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

    ACTION:

    Notice of product coverage and trigger levels for safeguard measures provided for in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice lists the updated quantity-based trigger levels for products which may be subject to additional import duties under the safeguard provisions of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. This notice also includes the relevant period applicable for the trigger levels on each of the listed products.

    DATES:

    June 19, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Souleymane Diaby, Import Policies and Export Reporting Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 1020, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-1020; by telephone (202) 720-0638; or by fax (202) 720-0876; or by email to [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Article 5 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture provides that additional import duties may be imposed on imports of products subject to tariffication as a result of the Uruguay Round, if certain conditions are met. The agreement permits additional duties to be charged if the price of an individual shipment of imported products falls below the average price for similar goods imported during the years 1986-88 by a specified percentage. It also permits additional duties to be imposed if the volume of imports of an article exceeds the average of the most recent 3 years for which data are available by 5, 10, or 25 percent, depending on the article. These additional duties may not be imposed on quantities for which minimum or current access commitments were made during the Uruguay Round negotiations, and only one type of safeguard, price or quantity, may be applied at any given time to an article.

    Section 405 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act requires that the President cause to be published in the Federal Register information regarding the price and quantity safeguards, including the quantity trigger levels, which must be updated annually based upon import levels during the most recent 3 years. The President delegated this duty to the Secretary of Agriculture in Presidential Proclamation No. 6763, dated December 23, 1994, 60 FR 1005 (Jan. 4, 1995). The Secretary of Agriculture further delegated this duty, which lies with the Administrator of the Foreign Agricultural Service (7 CFR 2.43(a)(2)). The Annex to this notice contains the updated quantity trigger levels.

    Additional information on the products subject to safeguards and the additional duties which may apply can be found in subchapter IV of Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2017) and in the Secretary of Agriculture's Notice of Uruguay Round Agricultural Safeguard Trigger Levels, published in the Federal Register at 60 FR 427 (Jan. 4, 1995).

    Notice: As provided in Section 405 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, consistent with Article 5 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, the safeguard quantity trigger levels previously notified are superseded by the levels indicated in the Annex to this notice. The definitions of these products were provided in the Notice of Safeguard Action published in the Federal Register, at 60 FR 427 (Jan. 4, 1995).

    Issued at Washington, DC, on May 31, 2017. Holly Higgins Acting Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service. Annex Product Quantity-based safeguard trigger Trigger level Units Period Beef 331,166 MT January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Mutton 3,335 MT January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Cream 1,426,324 Liters January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Evaporated or Condensed Milk 2,228,725 Kilograms January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Nonfat Dry Milk 564,347 Kilograms January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Dried Whole Milk 4,493,172 Kilograms January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Dried Cream 8,319 Kilograms January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Dried Whey/Buttermilk 19,366 Kilograms January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Butter 22,242,567 Kilograms January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Butter Oil and Butter Substitutes 9,693,967 Kilograms January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Dairy Mixtures 26,136,023 Kilograms January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Blue Cheese 5,161,480 Kilograms January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Cheddar Cheese 15,484,227 Kilograms January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. American-Type Cheese 919,786 Kilograms January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Edam/Gouda Cheese 8,779,770 Kilograms January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Italian-Type Cheese 21,756,722 Kilograms January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Swiss Cheese with Eye Formation 30,109,746 Kilograms January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Gruyere Process Cheese 3,850,662 Kilograms January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. NSPF Cheese 58,444,719 Kilograms January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Lowfat Cheese 281,375 Kilograms January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Peanuts 13,106 MT April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017. 14,577 MT April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018. Peanut Butter/Paste 4,148 MT January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Raw Cane Sugar 617,282 MT October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017. 723,461 MT October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018. Refined Sugar and Syrups 355,264 MT October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017. 444,126 MT October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018. Blended Syrups 106 MT October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017. 233 MT October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018. Articles Over 65% Sugar 415 MT October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017. 451 MT October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018. Articles Over 10% Sugar 18,930 MT October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017. 15,540 MT October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018. Sweetened Cocoa Powder 72 MT October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017. 81 MT October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018. Chocolate Crumb 12,507,343 Kilograms January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Lowfat Chocolate Crumb 462,186 Kilograms January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Infant Formula Containing Oligosaccharides 618,873 Kilograms January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Mixes and Doughs 234 MT October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017. 234 MT October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018. Mixed Condiments and Seasonings 894 MT October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017. 692 MT October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018. Ice Cream 3,206,913 Liters January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Animal Feed Containing Milk 1,010,198 Kilograms January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Short Staple Cotton 1,363,307 Kilograms September 20, 2016 to September 19, 2017. 3,376,608 Kilograms September 20, 2017 to September 19, 2018. Harsh or Rough Cotton 13 Kilograms August 1, 2016 to July 31, 2017. 13 Kilograms August 1, 2017 to July 31, 2018. Medium Staple Cotton 0 Kilograms August 1, 2016 to July 31, 2017. 0 Kilograms August 1, 2017 to July 31, 2018. Extra Long Staple Cotton 1,270,096 Kilograms August 1, 2016 to July 31, 2017. 1,219,841 Kilograms August 1, 2017 to July 31, 2018. Cotton Waste 925,273 Kilograms September 20, 2016 to September 19, 2017. 1,232,012 Kilograms September 20, 2017 to September 19, 2018. Cotton, Processed, Not Spun 51 Kilograms September 11, 2016 to September 10, 2017. 23,004 Kilograms September 11, 2017 to September 10, 2018.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12648 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-41-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 283—West Tennessee Area; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; MTD Consumer Group Inc. (Landscaping Equipment and Off-Road Utility Vehicles); Martin, Tennessee

    MTD Consumer Group Inc. (MTD) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Martin, Tennessee. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on June 1, 2017.

    The applicant indicates that it will be submitting a separate application for FTZ designation at the MTD facility under FTZ 283. The facility is used for the production of power landscaping equipment and off-road utility vehicles. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt MTD from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status inputs noted below, MTD would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to: Blowers; snow thrower attachments; snow throwers; dozer blades; electric lawn mowers; riding lawn mowers; walk behind mowers; deck casters; electric deck lift systems; lawn mower seats; mower discharge restrictors; mower stripping kits; mowing decks; weight kits; chipper shredder vacuums; edgers; log splitters; off-road utility vehicle; utility vehicle doors; utility vehicle roof kits; utility vehicle wheels; utility vehicle rims; utility vehicle head rests; light kits; water pumps; power washers; tillers; de-thatchers; and, aerators (duty rates range from free to 6%). Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Plastic hoses; rubber hoses; rubber tires for lawn and garden equipment and all-terrain vehicles; rubber inner tubes; rubber o-rings; rubber oil seals; rubber water seals; steel hydraulic fittings; steel pipe fittings; steel banjo fittings; steel cables; steel bolts; steel screws; steel nuts; steel pins; steel springs; steel ferrules; gasoline engines; engine cylinders; exhaust pipes; hydraulic cylinders; hydraulic pumps; spacers; blower wheels; filter inlets; oil filters; fuel filters; air filters; jack stands; block joints; tiller wheels; tiller tines; tiller handles; axle pivots; ball joints; brake pedals; bumpers; gas cylinder dampers; gear housings; hubs; hub caps; mower axles; mower tie rods; pivot bars; pivot knuckles; steering arms; steering columns; steering housings; mechanical tubing; mower wheels; hitch coupling assemblies; log splitter cylinder mounts; log splitter stress plates; log splitter wedges; mechanical tubing; wheel spindles; log splitter wheels; hydraulic valves; ball bearings; shafts; steering rod ends; gearboxes; pulleys; gear housings; electric motors; steering assemblies; control panels; wiring harnesses; bumpers; seat belts; brake calipers; road wheels for lawn and garden equipment and utility vehicles; pivot knuckles; shock absorbers; ball joints; brake hoses; exhaust pipes; wheel hubs; and, indicator gauges (duty rates range from free to 9%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is July 31, 2017.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Diane Finver at [email protected] or (202) 482-1367.

    Dated: June 13, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12655 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-51-2017] Approval of Subzone Status; Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.; Inwood, New York

    On April 3, 2017, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the County of Orange, grantee of FTZ 37, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 37, on behalf of Expeditors International of Washington, Inc., in Inwood, New York.

    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (82 FR 16786, April 6, 2017). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 37E was approved on May 31, 2017, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 37's 2,000-acre activation limit.

    Dated: June 13, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12653 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-13-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 7—Mayaguez, Puerto Rico; Authorization of Production Activity; Romark Global Pharma, LLC; (Pharmaceuticals); Manatí, Puerto Rico

    On February 6, 2017, Romark Global Pharma, LLC, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 7P, in Manatí, Puerto Rico.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (82 FR 11895, February 27, 2017). On June 6, 2017, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.

    Dated: June 13, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12657 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-12-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 29—Louisville, Kentucky Authorization of Production Activity; Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc., (Automotive Fuel Injection Assemblies); Harrodsburg, Kentucky

    On February 6, 2017, The Louisville and Jefferson County Riverport Authority, grantee of FTZ 29, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc. (Hitachi), within Subzone 29F, in Harrodsburg, Kentucky.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (82 FR 11342, February 22, 2017). On June 5, 2017, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.

    Dated: June 13, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12654 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-9-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 8—Toledo, OH, Authorization of Production Activity, Whirlpool Corporation (Washing Machines), Clyde and Green Springs, OH

    On January 27, 2017, Whirlpool Corporation submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 8I, in Clyde and Green Springs, Ohio.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (82 FR 9559-9560, February 7, 2017). On May 30, 2017, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.

    Dated: June 13, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12659 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-38-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 68—El Paso, Texas; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; PGTEX USA, Inc.; (Fiber Glass Fabrics); El Paso, Texas

    PGTEX USA, Inc. (PGTEX) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in El Paso, Texas, within FTZ 68. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on May 19, 2017.

    The PGTEX already has authority to produce fiber glass fabrics within Site 3 of FTZ 68. The current request would add glass fiber rovings as an input to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status material described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt PGTEX from customs duty payments on the glass fiber rovings used in export production. The applicant indicates that the foreign-sourced glass fiber rovings (HTSUS 7019.12, duty rate 4.8%) will be admitted to the FTZ in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41), which would require payment of the original duty rate on the glass fiber rovings incorporated into a finished product on which entry from the FTZ was subsequently made. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is July 31, 2017.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Diane Finver at [email protected] or (202) 482-1367.

    Dated: June 13, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12656 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-010-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 177—Evansville, Indiana; Authorization of Production Activity; Toyota Motor Manufacturing Indiana, Inc.; (Automotive Vehicles and Sub-Assemblies Production); Princeton, Indiana

    On February 3, 2017, the Ports of Indiana, grantee of FTZ 177, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Toyota Motor Manufacturing Indiana, Inc., within Subzone 177B, in Princeton, Indiana.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (82 FR 11342, February 22, 2017). On June 2, 2017, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.

    Dated: June 13, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12658 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Notice on Procedures for Attending or Viewing Remotely the Public Hearing on Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Aluminum AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice on procedures for attending or viewing remotely the public hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    On May 9, 2017 (82 FR 21509), the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), published the Notice of Request for Public Comments and Public Hearing on Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Aluminum. The May 9 notice specified that the Secretary of Commerce initiated an investigation to determine the effects on the national security of imports of aluminum. This investigation has been initiated under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended. (See the May 9 notice for additional details on the investigation and the request for public comments.)

    The May 9 notice also announced that the Department of Commerce will hold a public hearing on the investigation on June 22, 2017 in Washington, DC. Today's notice provides additional details on the procedures for attending the hearing and for viewing the hearing, via webcast.

    DATES:

    The hearing will be held on June 22, 2017 at the U.S. Department of Commerce auditorium, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. The hearing will begin at 10:00 a.m. local time and conclude at 1:00 p.m. local time.

    In addition to the May 9 notice, on June 2, 2017 (82 FR 25597), BIS published the notice, Change in Comment Deadline for Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Aluminum. The June 2 notice moved the original deadline included in the May 9 notice for all written submissions up by six calendar days. Commenters now are encouraged to submit their comments by June 20, 2017, but all written submissions must be received no later than June 23, 2017 to be considered in the drafting of the final report. (See the June 2 notice for additional details on the change in comment deadline.)

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brad Botwin, Director, Industrial Studies, Office of Technology Evaluation, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce (202) 482-4060, [email protected] For more information about the section 232 program, including the regulations and the text of previous investigations, see www.bis.doc.gov/232.

    For questions regarding the June 22nd public hearing, including registration and foreign national visitor access, please contact [email protected] or (202) 705-9103.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On May 9, 2017 (82 FR 21509), the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published the Notice of Request for Public Comments and Public Hearing on Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Aluminum. The May 9 notice specified that on April 26, 2017, the Secretary of Commerce (“Secretary”) initiated an investigation under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1862), to determine the effects on the national security of imports of aluminum. (See the May 9 notice for additional details on the investigation and the request for public comments.)

    The May 9 notice also announced that the Department of Commerce will hold a public hearing on the investigation. The hearing will be held on June 22, 2017 at the U.S. Department of Commerce auditorium, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. The hearing will begin at 10:00 a.m. local time and conclude at 1:00 p.m. local time. The hearing will assist the Department in determining whether imports of aluminum threaten to impair the national security and in recommending remedies, if such a threat is found to exist.

    The May 9 notice included the following information: (a) Procedures for requesting participation in the hearing, including procedures for submitting comments; (b) conduct of the hearing; and (c) special accommodations for the hearing. (See the May 9 notice for additional details on these aspects of the public hearing.)

    In addition to the May 9 notice, on June 2, 2017 (82 FR 25597), BIS published the notice, Change in Comment Deadline for Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Aluminum. The June 2 notice moved the original deadline included in the May 9 notice for all written submissions up by six calendar days. Commenters now are encouraged to submit their comments by June 20, 2017, but all written submissions must be received by no later than June 23, 2017 to be considered in the drafting of the final report. (See the June 2 notice for additional details on the change in comment deadline.)

    Today's notice provides additional details on the procedures for attending the hearing and for viewing the hearing, via webcast.

    Procedure for Attending the Hearing, or Viewing the Hearing Via Webcast

    Registration: Individuals and entities who wish to attend the public hearing in person are required to pre-register for the hearing on-line at www.bis.doc.gov/232AluminumHearing. Anyone wishing to attend this public hearing must register by 5:00 p.m. (EST), Tuesday, June 20, 2017.

    Webcast: The public hearing will be available live via webcast. Registration is not required to view the hearing via webcast. No log-in information is required. Please visit: www.bis.doc.gov/232AluminumHearing to be directed to the live webcast.

    Visitor Access Requirement: For participants attending in person, please note that federal agencies can only accept a state-issued driver's license or identification card for access to federal facilities if such license or identification card is issued by a state that is compliant with the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-13), or by a state that has an extension for REAL ID compliance. The main entrance of the Department of Commerce is on 14th Street NW., between Pennsylvania Avenue and Constitution Avenue, across from the Ronald Reagan Building. Upon entering the building, please go through security and check in at the guard's desk. BIS staff will meet and escort visitors to the auditorium. Admittance to the auditorium for the hearing will be available beginning at 9:00 a.m. (EST) on June 22, 2017 and the hearing will start promptly at 10:00 a.m. (EST).

    Non U.S. Citizens Please Note: All foreign national visitors who do not have permanent resident status must register to attend the hearing at www.bis.doc.gov/232aluminumhearing and must fax a copy of their passport to (202) 482-5361 by 5:00 p.m. (EST), Tuesday, June 20, 2017. Please also bring a copy of your passport on the day of the hearing to serve as identification. Failure to provide this information prior to arrival will result, at a minimum, in significant delays in entering the facility. Authority to gather this information is derived from United States Department of Commerce Department Administrative Order (DAO) number 207-12. Please visit www.bis.doc.gov/232AluminumHearing to register and for more details regarding this requirement.

    Dated: June 6, 2017. Matthew S. Borman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12729 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-970; C-570-971] Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Final Clarification of the Scope of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 19, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Department) published a proposed clarification of the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on multilayered wood flooring (wood flooring) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). Based on comments from interested parties, the Department has further clarified the scope of this order.

    DATES:

    Effective June 19, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jesus Saenz or Michael Bowen, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-8184 or 202-482-0768, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The regulations governing the Department's scope determinations are found at 19 CFR 351.225. In past scope determinations,1 in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1), the Department has relied on the scope language, along with descriptions of the merchandise contained in the petitions, the initial investigations, prior scope determinations, and rulings by the International Trade Commission (ITC) to determine that two-layer wood flooring products are outside the scope of the Orders. 2

    1See e.g., Department Memorandum, “Final Scope Ruling on the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Request by Dunhua Shengda Wood Industry Co., Ltd., dated December 14, 2016; and Department Memorandum, “Final Scope Ruling on the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Request by Alston, Inc.,” dated March 12, 2013.

    2See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 76690 (December 8, 2011) and Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 76 FR 76693 (December 8, 2011), as amended, Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Amended Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 77 FR 5484 (February 3, 2012) (collectively, Orders).

    On April 19, 2017, the Department published the Proposed Scope Clarification3 to provide notice that the Department intends to clarify the scope of the Orders due to the large number of scope ruling requests concerning wood flooring products consisting of only two layers. Interested parties were invited to comment on the intended clarification.

    3See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Clarification of the Scope of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 82 FR 18420 (April 19, 2017) (Proposed Scope Clarification).

    Comments on the Proposed Scope Clarification

    The Department received two comment submissions from two groups of interested parties during the comment period.4 The first group agrees that the Department has received a large number of scope ruling requests concerning two-layer wood flooring products, and notes that the requests are being filed not because the order language is ambiguous, but, rather, because of concern that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials may not always distinguish between two-ply and subject merchandise.5 This group, therefore, does not believe that the Proposed Scope Clarification will necessarily eliminate the number of scope ruling requests received by the Department, and proposes, as an alternative, that the Department work more closely with CBP to ensure CBP knows the difference between subject and non-subject merchandise.6 Nonetheless, to the extent the clarification language is merely meant to reiterate the scope rulings that have already been issued, and is not intended to change the scope of the Orders, this group does not object.7

    4See Letter from Anhui Boya Bamboo &Wood Products Co., Ltd., et al., “Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Comments on Scope Clarification”, dated May 1, 2017 (Anhui Boya Bamboo & Wood Products Co., Ltd., et al., Comments); and Letter from Zhejiang Dandongwu GreenHome Wood Co., Ltd., et. al., “Multilayered Wood Flooring form the People's Republic of China: Comments on the Department's Proposed Scope Clarification, dated May 1, 2017 (Zheijiang Dadongwu GreenHome Wood Co., Ltd., et al., Comments).

    5Anhui Boya Bamboo & Wood Products Co., Ltd., et al., Comments at 1.

    6Id. at 1-2.

    7Id. at 2.

    The second group agrees with the Proposed Scope Clarification and deems the language necessary to reflect more definitively that two-layer wood flooring products are excluded from the scope of the Orders, as it will expedite handling of entries by CBP and eliminate the need for further scope rulings.8 This group also proposes that the Department insert additional clarifying language to the exclusion section of the existing written scope description in order to emphasize the exclusion of two-layer wood flooring products from the scope of the Orders as follows: “Also excluded is wood flooring composed of two layers. Two layered flooring typically consists of a single wood veneer, or ply, in combination with a base layer of various constructions and materials, which may include wood.” 9

    8Zheijiang Dadongwu GreenHome Wood Co., Ltd., et al., Comments at 2.

    9Id. at 2-3.

    No other parties, including the petitioner, commented on the Proposed Scope Clarification.

    Final Scope Clarification

    The Proposed Scope Clarification is meant to clarify the Department's interpretation of the scope of the Orders, as provided in numerous past scope determinations, that the wood flooring products covered by the Orders are composed of a minimum of three layers. This clarification is not intended to change the scope of wood flooring products covered by the Orders, but is merely meant to clarify and inform the public and CBP that the Department has consistently interpreted the scope of the Orders to cover wood flooring products composed of a minimum of three layers. Further, this clarification will expedite CBP's processing of entries of both subject and non-subject wood flooring products, and reduce the need for further scope rulings with respect to two-layer wood flooring products.

    However, in light of the comments received, and to further reiterate that the clarification is not intended to change the scope of wood flooring products covered by the Orders, but is merely meant to clarify the Department's interpretation, for purposes of this final scope clarification we are including an interpretive note as a footnote to the scope language, rather than add clarifying language to the scope itself. See Scope of the Orders section below at note 11. We are adopting this clarification for all segments of the proceeding under the Orders for which a determination is made on or after the effective date of this notice. We intend to notify CBP of this final scope clarification.

    Lastly, although certain parties propose changing the existing scope by adding language specifically excluding two-layered flooring, we have not adopted this change. We find that the changes adopted herein are sufficient to accomplish the goals of the clarification, and that further language regarding a specific exclusion for two-layered flooring is not necessary.

    Scope of the Orders

    Multilayered wood flooring is composed of an assembly of two or more layers or plies of wood veneer(s) 10 in combination with a core.11 The several layers, along with the core, are glued or otherwise bonded together to form a final assembled product. Multilayered wood flooring is often referred to by other terms, e.g., “engineered wood flooring” or “plywood flooring.” Regardless of the particular terminology, all products that meet the description set forth herein are intended for inclusion within the definition of subject merchandise.

    10 A “veneer” is a thin slice of wood, rotary cut, sliced or sawed from a log, bolt or flitch. Veneer is referred to as a ply when assembled.

    11 Department of Commerce Interpretive Note: The Department interprets this language to refer to wood flooring products with a minimum of three layers.

    All multilayered wood flooring is included within the definition of subject merchandise, without regard to: Dimension (overall thickness, thickness of face ply, thickness of back ply, thickness of core, and thickness of inner plies; width; and length); wood species used for the face, back and inner veneers; core composition; and face grade. Multilayered wood flooring included within the definition of subject merchandise may be unfinished (i.e., without a finally finished surface to protect the face veneer from wear and tear) or “prefinished” (i.e., a coating applied to the face veneer, including, but not exclusively, oil or oil-modified or water-based polyurethanes, ultra-violet light cured polyurethanes, wax, epoxy-ester finishes, moisture-cured urethanes and acid-curing formaldehyde finishes). The veneers may be also soaked in an acrylic-impregnated finish. All multilayered wood flooring is included within the definition of subject merchandise regardless of whether the face (or back) of the product is smooth, wire brushed, distressed by any method or multiple methods, or hand-scraped. In addition, all multilayered wood flooring is included within the definition of subject merchandise regardless of whether or not it is manufactured with any interlocking or connecting mechanism (for example, tongue-and-groove construction or locking joints). All multilayered wood flooring is included within the definition of the subject merchandise regardless of whether the product meets a particular industry or similar standard.

    The core of multilayered wood flooring may be composed of a range of materials, including but not limited to hardwood or softwood veneer, particleboard, medium-density fiberboard, high-density fiberboard (“HDF”), stone and/or plastic composite, or strips of lumber placed edge-to-edge.

    Multilayered wood flooring products generally, but not exclusively, may be in the form of a strip, plank, or other geometrical patterns (e.g., circular, hexagonal). All multilayered wood flooring products are included within this definition regardless of the actual or nominal dimensions or form of the product. Specifically excluded from the scope are cork flooring and bamboo flooring, regardless of whether any of the sub-surface layers of either flooring are made from wood. Also excluded is laminate flooring. Laminate flooring consists of a top wear layer sheet not made of wood, a decorative paper layer, a core-layer of HDF, and a stabilizing bottom layer.

    Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the following subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”): 4412.31.0520; 4412.31.0540; 4412.31.0560; 4412.31.0620; 4412.31.0640; 4412.31.0660; 4412.31.2510; 4412.31.2520; 4412.31.2610; 4412.31.2620; 4412.31.3175; 4412.31.4040; 4412.31.4050; 4412.31.4060; 4412.31.4070; 4412.31.4075; 4412.31.4080; 4412.31.4140; 4412.31.4160; 4412.31.4175; 4412.31.5125; 4412.31.5135; 4412.31.5155; 4412.31.5165; 4412.31.5175; 4412.31.5225; 4412.31.6000; 4412.31.9100; 4412.32.0520; 4412.32.0540; 4412.32.0560; 4412.32.0565; 4412.32.0570; 4412.32.0640; 4412.32.0665; 4412.32.2510; 4412.32.2520; 4412.32.2525; 4412.32.2530; 4412.32.2610; 4412.32.2625; 4412.32.3125; 4412.32.3135; 4412.32.3155; 4412.32.3165; 4412.32.3175; 4412.32.3185; 4412.32.3225; 4412.32.5600; 4412.32.5700; 4412.39.1000; 4412.39.3000; 4412.39.4011; 4412.39.4012; 4412.39.4019; 4412.39.4031; 4412.39.4032; 4412.39.4039; 4412.39.4051; 4412.39.4052; 4412.39.4059; 4412.39.4061; 4412.39.4062; 4412.39.4069; 4412.39.5010; 4412.39.5030; 4412.39.5050; 4412.94.1030; 4412.94.1050; 4412.94.3105; 4412.94.3111; 4412.94.3121; 4412.94.3131; 4412.94.3141; 4412.94.3160; 4412.94.3171; 4412.94.4100; 4412.94.5100; 4412.94.6000; 4412.94.7000; 4412.94.8000; 4412.94.9000; 4412.94.9500; 4412.99.0600; 4412.99.1020; 4412.99.1030; 4412.99.1040; 4412.99.3110; 4412.99.3120; 4412.99.3130; 4412.99.3140; 4412.99.3150; 4412.99.3160; 4412.99.3170; 4412.99.4100; 4412.99.5100; 4412.99.5105; 4412.99.5115; 4412.99.5710; 4412.99.6000; 4412.99.7000; 4412.99.8000; 4412.99.9000; 4412.99.9500; 4418.71.2000; 4418.71.9000; 4418.72.2000; 4418.72.9500; 4418.74.2000; 4418.74.9000; 4418.75.4000; 4418.75.7000; 4418.79.0100; and 9801.00.2500.

    While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.

    Dated: June 13, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12674 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [P-2444-031] Northern States Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: Non-capacity amendment of license.

    b. Project No.: 2444-031.

    c. Date Filed: April 28, 2017, and supplemented June 12, 2017.

    d. Applicant: Northern States Power Company.

    e. Name of Project: White River Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The project is located on the White River in Ashland County, Wisconsin.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. William P. Zawacki, Director of Hydro Plants, 1414 W. Hamilton Ave., P.O. Box 8, Eau Claire, WI 54702, (715) 737-1136.

    i. FERC Contact: Steven Sachs, (202) 502-8666, [email protected].

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests is 30 days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/doc-sfiling/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-2444-031.

    k. Description of Request: The applicant proposes to replace one of the two turbine-generator units at the project. The new turbine-generator unit would increase the total authorized installed capacity of the project from 1 to 1.2 megawatts, and would raise the hydraulic capacity of the project from 280 to 350 cubic feet per second. The applicant does not propose any changes to project operation.

    l. Locations of the Applications: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. The filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502- 8659.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Motions to Intervene, or Protests: Anyone may submit comments, a motion to intervene, or a protest in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, motions to intervene, or protests must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS, MOTION TO INTERVENE, or PROTEST as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the temporary variance request. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: June 13, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12668 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-1794-000] Innovative Solar 42, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Innovative Solar 42, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is July 3, 2017.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 13, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12665 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP17-459-000] Ryckman Creek Resources, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on June 1, 2017, Ryckman Creek Resources, LLC (Ryckman), 3 Riverway, Suite 1110, Houston, Texas 77056, filed in Docket No. CP17-459-000 a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.213 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, requesting authorization to perform certain activities at its natural gas storage field in Uinta County, Wyoming. Specifically, Ryckman proposes to: (i) Convert two existing observation wells to vertical injection/withdrawal (I/W) wells; (ii) re-enter and re-complete four former oil production wells for use as vertical I/W wells; (iii) convert two former oil production wells for use as observation wells; (iv) re-enter and re-complete a former oil production well for use as a saltwater disposal well; and (v) construct related connecting flowlines, access roads, and appurtenances. Ryckman states that the proposed project will have no impact on the storage field's certificated physical parameters, including total inventory, reservoir pressures, reservoir and buffer boundaries, and certificated capacity. Ryckman estimates the cost of the project to be approximately $6,500,000, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Kassey Dennis, Regulatory and Compliance Manager, Ryckman Creek Resources, LLC, 3535 Whitney Canyon/Sulfur Haul Road, Evanston, Wyoming 82930, by telephone at (307) 222-5981, by fax at (713) 974-5601, or by email at [email protected]

    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: June 12, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12662 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG17-115-000.

    Applicants: NextEra Energy Bluff Point, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of NextEra Energy Bluff Point, LLC.

    Filed Date: 6/8/17.

    Accession Number: 20170608-5088.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1092-001.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Deficiency Response in ER17-1092—Variable Demand Curve and Scarcity Pricing to be effective 5/11/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/9/17.

    Accession Number: 20170609-5155.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/30/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1794-000.

    Applicants: Innovative Solar 42, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based Rate to be effective 6/10/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/9/17.

    Accession Number: 20170609-5150.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/30/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1794-001.

    Applicants: Innovative Solar 42, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Pending Filing to be effective 6/10/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/12/17.

    Accession Number: 20170612-5001.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/3/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1795-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Modifications of Conditions to Classify a Service Upgrade as a Base Plan Upgrade to be effective 8/8/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/9/17.

    Accession Number: 20170609-5151.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/30/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1796-000.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-06-09 EIM Implementation Agreement with Powerex to be effective 8/15/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/9/17.

    Accession Number: 20170609-5156.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/30/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1797-000.

    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.

    Description: Notice of Termination of Otter Tail Power Company Rate Schedule No. 159.

    Filed Date: 6/9/17.

    Accession Number: 20170609-5195.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/30/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES17-35-000.

    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company.

    Description: Application for Authorization to Issue Short-Term Debt of Northern Indiana Public Service Company.

    Filed Date: 6/9/17.

    Accession Number: 20170609-5193.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/30/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 12, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12672 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 848-037] Wells Rural Electric Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Fishway Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: Minor New License.

    b. Project No.: 848-037.

    c. Date filed: May 18, 2016.

    d. Applicant: Wells Rural Electric Company.

    e. Name of Project: Trout Creek Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: On Trout Creek, near the Town of Wells, Elko County, Nevada. The project's intake structure, pipeline, debris collection box, surge tank and approximately 1,500 feet of penstock are located on federal land managed by the Forest Service.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: Lonnie Abbott, Manager of Loss Control and Risk Services, Wells Rural Electric Company, P.O. Box 365, Wells, Nevada 89835, (775) 752-1516 or [email protected]

    i. FERC Contact: Alan Mitchnick, (202) 502-6074 or [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-848-037.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.

    l. The existing Trout Creek project consists of: (1) An intake structure on a spring feeding Trout Creek; (2) a 14-inch-diameter, 715-foot-long, steel pipe; (3) a debris collection box; (4) a 15-inch-diameter, 1,900-foot-long PVC pipe; (4) an 8-foot-diameter, 20-foot-high surge tank; (5) a 16-inch-diameter, 2,125-foot-long penstock; (6) a powerhouse with a 125-kilowatt turbine-generator unit; (7) a 5- to 7-foot-wide, 30-foot-long tailrace; (8) a 4,412-foot-long, 24.9-kV transmission line; and, (9) appurtenant facilities. The project is estimated to generate an average of 325,000 kilowatt-hours annually.

    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.

    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title PROTEST, MOTION TO INTERVENE, COMMENTS, REPLY COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS, PRELIMINARY TERMS AND CONDITIONS, or PRELIMINARY FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    o. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of the notice of acceptance and ready for environmental analysis provided for in 5.22: (1) A copy of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.

    Dated: June 13, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12667 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. OR17-13-000] GT Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on June 12, 2017, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2016), GT Pipeline, LLC (GT Pipeline), filed a petition requesting an order declaring that all elements of GT Pipeline's proposed new interstate refined petroleum products pipeline project, the Sabine Bayou Line, are lawful under the statutory requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act, as more fully explained in the petition.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on June 28, 2017.

    Dated: June 13, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12666 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-1774-000] NextEra Energy Bluff Point, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of NextEra Energy Bluff Point, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is June 28, 2017.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 8, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12678 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-1790-000] United Energy Trading, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding United Energy Trading, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is July 3, 2017.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 13, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12664 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM98-1-000] Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.

    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.

    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e) (1) (v).

    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    Docket No. File date Presenter or requester Prohibited: 1. CP15-558-000 5-19-2017 Medical Society of New Jersey. 2. CP15-93-000 6-2-2017 John H. Klein. 3. CP15-554-000 6-8-2017 Anne S. Bryan. Exempt: 1. P-1256-031 6-1-2017 U.S. House Representative Adrian Smith. 2. CP17-40-000 6-2-2017 FERC Staff.1 3. CP17-40-000 6-2-2017 FERC Staff.2 4. CP15-554-001 6-8-2017 U.S. House Representative Bob Goodlatte. 1 Telephone Conversation Memo dated April 26, 2017 reporting teleconference with Federal and State Representatives. 2 Telephone Conversation Memo dated May 25, 2017 reporting teleconference with Federal and State Representatives. Dated: June 13, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12670 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-1785-000] Coachella Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Coachella Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is July 3, 2017.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 13, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12663 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2013-004; ER15-2020-003.

    Applicants: Talen Energy Marketing, LLC, Talen Montana, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to December 22, 2016 Triennial Market Rate Based Update for Northwest Region of Talen Energy Marketing, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 6/12/17.

    Accession Number: 20170612-5151.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/3/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1061-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2017-06-12_Deficiency response re Pseudo-Tie Agreement Filing to be effective 3/15/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/12/17.

    Accession Number: 20170612-5126.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/3/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1532-001.

    Applicants: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Clarification to Amended and Restated WPC to be effective 5/3/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/12/17.

    Accession Number: 20170612-5064.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/3/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1800-000.

    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: South Dakota Rev TSA-385-0.0.0 to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/12/17.

    Accession Number: 20170612-5137.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/3/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1801-000.

    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: ATSI and MAIT submit Seven Engineering and Construction Services Agreements to be effective 8/12/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/13/17.

    Accession Number: 20170613-5019.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1802-000.

    Applicants: Fowler Ridge II Wind Farm LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 8/12/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/12/17.

    Accession Number: 20170612-5177.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/3/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/ docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 13, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12660 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of Tucson Electric Power Company, UNS Electric, Inc., Public Service Company of New Mexico, Arizona Public Service Company, El Paso Electric Company, Black Hills Power, Inc., Black Hills Colorado Electric Utility Company, LP, Cheyenne Light, Fuel, & Power Company, NV Energy, Inc.; and Xcel Energy Services, Inc. on behalf of Public Service Company of Colorado:

    Planning Management Committee Meeting, June 21, 2017, 9 a.m.-3 p.m. (MDT) Planning Management Committee Meeting, July 17, 2017, 9 a.m.-3 p.m. (MDT)

    The June 21, 2017 Planning Management Committee Meeting will be held at: Xcel Energy, 1800 Larimer St., Denver, CO 80202.

    The July 17, 2017 Planning Management Committee Meeting will be held at: 111 N. Hope St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.

    The above-referenced meetings will be available via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meetings are open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at http://www.westconnect.com/.

    The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceeding:

    ER13-75, Public Service Company of New Mexico; El Paso Electric Company

    For more information contact Nicole Cramer, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-6775 or [email protected]

    Dated: June 8, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12679 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2290-005.

    Applicants: Avista Corporation.

    Description: Third Amendment to June 30, 2016 Triennial Market Power Update for the Northwest Region of Avista Corporation.

    Filed Date: 6/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170607-5177.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2703-003.

    Applicants: Deerfield Wind Energy, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Deerfield Wind Energy, LLC.

    Filed Date: 6/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170607-5175.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1515-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2017-06-07_Amendment to filing to revise MRES Att O inc. RTO Adder Request to be effective 7/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170607-5154.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1771-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: DEP-Winterville RS No. 178 Revised PPA to be effective 7/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170607-5123.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1772-000.

    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: MAIT submits Revised Operating and Interconnection Agreement SA No. 4578 to be effective 6/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/8/17.

    Accession Number: 20170608-5040.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1773-000.

    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: ATSI submits revised Service Agreement Nos. 3992 and 3993 to be effective 7/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/8/17.

    Accession Number: 20170608-5045.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 8, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12680 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1790-015; ER10-2596-006; ER10-2597-004; ER12-2200-003.

    Applicants: BP Energy Company, Fowler Ridge II Wind Farm LLC, Fowler Ridge III Wind Farm LLC, Mehoopany Wind Energy LLC.

    Description: Updated Market Analysis for Northeast Region of BP Energy Company, et al.

    Filed Date: 6/12/17.

    Accession Number: 20170612-5089.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1532-001.

    Applicants: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Clarification to Amended and Restated WPC to be effective 5/3/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/12/17.

    Accession Number: 20170612-5064.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/3/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1798-000.

    Applicants: Fowler Ridge III Wind Farm LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 8/12/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/12/17.

    Accession Number: 20170612-5117.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/3/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1799-000.

    Applicants: Mehoopany Wind Energy LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 8/12/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/12/17.

    Accession Number: 20170612-5124.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/3/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 12, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12673 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP17-22-000] Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Sabine Pass Expansion Project

    On December 13, 2016, Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline, LLC (Kinder Morgan) filed an application in Docket No. CP17-22-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Sabine Pass Expansion Project (Project), and would allow Kinder Morgan to provide firm incremental transportation service of up to 600 million cubic feet per day of natural gas to the existing Sabine Pass Liquefaction Facility, that is currently under expansion in Cameron Parish, Louisiana.

    On December 21, 2016 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.

    Schedule for Environmental Review

    Issuance of EA: July 28, 2017.

    90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline: October 26, 2017.

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.

    Project Description

    Kinder Morgan proposes to construct and operate the Sabine Pass Expansion Project in Louisiana which consists of the following: (1) Modifications to four existing meter stations (Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC; Texas Gas Transmission, LLC; ANR Pipeline Company; and Pine Prairie Energy Center) in Evangeline and Acadia Parishes; (2) construction of one new 36-inch-diameter delivery interconnect consisting of a 36-inch-diameter tap and appurtenances and 1,200 feet of 36-inch-diameter lateral at the Sabine Pass Liquefaction Facility in Cameron Parish; (3) installation of three additional 15,900 horsepower compressor units at Kinder Morgan's previously approved Compressor Station 760 in Acadia Parish; 1 (4) construction of 6,400 feet of 36-inch-diameter and 700 feet of 24-inch-diameter header pipelines in Acadia Parish; and (5) replacement of a meter and increase in capacity from 200 to 650 million cubic feet per day at the existing Pine Prairie Meter Station in Acadia Parish. The proposed facilities would provide north-to-south transportation on Kinder Morgan's system.

    1 The compressor station has not yet been constructed, but was approved by Commission Order dated April 15, 2016 as part of the Lake Charles Expansion Project in Docket No. CP14-511-000.

    Kinder Morgan proposes to begin construction of the Project by April 2018 and to place the facilities in service by April 1, 2019.

    Background

    On January 24, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Sabine Pass Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI). The NOI was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. In response to the NOI, the Commission received a comment from a stakeholder stating the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits and authorizations that would be necessary for the various Project components. The Commission also received a comment letter from the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries stating the Project would have minimal or no long-term adverse impacts on wetland functions and a comment from the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma requesting to receive a copy of the EA and the cultural resources survey.

    Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). Using the eLibrary link, select General Search from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and Docket Number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP17-22), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at (866) 208-3676, TTY (202) 502-8659, or at [email protected] The eLibrary link on the FERC Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: June 8, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12677 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14568-002] CB Energy Park, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted For Filing And Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, And Competing Applications

    On June 1, 2017, CB Energy Park, LLC filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Coffin Butte Pumped Storage Project (project) to be located near Two Dot in Wheatland and Meagher Counties, Montana. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.

    The proposed project would consist of the following:

    Lower Reservoir

    (1) A 5,000-foot-long, 50-foot-high earth and roller compacted concrete embankment; (2) a 50-acre lower reservoir with a storage capacity of 2,500-acre-foot at an elevation of 5,200 feet; (3) a temporary pump and pipeline to bring initial fill water to the lower reservoir from Martinsdale Reservoir; (4) a new well; (5) a powerhouse containing two Ternary 125-megawatt (MW) turbine/generator units, for a total installed capacity of 250 MW; and (6) an approximately 10-mile-long, 230-kilovolt transmission line connecting to the proposed Gordon Butte substation.

    Upper Reservoir

    (1) A 4,600-foot-long, 50-foot-high earth and roller compacted concrete embankment; (2) a 50-acre upper reservoir with a storage capacity of 2,500-acre-foot at an elevation of 6,240 feet; (3) a 12-foot-diameter, 4,000-foot-long steel-lined tunnel connecting the two reservoirs; and (4) appurtenant facilities.

    The estimated annual generation of the project would be 880,000 megawatt-hours.

    Applicant Contact: Carl Borgquist, CB Energy Park, LLC, 209 South Wilson Avenue, P.O. Box 309, Bozeman, MT 59771, phone: (406) 585-3006; Martin J. Weber, P.E., Stanley Consultants, Inc., 5775 Wayzata Blvd., No. 300, Minneapolis, MN 55416, phone: (952) 546-3669; or Steve Padula, McMillen Jacobs and Associates, 500 Broadway Street, Suite 606, Vancouver, WA 98660, phone: (360) 576-3579.

    FERC Contact: Kim Nguyen, (202) 502-6105.

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-14568-002.

    More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-14568) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: June 13, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12669 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference Docket Nos. Developments in Natural Gas Index Liquidity and Transparency AD17-12-000 Price Discovery in Natural Gas and Electric Markets PL03-3-000 Natural Gas Price Formation AD03-7-000 ISO New England Inc ER17-795-000
  • ER17-795-001
  • Kinetica Energy Express, LLC RP16-1299-000
  • RP16-1299-001
  • RP16-1299-002
  • New York Independent System Operator, Inc ER17-386-001
  • ER17-386-002
  • As announced in the Notice issued May 10, 2017,1 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff will hold a technical conference on Thursday June 29, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. to discuss the state of liquidity and transparency in the physical natural gas markets. The agenda and list of panel participants for this conference are attached. The conference is free of charge and open to the public. Commission members may participate in the conference.

    1 Developments in Natural Gas Index Liquidity and Transparency, Docket No. AD17-12-000 (May 10, 2017) (Notice of Technical Conference) (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/IDMWS/common/opennat.asp?fileID=14586688).

    If they have not already done so, those who plan to attend the technical conference are strongly encouraged to complete the registration form located at: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/06-29-17-form.asp. The dress code for the conference will be business casual.

    The technical conference will be transcribed. Transcripts will be available from Ace Reporting Company and may be purchased online at www.acefederal.com, or by phone at (202) 347-3700. In addition, there will be a free webcast of the conference. The webcast will allow persons to listen, but not participate, and will be accessible at www.ferc.gov Calendar of Events. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the webcast and offers the option of listening to the technical conference via phone-bridge for a fee; visit www.CapitolConnection.org or call (703) 993-3100 with any webcast questions.

    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to [email protected] or call toll free 1-866-208-3372 (voice) or 202-208-1659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations.

    For more information about the technical conference, please contact:

    Sarah McKinley (Logistics), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8368, [email protected] Eric Primosch (Technical), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6483, [email protected] Omar Bustami (Legal), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6214, [email protected] Dated: June 13, 2017 Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. Technical Conference on Developments in Natural Gas Index Liquidity and Transparency Docket No. AD17-12-000 June 29, 2017 Agenda

    The purpose of the staff-led Technical Conference on Developments in Natural Gas Index Liquidity and Transparency is to solicit feedback and develop a record regarding index robustness and to discuss what, if anything, the industry and/or the Commission could do to increase transparency and support greater robustness in natural gas price formation. The technical conference will examine: (1) The current state of natural gas index liquidity and voluntary reporting to index developers; (2) the use of natural gas indices over time; and (3) possible actions that the industry and/or the Commission could take to increase transparency and support greater robustness in natural gas price formation.

    9:00 a.m.-9:15 a.m. Welcome and Opening Remarks 9:15 a.m.-9:45 a.m. Natural Gas Index Presentation (Commission Staff)

    Staff will present an overview of natural gas transactions using FERC Form No. 552 data. The presentation will review trends in next-day and next-month transactions, the number of companies that report to index developers, and the volume of fixed-priced transactions that contribute to natural gas indices. Staff will also present an overview of natural gas indices referenced in jurisdictional tariffs.

    9:45 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Panel 1: Robustness and Liquidity of Natural Gas Indices

    Most price indices are supplied as a commercial service by publishers of daily, weekly, or monthly newsletters. Price indices play a pivotal role in natural gas market price formation, and are commonly referenced in physical and financial transactions. This panel will examine the robustness and liquidity of natural gas indices, the degree of industry reliance on index-based contracts rather than fixed-price contracts, the decline in fixed-price reporting to index developers, and whether natural gas indices accurately reflect market conditions.

    Panelists are encouraged to respond to the following:

    1. Describe the current trends in natural gas fixed-price and physical basis trading that you believe positively or negatively impact price formation in the natural gas market, detailing any observable shifts in liquidity. Are there differences in market fundamentals, procedures, or policies which disproportionately impact either overall or regional liquidity?

    2. How have the volume and quality of next-day and next-month fixed-price and physical basis transaction reporting changed? In addition, describe any changes in other information used to form natural gas indices. Are there market, regulatory, or other factors that discourage reporting? If so, are there ways to incent reporting?

    3. For indices published by index developers and referenced in FERC jurisdictional tariffs, the Commission requires index developers to comply with five standards: (1) Code of conduct and confidentiality; (2) completeness; (3) data verification, error correction, and monitoring; (4) verifiability; and (5) availability and accessibility.2 How have index developers' methodologies and practices changed since these standards were developed? Are the standards established in 2003 still relevant and sufficient to allow for healthy and robust natural gas price formation in today's environment?

    2Policy Statement on Natural Gas and Electric Price Indices, 104 FERC ¶ 61,121, at P 33 (2003).

    4. Is there a need for additional transparency regarding natural gas index price assessments and the level of liquidity underlying each natural gas index published by index developers? Should common minimum liquidity thresholds be defined? If so, who should define them, and what should be the mechanism for accomplishing this? For example, should index developers provide information about which indices are illiquid? What kind of coordination would be necessary, and what kind of information would be shared, and with whom, when a given natural gas price index is deemed illiquid?

    Panelists • Mark Callahan, Editorial Director for Platts North America, S&P Global • J.C. Kneale, Vice President—North American Natural Gas, Power & NGL Markets InterContinental Exchange • Euan Craik, Chief Executive Officer, Argus Media • Tom Haywood, Editor—Natural Gas Week, Energy Intelligence • Dexter Steis, Executive Publisher, Natural Gas Intelligence • Vince Kaminski, Professor in Practice of Energy, Rice University • Orlando Alvarez, President and CEO, BP Energy Company • Edward Fortunato, Managing Director of Analytics for Constellation Energy, Exelon Corporation 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. Break 1:00 p.m.-3:30 p.m. Panel 2: Role of Natural Gas Indices in Price Formation

    Natural gas indices are used by industry for a variety of purposes, such as settling bilateral contracts of varying terms, basis swap futures, index swap futures, swing swap futures, and calendar and basis spreads. Natural gas indices also are used in FERC jurisdictional interstate natural gas pipeline and wholesale electric transmission tariffs for various purposes. For example, indices are used in many interstate natural gas pipeline tariffs to settle imbalances or determine penalties. In addition, State Commissions use indices as benchmarks in reviewing the prudence of natural gas purchases by local distribution companies. Finally, some Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators (RTOs/ISOs) rely on natural gas indices to develop reference levels for market power mitigation. Given the prevalence of indices in the natural gas and electric industries, indices must be robust and have the confidence of market participants for such markets to function properly and efficiently.

    Panelists are encouraged to respond to the following:

    1. Describe current industry uses of physical natural gas price indices. Are natural gas price indices sufficiently reflecting the locational value of natural gas to permit decision-making by those with an interest in the value of natural gas such as: End users, producers, marketers, and other buyers and sellers?

    2. Are there improvements that should be made to increase the likelihood that natural gas indices will reflect the market value at particular locations? For example, could index publishers provide increased transparency when there are insufficient transactions to formulate an index price? What additional information could signal that market activity is sufficiently robust to create accurate prices?

    3. For RTOs/ISOs that rely on natural gas indices to develop reference levels for market power mitigation, do you have concerns about the robustness or liquidity of the natural gas indices used in your tariffs? If so, please explain why.

    4. Recognizing that the use of natural gas indices in FERC jurisdictional tariffs is different from their use in commercial transactions, the Commission established liquidity thresholds for indices referenced in jurisdictional tariffs.3 Do these thresholds accurately capture minimum liquidity thresholds over an appropriate time period? Should the liquidity of indices referenced in FERC jurisdictional tariffs be reassessed periodically, and if so, who should assess it, and what should be the mechanism for accomplishing this? What kind of coordination would be necessary, and what kind of information should be shared and with whom, should a given index be deemed illiquid?

    3Price Discovery in Natural Gas and Electric Markets, 109 FERC ¶ 61,184 at P60 (2004).

    Panelists • Paul Greenwood, Vice President-Americas, Africa, and Asia Pacific New Markets for ExxonMobil, Natural Gas Supply Association Representative • Pallas LeeVanSchaik, External Market Monitor, Potomac Economics • Guillermo Bautista Alderete, Director—Market Analysis and Forecasting, California ISO • Christopher Hamlen, Regulatory Counsel, ISO-NE • George Wayne, Director of Account Services for the Western Pipelines, Kinder Morgan • Edward Fortunato, Managing Director of Analytics for Constellation Energy, Exelon Corporation • Corey Grindal, Senior Vice President—Gas Supply, Cheniere Energy • David Louw, Division Director—Risk Management and Compliance, Macquarie Energy • Donnie Sharp, Senior Natural Gas Supply Coordinator for Huntsville Utilities, American Public Gas Association Representative • Lee Bennett, Manager, Pricing and Business Analysis for Transcanada, on behalf of Interstate Natural Gas Association of America Representative • Susan Bergles, Assistant General Counsel, American Gas Association 3:30 p.m.-3:45 p.m. Break 3:45 p.m.-5:25 p.m. Panel 3: Options To Increase Transparency and Liquidity of Natural Gas Indices

    Should action be taken to foster more meaningful, reliable, and transparent price information in natural gas markets? What changes may be necessary to incent voluntary price reporting and improve the accuracy, reliability, and transparency of natural gas price indices? Discuss the degree to which the level of voluntary reporting and other developments within the commercial service model of natural gas index development impact the robustness of natural gas indices.

    Panelists are encouraged to respond to the following:

    1. Is there a need to develop industry wide liquidity thresholds? While the Commission maintains certain liquidity thresholds for indices referenced in jurisdictional tariffs, should standards be developed that would apply to other uses of natural gas indices? If so, how can such standards be developed and by whom? Can this be addressed through voluntary consensus or through other regulatory processes? Are there legal, commercial, or technical impediments to doing so?

    2. Should the Commission take steps to provide greater natural gas price transparency and market information, promote index developer competition, and enhance confidence in natural gas price formation through increased transparency and accessibility of natural gas index information? For example, should the Commission consider exercising its authority under section 23(a)(1) through (3) of the Natural Gas Act to require market participants to report price forming transactions to index developers?

    3. Is index data sufficiently available and transparent? Does the commercial service model negatively or positively impact price formation? What actions, policies, or trends have impacted price discovery? Is there additional information market participants need to ensure robust natural gas price formation? Who should provide that information? How would that information be shared?

    Panelists • Greg Leonard, Vice President, Cornerstone Research • Orlando Alvarez, President and CEO, BP Energy Company • Mark Callahan, Editorial Director for Platts North America, S&P Global • J.C. Kneale, Vice President—North American Natural Gas, Power & NGL Markets InterContinental Exchange • Vince Kaminski, Professor in Practice of Energy, Rice University • Curtis Moffatt, Deputy General Counsel and Vice President, Kinder Morgan • Joe Bowring, President, Monitoring Analytics • Corey Grindal, Senior Vice President—Gas Supply, Cheniere Energy • Tom Haywood, Editor—Natural Gas Week, Energy Intelligence • Drew Fossum, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Tenaska Inc. • Joan Dreskin, Vice President and General Counsel, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America 5:25 p.m.-5:30 p.m. Closing Remarks
    [FR Doc. 2017-12671 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP17-58-000] Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the St. James Supply Project

    On February 6, 2017, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) filed an application in Docket No. CP17-58-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the St. James Supply Project (Project), and would deliver 161,500 dekatherms per day of firm transportation capacity from Transco's existing mainline Compressor Station 65 in St. Helena Parish, Louisiana to the planned Yuhuang Chemical Plant in St. James Parish, Louisiana.

    On February 21, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.

    Schedule for Environmental Review

    Issuance of EA—July 24, 2017.

    90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline—October 22, 2017.

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.

    Project Description

    The St. James Supply Project would consist of 0.7 mile of 20-inch-diameter pipeline, one new pig receiver site,1 a new interconnection to the planned Yuhuang Chemical Plant site, one new valve and piping to tie the Old River Road M&R Station into the existing Southeast Lateral Pipeline, and piping and valve modifications at existing Transco Compressor Stations 63 and 65.

    1 A pig is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into and pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline, conducting internal inspections, or other purposes.

    Background

    On March 17, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed St. James Supply Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI). The NOI was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries. In response to the NOI, the Commission received letters from the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. No concerns about historic resources were raised.

    Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). Using the eLibrary link, select General Search from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and Docket Number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP17-58), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at (866) 208-3676, TTY (202) 502-8659, or at [email protected] The eLibrary link on the FERC Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: June 12, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12661 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1774-000.

    Applicants: NextEra Energy Bluff Point, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: NextEra Energy Bluff Point, LLC Application for Market-Based Rates to be effective 8/7/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/8/17.

    Accession Number: 20170608-5077.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1775-000.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule No. 265, Amendment No. 1 PV-Morgan 500kV to be effective 8/8/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/8/17.

    Accession Number: 20170608-5083.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1776-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Bylaws 3.1 and 3.3.2 Revisions (Chair and Vice Chair Terms) to be effective 8/7/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/8/17.

    Accession Number: 20170608-5096.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1777-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator Inc., Entergy Services, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2017-06-08_Filing to implement Entergy settlement in Docket No. ER16-227 to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/8/17.

    Accession Number: 20170608-5117.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: RR17-5-000.

    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.

    Description: Petition of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation for Approval of Amendments to the Western Electricity Coordinating Council Regional Reliability Standards Development Procedures.

    Filed Date: 6/8/17.

    Accession Number: 20170608-5107.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 8, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12676 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Western Area Power Administration Boulder Canyon Project—Rate Order No. WAPA-178 AGENCY:

    Western Area Power Administration, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rate-setting formulas for electric service and adjustment of fiscal year 2018 base charge and rates.

    SUMMARY:

    Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) is proposing to update the rate-setting formulas for electric service for the Boulder Canyon Project (BCP) under proposed Rate Schedule BCP-F10, and adjust the annual calculation for the fiscal year (FY) 2018 base charge and rates. The expiration of the current base charge and rates on September 30, 2017, and beginning of the new 50-year marketing period on October 1, 2018, require these actions.

    The current base charge under Rate Schedule BCP-F9 is not sufficient to cover all annual costs including operation and maintenance, replacements, and interest expense; and repay investment obligations within the allowable period. After collaborating with the BCP contractors, WAPA proposes an FY 2018 base charge that includes a one-time $15 million working capital fund primarily for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) for the new marketing period. The FY 2019 base charge is expected to decrease by $15 million after the collection of working capital in FY 2018. The proposed base charge will provide sufficient revenue to cover all annual costs and repay investment obligations within the allowable period. WAPA will post proposed Rate Schedule BCP-F10 and a detailed rate package that identifies the reasons for the base charge and rates adjustment on its Web site during the consultation and comment period. The proposed base charge and rates are scheduled to become effective on October 1, 2017, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2018. Publication of this Federal Register notice initiates the formal public process to implement the proposed rate-setting formulas and the FY 2018 base charge and rates.

    DATES:

    The consultation and comment period begins today and will end September 18, 2017. WAPA will present a detailed explanation of the proposed rate-setting formulas and the FY 2018 base charge and rates at a public information forum that will be held on July 19, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. Mountain Standard Time (MST) in Phoenix, Arizona. WAPA will accept oral and written comments at a public comment forum that will be held on August 18, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. MST in Phoenix, Arizona. WAPA will accept written comments any time during the consultation and comment period.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public information forum and public comment forum will be held at WAPA's Desert Southwest Customer Service Regional Office located at 615 South 43rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85009. Send written comments to Mr. Ronald E. Moulton, Regional Manager, Desert Southwest Customer Service Region, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, Arizona 85005-6457, email [email protected] WAPA will post information about the rate process, as well as comments received via letter and email on its Web site at: http://www.wapa.gov/regions/DSW/Rates/Pages/boulder-canyon-rates.aspx. Written comments must be received by the end of the consultation and comment period to be considered by WAPA in its decision process.

    United States (U.S.) citizens who want to attend a forum must present an official form of picture identification (ID) such as a U.S. driver's license, U.S. passport, U.S. government ID, or U.S. military ID. Foreign nationals who want to attend a forum must contact Mr. Scott Lund, Rates Manager, at (602) 605-2442 or email [email protected] 30 days in advance of a forum to obtain the necessary clearance.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Scott Lund, Rates Manager, Desert Southwest Customer Service Region, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, Arizona 85005-6457, (602) 605-2442, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    BCP's base charge and rates for electric service are calculated annually based on formulas that are set for a five-year period. Since BCP begins a new 50-year marketing period in FY 2018, WAPA is proposing to update the rate-setting formulas effective October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2022. Proposed Rate Schedule BCP-F10 will update the existing forecast capacity rate formula to reflect BCP's current generating capacity of 2,074 megawatts. No other changes to the existing rate-setting formulas are proposed.

    The proposed FY 2018 base charge and rates for BCP electric service are designed to recover an annual revenue requirement that includes operation and maintenance and replacements costs, interest expense, investment repayments, payments to states, and visitor services expenses. The total costs are offset by the projected revenue from water sales, visitor services, ancillary services, and late fees. The annual revenue requirement is the base charge for electric service divided equally between capacity and energy. The annual composite rate is the base charge divided by annual energy sales.

    The proposed Rate Schedule BCP-F10 requires updated financial and hydrology data to calculate the annual base charge and rates. The proposed base charge for FY 2018 is $85,094,786 and the proposed composite rate is 24.39 mills/kilowatt-hour. The following table compares the existing and proposed base charge and composite rate:

    Comparison of Existing and Proposed Base Charge and Composite Rate Existing
  • October 1, 2016
  • through
  • September 30, 2017
  • Proposed
  • October 1, 2017
  • through
  • September 30, 2018
  • Percent change
    Base Charge ($) 69,662,289 85,094,786 22 Composite Rate (mills/kWh) 19.63 24.39 24

    The proposed FY 2018 base charge includes a one-time $15 million working capital fund primarily for Reclamation, which is an increase of approximately 22 percent compared to the FY 2017 base charge. Under the BCP Electric Service Contracts and Amended and Restated Implementation Agreements, Reclamation worked collaboratively with BCP contractors to establish the $15 million working capital fund for the new marketing period, to be collected in the FY 2018 base charge. The FY 2019 base charge is expected to decrease by $15 million after the collection of working capital in FY 2018 (subject to Reclamation's annual working capital evaluation). The working capital fund accounts for nearly all of the increase to the base charge. Increases in annual operation and maintenance and replacement costs, and decreases in debt service, uprating credits, non-power revenue, and carryover revenue account for the remaining increase to the base charge.

    The proposed FY 2018 composite rate represents an increase of approximately 24 percent compared to the FY 2017 composite rate. The increase in the proposed base charge accounts for the composite rate increase.

    This proposal, to be effective October 1, 2017, is preliminary and is subject to change upon publication of the final base charge and rates.

    Legal Authority

    In establishing rate-setting formulas for electric service and the base charge and rates for BCP, WAPA will follow the formal public process set forth in 10 CFR parts 903 and 904, and review all comments it receives on the proposed base charge and rates before taking action.

    WAPA is proposing this action under the Department of Energy (DOE) Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101-7352); the Reclamation Act of 1902 (ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388), as amended and supplemented by subsequent enactments; and other acts that specifically apply to the project involved.

    By Delegation Order No. 00-037.00B effective November 19, 2016, the Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) The authority to develop power and transmission rates to WAPA's Administrator; (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary of Energy; and (3) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, to remand, or to disapprove such rates to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    Availability of Information

    All brochures, studies, comments, letters, memorandums, or other documents WAPA initiates or uses to develop the proposed rate-setting formulas and the base charge and rates will be available for inspection and copying at the Desert Southwest Customer Service Regional Office, Western Area Power Administration, located at 615 South 43rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85009. Many of these documents and supporting information are available on WAPA's Web site at: http://www.wapa.gov/regions/DSW/Rates/Pages/boulder-canyon-rates.aspx.

    Ratemaking Procedure Requirements Environmental Compliance

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); and DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures and Guidelines (10 CFR part 1021), WAPA is in the process of determining whether an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement should be prepared or if this action can be categorically excluded from those requirements.

    Determination Under Executive Order 12866

    WAPA has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required.

    Dated: May 4, 2017. Mark A. Gabriel, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12700 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-R05-RCRA-2017-0228; FRL-9963-63-Region 5] Illinois: Notice of Determination of Adequacy of Illinois' Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) Permit Provisions for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLF) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    On May 10, 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a revision to the regulations allowing RD&D permits to increase the number of permit renewals allowed to six, for a total permit term of up to 21 years.

    On March 21, 2017, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) submitted a notification to EPA Region 5 seeking Federal approval of its revised RD&D requirements per the procedures. Subject to public review and comment, this action approves Illinois' revised RD&D permit requirements.

    DATES:

    This determination of adequacy of the RD&D permit program for Illinois will become effective August 18, 2017 unless adverse comments are received. If adverse comments are received, EPA will review those comments and publish another Federal Register document responding to those comments and either affirm or revise EPA's initial decision. Comments on this determination of adequacy must be received on or before July 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-RCRA-2017-0228, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. 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 discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carol Staniec, U.S. EPA Region 5, Land and Chemicals Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard LM-16J, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-1436, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Background

    On March 22, 2004, EPA issued a final rule amending the MSWLF criteria in 40 CFR 258 to allow for RD&D permits (69 FR 13242). This rule allows for variances from specified criteria for a limited period of time, to be implemented through state-issued RD&D permits. RD&D permits are available only in states with approved MSWLF permit programs that have been modified to incorporate RD&D permit authority. On May 10, 2016, the EPA issued a revision to the regulations allowing RD&D permits to increase the number of permit renewals allowed to six, for a total permit term of up to 21 years (40 CFR 258.4).

    While states are not required to incorporate this new provision, those states interested in providing RD&D permits must seek approval from EPA before issuing such permits. On January 25, 2006 Illinois received a final notice of adequacy of its RD&D permit program (71 FR 4142). On March 21, 2017, IEPA submitted a notification to EPA Region 5 seeking Federal approval of its revised RD&D requirements per the procedures in 40 CFR 239.12. Illinois' revised RD&D provisions can be found in Part 813 of the Illinois Pollution Control Board's (IPCB), Title 35: Environmental Protection Regulations, in the January 19, 2017 opinion and order of the IPCB.

    B. Decision

    EPA has made a determination that the Illinois RD&D permit provisions as set out in Part 813 of the IPCB's, Title 35: Environmental Protection Regulations, in the January 19, 2017 opinion and order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board comply with the Federal criteria, as set forth in 40 CFR 258.4.

    Authority:

    This action is issued under the authority of section 2002, 4005 and 4010 (c) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 6912, 6945 and 6949(a).

    Dated: May 26, 2017. Robert A. Kaplan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12739 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-R05-RCRA-2017-0199; FRL-9963-64--Region 5] Minnesota: Notice of Determination of Adequacy of Minnesota's Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) Permit Provisions for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLF) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    On May 10, 2016, EPA issued a revision to the regulations allowing RD&D permits to increase the number of permit renewals allowed to six, for a total permit term of up to 21 years (40 CFR 258.4).

    On March 24, 2017, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) submitted a notification to EPA Region 5 seeking federal approval of its current RD&D permitting program (Minnesota Rules (Minn. R.) 7035.0450), which incorporates by reference the changes to 40 CFR 258.4. Subject to public review and comment, this notice approves Minnesota's RD&D permit requirements.

    DATES:

    This determination of adequacy of Minnesota's RD&D permitting program will become effective August 18, 2017 unless adverse comments are received. If adverse comments are received, EPA will review those comments and publish another Federal Register document responding to those comments and either affirm or revise EPA's initial decision. Comments on this action must be received on or before July 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-RCRA-2017-0199, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, 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:

    Camille Lukey, U.S. EPA Region 5, Land and Chemicals Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard LM-16J, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-0880, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Background

    On March 22, 2004, EPA issued a final rule amending the MSWLF criteria in 40 CFR 258 to allow for RD&D permits (69 FR 13242). This rule allows for variances from specified criteria for a limited period of time, to be implemented through state-issued RD&D permits. RD&D permits are available only in states with approved MSWLF permit programs that have been modified to incorporate RD&D permit authority. On May 10, 2016, the EPA issued a revision to the regulations allowing RD&D permits to increase the number of permit renewals allowed to six, for a total permit term of up to 21 years (40 CFR 258.4).

    While states are not required to incorporate this new provision, those states interested in providing RD&D permits must seek approval from EPA before issuing such permits. On February 15, 2005, Minnesota received approval of its RD&D permit program (Minn. R. 7035.0450). On March 24, 2017, MPCA submitted a notification to EPA Region 5 seeking Federal approval of its RD&D requirements per the procedures in 40 CFR 239.12. Minnesota's rules authorizing RD&D permits (Minn. R. 7035.0450) do not establish a specific term in years and instead incorporate by reference 40 CFR 258.4. Therefore, Minn. R. 7035.0450 automatically updates with the additional permit renewal revision in 40 CFR 258.4.

    B. Decision

    EPA has made a determination that the Minnesota RD&D permit provisions as set out in Minn. R.7035.0450 comply with the Federal criteria, as set forth in 40 CFR 258.4.

    Authority:

    This action is issued under the authority of section 2002, 4005 and 4010(c) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 6912, 6945 and 6949(a).

    Dated: May 24, 2017. Robert A. Kaplan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12740 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-R05-RCRA-2017-0198; FRL-9963-62—Region 5] Michigan: Notice of Determination of Adequacy of Michigan's Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) Permit Provisions for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLF) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    On May 10, 2016, EPA issued a revision to the regulations allowing RD&D permits to increase the number of permit renewals allowed to six, for a total permit term of up to 21 years.

    On February 15, 2017, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) submitted a notification to EPA Region 5 seeking Federal approval of its revised RD&D requirements. Subject to public review and comment, this document approves Michigan's revised RD&D permit requirements.

    DATES:

    This determination of adequacy of the RD&D permit program for Michigan will become effective August 18, 2017 unless adverse comments are received. If adverse comments are received, EPA will review those comments and publish another Federal Register document responding to those comments and either affirm or revise EPA's initial decision. Comments on this determination of adequacy must be received on or before July 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-RCRA-2017-0198, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. 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 discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cynthia Meyer, U.S. EPA Region 5, Land and Chemicals Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard LM-16J, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-5868, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Background

    On March 22, 2004, EPA issued a final rule amending the MSWLF criteria in 40 CFR part 258 to allow for RD&D permits (69 FR 13242). This rule allows for variances from specified criteria for a limited period of time, to be implemented through state-issued RD&D permits. RD&D permits are available only in states with approved MSWLF permit programs that have been modified to incorporate RD&D permit authority. On May 10, 2016, the EPA issued a revision to the regulations allowing RD&D permits to increase the number of permit renewals allowed to six, for a total permit term of up to 21 years (40 CFR 258.4).

    While states are not required to incorporate this new provision, those states interested in providing RD&D permits must seek approval from EPA before issuing such permits. On October 30, 2006, Michigan received approval of its RD&D permit program (71 FR 51614). On February 15, 2017, MDEQ submitted a notification to EPA Region 5 seeking Federal approval of its revised RD&D requirements per the procedures in 40 CFR 239.12. Michigan's revised RD&D provisions can be found in Part 115 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act as amended by 2016 PA 437.

    B. Decision

    EPA has made a determination that the Michigan RD&D permit provisions as set out in Part 115 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act as amended by 2016 PA 437 comply with the Federal criteria, as set forth in 40 CFR 258.4.

    Authority:

    This action is issued under the authority of section 2002, 4005 and 4010(c) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 6912, 6945 and 6949(a).

    Dated: May 29, 2017. Robert A. Kaplan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12733 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL 9963-11-ORD] Office of Research and Development; Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods: Designation of One New Reference Method and One New Equivalent Method AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of the designation of one new reference method and one new equivalent method for monitoring ambient air quality.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated one new reference method for measuring concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO), and one new equivalent method for measuring concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in ambient air.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Vanderpool, Exposure Methods and Measurement Division (MD-D205-03), National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with regulations at 40 CFR part 53, the EPA evaluates various methods for monitoring the concentrations of those ambient air pollutants for which EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) as set forth in 40 CFR part 50. Monitoring methods that are determined to meet specific requirements for adequacy are designated by the EPA as either reference or equivalent methods (as applicable), thereby permitting their use under 40 CFR part 58 by States and other agencies for determining compliance with the NAAQSs. A list of all reference or equivalent methods that have been previously designated by EPA may be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html.

    The EPA hereby announces the designation of one new reference method for measuring concentrations of CO in ambient air and one new equivalent method for measuring concentrations of NO2 in ambient air. These designations are made under the provisions of 40 CFR part 53, as amended on October 26, 2015 (80 FR 65291-65468).

    The new reference method for CO is an automated method (analyzer) utilizing a measurement principle based on non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) analysis and is identified as follows:

    RFCA-0317-244, “Kentek Mezus Model 310 Carbon Monoxide Analyzer” non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) analyzer operated in the measurement range of 0-50 ppm, with 0.5 µm, 47 mm diameter Teflon® filter installed, operated at any ambient temperatures between 20 °C and 30 °C, at nominal input line voltages of 110 VAC or 220 VAC and frequencies of 50 to 60 Hz, with temperature and pressure compensation, at a nominal sampling flow rate of 800 cc/min, and operated according to the Kentek Mezus 310 CO User's Instruction Manual.

    This application for a reference method determination for this CO method was received by the Office of Research and Development on May 25, 2016. This analyzer is commercially available from the applicant, Kentek Environmental Technology, Hanshin S Meca Room #526, 65 Techbi 3-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, Republic of Korea, 34016.

    The new equivalent method for NO2 is an automated method (analyzer) utilizing a measurement principle based on cavity attenuated phase shift (CAPS) spectroscopy and is identified as follows:

    EQNA-0217-242, “Ecotech Serinus 60 NO2 CAPS (Cavity Attenuated Phase Shift) Analyzer” operated at temperatures between 20 °C and 45 °C, a line voltage between 80V and 260V, and with or without any of the following options: Rack mounts, internal pump, internal permeation device, high pressure calibration ports, Ethernet output. The following menu choices must be selected: Control Loop—Enabled; Diagnostic Mode—Operate; Pres/Temp/Flow Compensation—Enabled; Span Compensation—Disabled, and operated according to the Serinus 60 User Manual.

    This application for an equivalent method determination for this NO2 method was received by the Office of Research and Development on January 11, 2017. This analyzer is commercially available from the applicant, Ecotech Pty. Ltd., 1492 Ferntree Gully Rd., Knoxfield, Victoria, 3180, Australia.

    Representative test analyzers have been tested in accordance with the applicable test procedures specified in 40 CFR part 53, as amended on October 26, 2015. After reviewing the results of those tests and other information submitted by the applicant, EPA has determined, in accordance with part 53, that these methods should be designated as a reference or equivalent method.

    As a designated reference or equivalent method, these methods are acceptable for use by states and other air monitoring agencies under the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance. For such purposes, each method must be used in strict accordance with the operation or instruction manual associated with the method and subject to any specifications and limitations (e.g., configuration or operational settings) specified in the designated method description (see the identification of the method above).

    Use of the method also should be in general accordance with the guidance and recommendations of applicable sections of the “Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume I,” EPA/600/R-94/038a and “Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume II, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program,” EPA-454/B-13-003, (both available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qalist.html). Provisions concerning modification of such methods by users are specified under Section 2.8 (Modifications of Methods by Users) of Appendix C to 40 CFR part 58.

    Consistent or repeated noncompliance with any of these conditions should be reported to: Director, Exposure Methods and Measurement Division (MD-E205-01), National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.

    Designation of these reference and equivalent methods is intended to assist the States in establishing and operating their air quality surveillance systems under 40 CFR part 58. Questions concerning the commercial availability or technical aspects of the method should be directed to the applicant.

    Dated: May 17, 2017. Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, Director, National Exposure Research Laboratory.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12738 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9963-45—Region 10] Re-Proposal of an NPDES General Permit for Offshore Seafood Processors in Federal Waters Off the Washington and Oregon Coast (Permit Number WAG520000) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of re-proposal of General Permit.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 re-proposes a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Offshore Seafood Processors in Federal Waters off the Washington and Oregon Coast (Permit Number WAG520000). On August 24, 2015, EPA released a draft NPDES General Permit for public review. The public comment period closed on October 8, 2015. Based on the comments received, EPA has made revisions to the draft General Permit. EPA is re-proposing a revised draft General Permit, revised Fact Sheet and a revised Biological Evaluation. EPA is only accepting comments on permit conditions that are different from those proposed in the draft General Permit that was issued for review and comment on August 24, 2015.

    Specifically, EPA seeks public comment on the following proposed changes: A seasonal prohibition on wastewater discharges in waters shallower than 100 meters in depth and a year-round discharge prohibition over the Heceta/Stonewall Banks complex; clarification on the jurisdiction of the General Permit; the addition of a Best Management Practice (BMP) that vessels be moving while discharging in order to aid dispersion of the discharge; clarification of terminology used in the General Permit; clarification of the sea surface monitoring requirements; provisions to mitigate impact to seabirds; updates to the standard NPDES language and conditions; revisions to the Notice of Intent (NOI) for permit coverage; revisions to the Annual Report; and other factors that the EPA considered prior to re-proposing this draft General Permit based on comments received (i.e., effluent monitoring, harmful algal blooms and scientific study sites).

    DATES:

    The public comment period for the re-proposed General Permit for Offshore Seafood Processors in Federal Waters off the Washington and Oregon Coast will be 45 days from the date of publication of this Notice. Comments must be received or postmarked by no later than midnight Pacific Standard Time, August 3, 2017. EPA will only consider comments on the re-proposed permit provisions. Comments submitted previously on the initial draft General Permit need not be resubmitted; comments addressing permit provisions or issues beyond the scope of this re-proposal will not be considered.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA will consider comments on the re-proposed permit provisions before making its final decision. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Mail: Send paper comments to Catherine Gockel, Office of Water and Watersheds, Mail Stop OWW-191, 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101-3140.

    Email: Send electronic comments to [email protected].

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Deliver comments to Catherine Gockel, Office of Water and Watersheds, Mail Stop OWW-191, 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101-3140. Call (206) 553-0523 before delivery to verify business hours.

    Viewing and/or Obtaining Copies of Documents. A copy of the draft General Permit and the Fact Sheet, which explains the proposal in detail, may be obtained by contacting EPA at 1 (800) 424-4372. Copies of the documents are also available for viewing and downloading at: https://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/NPDES+Permits/DraftPermitsORWA.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Catherine Gockel, Office of Water and Watersheds, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Mail Stop OWW-191, 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101-3140, (206) 553-0325, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public Hearing. Persons wishing to request a public hearing may do so, in writing, by the expiration date of this public comment period. A public hearing is a formal meeting whereby EPA officials hear the public's views and concerns about an EPA action or proposal. A request for a public hearing must state the nature of the issues to be raised, reference the NPDES permit name and permit number, and include the requester's name, address, and telephone number.

    Document Viewing Locations. The re-proposed General Permit and Fact Sheet may also be viewed at the following location: EPA Region 10 Library, Park Place Building, 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101; (206) 553-1289. EPA's current administrative record for the draft General Permit is available for review at the EPA Region 10 Office, Park Place Building, 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Contact Catherine Gockel at [email protected] or (206) 553-0325.

    State Water Quality Standards and Certification. The General Permit's area of coverage is only in federal waters, thus EPA is not seeking 401 certification from any State or Tribe. However, seafood waste discharged under this General Permit could potentially affect waters of Washington and Oregon. EPA has sent the draft General Permit to the States of Oregon and Washington as required under Section 401(a)(2) and received feedback from each State.

    Coastal Zone Management Act—Federal Consistency Determination. Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) requires that federal actions, within and outside the coastal zone, which have reasonably foreseeable effects on any coastal use (land or water) or natural resource of the coastal zone be consistent with the enforceable policies of a state's federally approved coastal management program. Federal agency activities must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of a state coastal management program, and license and permit and financial assistance activities must be fully consistent. EPA has submitted CZMA federal consistency determinations to Washington and Oregon. The consistency determinations conclude that the General Permit is consistent with the enforceable policies of each State. Both States will now review the consistency determinations and General Permit, and will provide their own opportunities for public notice.

    Endangered Species Act. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, requires federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) if their actions have the potential to affect any threatened or endangered species. EPA analyzed the discharges proposed to be authorized by the draft General Permit and their potential to adversely affect any of the threatened or endangered species or their designated critical habitat areas in the vicinity of the discharges in a Biological Evaluation dated August 2015. On December 18, 2015, NMFS concurred with EPA that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the ESA-listed fish, marine mammals, and turtles under NMFS jurisdiction. On September 29, 2015, EPA received a response from USFWS indicating that the draft General Permit has the potential to affect ESA-listed or migratory birds. EPA has updated its Biological Evaluation to reflect changes to the re-proposed General Permit. EPA has reviewed the re-proposed draft permit and determined that the proposed changes would not alter the original conclusions that the discharges may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect listed, proposed, and candidate species or their designated critical habitat areas. The Fact Sheet, the re-proposed draft General Permit, and the revised Biological Evaluation will be sent to NMFS and USFWS for review during the public comment period.

    Essential Fish Habitat. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires EPA to consult with NMFS when a proposed permit action has the potential to adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The EPA submitted a Biological Evaluation dated August 2015 to NMFS, which included an EFH assessment. The EFH assessment concluded that the discharges authorized by the draft General Permit will not adversely affect EFH. On December 18, 2015, the NMFS communicated to the EPA that the proposed action could adversely affect EFH because of impacts to water quality and to benthic conditions. The NMFS provided conservation recommendations to avoid, mitigate, or offset the impact of the proposed action on EFH. The EPA has considered these recommendations and responded via letter.

    Executive Order 12866. The Office of Management and Budget exempts this action from the review requirements of Executive Order 12866 pursuant to Section 6 of that order.

    Paperwork Reduction Act. EPA has reviewed the requirements imposed on regulated facilities in the draft General Permit and finds them consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    National Marine Sanctuaries Act. Section 304(d) of the NMSA (16 U.S.C § 1434(d)) requires federal agencies to consult with the Secretary of Commerce, through NOAA, regarding any federal action or proposed action, including activities authorized by federal license, lease, or permit, that is likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure any sanctuary resource. In a letter dated May 25, 2016, the Sanctuary provided the EPA with recommended alternatives to protect Sanctuary resources and minimize or mitigate injury to Sanctuary resources associated with the proposed General Permit. The EPA has considered the Sanctuary's recommendations and has responded via letter.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., a federal agency must prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis “for any proposed rule” for which the agency “is required by section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), or any other law, to publish general notice of proposed rulemaking.” The RFA exempts from this requirement any rule that the issuing agency certifies “will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” EPA has concluded that NPDES General Permits are permits, not rulemakings, under the APA and thus not subject to APA rulemaking requirements or the RFA.

    Authority:

    This action is taken under the authority of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1342. I hereby provide public notice of the revised draft General Permit for Offshore Seafood Processors in Federal Waters off the Washington and Oregon Coast in accordance with 40 CFR 124.10.

    Dated: May 25, 2017. Christine Psyk, Acting Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, Region 10.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12734 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0189; FRL-9962-95-OAR] Alternative Method for Calculating Off-Cycle Credits Under the Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Program: Applications From BMW Group, Ford Motor Company, and Hyundai Motor Group AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requesting comment on applications from BMW of North American (BMW), Ford Motor Company (Ford), and Hyundai Motor Group for off-cycle carbon dioxide (CO2) credits under EPA's light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards. “Off-cycle” emission reductions can be achieved by employing technologies that result in real-world benefits, but where that benefit is not adequately captured on the test procedures used by manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with emission standards. EPA's light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas program acknowledges these benefits by giving automobile manufacturers several options for generating “off-cycle” carbon dioxide (CO2) credits. Under the regulations, a manufacturer may apply for CO2 credits for off-cycle technologies that result in off-cycle benefits. In these cases, a manufacturer must provide EPA with a proposed methodology for determining the real-world off-cycle benefit. These three manufacturers have submitted applications that describe methodologies for determining off-cycle credits. The off-cycle technologies vary by manufacturer and include thermal control technologies such as solar reflective glass/glazing and solar reflective surface coating (paint), a high efficiency alternator, and an efficient air conditioning compressor. Pursuant to applicable regulations, EPA is making descriptions of each manufacturer's off-cycle credit calculation methodologies available for public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OAR-2017-0189, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Roberts French, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Compliance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone: (734) 214-4380. Fax: (734) 214-4869. Email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    EPA's light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) program provides three pathways by which a manufacturer may accrue off-cycle carbon dioxide (CO2) credits for those technologies that achieve CO2 reductions in the real world but where those reductions are not adequately captured on the test used to determine compliance with the CO2 standards, and which are not otherwise reflected in the standards' stringency. The first pathway is a predetermined list of credit values for specific off-cycle technologies that may be used beginning in model year 2014.1 This pathway allows manufacturers to use conservative credit values established by EPA for a wide range of technologies, with minimal data submittal or testing requirements, as long as the technologies meet EPA regulatory definitions. In cases where the off-cycle technology is not on the menu but additional laboratory testing can demonstrate emission benefits, a second pathway allows manufacturers to use a broader array of emission tests (known as “5-cycle” testing because the methodology uses five different testing procedures) to demonstrate and justify off-cycle CO2 credits.2 The additional emission tests allow emission benefits to be demonstrated over some elements of real-world driving not adequately captured by the GHG compliance tests, including high speeds, hard accelerations, and cold temperatures. These first two methodologies were completely defined through notice and comment rulemaking and therefore no additional process is necessary for manufacturers to use these methods. The third and last pathway allows manufacturers to seek EPA approval to use an alternative methodology for determining the off-cycle CO2 credits.3 This option is only available if the benefit of the technology cannot be adequately demonstrated using the 5-cycle methodology. Manufacturers may also use this option for model years prior to 2014 to demonstrate off-cycle CO2 reductions for technologies that are on the predetermined list, or to demonstrate reductions that exceed those available via use of the predetermined list.

    1 See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(b).

    2 See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(c).

    3 See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d).

    Under the regulations, a manufacturer seeking to demonstrate off-cycle credits with an alternative methodology (i.e., under the third pathway described previously) must describe a methodology that meets the following criteria:

    • Use modeling, on-road testing, on-road data collection, or other approved analytical or engineering methods;

    • Be robust, verifiable, and capable of demonstrating the real-world emissions benefit with strong statistical significance;

    • Result in a demonstration of baseline and controlled emissions over a wide range of driving conditions and number of vehicles such that issues of data uncertainty are minimized;

    • Result in data on a model type basis unless the manufacturer demonstrates that another basis is appropriate and adequate.

    Further, the regulations specify the following requirements regarding an application for off-cycle CO2 credits:

    • A manufacturer requesting off-cycle credits must develop a methodology for demonstrating and determining the benefit of the off-cycle technology, and carry out any necessary testing and analysis required to support that methodology.

    • A manufacturer requesting off-cycle credits must conduct testing and/or prepare engineering analyses that demonstrate the in-use durability of the technology for the full useful life of the vehicle.

    • The application must contain a detailed description of the off-cycle technology and how it functions to reduce CO2 emissions under conditions not represented on the compliance tests.

    • The application must contain a list of the vehicle model(s) which will be equipped with the technology.

    • The application must contain a detailed description of the test vehicles selected and an engineering analysis that supports the selection of those vehicles for testing.

    • The application must contain all testing and/or simulation data required under the regulations, plus any other data the manufacturer has considered in the analysis.

    Finally, the alternative methodology must be approved by EPA prior to the manufacturer using it to generate credits. As part of the review process defined by regulation, the alternative methodology submitted to EPA for consideration must be made available for public comment.4 EPA will consider public comments as part of its final decision to approve or deny the request for off-cycle credits.

    4 See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d)(2).

    II. Off-Cycle Credit Applications A. Denso SAS Air Conditioning Compressor

    Using the alternative methodology approach discussed previously, BMW, Ford, and Hyundai are applying for credits for an air conditioning compressor manufactured by Denso that results in air conditioning efficiency credits beyond those provided in the regulations. This compressor, known as the Denso SAS compressor, improves the internal valve system within the compressor to reduce the internal refrigerant flow necessary throughout the range of displacements that the compressor may use during its operating cycle. The addition of a variable crankcase suction valve allows a larger mass flow under maximum capacity and compressor start-up conditions (when high flow is ideal), and then it can reduce to smaller openings with reduced mass flow in mid- or low-capacity conditions. The refrigerant exiting the crankcase is thus optimized across the range of operating conditions, reducing the overall energy consumption of the air conditioning system.

    The “5-cycle” methodology does not adequately measure the real-world greenhouse gas reduction benefits of this compressor because the only one of the five tests with the air conditioner operating is conducted under worst-case conditions (high temperature, high solar load, and high humidity), not the more moderate conditions where the technology provides the majority of its benefits.

    In December 2014, General Motors (GM) requested off-cycle GHG credits for the use of the Denso SAS compressor. GM worked with Denso to perform bench testing of compressors with and without the improvements and quantified the impact, which supported an off-cycle credit of 1.1 grams/mile. GM substantiated these results by also performing vehicle tests using the AC17 procedure. After public notice and comment, EPA approved GM's request in September 2015.5

    5 “EPA Decision Document: Off-cycle Credits for Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation.” Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-420-R-15-014, September 2015.

    The credits calculated for the Denso SAS compressor would be in addition to the credits of 1.7 grams/mile for variable-displacement A/C compressors already allowed under EPA regulations.6 However, it is important to note that EPA regulations place a limit on the cumulative credits that can be claimed for improving the efficiency of A/C systems. The rationale for this limit is that the additional fuel consumption of A/C systems can never be reduced to zero, and the limits established by regulation reflect the maximum possible reduction in fuel consumption projected by EPA. These limits, or caps, on credits for A/C efficiency, must also be applied to A/C efficiency credits granted under the off-cycle credit approval process. In other words, cumulative A/C efficiency credits for an A/C system—from the A/C efficiency regulations and those granted via the off-cycle regulations—must comply with the stated limits.

    6 See 40 CFR 86.1868-12.

    1. BMW

    BMW is requesting an off-cycle GHG credit of 1.1 grams CO2 per mile for the Denso SAS compressor (the same as was approved for GM in 2015). BMW repeated the bench test modeling analysis using vehicle-specific BMW input data, and, like the original Denso analysis, demonstrated a benefit of 1.1 grams/mile. Like GM, BMW also ran vehicle tests using the AC17 test. Six tests were conducted on a 3-series BMW, resulting in a calculated benefit of 1.2 grams/mile, thus substantiating the bench test results. Based on these results, BMW is requesting a credit of 1.1 grams/mile for all BMW vehicles equipped with the Denso SAS compressor with variable crankcase suction valve technology, starting with 2016 model year vehicles. Details of the testing and analysis can be found in the manufacturer's application.

    2. Ford

    Ford is requesting an off-cycle GHG credit of 1.1 grams CO2 per mile for the Denso SAS compressor (the same as was approved for GM in 2015). Ford cited the bench test modeling analysis referenced in the original GM application, which demonstrated a benefit of 1.1 grams/mile. Ford also ran vehicle tests using the AC17 test. Six tests were conducted on a 2017 Lincoln MKC, resulting in a calculated benefit of 1.5 grams/mile, thus substantiating the bench test results. Based on these results, Ford is requesting a credit of 1.1 grams/mile for all 2017 and later model year Ford vehicles equipped with the Denso SAS compressor with variable crankcase suction valve technology. Details of the testing and analysis can be found in the manufacturer's application.

    3. Hyundai

    Hyundai is requesting an off-cycle GHG credit of 1.4 grams CO2 per mile for the Denso SAS compressor. Hyundai repeated the bench test modeling analysis using vehicle-specific Hyundai input data, which demonstrated a benefit of 1.4 grams/mile. Like the other manufacturers, Hyundai also ran vehicle tests using the AC17 test. Two tests were conducted on a Hyundai Sonata, resulting in a calculated benefit of 9.3 grams/mile, substantially more than the bench test results. Based on these results, Hyundai is requesting a credit of 1.4 grams/mile for all 2015 through 2017 model year Hyundai Sonata models equipped with the Denso SAS compressor with variable crankcase suction valve technology. Details of the testing and analysis can be found in the manufacturer's application.

    B. High Efficiency Alternator

    Ford is requesting GHG credits for alternators with improved efficiency relative to a baseline alternator. This request is for the 2009 and later model years. Automotive alternators convert mechanical energy from a combustion engine into electrical energy that can be used to power a vehicle's electrical systems. Alternators inherently place a load on the engine, which results in increased fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. High efficiency alternators use new technologies to reduce the overall load on the engine yet continue to meet the electrical demands of the vehicle systems, resulting in lower fuel consumption and lower CO2 emissions. Some comments on EPA's proposed rule for GHG standards for the 2016-2025 model years suggested that EPA provide a credit for high-efficiency alternators on the pre-defined list in the regulations. While EPA agreed that high-efficiency alternators can reduce electrical load and reduce fuel consumption, and that these impacts are not seen on the emission test procedures because accessories that use electricity are turned off, EPA noted the difficulty in defining a one-size-fits-all credit due to lack of data.7 Ford proposes a methodology that would scale credits based on the efficiency of the alternator; alternators with efficiency (as measured using an accepted industry standard procedure) above a baseline value could get credits from 0.2 to 1.9 grams/mile. Details of the testing and analysis can be found in the manufacturer's application.

    7 See 77FR 62730, October 15, 2012.

    C. Thermal Control Technologies 1. Glass/Glazing

    Ford is requesting off-cycle credits for glass/glazing that reduces the amount of solar energy that is transmitted through the windows. By doing so, interior cabin temperatures can be reduced, which results in a reduction in the amount of energy needed to cool the cabin and maintain passenger comfort. Ford's request is fundamentally identical to the request submitted by Chrysler in 2013, which EPA subsequently approved in September of 2015.8

    8 “EPA Decision Document: Off-cycle Credits for Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation.” Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-420-R-15-014, September 2015.

    Ford's request is for 2010 and later model year vehicles, whereas the credits approved for Chrysler were limited to the model years before 2014 (after which EPA expects that credits would be gained via the regulatory “menu”, since the methodology essentially replicates EPA's methodology and produces similar credit values). Note that the regulations limit glass/glazing credits to 2.9 grams/mile for cars and 3.9 grams/mile for trucks, and that EPA will require that these caps be observed for all glass/glazing credits, regardless of the regulatory pathway by which those credits are claimed or granted. This is also true for the caps specified for the total credits from thermal control technologies (3.0 grams/mile for cars and 4.3 grams/mile for trucks). The technical and engineering reasons for these limits remain applicable and are not rendered moot because credits are granted through this public process.

    2. Solar Reflective Surface Coating

    Ford is requesting off-cycle credits for solar reflective paint. Like glass, by reducing the heat that is transmitted to the interior, interior cabin temperatures can be reduced, which results in a reduction in the amount of energy needed to cool the cabin and maintain passenger comfort. Ford's request is largely similar to the request submitted by Chrysler in 2013, which EPA subsequently approved in September of 2015.9 However, there is one significant difference. Chrysler noted two data points regarding the impact of reflective paint: A study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) that determined a cabin air breath temperature reduction of 1.2 degrees C, and a study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory for the California Energy Commission that showed a reduction of 5-6 degrees C. Chrysler's methodology, which EPA approved, used the more conservative value from the NREL study (as did EPA in our Technical Support Document to establish the menu values for reflective paint). Chrysler's methodology, which does not differ substantially from EPA's methodology outlined in our Technical Support Document, would produce credits of 0.4 grams/mile, comparable to the menu values for a paint with high reflectivity. Ford provided test data that indicated a cabin air breath temperature reduction closer to the California Energy Commission study, and the resulting credits would be up to about 2 grams/mile for the highest reflectivity paint, or five times the menu credit value documented in EPA's Technical Support Document. EPA is particularly interested in comments on Ford's data and methodology for these credits because of the different inputs used by Ford as well as the data those inputs are based on and the magnitude of the requested credits compared to the regulatory menu of credits for this technology.

    9 “EPA Decision Document: Off-cycle Credits for Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation.” Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-420-R-15-014, September 2015.

    Ford's request is for 2010 and later model year vehicles, whereas the credits approved for Chrysler were limited to the model years before 2014 (after which EPA expects that credits would be gained via the regulatory “menu”, since the methodology used by Chrysler essentially replicated EPA's methodology and produced similar credit values). Note that the regulations limit the cumulative credits from thermal control technologies to 3.0 grams/mile for cars and 4.3 grams/mile for trucks, and that EPA will require that these caps be observed for all thermal control credits, regardless of the regulatory pathway by which those credits are claimed or granted. The technical and engineering reasons for these limits remain applicable (a fact that is acknowledged by Ford in their application materials) and are not rendered moot because credits are granted through this public process instead of through the regulatory menu.

    III. EPA Decision Process

    EPA has reviewed the applications for completeness and is now making the applications available for public review and comment as required by the regulations. The off-cycle credit applications submitted by BMW, Ford, and Hyundai (with confidential business information redacted) have been placed in the public docket (see ADDRESSES section in this preamble) and on EPA's Web site at the following locations:

    BMW: https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-engine-certification/bmw-compliance-materials-light-duty-greenhouse-gas-ghg-standards Ford: https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-engine-certification/ford-compliance-materials-light-duty-greenhouse-gas-ghg-standards Hyundai: https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-engine-certification/hyundai-compliance-materials-light-duty-greenhouse-gas-ghg-standards

    EPA is providing a 30-day comment period on the applications for off-cycle credits described in this action, as specified by the regulations. The manufacturers may submit a written rebuttal of comments for EPA's consideration, or may revise an application in response to comments. After reviewing any public comments and any rebuttal of comments submitted by manufacturers, EPA will make a final decision regarding the credit requests. EPA will make its decision available to the public by placing a decision document (or multiple decision documents) in the docket and on EPA's Web site at the same manufacturer-specific pages shown previously. While the broad methodologies used by these manufacturers could potentially be used for other vehicles and by other manufacturers, the vehicle specific data needed to demonstrate the off-cycle emissions reductions would likely be different. In such cases, a new application would be required, including an opportunity for public comment.

    Dated: May 16, 2017. Byron J. Bunker, Director, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12737 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0738; FRL-9963-44-OAR] Notice of Final Approval for an Alternative Means of Emission Limitation at Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice; final approval.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces our approval of the Alternative Means of Emission Limitation (AMEL) request from Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP (CP Chem) under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to operate a multi-point ground flare (MPGF) at their ethylene plant in Baytown, Texas, and to operate an MPGF at their polyethylene plant in Old Ocean, Texas. This approval notice specifies the operating conditions and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that these facilities must follow to demonstrate compliance with the approved AMEL.

    DATES:

    The approval of the AMEL request for the MPGF at CP Chem's ethylene plant in Baytown, Texas, and the MPGF at CP Chem's polyethylene plant in Old Ocean, Texas, is effective on June 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0738. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions about this final action, contact Mr. Andrew Bouchard, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-4036; fax number: (919) 541-3470; and email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Acronyms and Abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this notice. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this notice and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

    AMEL alternative means of emission limitation Btu/scf British thermal units per standard cubic foot CAA Clean Air Act CBI confidential business information CFR Code of Federal Regulations CP Chem Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP EPA Environmental Protection Agency Eqn equation HAP hazardous air pollutants HP high pressure LFL lower flammability limit LFLcz lower flammability limit of combustion zone gas LFLvg lower flammability limit of flare vent gas MPGF multi-point ground flare NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants NHV net heating value NHVcz net heating value of combustion zone gas NHVvg net heating value of flare vent gas NSPS new source performance standards OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards scf standard cubic feet VOC volatile organic compounds

    Organization of This Document. The information in this notice is organized as follows:

    I. Background A. Summary B. Regulatory Flare Requirements and CP Chem's AMEL Request II. Summary of Public Comments on CP Chem's AMEL Request III. Final Notice of Approval of CP Chem's AMEL Request and Required Operating Conditions I. Background A. Summary

    In a Federal Register notice dated April 4, 2017, the EPA provided public notice and solicited comment on CP Chem's AMEL request under the CAA for the operation of an MPGF at an ethylene plant in Baytown, Texas, and for the operation of an MPGF at a polyethylene plant in Old Ocean, Texas (see 82 FR 16392).1 This action solicited comment on all aspects of the AMEL request, including the operating conditions specified in that action that are necessary to achieve a reduction in emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP) at least equivalent to the reduction in emissions required by various standards in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 that apply to emission sources that would be controlled by these MPGFs. These standards incorporate the design and operating requirements for flares in the General Provisions to parts 60 and 63 as part of the emission reduction requirements. Because the two proposed MPGFs cannot meet the velocity requirements in these General Provisions, CP Chem requested an AMEL. In its request, CP Chem demonstrates that the proposed AMEL for each of the two facilities would achieve at least equivalent emissions reductions as flares that meet the standards in the General Provisions.

    1 The MPGFs at both the ethylene plant and polyethylene plant will utilize pressure-assisted burners on all the high pressure (HP) stages; however, the first two stages on the MPGF at the polyethylene plant will also be steam-assisted.

    This action provides a summary of the comments received as part of the public review process, our response to those comments, and our approval of the AMEL request received from CP Chem for use of MPGFs at both their ethylene plant in Baytown, Texas, and polyethylene plant in Old Ocean, Texas, along with the operating conditions they must follow for demonstrating compliance with the approved AMEL.

    B. Regulatory Flare Requirements and CP Chem's AMEL Request

    CP Chem submitted a complete MPGF AMEL request, following the MPGF AMEL framework that was published in the Federal Register (see 81 FR 23480, April 21, 2016), to the EPA on November 28, 2016. CP Chem sought an AMEL to operate an MPGF for use during limited HP maintenance, startup, and shutdown events, as well as during upset events at their ethylene plant in Baytown, Texas. In addition, CP Chem sought an AMEL to operate an MPGF during certain routine operations (i.e., the first two stages only), as well as during periods of maintenance, startup, shutdown, and upset at their polyethylene plant in Old Ocean, Texas. In its request, CP Chem cited various regulatory requirements in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 that will apply to the flare vent gas streams that will be collected and routed to their MPGFs at each of these two plants. See Table 1 for a list of regulations, by subparts, that CP Chem has identified as applicable to the two plants described above. These new source performance standards (NSPS) and national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) require that flares subject to these subparts meet the flare design and operating requirements in the General Provisions of part 60 and 63, respectively (i.e., 40 CFR 60.18(b) and 63.11(b)). CP Chem is requesting that the EPA approve the AMEL to be used by each of the two plants for complying with the flare requirements in the relevant subparts as specified in Table 1.

    Table 1—Summary of Applicable Rules that May Apply to Vent Streams Controlled by Multi-Point Ground Flares Applicable rules with vent streams going to control device(s) CP chem ethylene plant CP chem
  • polyethylene
  • plant
  • Rule citation from Title 40 CFR that allow for use of a flare Provisions for alternative means of emission limitation
    NSPS Subpart VV X 60.482-10(d) 60.484(a)-(f). NSPS Subpart VVa X 60.482-10a(d) 60.484a(a)-(f). NSPS Subpart DDD X 60.562-1(a)(1)(i)(C) CAA section 111(h)(3). NSPS Subpart NNN X 60.662(b) CAA section 111(h)(3). NSPS Subpart RRR X 60.702(b) CAA section 111(h)(3). NESHAP Subpart FF X 61.349(a)(2) 61.353(a); also see 61.12(d). NESHAP Subpart SS X 63.982(b) CAA section 112(h)(3). NESHAP Subpart UU X 63.1034 63.1021(a)-(d). NESHAP Subpart XX X 63.1091
  • * Note—This subpart cross-references to NESHAP subpart FF above
  • 63.1097(b)(1).
    NESHAP Subpart YY X Table 7 to § 63.1103(e) cross-references to NESHAP subpart SS above 63.1113. NESHAP Subpart FFFF X 63.2450(e)(2) 63.2545(b)(1); also see 63.6(g).

    The provisions in each NSPS and NESHAP cited in Table 1 that ensure flares meet certain specific requirements when used to satisfy the requirements of the NSPS or NESHAP were established as work practice standards pursuant to CAA sections 111(h)(1) or 112(h)(1). For standards established according to these provisions, CAA sections 111(h)(3) and 112(h)(3) allow the EPA to permit the use of an AMEL by a source if, after notice and opportunity for comment,2 it is established to the Administrator's satisfaction that such AMEL will achieve emission reduction at least equivalent to the reduction required under the CAA section 111(h)(1) or 112(h)(1) standard. As noted in Table 1, many of the NSPS and NESHAP in the table above also include specific regulatory provisions allowing sources to request an AMEL.

    2 CAA section 111(h)(3) specifically requires that the EPA provide an opportunity for a public hearing. The EPA provided an opportunity for a public hearing in the April 4, 2017, Federal Register action. However, no public hearing was requested.

    CP Chem sought such an AMEL request because their MPGFs are not designed to operate below the maximum permitted velocity requirements for flares in the General Provisions of 40 CFR parts 60 and 63. CP Chem provided information that the MPGFs they propose to use will achieve a reduction in emissions at least equivalent to the reduction in emissions for flares complying with these General Provisions requirements (for further background information on the regulatory flare requirements and a facility's ability to request an AMEL, see 82 FR 16392-16399, April 4, 2017).

    II. Summary of Public Comments on CP Chem's AMEL Request

    The EPA received eight public comments on this action. The public comments received fell into one of the following three bins: (1) General support for CP Chem's AMEL request, (2) general opposition to CP Chem's AMEL request, and (3) general comments outside the scope of the action. None of the comments raised issues or otherwise mentioned any specific aspect of the MPGFs (including any operating condition) proposed for either of the two plants or the EPA's authority to approve these AMEL under the CAA. None of the commenters who opposed the EPA's proposal to approve the AMEL with the operating conditions specified in the April 4, 2017, action asserted that the EPA lacked authority to approve the AMEL or that the AMEL would not achieve at least equivalent emissions reductions as flares that meet the standards in the General Provisions. Additionally, the one commenter who generally opposed CP Chem's AMEL request did not provide any substantive reason for why they opposed the request, other than to note that existing regulations should be followed. Therefore, no changes have been made to the operating conditions specified in the April 4, 2017, action.

    III. Final Notice of Approval of CP Chem's AMEL Request and Required Operating Conditions

    Based on information the EPA received from CP Chem and the comments received through the public comment period, we are approving CP Chem's request for an AMEL and establishing operating requirements for the MPGF at CP Chem's ethylene plant in Baytown, Texas, and the MPGF at CP Chem's polyethylene plant in Old Ocean, Texas. The operating conditions for CP Chem's MPGF that will achieve a reduction in emissions at least equivalent to the reduction in emissions being controlled by a steam-assisted, air-assisted, or non-assisted flare complying with the requirements of either 40 CFR 63.11(b) or 40 CFR 60.18(b) are as follows: (1) The MPGF system for all HP stages at CP Chem's ethylene plant and for all HP stages excluding stage 1 and 2 for CP Chem's polyethylene plant must be designed and operated such that the net heating value of the combustion zone gas (NHV cz) is greater than or equal to 800 British thermal units per standard cubic foot (Btu/scf) or lower flammability limit of the combustion zone gas (LFL cz) is less than or equal to 6.5 percent by volume. The MPGF system for HP stages 1 and 2 of CP Chem's polyethlene plant must be designed and operated such that the NHV cz is greater than or equal to 600 Btu/scf or the LFL cz is less than or equal to 8.0 percent by volume. Owners or operators must demonstrate compliance with the NHV cz or LFL cz metric by continuously complying with a 15-minute block average. Owners or operators must calculate and monitor for the NHV cz or LFL cz according to the following:

    (a) Calculation of NHV cz

    (i) The owner or operator shall determine the net heating value of flare vent gas (NHV vg) by following the requirements of (1)(d)-(1)(e) below. If an owner or operator elects to use a monitoring system capable of continuously measuring (i.e., at least once every 15 minutes), calculating, and recording the individual component concentrations present in the flare vent gas, NHV vg shall be calculated using the following equation:

    EN19JN17.000 Where: NHV vg = Net heating value of flare vent gas, Btu/scf. Flare vent gas means all gas found just prior to the MPGF. This gas includes all flare waste gas (i.e., gas from facility operations that is directed to a flare for the purpose of disposing of the gas), flare sweep gas, flare purge gas and flare supplemental gas, but does not include pilot gas. i = Individual component in flare vent gas. n = Number of components in flare vent gas. x i = Concentration of component i in flare vent gas, volume fraction. NHV i = Net heating value of component i determined as the heat of combustion where the net enthalpy per mole of offgas is based on combustion at 25 degrees Celsius (°C) and 1 atmosphere (or constant pressure) with water in the gaseous state from values published in the literature, and then the values converted to a volumetric basis using 20 °C for “standard temperature.” Table 2 summarizes component properties including net heating values.

    (ii) For all MPGF HP stages at CP Chem's ethylene plant and for all MPGF HP stages, excluding stage 1 and 2 for CP Chem's polyethylene plant, NHV vg = NHV cz.

    (iii) For HP stages 1 and 2 of CP Chem's polyethlene plant MPGF, NHV cz shall be calculated using the following equation:

    EN19JN17.001 Where: NHV cz = Net heating value of combustion zone gas, Btu/scf. NHV vg = Net heating value of flare vent gas for the 15-minute block period as determined according to (1)(a)(i) above, Btu/scf. Q vg = Cumulative volumetric flow of flare vent gas during the 15-minute block period, standard cubic feet (scf). Q s = Cumulative volumetric flow of total assist steam during the 15-minute block period, scf.

    (b) Calculation of LFL cz

    (i) The owner or operator shall determine LFL cz from compositional analysis data by using the following equation:

    EN19JN17.002 Where: LFL vg = Lower flammability limit of flare vent gas, volume percent (vol %). n = Number of components in the vent gas. i = Individual component in the vent gas. X i = Concentration of component i in the vent gas, vol %. LFL i = Lower flammability limit of component i as determined using values published by the U.S. Bureau of Mines (Zabetakis, 1965), vol %. All inerts, including nitrogen, are assumed to have an infinite LFL (e.g., LFL N2 = ∞, so that X N2/LFL N2 = 0). LFL values for common flare vent gas components are provided in Table 2.

    (ii) For all MPGF HP stages at CP Chem's ethylene plant and for all MPGF HP stages, excluding stages 1 and 2 for CP Chem's polyethylene plant, LFL vg = LFL cz.

    (iii) For HP stages 1 and 2 of CP Chem's polyethlene plant MPGF, LFL cz shall be calculated using the following equation:

    EN19JN17.003 Where: LFL cz = Lower flammability limit of combustion zone gas, vol %. LFL vg = Lower flammability limit of flare vent gas, vol %. Q vg = Cumulative volumetric flow of flare vent gas during the 15-minute block period, scf. Q s = Cumulative volumetric flow of total assist steam during the 15-minute block period, scf.

    (c) The operator of an MPGF system shall install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring system capable of continuously measuring the volumetric flow rate of flare vent gas (Q vg) and the volumetric flow rate of total assist steam (Q s).

    (i) The flow rate monitoring systems must be able to correct for the temperature and pressure of the system and output parameters in standard conditions (i.e., a temperature of 20 °C (68 °F) and a pressure of 1 atmosphere).

    (ii) Mass flow monitors may be used for determining volumetric flow rate of flare vent gas provided the molecular weight of the flare vent gas is determined using compositional analysis so that the mass flow rate can be converted to volumetric flow at standard conditions using the following equation:

    EN19JN17.004 Where: Q vol = Volumetric flow rate, scf per second. Q mass = Mass flow rate, pounds per second. 385.3 = Conversion factor, scf per pound-mole. MW t = Molecular weight of the gas at the flow monitoring location, pounds per pound-mole.

    (iii) Mass flow monitors may be used for determining volumetric flow rate of total assist steam. Use Equation 5 to convert mass flow rates to volumetric flow rates. Use a molecular weight of 18 pounds per pound-mole for total assist steam.

    (d) The operator shall install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring system capable of continuously measuring (i.e., at least once every 15 minutes), calculating, and recording the individual component concentrations present in the flare vent gas or the owner or operator shall install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring system capable of continuously measuring, calculating, and recording NHV vg (in Btu/scf).

    (e) For each measurement produced by the monitoring system used to comply with (1)(d) above, the operator shall determine the 15-minute block average as the arithmetic average of all measurements made by the monitoring system within the 15-minute period.

    (f) The operator must follow the calibration and maintenance procedures according to Table 3. Maintenance periods, instrument adjustments, or checks to maintain precision and accuracy and zero and span adjustments may not exceed 5 percent of the time the flare is receiving regulated material.

    Table 2—Individual Component Properties Component Molecular formula MW i
  • (pounds per
  • pound-mole)
  • NHV i
  • (British
  • thermal units
  • per standard
  • cubic foot)
  • LFL i
  • (volume %)
  • Acetylene C2H2 26.04 1,404 2.5 Benzene C6H6 78.11 3,591 1.3 1,2-Butadiene C4H6 54.09 2,794 2.0 1,3-Butadiene C4H6 54.09 2,690 2.0 iso-Butane C4H10 58.12 2,957 1.8 n-Butane C4H10 58.12 2,968 1.8 cis-Butene C4H8 56.11 2,830 1.6 iso-Butene C4H8 56.11 2,928 1.8 trans-Butene C4H8 56.11 2,826 1.7 Carbon Dioxide CO2 44.01 0 Carbon Monoxide CO 28.01 316 12.5 Cyclopropane C3H6 42.08 2,185 2.4 Ethane C2H6 30.07 1,595 3.0 Ethylene C2H4 28.05 1,477 2.7 Hydrogen H2 2.02 274 4.0 Hydrogen Sulfide H2S 34.08 587 4.0 Methane CH4 16.04 896 5.0 Methyl-Acetylene C3H4 40.06 2,088 1.7 Nitrogen N2 28.01 0 Oxygen O2 32.00 0 Pentane+ (C5+) C5H12 72.15 3,655 1.4 Propadiene C3H4 40.06 2,066 2.16 Propane C3H8 44.10 2,281 2.1 Propylene C3H6 42.08 2,150 2.4 Water H2O 18.02 0
    Table 3—Accuracy and Calibration Requirements Parameter Accuracy requirements Calibration requirements Flare Vent Gas Flow Rate ±20 percent of flow rate at velocities ranging from 0.1 to 1 foot per second
  • ±5 percent of flow rate at velocities greater than 1 foot per second
  • Performance evaluation biennially (every 2 years) and following any period of more than 24 hours throughout which the flow rate exceeded the maximum rated flow rate of the sensor, or the data recorder was off scale. Checks of all mechanical connections for leakage monthly. Visual inspections and checks of system operation every 3 months, unless the system has a redundant flow sensor.
  • Select a representative measurement location where swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances at the point of measurement are minimized.
  • Flow Rate for All Flows Other Than Flare Vent Gas ±5 percent over the normal range of flow measured or 1.9 liters per minute (0.5 gallons per minute), whichever is greater, for liquid flow Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least biennially (every two years); conduct a calibration check following any period of more than 24 hours throughout which the flow rate exceeded the manufacturer's specified maximum rated flow rate or install a new flow sensor. ±5 percent over the normal range of flow measured or 280 liters per minute (10 cubic feet per minute), whichever is greater, for gas flow At least quarterly, inspect all components for leakage, unless the continuous parameter monitoring system has a redundant flow sensor. ±5 percent over the normal range measured for mass flow Record the results of each calibration check and inspection.
  • Locate the flow sensor(s) and other necessary equipment (such as straightening vanes) in a position that provides representative flow; reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances.
  • Pressure ±5 percent over the normal range measured or 0.12 kilopascals (0.5 inches of water column), whichever is greater Review pressure sensor readings at least once a week for straight-line (unchanging) pressure and perform corrective action to ensure proper pressure sensor operation if blockage is indicated.
  • Performance evaluation annually and following any period of more than 24 hours throughout which the pressure exceeded the maximum rated pressure of the sensor, or the data recorder was off scale. Checks of all mechanical connections for leakage monthly. Visual inspection of all components for integrity, oxidation, and galvanic corrosion every 3 months, unless the system has a redundant pressure sensor.
  • Select a representative measurement location that minimizes or eliminates pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and external corrosion.
  • Net Heating Value by Calorimeter ±2 percent of span Calibration requirements should follow manufacturer's recommendations at a minimum.
  • Temperature control (heated and/or cooled as necessary) the sampling system to ensure proper year-round operation.
  • Where feasible, select a sampling location at least 2 equivalent diameters downstream from and 0.5 equivalent diameters upstream from the nearest disturbance. Select the sampling location at least 2 equivalent duct diameters from the nearest control device, point of pollutant generation, air in-leakages, or other point at which a change in the pollutant concentration or emission rate occurs.
  • Net Heating Value by Gas Chromatograph As specified in Performance Specification (PS) 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B Follow the procedure in PS 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, except that a single daily mid-level calibration check can be used (rather than triplicate analysis), the multi-point calibration can be conducted quarterly (rather than monthly), and the sampling line temperature must be maintained at a minimum temperature of 60 °C (rather than 120 °C).

    (2) The MPGF system shall be operated with a flame present at all times when in use. Each burner on HP stages 1 and 2 of CP Chem's polyethylene plant MPGF must have a pilot with a continuously lit pilot flame. Additionally, each HP stage of CP Chem's ethylene plant MPGF and all HP stages, excluding stages 1 and 2 for CP Chem's polyethylene plant MPGF, must have at least two pilots with a continuously lit pilot flame. Each pilot flame must be continuously monitored by a thermocouple or any other equivalent device used to detect the presence of a flame. The time, date, and duration of any complete loss of pilot flame on any of the individual MPGF burners on HP stages 1 and 2 of CP Chem's polyethylene plant MPGF, on any of the HP stages of CP Chem's ethylene plant MPGF, and on any of the HP stages, excluding stages 1 and 2 of CP Chem's polyethylene plant MPGF, must be recorded. Each monitoring device must be maintained or replaced at a frequency in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.

    (3) The MPGF system shall be operated with no visible emissions except for periods not to exceed a total of 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive hours. A video camera that is capable of continuously recording (i.e., at least one frame every 15 seconds with time and date stamps) images of the flare flame and a reasonable distance above the flare flame at an angle suitable for visible emissions observations must be used to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. The owner or operator must provide real-time video surveillance camera output to the control room or other continuously manned location where the video camera images may be viewed at any time.

    (4) The operator of an MPGF system shall install and operate pressure monitor(s) on the main flare header, as well as a valve position indicator monitoring system capable of monitoring and recording the position for each staging valve to ensure that the MPGF operates within the range of tested conditions or within the range of the manufacturer's specifications. The pressure monitor shall meet the requirements in Table 3. Maintenance periods, instrument adjustments or checks to maintain precision and accuracy, and zero and span adjustments may not exceed 5 percent of the time the flare is receiving regulated material.

    (5) Recordkeeping Requirements.

    (a) All data must be recorded and maintained for a minimum of 3 years or for as long as required under applicable rule subpart(s), whichever is longer.

    (6) Reporting Requirements.

    (a) The information specified in sections III (6)(b) and (c) of this document below must be reported in the timeline specified by the applicable rule subpart(s) for which the MPGF will control emissions.

    (b) Owners or operators shall include the following information in their initial Notification of Compliance status report:

    (i) Specify flare design as a pressure-assisted MPGF. CP Chem's polyethylene plant shall also clearly note that HP stages 1 and 2 are also steam-assisted.

    (ii) All visible emission readings, NHV cz and/or LFL cz determinations, and flow rate measurements. For MPGF, exit velocity determinations do not need to be reported as the maximum permitted velocity requirements in the General Provisions at 40 CFR 60.18(b) and 40 CFR 63.11(b) are not applicable.

    (iii) All periods during the compliance determination when a complete loss of pilot flame on any stage of MPGF burners occurs, and, for HP stages 1 and 2 of CP Chem's polyethylene plant MPGF, all periods during the compliance determination when a complete loss of pilot flame on an individual burner occurs.

    (iv) All periods during the compliance determination when the pressure monitor(s) on the main flare header show the MPGF burners operating outside the range of tested conditions or outside the range of the manufacturer's specifications.

    (v) All periods during the compliance determination when the staging valve position indicator monitoring system indicates a stage of the MPGF should not be in operation and is or when a stage of the MPGF should be in operation and is not.

    (c) The owner or operator shall notify the Administrator of periods of excess emissions in their Periodic Reports. These periods of excess emissions shall include:

    (i) Records of each 15-minute block for all HP stages of CP Chem's ethylene plant MPGF and for all HP stages excluding stages 1 and 2 of CP Chem's polyethylene plant MPGF during which there was at least 1 minute when regulated material was routed to the MPGF and a complete loss of pilot flame on a stage of burners occurred, and, for HP stages 1 and 2 of CP Chem's polyethylene plant MPGF, records of each 15-minute block during which there was at least 1 minute when regulated material was routed to the MPGF and a complete loss of pilot flame on an individual burner occurred.

    (ii) Records of visible emissions events (including the time and date stamp) that exceed more than 5 minutes in any 2-hour consecutive period.

    (iii) Records of each 15-minute block period for which an applicable combustion zone operating limit (i.e., NHV cz or LFL cz) is not met for the MPGF when regulated material is being combusted in the flare. Indicate the date and time for each period, the NHV cz and/or LFL cz operating parameter for the period and the type of monitoring system used to determine compliance with the operating parameters (e.g., gas chromatograph or calorimeter). For CP Chem's polyethylene plant MPGF, also indicate which HP stages were in use.

    (iv) Records of when the pressure monitor(s) on the main flare header show the MPGF burners are operating outside the range of tested conditions or outside the range of the manufacturer's specifications. Indicate the date and time for each period, the pressure measurement, the stage(s) and number of MPGF burners affected, and the range of tested conditions or manufacturer's specifications.

    (v) Records of when the staging valve position indicator monitoring system indicates a stage of the MPGF should not be in operation and is or when a stage of the MPGF should be in operation and is not. Indicate the date and time for each period, whether the stage was supposed to be open, but was closed or vice versa, and the stage(s) and number of MPGF burners affected.

    Dated: June 1, 2017. Stephen Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12688 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notice AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    DATE AND TIME:

    Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

    STATUS:

    This hearing will be open to the public.

    ITEM TO BE DISCUSSED:

    Audit Hearing: Illinois Republican Party.

    Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Dayna Brown, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the hearing date.

    PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12785 Filed 6-15-17; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 3, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:

    1. First Baird Bancshares, Inc., Weatherford, Texas; to acquire directly and indirectly voting shares of Sharp BancSystems, Inc., Bedford, Texas, and thereby engage in data processing activities pursuant to section 225.28(b)(14)(i) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 14, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12741 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Granting of Requests for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the Premerger Notification Rules

    Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, requires persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such plans. Section 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and requires that notice of this action be published in the Federal Register.

    The following transactions were granted early termination—on the dates indicated—of the waiting period provided by law and the premerger notification rules. The listing for each transaction includes the transaction number and the parties to the transaction. The grants were made by the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice.

    Neither agency intends to take any action with respect to these proposed acquisitions during the applicable waiting period.

    Early Terminations Granted [May 1, 2017 through May 31, 2017] 05/01/2017 20170992 G Microsoft Corporation; Charles Simonyi; Microsoft Corporation. 20171048 G Vector Capital IV International, L.P.; Experian plc; Vector Capital IV International, L.P. 20171053 G Gulfport Energy Corporation; Mammoth Energy Holdings LLC; Gulfport Energy Corporation. 20171054 G Green Equity Investors Side VII, L.P.; Letterone Investment Holdings S.A.; Green Equity Investors Side VII, L.P. 20171055 G NuStar Energy L.P.; First Reserve Energy Infrastructure Fund II, L.P.; NuStar Energy L.P. 20171057 G Apax IX USD L.P.; Syneron Medical Ltd.; Apax IX USD L.P. 20171067 G Loews Corporation; Bain Capital Fund X, L.P.; Loews Corporation. 20171068 Y Mubadala Investment Company PJSC; The Williams Companies Inc.; Mubadala Investment Company PJSC. 20171070 G Wind Point Partners, VIII-A, L.P.; Valicor, Inc.; Wind Point Partners, VIII-A, L.P. 20171073 G Permira VI L.P. 1; The Resolute Fund III, L.P.; Permira VI L.P. 1. 20171075 G Swift Transportation Company; Knight Transportation, Inc.; Swift Transportation Company. 20171076 G Clayton Dubilier & Rice Fund IX, L.P.; Onex Partners II LP; Clayton Dubilier & Rice Fund IX, L.P. 20171082 G Ronald O. Perelman; RetailMeNot, Inc.; Ronald O. Perelman. 20171083 G Capital Power Corporation; LS Power Equity Partners III, L.P.; Capital Power Corporation. 05/02/2017 20171025 G JANA Nirvana Offshore Fund, Ltd.; Whole Foods Market, Inc.; JANA Nirvana Offshore Fund, Ltd. 20171026 G JANA Master Fund, Ltd.; Whole Foods Market, Inc.; JANA Master Fund, Ltd. 20171063 G Carlyle Power Partners II, L.P.; Rockland Power Partners II, LP; Carlyle Power Partners II, L.P. 05/03/2017 20170923 G Leonardo S.p.A.; Daylight Solutions, Inc.; Leonardo S.p.A. 20171024 G Extreme Networks, Inc.; Broadcom Limited; Extreme Networks, Inc. 05/04/2017 20170405 G Boral Limited; Headwaters Incorporated; Boral Limited. 20171027 G MGM Holdings, Inc.; Studio 3 Partners LLC; MGM Holdings, Inc. 20171051 G Cowen Group, Inc.; ConvergEx Holdings, LLC; Cowen Group, Inc. 20171071 G Dell Technologies; Wavefront, Inc.; Dell Technologies. 20171093 G Beecken Petty O'Keefe Fund IV, L.P.; Cortec Group Fund IV, L.P.; Beecken Petty O'Keefe Fund IV, L.P. 20171097 Y Zheng Yuewen; Dr. Cathrin Schleussner; Zheng Yuewen. 20171098 G Oracle Corporation; Jonah Goodhart; Oracle Corporation. 05/05/2017 20171030 G BioTelemetry, Inc.; LifeWatch AG; BioTelemetry, Inc. 05/08/2017 20171000 G Thomas Jefferson University; Philadelphia University; Thomas Jefferson University. 20171086 G AT&T Inc.; Softbank Group Corp.; AT&T Inc. 20171087 G Softbank Group Corp.; AT&T Inc.; Softbank Group Corp. 20171092 G Platinum Equity Capital Partners IV, L.P.; ATS Consolidated, Inc.; Platinum Equity Capital Partners IV, L.P. 20171094 Y Shanghai Shenda Co., Ltd.; International Automotive Components Group North America, LLC; Shanghai Shenda Co., Ltd. 20171101 G Insignia Capital Partners, L.P.; Tillamook Country Smoker, Inc.; Insignia Capital Partners, L.P. 20171107 G Orion US Holdings 1 L.P.; SunEdison, Inc.; Orion US Holdings 1 L.P. 20171108 G Blackstone Energy Partners II Q L.P.; EnCap Flatrock Midstream Fund II, L.P.; Blackstone Energy Partners II Q L.P. 20171109 G Harmony Merger Corp.; NextDecade, LLC; Harmony Merger Corp. 20171114 G Olympus Growth Fund VI, L.P.; Wind Point Partners, VII-A, L.P.; Olympus Growth Fund VI, L.P. 20171115 G Sawai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Ken & Grace Evanstad; Sawai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. 20171117 G Golden Gate Capital Opportunity Fund, L.P.; Vector Capital IV International, L.P.; Golden Gate Capital Opportunity Fund, L.P. 20171120 G Proximus PLC; TeleSign Holdings, Inc.; Proximus PLC. 20171129 G Eagle Buyer, Inc.; Eagle Holding Company I; Eagle Buyer, Inc. 20171131 G Global Atlantic Financial Group Limited; John D. Arnold; Global Atlantic Financial Group Limited. 20171133 G Ashland Global Holdings Inc.; Mrs. Catherine Holmes; Ashland Global Holdings Inc. 20171136 G MVC Capital, Inc.; MVC Capital, Inc.; MVC Capital, Inc. 20171137 G MVC Capital, Inc.; Equus Total Return, Inc.; MVC Capital, Inc. 05/09/2017 20171112 G CK Williams UK Holdings Limited; DUET Company Limited; CK Williams UK Holdings Limited. 20171135 G KMG Chemicals, Inc.; Arsenal Capital Partners III LP; KMG Chemicals, Inc. 05/11/2017 20171138 G SNC-Lavalin Group Inc.; WS Atkins plc; SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. 05/12/2017 20171105 Y Argos Holdings L.P.; Chewy, Inc.; Argos Holdings L.P. 05/15/2017 20171085 G Vista Equity Partners Fund VI, L.P.; Aurora Equity Partners IV, L.P.; Vista Equity Partners Fund VI, L.P. 20171118 G HeidelbergCement AG; CEMEX S.A.B. de C.V.; HeidelbergCement AG. 20171121 G Nikkiso Co., Ltd.; Ross M. Brown; Nikkiso Co., Ltd. 05/16/2017 20171139 G Gridiron Capital Fund III, L.P.; Audax Private Equity Fund IV, L.P.; Gridiron Capital Fund III, L.P. 20171144 G Insight Venture Partners VII, L.P.; Smartsheet Inc.; Insight Venture Partners VII, L.P. 20171148 G Dubai Aerospace Enterprise (DAE) Ltd.; Carmel Capital S.A.R.L.; Dubai Aerospace Enterprise (DAE) Ltd. 20171152 G Marlin Equity IV, L.P.; Tangoe, Inc.; Marlin Equity IV, L.P. 20171153 G Peugeot S.A.; General Motors Company; Peugeot S.A. 20171155 G Salaheddin Fawzi Hasan; John T. Rogers & Twanna M. Rogers (husband and wife); Salaheddin Fawzi Hasan. 20171156 G Jeffery D. Hildebrand; ConocoPhilips; Jeffery D. Hildebrand. 20171160 G Richard D. Kinder; Kinder Morgan, Inc.; Richard D. Kinder. 20171165 G SK Capital Partners IV-A, L.P.; D.B. Western, Inc.—Texas; SK Capital Partners IV-A, L.P. 20171168 G Elliott International Limited; Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc.; Elliott International Limited. 20171169 G Elliott Associates, L.P.; Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc.; Elliott Associates, L.P. 20171180 G Mr. Len Blavatnik; Essential Products, Inc.; Mr. Len Blavatnik. 20171184 G TPG Growth III (A), L.P.; Medical Solutions Equity, LLC; TPG Growth III (A), L.P. 05/17/2017 20170048 G Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers Incorporated; IronPlanet Holdings, Inc.; Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers Incorporated. 20171143 G Cardinal Health, Inc.; Medtronic plc; Cardinal Health, Inc. 20171157 G Michael J. Angelakis; Virtusa Corporation; Michael J. Angelakis. 05/18/2017 20171062 G Supervalu Inc.; Unified Grocers, Inc.; Supervalu Inc. 20171104 G Alpine Aggregator LLC; Ascend Learning Holdings, LLC; Alpine Aggregator LLC. 20171134 G Standard Life plc; Aberdeen Asset Management PLC; Standard Life plc. 05/19/2017 20171126 G Macquarie Group Limited; Cargill, Incorporated; Macquarie Group Limited. 20171140 G Francisco Partners IV, L.P.; AQA Acquisition Holding, Inc.; Francisco Partners IV, L.P. 20171174 G The Veritas Capital Fund V, L.P.; SWN Communications Inc.; The Veritas Capital Fund V, L.P. 20171177 G Cisco Systems, Inc.; Timothy Tuttle; Cisco Systems, Inc. 20171185 G FleetCor Technologies, Inc.; Bernard Heitner; FleetCor Technologies, Inc. 20171186 G FleetCor Technologies, Inc.; Jacques Feldman; FleetCor Technologies, Inc. 20171189 G Daniel Gilbert; George K. Broady; Daniel Gilbert. 20171194 G Belden Inc.; Riverside Fund IV, LP; Belden Inc. 20171197 G AIPCF VI Cayman AIV Fund, LP; Canam Group, Inc.; AIPCF VI Cayman AIV Fund, LP. 20171200 G Dr. Robert J. Hariri; Human Longevity, Inc.; Dr. Robert J. Hariri. 20171202 G PSP Investments Holding Europe Ltd.; PSPLUX S.a.r.l; PSP Investments Holding Europe Ltd. 20171211 G Hitachi Ltd.; Silver II GP Holdings S.C.A.; Hitachi Ltd. 05/22/2017 20171149 G Jorge Paulo Lemann; Richard A. Guthy & Denise A. Guthy; Jorge Paulo Lemann. 20171150 G Eugenie Patri Sebastien EPS, SA; Richard A. Guthy & Denise A. Guthy; Eugenie Patri Sebastien EPS, SA. 20171198 G New Mountain Partners V (AIV-A), L.P.; Fidelity National Financial, Inc.; New Mountain Partners V (AIV-A), L.P. 05/23/2017 20171161 G Legrand S.A.; Finelite, Inc.; Legrand S.A. 20171176 G WestRock Company; Dennis Mehiel; WestRock Company. 20171193 G Nautic Partners VIII, L.P.; Wolseley plc; Nautic Partners VIII, L.P. 20171220 G TC Pipelines, LP; Portland Natural Gas Transmission System; TC Pipelines, LP. 05/24/2017 20171077 G Deutsche Telekom AG; AT&T Inc.; Deutsche Telekom AG. 20171078 G AT&T Inc.; Deutsche Telekom AG; AT&T Inc. 20171154 G Neuberger Berman Alternative Funds; Whole Foods Market, Inc.; Neuberger Berman Alternative Funds. 20171209 G Federal Signal Corporation; GenNx 360 Capital Partners II, L.P.; Federal Signal Corporation. 20171214 G Lion Capital (Guernsey) Bridgeco Limited; Lenny & Larry's, LLC; Lion Capital (Guernsey) Bridgeco Limited. 05/25/2017 20171130 G Uniti Group Inc.; SLF Holdings, LLC; Uniti Group Inc. 20171225 G The Coca-Cola Company; Arca Continental, S.A.B. de C.V.; The Coca-Cola Company. 05/26/2017 20160979 G The Sherwin-Williams Company; The Valspar Corporation; The Sherwin-Williams Company. 05/30/2017 20171119 G Vincent Viola; KCG Holdings, Inc.; Vincent Viola. 20171210 G North Haven Infrastructure Partners II AIV-I L.P.; Carlyle Infrastructure Partners Power III, LP; North Haven Infrastructure Partners II AIV-I L.P. 20171216 G Jeffrey Broin; Missouri Ethanol, L.L.C.; Jeffrey Broin. 20171219 G Cummins Inc.; Eaton Corporation plc; Cummins Inc. 20171221 G Jeffrey Broin; Prairie Ethanol, LLC; Jeffrey Broin. 20171222 G Q-HG Energy II Investment Partners, LLC; Noble Energy, Inc.; Q-HG Energy II Investment Partners, LLC. 20171223 G Owens & Minor, Inc.; AI Garden (Cayman) Limited; Owens & Minor, Inc. 20171228 G Jeffrey Broin; POET Grain, LLC; Jeffrey Broin. 20171229 G Calera Capital Partners V, L.P.; Adam M. Arnott; Calera Capital Partners V, L.P. 20171230 G Thoma Bravo Discover Fund, L.P.; Continuum Managed Services, LLC; Thoma Bravo Discover Fund, L.P. 20171234 G Desmarais Family Residuary Trust; Lumenpulse Inc.; Desmarais Family Residuary Trust. 20171236 G Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited; Thoma Bravo Fund X, L.P.; Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited. 20171242 G Pembina Pipeline Corporation; Veresen Inc.; Pembina Pipeline Corporation. 20171244 G CP VI Eagle, L.P.; WildHorse Resource Development Corporation; CP VI Eagle, L.P. 20171248 G Enbridge Inc.; Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P.; Enbridge Inc. 20171255 G Reliance Worldwide Corporation Limited; Michelle M. Hubbard; Reliance Worldwide Corporation Limited. 20171256 G Owens Corning; PCC APIS Trust; Owens Corning. 20171257 G Orbiter Holdings Jersey Limited; Theodore Schneider; Orbiter Holdings Jersey Limited. 20171261 G GTCR Fund XI-A LP; VEPF IV AIV IX, L.P.; GTCR Fund XI-A LP. 20171264 G Silver Lake Partners IV, L.P.; Unity Software Inc.; Silver Lake Partners IV, L.P. 20171265 G Vitol Holding B.V.; VTTI Energy Partners LP; Vitol Holding B.V. 20171266 G Buckeye Partners, L.P.; VTTI Energy Partners LP; Buckeye Partners, L.P. 05/31/2017 20170964 G Clayton, Dubilier & Rice Fund IX, L.P.; OIP Safway AIV, L.P.; Clayton, Dubilier & Rice Fund IX, L.P. 20171145 G KKR & Co. L.P.; James M. Seneff, Jr.; KKR & Co. L.P. 20171243 G Trident FFP L.P.; Focus Financial Partners, LLC; Trident FFP L.P.

    For Further Information Contact: Theresa Kingsberry, Program Support Specialist, Federal Trade Commission Premerger Notification Office, Bureau of Competition, Room CC-5301, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 326-3100.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12717 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Notice of Changes in Permit Application To Import a Dog Inadequately Immunized Against Rabies AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces changes in the application process to import a dog inadequately immunized against rabies. As a result of these changes, at least 10 business days before arriving into the United States with an inadequately immunized dog, an importer must apply online at https://www.cdc.gov/importation/ for a Permit to Import a Dog Inadequately Immunized against Rabies. Permit applications to import an inadequately immunized dog will not be available at the port of entry and no permits will be issued at the port of entry. Inadequately immunized dogs arriving at a port of entry without an approved permit will be denied entry into the United States and exported to its country of origin at the owner's expense.

    DATES:

    This notice is effective August 18, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information regarding this notice contact: Ashley A. Marrone, J.D., Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-E03, Atlanta, GA 30329.

    For information regarding CDC operations related to this notice contact: Kendra Stauffer, D.V.M., Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-E28, Atlanta, GA 30329. Either may also be reached by telephone 404-498-1600 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 264), the Secretary of Health and Human Services, has the authority to make and enforce regulations necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and between U.S. states and territories. For purposes of carrying out and enforcing such regulations, the Secretary may authorize a variety of public health measures, including inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures. Since 1956, federal quarantine regulations have controlled the entry of dogs into the United States. See 21 FR 9870 (Dec. 12, 1956). Currently, HHS/CDC regulates the import of dogs into the United States under regulations found at 42 CFR 71.51. Among the principal concerns for regulating the import of dogs is to prevent the introduction and spread of rabies. Authority for carrying out 42 CFR 71.51 has been delegated to HHS/CDC's Division of Global Migration and Quarantine (DGMQ), which staffs and maintains quarantine stations at major U.S. ports of entry.

    DGMQ oversees the import of dogs into the United States to ensure that dogs show no signs of communicable disease upon arrival and are vaccinated against rabies. Under 42 CFR 71.51, the owner or owner's agent must present a valid rabies vaccination certificate for a dog upon arrival at a U.S. port of entry. The only exceptions to this requirement are if the owner or agent submits satisfactory evidence that the dog, for the previous 6 months before arrival, has only been in a country that does not present a risk for canine rabies or the dog is to be taken to a research facility and vaccination would interfere with the purposes of the research.

    Under 42 CFR 71.51(c)(2), however, the CDC Director may authorize admission of an inadequately immunized dog if the owner or owner's agent agrees to confine the dog under conditions that restrict its contact with humans and other animals until it is fully immunized against rabies. Under these circumstances, if the date of vaccination shown on the vaccination certificate is less than 30 days before the date of arrival and the dog was 3 months of age or older when vaccinated, the dog may be admitted into the United States, but must be confined until at least 30 days have elapsed since the date of vaccination. If the dog is unvaccinated upon arrival and is at least 3 months of age or older, it may be admitted, but must be confined until it is vaccinated against rabies and 30 days have elapsed since vaccination. If the dog is either unvaccinated or partially immunized upon arrival and is less than 3 months of age, it may be admitted, but must be confined until vaccinated against rabies at 3 months of age and for at least 30 days after the date of vaccination.

    In 2014, HHS/CDC published guidance in the Federal Register clarifying that it allows an owner or agent to import an inadequately immunized dog into the United States only for purposes of personal pet ownership. See 79 FR 39403 (July 20, 2014). This document also described the criteria that HHS/CDC uses in determining whether to issue a dog confinement agreement that allows the entry into the United States and confinement of a dog until it is adequately immunized against rabies. The document further described the steps that an importer may take if an imported dog is denied entry into the United States, including the availability of a written appeal.

    Through today's document, HHS/CDC is informing the public that it is changing its application process from a paper-based dog confinement agreement system to a web-based application and electronic permit system (Permit to Import a Dog Inadequately Immunized against Rabies). Effective August 18, 2017, an owner or owner's agent must apply for a Permit to Import a Dog Inadequately Immunized against Rabies at least 10 business days before arriving into the United States with an inadequately immunized dog through this web-based system. Permit applications to import an inadequately immunized dog will not be available at the port of entry and no permits will be issued at the port of entry. Inadequately immunized dogs arriving at a port of entry without an approved permit will be denied entry into the United States and re-exported to the country of origin at the owner's expense.

    II. Provisions of This Notice

    Effective, August 18, 2017, at least 10 business days before arriving into the United States with an inadequately immunized dog, an importer must apply online at https://www.cdc.gov/importation/ for a Permit to Import a Dog Inadequately Immunized against Rabies.

    DGMQ will review a permit application within 3-5 business days of receiving the application and apply the criteria in Federal Register notice published at 79 FR 39403 (July 20, 2014). If the application is approved, a permit will be emailed to the dog's owner. The owner must present the permit to the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer at the first arriving port of entry into the United States. The permit will be collected by the CBP officer and sent to CDC.

    If the permit application is denied, DGMQ will email the reasons for the denial to the dog's owner within 3-5 business days of receiving the application. The email will include instructions on whom to contact, including name, address, and telephone number, if the dog's owner has any questions, as well as information on how to submit an appeal. In accordance with current procedures, individuals who wish to contest CDC's determination will have five business days after receiving the denial to submit a written appeal. The individual must submit the appeal via email to [email protected], state the reasons for the appeal, and show that there is a genuine and substantial issue of fact in dispute. CDC will issue a response via email, which will constitute final agency action. The appeal will be reviewed and decided upon by a CDC senior management official who is senior to the employee who denied the initial permit application. In keeping with current practice, a successful appeal of a denial only permits the owner to import the dog into the United States at a later date under the requirements set forth in a dog import permit. The appeal does not entitle the owner to recover any costs related to returning a dog that has been denied entry to its country of origin and reimporting the dog into the United States. An owner or owner's agent will not be allowed to board a dog or arrange for its confinement at a port of entry pending a determination regarding the importer's application to import an inadequately immunized dog. Accordingly, inadequately immunized dogs arriving at a port of entry without an approved permit will be denied entry into the United States and re-exported to its country of origin at the owner's expense.

    III. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This change does not institute a new collection of information. The collection of information, has been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507) and assigned the following OMB control number: Foreign Quarantine: OMB Control No. 0920-0134, expiration date 5/31/2019.

    Dated: June 12, 2017. Sandra Cashman, Executive Secretary, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12439 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-17-17ACE; Docket No. CDC-2017-0043] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection entitled “Evaluation of Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) for Opioid use disorder.” CDC will use the collection to conduct an epidemiologic study to assess the type of MAT (methadone maintenance; buprenorphine; naltrexone; or, counseling, no MAT), and the contextual, provider, and individual factors that influence implementation and improved patient wellbeing over a two-year follow up period.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before August 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0043 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note:

    All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    Evaluation of Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) for Opioid use disorder—New—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    CDC seeks a three-year OMB approval to collect evaluation information for Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) for Opioid use disorder.

    About 2.4 million people aged 18 or older have opioid use disorders (OUDs) in the United States. At any given time, only half of these people receive some form of treatment, which may include medication-assisted treatment (MAT) or abstinence-based psychotherapy or self-help treatments (i.e., counseling without medication [COUN]). The rise in opioid overdose deaths, up from 2014-2015 due partly to a 72% rise in synthetic opioid overdose deaths alone, shows that engaging and retaining clients in OUD treatment is an urgent public health need. Only a few studies are available to help clients and providers make informed decisions about the risks and benefits associated with the different types of MATs. This information is crucial because even though each MAT drug helps prevent withdrawal symptoms and decreases cravings, differences in treatment approach and settings influence how people respond to the medication and, thus, their long-term treatment success.

    The purpose of this evaluation is to conduct an epidemiologic, mixed-methods evaluation of OUD treatment in real-world outpatient settings. The study aims to have 3,000 participants from real-world outpatient settings to better understand the relationship between type of MAT and individual, provider, and contextual characteristics related to retention in treatment and abstinence from opioid use. The sites will be located across 10 diverse metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) with four sites in each MSA. At each site, about 75 participants are expected to participate for a total of 300 per MSA. Across all MSAs, the study will aim to have 750 client participants in each of the four treatment conditions (MMT, BUP, NAL, and COUN).

    The study will use a mixed-method approach using quantitative methods such as multilevel latent growth models, propensity score matching, latent class analysis and advance mediation analysis and qualitative methods such as interactive coding and analysis for common themes. The only cost to respondents will be time spent responding to the survey/screener.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Instrument name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (hours)
  • Total burden
  • (hours)
  • Provider site staff Client Permission Form 15 100 5/60 125 Visit Form 15 525 10/60 1,313 Site Director Questionnaire 15 2 1 30 Focus Groups 27 1 90/60 41 Client respondents Client Screener 1,333 1 5/60 111 Client Check-in 1,000 2 15/60 500 Client Questionnaire 2,412 1 49/60 1,978 Focus Groups 27 1 90/60 41 Total 4,139
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12736 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request

    Title: Administration for Native Americans Objective Work Plan (OWP) and Objective Progress Report (OPR).

    OMB No.: 0970-0452.

    Description: Content and formatting changes are being made to the Administration for Native Americans' (ANA) Objective Work Plan (OWP) and Objective Progress Report (OPR). The OWP is used by applicants when they submit their proposals and then by grantees to monitor their projects once the award is made by ANA. Slight content changes are proposed for the OWP approved under information collection OMB No. 0970-0452, Expiration Date 6/30/2018. An extension of expiration date is also requested. This will streamline the information collection and reduce the number of elements.

    OWP: The following are proposed content changes to the document: ANA proposes to eliminate Problem Statement and Results and Benefits and Criteria for Evaluation of results and benefits from the OWP. These elements will no longer be required by applicants for ANA discretionary grants. ANA will consolidate staffing into one field for both lead and support staff.

    ANA will require applicants to differentiate between administrative activities and milestone activities. Administrative activities are those directly related to grant administration, such as reporting and attending post-award training. Milestone activities are key activities needed to complete project objectives. These activities may result in a single output; therefore ANA will require applicants to identify outputs related to milestone activities as necessary.

    OPR: Currently, ANA requires grantees to report on the status of results and benefits in the OPR. This section will be deleted as ANA no longer requires grantees to identify results or benefits from their project, just outcomes. Outcomes will be reported annually in a separate OMB approved form.

    Respondents: Tribal Governments, Native non-profit organizations, Tribal Colleges & Universities applying for ANA funding.

    The following is the hour of burden estimate for this information collection:

    Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden
  • hours per
  • response
  • Total
  • burden
  • hours
  • OWP 300 1 2 600 OPR 275 2 1 550

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,150.

    In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street Washington, DC 20201, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address: [email protected] All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.

    The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (b) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (c) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12691 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families [CFDA Number: 93.676] Announcement of the Award of Six Single-Source Program Expansion Supplement Grants Under the Unaccompanied Children's Program AGENCY:

    Office of Refugee Resettlement, ACF, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of award of six single-source program expansion supplement grants under the Unaccompanied Children's (UC) Program.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration for Children and Families, Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), announces the award of six single-source program expansion supplement grants for a total of $14,821,314 under the UC Program.

    DATES:

    Supplemental award funds will support activities for four grantees from October 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, and for two grantees from October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jallyn Sualog, Director, Division of Unaccompanied Children Operations, Office of Refugee Resettlement, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Phone: 202-401-4997. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    ORR is continuously monitoring its capacity to shelter the UC referred to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the information received from interagency partners, to inform any future decisions or actions. The six recipients are:

    Organization Location Amount Heartland Human Care, Inc Chicago, IL $845,855 International Educational Services, Inc San Benito, TX 131,109 International Educational Services, Inc Los Fresnos, TX 1,118,780 Cayuga Home for Children DBA Cayuga Centers New York, NY 979,200 Southwest Key Phoenix, AZ 2,460,800 Southwest Key Brownsville, TX 9,285,570

    ORR has been identifying additional capacity to provide shelter for potential increases in apprehensions of UC at the U.S. Southern Border. Planning for increased shelter capacity is a prudent step to ensure that ORR is able to meet its responsibility, by law, to provide shelter for Unaccompanied Children referred to its care by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

    The expansion supplement grants will support the need to increase shelter capacity to accommodate the increasing numbers of UCs being referred by DHS. All grantees have the infrastructure, licensing, experience and appropriate level of trained staff to meet the service requirements and the urgent need for expansion of services. The grantees provide residential services to UC in the care and custody of ORR, as well as services to include counseling, case management, and additional support services to the family or to the UC and their sponsor when a UC is released from ORR's care and custody.

    ORR has specific requirements for the provision of services. Award recipients must have the infrastructure, licensing, experience, and appropriate level of trained staff to meet those requirements. The expansion of the existing program and its services through this supplemental award is a key strategy for ORR to be prepared to meet its responsibility to provide shelter for UC referred to its care by DHS and so that the U.S. Border Patrol can continue its vital national security mission to prevent illegal migration and trafficking, and to protect the borders of the United States.

    Statutory Authority: This program is authorized by—

    (A) Section 462 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which in March 2003, transferred responsibility for the care and custody of Unaccompanied Alien Children from the Commissioner of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Director of ORR of HHS.

    (B) The Flores Settlement Agreement, Case No. CV85-4544-RJK (C. D. Cal. 1996), and the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-457), which authorizes post release services under certain conditions to eligible children. All programs must comply with the Flores Settlement Agreement, Case No. CV85-4544-RJK (C.D. Cal. 1996), pertinent regulations and ORR policies and procedures.

    Christopher Beach, Senior Grants Policy Specialist, Division of Grants Policy, Office of Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12627 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-45-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families [CFDA Number: 93.568] Reallotment of Fiscal Year 2016 Funds for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) AGENCY:

    Division of Energy Assistance, Office of Community Services (OCS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of determination concerning funds available for reallotment.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of a preliminary determination that funds from the fiscal year (FY) 2016 Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) are available for reallotment to states, territories, tribes, and tribal organizations that received FY 2017 direct LIHEAP grants. No subgrantees or other entities may apply for these funds.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before July 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted to: J. Janelle George, Acting Director, Office of Community Services, 330 C Street SW., 5th Floor, Mail Room 5425, Washington, DC 20201.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lauren Christopher, Director, Division of Energy Assistance, Office of Community Services, 330 C Street SW., 5th Floor, Mail Room 5425, Washington, DC 20201; telephone (202) 401-4870; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 2607(b)(1) of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Act (the Act), (42 U.S.C. 8626(b)(1)) requires that, if the Secretary of HHS determines that, as of September 1 of any fiscal year, an amount in excess of 10 percent of the amount awarded to a grantee for that fiscal year (excluding Leveraging and REACH funds) will not be used by the grantee during that fiscal year, then the Secretary must notify the grantee and publish a notice in the Federal Register that such funds may be reallotted to LIHEAP grantees during the following fiscal year. If reallotted, the LIHEAP block grant allocation formula will be used to distribute the funds. No funds may be allotted to entities that are not direct LIHEAP grantees during FY 2017.

    It has been determined that $3,253,866 in LIHEAP funds may be available for reallotment during FY 2017. This determination is based on FY 2016 Carryover and Reallotment Reports, which showed that 15 grantees reported reallotment funds (State of Arkansas, Association of Village Council Presidents, Cocopah Tribe of Arizona, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, State of Georgia, Hoh Indian Tribe, Kalispel Indian Community of the Kalispel Reservation, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point, Poarch Band of Creeks, Quinault Indian Nation, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, The Chickasaw Nation, Three Affiliated Tribes of the Ft. Berthold Reservation, and the State of Vermont). Grantees submitted the FY 2016 Carryover and Reallotment Reports to OCS, as required by regulations applicable to LIHEAP at 45 CFR 96.81(b).

    The LIHEAP statute allows grantees who have funds unobligated at the end of the federal fiscal year for which they are awarded to request that they be allowed to carry over up to 10 percent of their full-year allotments to the next federal fiscal year. Funds in excess of this amount must be returned to HHS and are subject to reallotment under section 2607(b)(1) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 8626(b)(1)). The amount described in this notice was reported by grantees as unobligated FY 2016 funds in excess of the amount that these grantees could carry over to FY 2017.

    In accordance with section 2607(b)(3) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 8626(b)(3)), comments will be accepted for a period of 30 days from the date of publication of this notice.

    After considering any comments submitted, all current LIHEAP grantees will be notified of the final reallotment amount redistributed to them for obligation in FY 2017. This decision will be published in an Information Memorandum that gets posted to ACF's Web site.

    If funds are reallotted, they will be allocated in accordance with section 2604 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 8623) and must be treated by LIHEAP grantees receiving them as an amount appropriated for FY 2017. As FY 2017 funds, they will be subject to all requirements of the Act, including section 2607(b)(2) (42 U.S.C. 8626(b)(2)), which requires that a grantee obligate at least 90 percent of its total block grant allocation for a fiscal year by the end of the fiscal year for which the funds are appropriated, that is, by September 30, 2017.

    Estimated Reallotment Amounts of FY 2016 LIHEAP Funds Grantee name Reallotment amount Arkansas $726,214 Association of Village Council Presidents 169,410 Cocopah Tribe of Arizona 18 Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians 18,728 Georgia 1,035,739 Hoh Indian Tribe 1,907 Kalispel Indian Community of the Kalispel Reservation 1,558 Oglala Sioux Tribe 23,396 Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point 107 Poarch Band of Creeks 70,819 Quinault Indian Nation 4,091 Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians 4 The Chickasaw Nation 195,952 Three Affiliated Tribes of the Ft. Berthold Reservation 348,035 Vermont 657,888 Total 3,253,866 Statutory Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 8626.

    Elizabeth Leo, Grants Policy Specialist, Division of Grants Policy, Office of Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12675 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-80-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0015] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Orphan Drugs; Common European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration Application Form for Orphan Drug Medicinal Product Designation AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on Common European Medicines Agency (EMA)/FDA Application Form for Orphan Drug Medicinal Product Designation (Form FDA 3671).

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by August 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before August 18, 2017. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of August 18, 2017. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0015 for “Orphan Drugs; Common EMA/FDA Application Form for Orphan Medicinal Product Designation (Form FDA 3671)—21 CFR part 316.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, [email protected], 301-796-8867.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    Orphan Drugs; Common EMA/FDA Application Form for Orphan Medicinal Product Designation (Form FDA 3671) 21 CFR Part 316; OMB Control Number 0910-0167—Extension

    Sections 525 through 528 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360aa through 360dd) give FDA statutory authority to do the following: (1) Provide recommendations on investigations required for approval of marketing applications for orphan drugs, (2) designate eligible drugs as orphan drugs, (3) set forth conditions under which a sponsor of an approved orphan drug obtains exclusive approval, and (4) encourage sponsors to make orphan drugs available for treatment on an “open protocol” basis before the drug has been approved for general marketing. The implementing regulations for these statutory requirements have been codified under part 316 (21 CFR part 316) and specify procedures that sponsors of orphan drugs use in availing themselves of the incentives provided for orphan drugs in the FD&C Act and sets forth procedures FDA will use in administering the FD&C Act with regard to orphan drugs.

    Section 316.10 specifies the content and format of a request for written recommendations concerning the nonclinical laboratory studies and clinical investigations necessary for approval of marketing applications. Section 316.12 provides that, before providing such recommendations, FDA may require results of studies to be submitted for review. Section 316.14 contains provisions permitting FDA to refuse to provide written recommendations under certain circumstances. Within 90 days of any refusal, a sponsor may submit additional information specified by FDA. Based on past experience, FDA estimates that there will be one respondent to §§ 316.10, 316.12, and 316.14 requiring 50 hours of human resources annually.

    Section 316.20 specifies the content and format of an orphan drug application which includes requirements that an applicant document that the disease is rare (affects fewer than 200,000 persons in the United States annually) or that the sponsor of the drug has no reasonable expectation of recovering costs of research and development of the drug. Section 316.21 specifies content of a request for orphan drug designation required for verification of orphan-drug status. Section 316.26 allows an applicant to amend the applications under certain circumstances. Based on past experience, FDA estimates 496 respondents to §§ 316.20, 316.21 and 316.26, requiring 93,000 hours of human resources annually.

    The Common EMA/FDA Application Form for Orphan Medicinal Product Designation (Form FDA 3671) is intended to benefit sponsors who desire to seek orphan designation of drugs intended for rare diseases or conditions from both the European Commission and FDA by reducing the burden of preparing separate applications to meet the regulatory requirements in each jurisdiction. It highlights the regulatory cooperation between the United States and the European Union mandated by the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC). Based on past experience, FDA estimates there will be 60 respondents using the form requiring 450 hours of human resources annually.

    Section 316.22 specifies requirement of a permanent resident agent for foreign sponsors. Based on past experience, FDA estimates 70 respondents requiring 140 hours of human resources annually. Section 316.24(a) specifies a requirement that sponsors respond to deficiency letters from FDA on designation requests within 1 year of issuance of the deficiency letter, unless within that time frame, the sponsor requests an extension of time to respond. Based on past experience, FDA estimates 20 respondents requiring 40 hours of human resources annually.

    Section 316.27 specifies content of a change in ownership of orphan-drug designation. Based on past experience, FDA estimates 63 respondents requiring 315 hours of human resources annually. Section 316.30 requires submission of annual reports, including progress reports on studies, a description of the investigational plan, and a discussion of changes that may affect orphan status. Based on number of orphan-drug designations, the number of respondents is estimated as 744 requiring 2,232 hours of human resources annually. Finally, § 316.36 describes information required of sponsor when there is insufficient quantity of approved orphan drug. Based on past experience, FDA estimates two respondents requiring 90 hours of human resources annually.

    The information requested will provide the basis for an FDA determination that the drug is for a rare disease or condition and satisfies the requirements for obtaining orphan drug status. Secondly, the information will describe the medical and regulatory history of the drug. The respondents to this collection of information are biotechnology firms, drug companies, and academic clinical researchers.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 21 CFR section Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • frequency
  • per response
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total hours
    Content and format when seeking written recommendations; results of studies; amendments (316.10, 316.12 & 316.14) 1 1 1 50 50 Content and format of a request for orphan-drug designation; request for verification of orphan-drug status; amendments (316.20, 316.21 & 316.26) FDA Form 3671 496
  • 60
  • 1.25
  • 1.5
  • 620
  • 90
  • 150
  • 5
  • 93,000
  • 450
  • Notifications of changes in agents (316.22) 70 1 70 2 140 Deficiency letters and granting orphan-drug designation (316.24(a)) 20 1 20 2 40 Submissions to change ownership of orphan-drug designation (316.27) 63 1 63 5 315 Annual reports (316.30) 744 1 744 3 2,232 Assurance of the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan drug; holder's consent for the approval of other marketing applications for the same drug (316.36) 2 3 6 15 90 Total 96,317 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    FDA has experienced increases in: (1) The number of submissions to change ownership of orphan-drug designation (21 CFR 316.27), (2) the number of annual reports 21 CFR 316.30, and (3) assurances of the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan drug and the holder's consent for the approval of other marketing applications for the same drug (21 CFR 316.36). In contrast, however, the use of Form FDA 3671, the application form to submit for product designation to the European Medicines Agency and to the FDA Office of Orphan Products, has decreased from 6,760 to 450 total burden hours.

    Dated: June 13, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12620 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0076] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on requirements governing the acceptance of electronic records and electronic signatures.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by August 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before August 18, 2017. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of August 18, 2017. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov/ will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov/.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0076 for “Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov/ or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov/. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/ and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures—21 CFR Part 11; OMB Control Number 0910-0303—Extension

    FDA regulations in part 11 (21 CFR part 11) provide criteria for acceptance of electronic records, electronic signatures, and handwritten signatures executed to electronic records as equivalent to paper records. Under these regulations, records and reports may be submitted electronically to FDA provided the Agency has stated its ability to electronically accept the records in an Agency-established public docket and that the other requirements of part 11 are met.

    The recordkeeping provisions in part 11 (§§ 11.10, 11.30, 11.50, and 11.300) require the following standard operating procedures to assure appropriate use of, and precautions for, systems using electronic records and signatures: (1) § 11.10 specifies procedures and controls for persons who use closed systems to create, modify, maintain, or transmit electronic records; (2) § 11.30 specifies procedures and controls for persons who use open systems to create, modify, maintain, or transmit electronic records; (3) § 11.50 specifies procedures and controls for persons who use electronic signatures; and (4) § 11.300 specifies controls to ensure the security and integrity of electronic signatures based upon use of identification codes in combination with passwords. The reporting provision (§ 11.100) requires persons to certify in writing to FDA that they will regard electronic signatures used in their systems as the legally binding equivalent of traditional handwritten signatures.

    The burden created by the information collection provision of this regulation is a one-time burden associated with the creation of standard operating procedures, validation, and certification. The Agency anticipates the use of electronic media will substantially reduce the paperwork burden associated with maintaining FDA required records. The respondents are businesses and other for-profit organizations, State or local governments, Federal Agencies, and nonprofit institutions.

    FDA estimates the burden for the collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 21 CFR section Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual responses Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total hours
    11.100 4,500 1 4,500 1 4,500 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Table 2—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden 1 21 CFR section Number of recordkeepers Number of records per recordkeeper Total annual records Average
  • burden per
  • recordkeeping
  • (in hours)
  • Total hours
    11.10 2,500 1 2,500 20 50,000 11.30 2,500 1 2,500 20 50,000 11.50 4,500 1 4,500 20 90,000 11.300 4,500 1 4,500 20 90,000 Total 280,000 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Dated: June 13, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12619 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0345] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Data To Support Drug Product Communications as Used by the Food and Drug Administration AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on a generic clearance to collect information to support communications used by FDA about drug products.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by August 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before August 18, 2017. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of August 18, 2017. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0345 for “Data to Support Drug Product Communications as Used by the Food and Drug Administration.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    Data To Support Drug Product Communications as Used by the Food and Drug Administration; OMB Control Number 0910-0695—Extension

    Testing of messages in advance of a communication campaign provides an important role in improving FDA communications. The methods to be employed include individual indepth interviews, general public focus group interviews, intercept interviews, self-administered surveys, gatekeeper surveys, and professional clinician focus group interviews. The qualitative methods to be used serve the narrowly defined need for direct and informal opinion on a specific topic and have two major purposes: To obtain information that is useful in formulating policies and regulatory decisions and for developing variables and measures for formulating the basic objectives of risk communication campaigns, and to assess the potential effectiveness of messages and materials in reaching and successfully communicating with their intended audiences.

    FDA will use these methods to test and help refine messages and other communications but will generally conduct further research before making important decisions. FDA will use this mechanism to test messages about regulated drug products on a variety of subjects related to consumer, patient, or health care professional perceptions and about use of drug products and related materials, including but not limited to, direct-to-consumer prescription drug promotion, physician labeling of prescription drugs, medication guides, over-the-counter drug labeling, emerging risk communications, patient labeling, online sale of medical products, and consumer and professional education. Annually, FDA projects about 45 communication studies using the variety of test methods listed in this document.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Average burden
  • per response
  • (in hours)
  • Total hours
    Interviews/Surveys 19,822 1 19,822 0.24 (14 minutes) 4,757 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Dated: June 13, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12601 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0536] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Pharmacogenomic Data Submission AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by July 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0557. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jonnalynn Capezutto, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-3794, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Guidance for Industry on Pharmacogenomic Data Submissions; OMB Control Number 0910-0557—Extension

    The collection of information supports Agency guidance entitled, “Guidance for Industry on Pharmacogenomic Data Submissions.” The guidance provides recommendations to sponsors submitting or holding investigational new drug applications (INDs), new drug applications (NDAs), or biologics license applications (BLAs) on what pharmacogenomic data should be submitted to the Agency during the drug development process. Sponsors holding, and applicants submitting, INDs, NDAs, or BLAs are subject to FDA requirements for submitting to the Agency data relevant to drug safety and efficacy (21 CFR 312.22, 312.23, 312.31, 312.33, 314.50, 314.81, 601.2, and 601.12).

    The guidance interprets FDA regulations for IND, NDA, or BLA submissions, clarifying when the regulations require pharmacogenomics data to be submitted and when the submission of such data is voluntary. The pharmacogenomic data submissions described in the guidance that are required to be submitted to an IND, NDA, BLA, or annual report are covered by the information collection requirements under 21 CFR parts 312, 314, and 601 (approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 (part 312, INDs); 0910-0001 (part 314, NDAs and annual reports); and 0910-0338 (part 601, BLAs)), respectively.

    The guidance distinguishes between pharmacogenomic tests that may be considered valid biomarkers appropriate for regulatory decisionmaking, and other, less well-developed exploratory tests. The submission of exploratory pharmacogenomic data is not required under the regulations, although the Agency encourages the voluntary submission of such data.

    The guidance describes the voluntary genomic data submission (VGDS) that can be used for such a voluntary submission. The guidance does not recommend a specific format for the VGDS, except that such a voluntary submission be designated as a VGDS. The data submitted in a VGDS and the level of detail should be sufficient for FDA to be able to interpret the information and independently analyze the data, verify results, and explore possible genotype-phenotype correlations across studies. FDA does not want the VGDS to be overly burdensome and time-consuming for the sponsor.

    In the Federal Register of March 17, 2017 (82 FR 14221), we published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed extension of this collection of information. One comment was received, however it was not responsive to the four information collection topics solicited in the notice and therefore is not addressed here.

    FDA has estimated the burden of preparing a voluntary submission described in the guidance that should be designated as a VGDS based on our experience with these submissions over the past few years, and on our familiarity with sponsors' interest in submitting pharmacogenomic data during the drug development process. In 2013, we received three VGDS. Since 2013, there have been no submission of VGDS; however, for purposes of this information collection approval, we are estimating that we may receive one submission annually. We estimate each submission requires approximately 50 hours to prepare and submit to FDA.

    We therefore estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Information collection activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total hours
    Voluntary Genomic Data Submissions 1 1 1 50 50 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
    Dated: June 13, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12604 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-1315] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Experimental Study of Risk Information Amount and Location in Direct-to-Consumer Print Ads AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on research entitled “Experimental Study of Risk Information Amount and Location in Direct-to-Consumer Print Ads.” This study will examine how repetition and overwarning apply to the presentation of risks in the context of direct-to-consumer print advertising.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by August 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before August 18, 2017. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of August 18, 2017. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2017-N-1315 for “Experimental Study of Risk Information Amount and Location in Direct-to-Consumer Print Ads.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES) will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    JonnaLynn Capezzuto, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-3794, [email protected] For copies of the questionnaire contact: Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP) Research Team, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    Experimental Study of Risk Information Amount and Location in Direct-to-Consumer Print Ads; OMB Control Number 0910—NEW

    Section 1701(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300u(a)(4)) authorizes FDA to conduct research relating to health information. Section 1003(d)(2)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)(C)) authorizes FDA to conduct research relating to drugs and other FDA regulated products in carrying out the provisions of the FD&C Act.

    Section 502(n) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352(n)) specifies that advertisements (ads) for prescription drugs and biological products must provide a true statement of information “in brief summary” describing the advertised product's “side effects, contraindications and effectiveness.” The prescription drug advertising regulations provide further clarification on the information to include in brief summary a true statement of information in brief summary relating to side effects, contraindications to include side effects, warnings, precautions, and contraindications and include any such information under such headings as cautions, special considerations, important notes, etc. and effectiveness (21 CFR 202.1(e)(1)). The prescription drug advertising regulations also specify that the phrase side effect and contraindication refers to all of the categories of risk information contained in the required, approved or permitted product labeling written for health professionals, including the Warnings, Precautions, and Adverse Reactions sections (21 CFR 202.1(e)(3)(iii)). Ads must also “present a fair balance between information relating to side effects and contraindications and effectiveness. . . .” An ad must present true information relating to side effects and contraindications in comparable depth and detail with the claims for effectiveness or safety (21 CFR 202.1(e)(5)(ii)).

    To fulfill the regulatory requirements for fair balance and the brief summary, sponsors have typically included risk information about the product in direct-to-consumer (DTC) print ads both in the main part of the ad where the product claims appear, and in a separate brief summary page. The section of the main ad where the risks appear is often referred to as the “Important Safety Information” (ISI). Including risks in both the ISI and the brief summary may have advantages. Some research has found that repetition of information improves recall, especially for older adults (Ref. 1). This might result in improved recall for risks that appear both in the ISI and brief summary. However, it is possible that risks appearing on the main page in the ISI may be more likely to be read than risks appearing in the brief summary. Based on FDA survey research, about 27 percent of consumers surveyed in 2002 reported reading half or more of the brief summary in DTC print ads (Ref. 2). In comparison, when asked how much of the “main” ad they read, about 78 percent reported reading “all” or “almost all” of the main body portion of the ad.

    One potential downside to including the same warnings in both the ISI and again in the brief summary is the potential to overwarn consumers. Overwarning is the concept that individuals are exposed to so many warnings in the course of daily life that they are less likely to pay attention to any one particular warning (Ref. 3). In terms of presenting risk information, detailing too many risks may lead consumers to discount all risks, or miss the most important risk information. Similarly, habituation follows when readers see the same warning repeatedly. Upon seeing a particular warning repeatedly, consumers may cease to pay attention to it (Refs. 4 to 6). Even if a warning has features that make it noticeable, it still has the potential for habituation with repeated exposure (Ref. 5). Although researchers caution against habituation and overwarning, there appears to be little empirical research for the logical supposition that seeing repeated warnings will lead to increased selectivity and reduced attention by recipients over time. Of note, the Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP) is studying the issue of reduced risk information in the context of DTC TV ads (“Disclosure Regarding Additional Risks in Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Television Advertisements,” OMB control number. 0910-0785).

    OPDP plans to investigate, through empirical research, how repetition and overwarning apply to the presentation of risks in promotional prescription drug print pieces. We propose to test two levels of the ISI (short versus long) and the presence of the Brief Summary (absent versus present) in two different medical conditions (overactive bladder and rheumatoid arthritis). Figures 1 and 2 describe the study design. This will be investigated in DTC print ads for prescription drugs.

    Figure 1—Study 1 Design Brief summary Rheumatoid Arthritis: ISI No Yes Short Long Figure 2—Study 2 Design Brief summary Overactive Bladder: ISI No Yes Short Long

    This project is designed to use eye tracking technology to determine how these risk presentations in DTC print ads are perceived. Eye tracking technology is an effective method to determine the extent to which consumers attend to risk information presented in DTC print ads. This technology allows researchers to unobtrusively detect and measure where a participant looks while viewing a print ad and for how long, and the pattern of their eye movements may indicate attention to and processing of information in the ad.

    We plan to collect descriptive eye tracking data on participants' attention to the following: (1) The important safety information, (2) the brief summary, and (3) the indication and benefit claims. All participants will be 18 years of age or older. We will exclude individuals who are trained as healthcare professionals, or who work in pharmaceutical, advertising, or marketing settings because their knowledge and experiences may not reflect those of the typical consumer. We will also exclude individuals who have photosensitive epilepsy; use a medical device that is sensitive to infrared light; or wear bifocals, hard contact lenses, or colored contact lenses.

    To examine differences between experimental conditions, we will conduct inferential statistical tests such as analysis of variance (ANOVA). With the sample size described in this document, we will have sufficient power to detect small-to-medium sized effects in the main study.

    We plan to conduct one 60-minute pilot study with 40 participants and two 60-minute studies with 200 participants each (50 participants in each cell), for a total of 400 main study participants. The studies will be conducted in person in at least five different cities across the United States. The pilot study and main studies will have the same design and will follow the same procedure. Participants who self-identify as having one of the medical conditions of interest will be randomly assigned to one of four test conditions. In Study 1, the ad will be for a fictitious drug to treat rheumatoid arthritis. In Study 2, the ad will be for a fictitious drug to treat overactive bladder. After obtaining consent, we will explain the study procedure to participants and calibrate the eye tracking device. To collect eye tracking data, we will use an unobtrusive glasses-based real world eye tracker with a minimum speed of 50 Hertz. The test images will be presented on paper and sized similarly to how they would appear in print materials such as magazines. To simulate normal ad viewing, participants will view two ads. One of the ads will be the study ad. The non-study ad will be for a consumer product unrelated to health. Only eye tracking data from the study ad will be analyzed. Next, participants will complete a questionnaire that assesses risk perceptions, risk recall, efficacy perceptions, efficacy recall, and covariates such as demographics and health literacy. In the pilot study, participants will also answer questions as part of a debriefing interview to assess the study design and questionnaire.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual responses Average burden
  • per response
  • Total hours
    Pilot screener 120 1 120 0.03 (2 minutes) 4 Study 1 screener 600 1 600 0.03 (2 minutes) 18 Study 2 screener 600 1 600 0.03 (2 minutes) 18 Completes, Pilot 40 1 40 1 40 Completes, Study 1 200 1 200 1 200 Completes, Study 2 200 1 200 1 200 Total 480 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    II. References

    The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the Web site addresses, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

    1. McGuire, L.C., “Remembering What the Doctor Said: Organization and Older Adults' Memory for Medical Information.” Experimental Aging Research, 22, 403-428 (1996). 2. Aikin, K.J., J.L. Swasy, and A.C. Braman, “Patient and Physician Attitudes and Behaviors Associated with DTC Promotion of Prescription Drugs: Summary of FDA Survey Research Results” (2004). Available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/ResearchAreas/DrugMarketingAdvertisingandCommunicationsResearch/UCM152860.pdf. 3. Warnings and Risk Communication (2005). Wogalter, M.S., D. DeJoy, and K.R. Laughery (Eds.). Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis, Inc. 4. Conzola, V.C., and M.S. Wogalter, “A Communication-Human Information Processing (C-HIP) Approach to Warning Effectiveness in the Workplace.” Journal of Risk Research, 4(4), 309-322; (2001). 5. Wogalter, M.S., and K.R Laughery, “Warning! Sign and Label Effectiveness.” Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5(2), 33-37; (1996). 6. Wogalter, M.S., T.L. Smith-Jackson, B.J. Mills, and C.S. Paine, “The Effects of Print Format in Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertisements on Risk Knowledge and Preference.” Drug Information Journal, 36(3), 693-705, 2002. Dated: June 13, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12600 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-1779] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Disclosures of Descriptive Presentations in Professional Oncology Prescription Drug Promotion AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on research entitled “Disclosures of Descriptive Presentations in Professional Oncology Prescription Drug Promotion.”

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by August 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before August 18, 2017. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of August 18, 2017. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2017-N-1779 for “Disclosures of Descriptive Presentations in Professional Oncology Prescription Drug Promotion.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    Disclosures of Descriptive Presentations in Professional Oncology Prescription Drug Promotion; OMB Control Number 0910—NEW

    Section 1701(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300u(a)(4)) authorizes FDA to conduct research relating to health information. Section 1003(d)(2)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)(C)) authorizes FDA to conduct research relating to drugs and other FDA regulated products in carrying out the provisions of the FD&C Act.

    Under the FD&C Act and implementing regulations, promotional labeling and advertising about prescription drugs are generally required to be truthful, non-misleading, and to reveal facts material to the presentations made about the product being promoted (see sections 502(a) and (n), and 201(n) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352(a) and (n), and 321(n)); see also 21 CFR 202.1). As a part of the ongoing evaluation of FDA's regulations in this area, FDA is proposing to study the impact of disclosures as they relate to presentations of preliminary or descriptive scientific and clinical data in promotional labeling and advertising for oncology products. The use of disclosures is one method of communicating information to health care professionals about scientific and clinical data, the limitations of that data, and practical utility of that information for use in treatment. These disclosures may influence prescriber comprehension and decisionmaking, and may affect how and what treatment they prescribe for their patients.

    Pharmaceutical companies market directly to physicians through publishing advertisements in medical journals, exhibit booths at physician meetings or events, sending unsolicited promotional materials to doctors' offices, or presentations (“detailing”) by pharmaceutical representatives (Ref. 1). Detail aids may contain carefully extracted data from clinical studies that, taken out of context, can exaggerate the benefits of a drug (Ref. 2) or contribute to physicians prescribing the drug for an inappropriate patient population.

    Promotional labeling and advertising for cancer drugs deserve specific attention. Oncology drugs represented 26 percent of the 649 compounds under clinical trial investigation from 2006 to 2011 (Ref. 3). The past decade has seen a dramatic rise in the number of oncology drugs brought to market. In the past 18 months, FDA has approved 27 cancer drugs (Ref. 4). Although overall survival remains the gold standard for demonstrating clinical benefit of a drug, several additional endpoints are accepted as surrogates illustrating clinical benefit with regard to cancer and many drugs are granted expedited approval on their basis. These include disease-free survival, objective response rate, complete response rate, progression-free survival, and time to progression (Ref. 5). For clinicians who are not specifically trained in clinical trial design, interpreting these endpoints may be challenging. Pharmaceutical companies invest heavily in the development and distribution of promotional materials to educate oncologists about favorable clinical trial results.

    When communicating scientific and clinical data, a disclosure (a specific statement that modifies or qualifies a claim) could be used to convey the limitations of the data and practical utility of the information for treatment. Much of the prior research on disclosures in this topic area has been limited to the dietary supplement arena with consumers (Refs. 6-9). Disclosures in professional pieces could influence prescriber comprehension as well as subsequent decisionmaking; however, no published data exist regarding how prescribers use and understand scientific claims in conjunction with qualifying disclosures.

    Different aspects of disclosures may influence their effectiveness. For example, despite the advanced education of health care providers, in a busy practice they may not be willing or able to process the disclosures thoroughly. Thus, the level of technicality in the disclosure may play a role in their use of the disclosure to contextualize the data display. Additionally, the addition of a general summary statement to frame the disclosure may help or hinder the processing of the disclosure and therefore the entire data display. Finally, it is possible that the impact of disclosure statements on prescriber comprehension, perceptions, and intentions to prescribe the promoted product will vary based on the level of clinical training. Although oncologists and primary care physicians (PCPs) will have more experience with clinical data, mid-level practitioners have reported having significantly more formal training on pharmaceutical marketing tactics than specialists and PCPs (Ref. 10). Therefore, it is unclear whether any one group would be more or less affected by both the claims made in promotional materials or by the disclosures that accompany those claims.

    The proposed study seeks to address the following research questions:

    1. Do disclosures mitigate potentially misleading presentations of preliminary or descriptive data in oncology drug product promotion?

    2. Does the language (technical, non-technical) of the disclosure influence the effectiveness of the disclosure?

    3. Does the presence of a general statement about the clinical utility of the data in addition to a specific disclosure influence processing of claims and disclosures?

    4. Do PCPs, oncologists, and mid-level practitioners (nurse practitioners, physician assistants) differ in their processing of claims and disclosures about preliminary or descriptive data?

    5. Which disclosures do physicians prefer?

    To address these questions, FDA has designed a study that will be conducted in three independent phases, each phase examining a data display in a promotional piece for a unique oncological product. Independent variables will include: (1) Specific disclosure (technical, non-technical, none), (2) general statement (present, absent), and (3) specialty (oncologists, PCPs, mid-level practitioners). Each phase will have the following design:

    Sample General statement Specific disclosure Technical Non-technical No disclosure Oncologists Present Control. Absent PCPs Present Control. Absent Mid-Level Practitioners Present Control. Absent

    Specific disclosures will include material information specifically related to the particular data display in question. As such, each specific disclosure may include clinical or statistical information related to the trial design, the statistical analysis plan of the trial, or any other material statistical or clinical information necessary for evaluation or interpretation of the data. The team developing the disclosures includes social science analysts, pharmacists, oncological medical officers, and an oncology nurse. An example of the general statement is “This presentation includes exploratory information of uncertain clinical utility and should be interpreted cautiously when used to make treatment decisions.”

    Outcome variables will focus on the assessment of the data display as a whole as well as attention to the disclosure, if present. Specifically, we will examine recognition of the clinical endpoint in the data display, comprehension of the data display, perceptions of the exploratory nature of the data, and the perceived credibility of the promotional piece. We will also look at attention to the specific disclosure and the general statement, prescriber decisions, and prescriber preferences. This latter outcome variable will be determined by a secondary task at the end of the questionnaire that shows each participant all disclosure options and asks them to choose their preferred version.

    Oncologists, PCPs, and non-oncology mid-level practitioners will be recruited to participate via the Internet, and the study is expected to take approximately 20 minutes. Participants will view professionally developed promotional pieces that mimic currently available promotion and answer questions. The questionnaire is available upon request.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Average burden
  • per response
  • Total hours 2
    Pretest Screener 134 1 134 0.03 (2 minutes) 5 Pretest 90 1 90 0.33 (20 minutes) 30 Main Study Screener 3,134 1 3,134 0.03 (2 minutes) 105 Main Study 2,115 1 2,115 0.33 (20 minutes) 705 Total 845 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. 2 Rounded to the next full hour.
    II. References

    The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the Web site addresses, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

    1. Johar, K., “An Insider's Perspective: Defense of the Pharmaceutical Industry's Marketing Practices,” Albany Law Review, 76:299-334, 2012-2013. 2. Wick, C., M. Egger, S. Trelle, et al., “The Characteristics of Unsolicited Clinical Oncology Literature Provided by Pharmaceutical Industry,” Annals of Oncology, 18:1580-1582, 2007. 3. Fisher, J.A., M.D. Cottingham, and C.A. Kalbaugh, “Peering Into the Pharmaceutical ‘Pipeline': Investigational Drugs, Clinical Trials, and Industry Priorities,” Social Science & Medicine, 131:322-330, 2015. 4. Centerwatch, “FDA Approved Drugs for Oncology,” https://www.centerwatch.com/drug-information/fda-approved-drugs/therapeutic-area/12/oncology (accessed on March 2, 2017). 5. Pazdur, R., “Endpoints for Assessing Drug Activity in Clinical Trials,” The Oncologist, 13:19-21, 2008. 6. Dodge, T. and A. Kaufman, “What Makes Consumers Think Dietary Supplements Are Safe and Effective? The Role of Disclaimers and FDA Approval,” Health Psychology, 26:513-517, 2007. 7. Dodge, T., D. Litt, and A. Kaufman, “Influence of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act on Consumer Beliefs About the Safety and Effectiveness of Dietary Supplements,” Journal of Health Communication, 16:230-244, 2011. 8. Mason, M.J., D.L. Scammon, and X. Fang, “The Impact of Warnings, Disclaimers, and Product Experience on Consumers' Perceptions of Dietary Supplements,” The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41:74-99, 2007. 9. France, K.R. and P.F. Bone, “Policy Makers' Paradigms and Evidence From Consumer Interpretations of Dietary Supplement Labels,” The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39:27-51, 2005. 10. O'Donoghue, A.C., V. Boudewyns, K.J. Aikin, et al., “Awareness of the Food and Drug Administration's Bad Ad Program and Education Regarding Pharmaceutical Advertising: A National Survey of Prescribers in Ambulatory Care Settings,” Journal of Health Communication, 20:1330-1336, 2015. Dated: June 13, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12599 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; RFA Panel: Revision Applications for U.S.-South Africa Program for Collaborative Biomedical Research.

    Date: June 29, 2017.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Robert Freund, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5216, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1050, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: AIDS and Related Research Integrated Review Group; AIDS Molecular and Cellular Biology Study Section.

    Date: July 10, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Kenneth A. Roebuck, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5214, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1166, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; AIDS and Related Research Member Conflict.

    Date: July 10, 2017.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Shalanda A. Bynum, Ph.D., MPH, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3206, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-755-4355, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR 16-257: Predicting Behavioral Responses to Population Level Cancer Control Strategies (R21).

    Date: July 11, 2017.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Karin F. Helmers, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3148, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 254-9975, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR 15-287: Opportunities for Collaborative Research at the NIH Clinical Center.

    Date: July 11, 2017.

    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Fungai Chanetsa, MPH, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3135, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-408-9436, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Digestive Sciences.

    Date: July 12, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW., Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Martha Garcia, Ph.D., Scientific Reviewer Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2186, MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1243, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: AIDS and Related Research Integrated Review Group; AIDS Immunology and Pathogenesis Study Section.

    Date: July 12, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Courtyard Long Beach, 500 East First Street, Long Beach, CA 90802.

    Contact Person: Shiv A. Prasad, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5220, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-443-5779, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular Biophysics.

    Date: July 12-13, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Sergei Ruvinov, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4158, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1180, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Urology and Urogynecology Small Business Applications.

    Date: July 12, 2017.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Ganesan Ramesh, Ph.D., Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Dr., Room 2182, MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-5467, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR Panel: Chemical Discovery for Substance Use Disorders.

    Date: July 12, 2017.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Michael Eissenstat, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, BCMB IRG, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4166, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1722, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Molecular Genetics.

    Date: July 12, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Methode Bacanamwo, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2200, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-7088, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR-16-390: NIBIB Trailblazer Award for New and Early Stage Investigators (R21).

    Date: July 12-13, 2017.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Chee Lim, Ph.D., Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive Room 4128, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1850, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Radiation Therapy and Biology.

    Date: July 13-14, 2017.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Bo Hong, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6194, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-996-6208, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 13, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12591 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Special Emphasis Panel, June 06, 2017, 08:00 a.m. to June 06, 2017, 06:00 p.m., NIEHS/National Institute of Environmental Health, Keystone Building, 530 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 which was published in the Federal Register on May 26, 2017, 82 FR 24363.

    This meeting is being amended to change the date from Tuesday, June 6, 2017 to Thursday, July 6, 2017, 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: June 13, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12616 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; APOL1 Long-term Kidney Transplantation Outcomes Network.

    Date: July 10-11, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW., Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Ryan G. Morris, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7015, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-2542, 301-594-4721, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Pragmatic Research and Natural Experiments.

    Date: July 18, 2017.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Michele L. Barnard, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7353, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-2542, (301) 594-8898, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Clinical Studies—R01.

    Date: July 27, 2017.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Barbara A. Woynarowska, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 754, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 402-7172, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 13, 2017. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12592 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of General Medical Sciences Amended; Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Training and Workforce Development Subcommittee—D, June 22, 2017, 08:30 a.m. to June 23, 2017, 05:00 p.m., Hotel Palomar, 2121 P Street NW., Washington, DC 20037 which was published in the Federal Register on June 05, 2017, 82 FR 25804.

    The meeting notice is amended to change the title from “To review R25 Bridges to Baccalaureate and K12 IRACDA Grant applications” to “Training and Workforce Development Subcommittee—D to review R25 research training grant applications”. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: June 13, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12593 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel, June 30, 2017, 11:30 a.m. to June 30, 2017, 01:30 p.m., National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 2W200, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the Federal Register on June 09, 2017, 82 FR 26811.

    The meeting notice is amended to change the title of the meeting from Health Care and Behavioral Economics to Multimorbidity and AD Treatments. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: June 13, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12615 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of an Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC or Committee) meeting.

    The purpose of the IACC meeting is to discuss business, agency updates, and issues related to autism spectrum disorder (ASD) research and services activities. The Committee will discuss the 2017 update of the IACC Strategic Plan. The meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible by webcast and conference call.

    Name of Committee: Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC).

    Type of meeting: Open Meeting.

    Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2017.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. * Eastern Time * Approximate end time.

    Agenda: To discuss business, updates, and issues related to ASD research and services activities. The Committee will discuss updates of the IACC Strategic Plan.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 31 Center Drive, Building 31, C Wing, 6th Floor, Conference Room 6, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Webcast Live: https://videocast.nih.gov.

    Conference Call Access: Dial: 800-323-2720; Access code: 8420867.

    Cost: The meeting is free and open to the public.

    Registration: A registration web link will be posted on the IACC Web site (www.iacc.hhs.gov) prior to the meeting. Pre-registration is recommended to expedite check-in. Seating in the meeting room is limited to room capacity and on a first come, first served basis. Onsite registration will also be available.

    Deadlines: Notification of intent to present oral comments: Friday, July 14, 2017 by 5:00 p.m. ET.

    Submission of written/electronic statement for oral comments: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 by 5:00 p.m. ET.

    Submission of written comments: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 by 5:00 p.m. ET.

    For IACC Public Comment guidelines please see: https://iacc.hhs.gov/meetings/public-comments/guidelines/.

    Access: Medical Center Metro Station (Red Line).

    Contact Person: Ms. Angelice Mitrakas, Office of Autism Research Coordination, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 6182A, Bethesda, MD 20892-9669, Phone: 301-435-9269, Email: [email protected].

    Public Comments

    Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the Committee must notify the Contact Person listed on this notice by 5:00 p.m. ET on Friday, July 14, 2017, with their request to present oral comments at the meeting, and a written/electronic copy of the oral presentation/statement must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, July 18, 2017.

    A limited number of slots for oral comment are available, and in order to ensure that as many different individuals are able to present throughout the year as possible, any given individual only will be permitted to present oral comments once per calendar year (2017). Only one representative of an organization will be allowed to present oral comments in any given meeting; other representatives of the same group may provide written comments. If the oral comment session is full, individuals who could not be accommodated are welcome to provide written comments instead. Comments will be assigned a time slot of 3-5 minutes depending on the number of comments, but a longer version may be submitted in writing for the record. Commenters going beyond the allotted time in the meeting may be asked to conclude immediately in order to allow other comments and presentations to proceed on schedule.

    Any interested person may submit written public comments to the IACC prior to the meeting by emailing the comments to [email protected] or by submitting comments at the web link: https://iacc.hhs.gov/meetings/public-comments/submit/index.jsp by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, July 18, 2017. The comments should include the name, address, telephone number, and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. NIMH anticipates written public comments received by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, July 18, 2017 will be presented to the Committee prior to the meeting for the Committee's consideration. Any written comments received after the 5:00 p.m. ET, July 18, 2017 deadline through July 25, 2017 will be provided to the Committee either before or after the meeting, depending on the volume of comments received and the time required to process them in accordance with privacy regulations and other applicable Federal policies. All written public comments and oral public comment statements received by the deadlines for both oral and written public comments will be provided to the IACC for their consideration and will become part of the public record. Attachments of copyrighted publications are not permitted, but web links or citations for any copyrighted works cited may be provided.

    In the 2009 IACC Strategic Plan, the IACC listed the “Spirit of Collaboration” as one of its core values, stating that, “We will treat others with respect, listen to diverse views with open minds, discuss submitted public comments, and foster discussions where participants can comfortably offer opposing opinions.” In keeping with this core value, the IACC and the NIMH Office of Autism Research Coordination (OARC) ask that members of the public who provide public comments or participate in meetings of the IACC also seek to treat others with respect and consideration in their communications and actions, even when discussing issues of genuine concern or disagreement.

    Remote Access

    The meeting will be open to the public through a conference call phone number and webcast live on the Internet. Members of the public who participate using the conference call phone number will be able to listen to the meeting but will not be heard. If you experience any technical problems with the webcast or conference call, please send an email to [email protected]

    Individuals wishing to participate in person or by using these electronic services and who need special assistance, such as captioning of the conference call or other reasonable accommodations, should submit a request to the Contact Person listed on this notice at least five days prior to the meeting.

    Security

    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs and hotel and airport shuttles, will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit. Also as a part of security procedures, attendees should be prepared to present a photo ID at the meeting registration desk during the check-in process. Pre-registration is recommended. Seating will be limited to the room capacity and seats will be on a first come, first served basis, with expedited check-in for those who are pre-registered.

    Meeting schedule subject to change.

    Information about the IACC is available on the Web site: http://www.iacc.hhs.gov.

    Dated: June 13, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12594 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of an Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC or Committee) meeting.

    The purpose of the IACC meeting is to discuss business, agency updates, and issues related to autism spectrum disorder (ASD) research and services activities. The meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible by webcast and conference call.

    Name of Committee: Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC).

    Type of meeting: Open Meeting.

    Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2017.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.* Eastern Time * Approximate end time.

    Agenda: To discuss business, updates, and issues related to ASD research and services activities.

    Place: National Institute of Mental Health, 6001 Executive Boulevard, NSC, Conference Rooms C and D, Rockville, MD 20850.

    Webcast Live: https://videocast.nih.gov.

    Conference Call Access: Dial: 800-369-1740; access code: 5135863.

    Cost: The meeting is free and open to the public.

    Registration: A registration web link will be posted on the IACC Web site (www.iacc.hhs.gov) prior to the meeting. Pre-registration is recommended to expedite check-in. Seating in the meeting room is limited to room capacity and on a first come, first served basis. Onsite registration will also be available.

    Deadlines:

    Notification of intent to present oral comments: Friday, October 13, 2017 by 5:00 p.m. ET.

    Submission of written/electronic statement for oral comments: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 by 5:00 p.m. ET.

    Submission of written comments: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 by 5:00 p.m. ET.

    For IACC Public Comment guidelines please see: https://iacc.hhs.gov/meetings/public-comments/guidelines/.

    Access: White Flint Metro Station (Red Line).

    Contact Person: Ms. Angelice Mitrakas, Office of Autism Research Coordination, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 6182A, Bethesda, MD 20892-9669, Phone: 301-435-9269, Email: [email protected].

    Public Comments

    Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the Committee must notify the Contact Person listed on this notice by 5:00 p.m. ET on Friday, October 13, 2017, with their request to present oral comments at the meeting, and a written/electronic copy of the oral presentation/statement must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, October 17, 2017.

    A limited number of slots for oral comment are available, and in order to ensure that as many different individuals are able to present throughout the year as possible, any given individual only will be permitted to present oral comments once per calendar year (2017). Only one representative of an organization will be allowed to present oral comments in any given meeting; other representatives of the same group may provide written comments. If the oral comment session is full, individuals who could not be accommodated are welcome to provide written comments instead. Comments to be read or presented in the meeting will be assigned a 3-5 minute time slot depending on the number of comments, but a longer version may be submitted in writing for the record. Commenters going beyond their allotted time in the meeting may be asked to conclude immediately in order to allow other comments and presentations to proceed on schedule. Any interested person may submit written public comments to the IACC prior to the meeting by emailing the comments to [email protected] or by submitting comments at the web link: https://iacc.hhs.gov/meetings/public-comments/submit/index.jsp by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, October 17, 2017. The comments should include the name, address, telephone number, and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. NIMH anticipates written public comments received by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, October 17, 2017 will be presented to the Committee prior to the meeting for the Committee's consideration. Any written comments received after the 5:00 p.m. ET, October 17, 2017 deadline through October 23, 2017 will be provided to the Committee either before or after the meeting, depending on the volume of comments received and the time required to process them in accordance with privacy regulations and other applicable Federal policies. All written public comments and oral public comment statements received by the deadlines for both oral and written public comments will be provided to the IACC for their consideration and will become part of the public record. Attachments of copyrighted publications are not permitted, but web links or citations for any copyrighted works cited may be provided.

    In the 2009 IACC Strategic Plan, the IACC listed the “Spirit of Collaboration” as one of its core values, stating that, “We will treat others with respect, listen to diverse views with open minds, discuss submitted public comments, and foster discussions where participants can comfortably offer opposing opinions.” In keeping with this core value, the IACC and the NIMH Office of Autism Research Coordination (OARC) ask that members of the public who provide public comments or participate in meetings of the IACC also seek to treat others with respect and consideration in their communications and actions, even when discussing issues of genuine concern or disagreement.

    Remote Access

    The meeting will be open to the public through a conference call phone number and webcast live on the Internet. Members of the public who participate using the conference call phone number will be able to listen to the meeting but will not be heard. If you experience any technical problems with the webcast or conference call, please send an email to [email protected].

    Individuals wishing to participate in person or by using these electronic services and who need special assistance, such as captioning of the conference call or other reasonable accommodations, should submit a request to the Contact Person listed on this notice at least five days prior to the meeting.

    Security

    Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit. Also as a part of security procedures, attendees should be prepared to present a photo ID at the meeting registration desk during the check-in process. Pre-registration is recommended. Seating will be limited to the room capacity and seats will be on a first come, first served basis, with expedited check-in for those who are pre-registered. Meeting schedule subject to change.

    Information about the IACC is available on the Web site: http://www.iacc.hhs.gov.

    Dated: June 13, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12595 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Transportation Security Administration Revision of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Sensitive Security Information Threat Assessments AGENCY:

    Transportation Security Administration, DHS.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0042, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval of a revision of the currently approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. TSA published a Federal Register notice, with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments, of the following collection of information on November 25, 2016. The collection involves TSA determining whether individuals seeking access to sensitive security information (SSI) may be granted access to the SSI.

    DATES:

    Send your comments by July 19, 2017 A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected] or faxed to (202) 395-6974.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The ICR documentation is available at http://www.reginfo.gov. Therefore, in preparation for OMB review and approval of the following information collection, TSA is soliciting comments to—

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Information Collection Requirement

    Title: Sensitive Security Information Threat Assessments.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    OMB Control Number: 1652-0042.

    Forms(s): TSA 2211.

    Affected Public: Individuals seeking access to SSI Information.

    Abstract: TSA has implemented sec. 525(d) of the DHS Appropriations Act, 2007 (Pub. L. 109-295, 120 Stat 1355, 1382, Oct. 4, 2006), as reenacted,1 by establishing a process whereby a party seeking access to SSI in a civil proceeding in Federal court that demonstrates a substantial need for relevant SSI in preparation of the party's case may request that the party's representative or court reporter be granted access to the SSI. Under §§ 1520.11 and 1520.15 of 49 CFR, TSA has also extended this process to include a prospective bidder who is seeking to submit a proposal in response to a request for proposal issued by TSA; an individual involved in the performance of contractual agreements (for example, bailments), or other transaction agreements, or an individual receiving access to SSI under 49 CFR 1520.15(e), other conditional disclosure.

    1 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, Pub. L. 113-6, Div. D., Title V., sec. 510 (127 Stat. 198, 368, Mar. 26, 2013).

    Pursuant to sec. 114 of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, Pub. L. 107-71 (115 Stat. 597, Nov. 19, 2001), and 49 CFR 1520.11(c), TSA may make an individual's access to SSI contingent upon satisfactory completion of a security threat assessment (STA), including a criminal history records check (CHRC); and/or a name-based check against Federal law enforcement, terrorism, and immigration databases; and/or other procedures and requirements for safeguarding SSI that are satisfactory to TSA. TSA collects identifying information, an explanation supporting the individuals' need for the information, and other information related to safeguarding SSI to conduct the threat assessments. TSA uses the results of the STA to make a final determination on whether the individual may be granted access to SSI. TSA also uses the information to determine whether provision of access to specific SSI would present a risk of harm to the nation.

    TSA is revising the collection of information to allow individuals who are members of the TSA Preè Application Program, to provide a known traveler number (KTN) to facilitate the security threat assessment. Under that Program, individuals submit identifying information and fingerprints for a CHRC to help TSA determine eligibility for the Program, very similar to what TSA requires before providing SSI to an individual. TSA will use the information provided as part of the TSA Preè Application Program as part of its determination of an individual's eligibility to be granted access to SSI.

    Number of Respondents: 263.2

    2 After the issuance of the 60-day notice, TSA received additional respondents and burden hours data for the collection. The reported estimated annual number of respondents has been updated from 127 to 263 respondents. The estimated annual time burden of 127 has been updated to 275 burden hours.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 275 hours annually.

    Dated: June 8, 2017. Christina A. Walsh, TSA Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of Information Technology.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12597 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0018] Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Permission To Reapply for Admission Into the United States After Deportation or Removal, Form I-212; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.

    DATES:

    The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until July 19, 2017. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at oira_submissi[email protected] Comments may also be submitted via fax at (202) 395-5806. (This is not a toll-free number.) All submissions received must include the agency name and the OMB Control Number [1615-0018].

    You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at (800) 375-5283; TTY (800) 767-1833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments

    The information collection notice was previously published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2017, at 82 FR 13128, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS did receive 4 comments in connection with the 60-day notice.

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2008-0068 in the search box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for permission to reapply for Admission into the United States After Deportation or Removal.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I-212, USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form I-212 is necessary for USCIS to determine whether an alien is eligible for and should be granted the benefit of consent to reapply for admission into the United States. Furthermore, Form I-212 form standardizes requests for consent to reapply and its data collection requirements ensure that, when filing the application, the alien provides the basic information that is required to assess eligibility for consent to reapply.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-212 is 4,183; the estimated hour burden per response is 2 hours. The estimated total number of respondents filing with Customs and Border Patrol for the information collection I-212 is 82; the estimated hour burden per response is 2.33 hours. The estimated total number of responses for the biometric collection is 100, and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.17 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 8,674 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $538,334.

    Samantha Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12625 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5997-N-28] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: July 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806, Email: OIRA [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette [email protected], or telephone 202-402-3400. This is not a toll-free number. Person with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on October 24, 2016 at 81 FR 73131.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program.

    OMB Approval Number: 2577-0178.

    Type of Request: Reinstatement without change, of previously approved collection for which approval has expired.

    Form Number: HUD-52650, HUD-52651, HUD-52652, HUD-50058, HUD-2880, HUD 52755, SF-424, SF-LLL, HUD-1044.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The FSS program, which was established in the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, promotes the development of local strategies that coordinate the use of public housing assistance and assistance under the Section 8 rental certificate and voucher programs (now known as the Housing Choice Voucher Program) with public and private resources to enable eligible families to increase earned income and financial literacy, reduce or eliminate the need for welfare assistance, and make progress toward economic independence and self-sufficiency. Public Housing Agencies, Indian Tribes/Tribally Designated Housing Entities (TDHEs) consult with local officials to develop an Action Plan, enter into a Contract of Participation with each eligible family that opts to participate in the program, compute an escrow credit for the family, report annually to HUD on implementation of the FSS program, and complete a funding application for the salary of an FSS program coordinator.

    Respondents: Public Housing Agencies, Tribes/Tribally Designated Housing Entities, State or Local Governments.

    Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden Description of information collection Number of
  • respondents
  • Responses per year Total annual responses Hours per
  • response
  • Total hours
    SF424—Application for Federal Assistance 800 1 800 0.75 600 SF LLL—Disclosure of Lobbying Activities 40 1 40 0.17 7 HUD 2880—Applicant/Recipient/Disclosure/Update Form (OMB No. 2510-0011) 800 1 800 0 0 HUD-52755—Sample Contract Admin. Partnership Agreement 40 1 40 0.17 7 HUD-52651—FSS Application 800 1 800 1.5 1,200 Subtotal (Application) 2.8 1,814 Action Plan 10 1 10 10 100 HUD-52650—Contract of Participation 900 10 9,000 .25 2,250 HUD-52652—Escrow Account Credit Worksheet 750 50 37,500 .85 31,875 HUD-1044—Grant Agreement* 700 1 700 N/A N/A Annual Report (Narrative) 700 1 700 1 700 HUD-50058—Family Report (OMB No. 2577-0083) 900 50 45,000 0 0 Subtotal (Program Reporting/Recordkeeping) 12.1 34,925 Total 14.9 36,739 * HUD-1044, Award/Amendment is completed by HUD staff, signed by the recipient of the grant, and returned to HUD. This form is a certification and HUD ascribes no burden to its use.

    Burden hours for forms showing zero burden hours in this collection are reflected in the OMB approval number cited or do not have a reportable burden.

    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: June 13, 2017. Colette Pollard, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12721 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5997-N-27] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Contractor's Requisition-Project Mortgages AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: July 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax:202-395-5806, Email: OIRA [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Inez C. Downs, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Inez.C. [email protected], or telephone 202-402-8046. This is not a toll-free number. Person with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Downs.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on January 31, 2017 at 82 FR 8838.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Contractor's Requisition-Project Mortgages.

    OMB Approval Number: 2502-0028.

    Type of Request: Extension of currently approved.

    Form Number: HUD-92448.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Contractor's submit a monthly application for distribution of insured mortgage proceeds for construction costs. Multifamily Hub Centers ensure that the work is actually completed satisfactory.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profits.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,325.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 15,900.

    Frequency of Response: 12.

    Average Hours per Response: 6.

    Total Estimated Burden: 95,400.

    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: May 30, 2017. Inez C. Downs, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12685 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5997-N-19] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Multifamily Project Monthly Accounting Reports AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: July 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Inez C. Downs, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Inez C. Downs at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-8046. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Downs.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on February 24, 2017at 82 FR 11595.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Multifamily Project Monthly Accounting Reports.

    OMB Approval Number: 2502-0108.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Form Number: HUD-93479, HUD-93480, and HUD-93481.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: This information is necessary for HUD to monitor compliance with contractual agreements and to analyze cash flow trends as well as occupancy and rent collection levels.

    Respondents: Business and Other for profit and non-profit entities.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 12,222.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 87,999.

    Frequency of Response: Monthly.

    Average Hours per Response: 0.08 hours.

    Total Estimated Burdens: 7,041.

    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including using appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: May 23, 2017. Inez C. Downs, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12683 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5997-N-29] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Allocation of Operating Subsidies Under the Operating Fund Formula: Data Collection AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: July 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-3400. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. This is not a toll-free number. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A. The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on December 21, 2016 at 81 FR 93698.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Allocation of Operating Subsidies under the Operating Fund Formula: Data Collection.

    OMB Approval Number: 2577-0029.

    Type of Request: Revision of currently approved collections.

    Form Number: HUD-52722 and HUD-52723.

    Respondents: State, Local or Tribal Government, Public Housing Agencies (PHAs).

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) use this information in budget submissions which are reviewed and approved by HUD field offices as the basis for obligating operating subsidies. This information is necessary to calculate the eligibility for operating subsidies under the Operating Funding Program regulations, as amended. The Operating Fund is designed to provide the amount of operating subsidy needed for well-managed PHAs. PHAs submit the information electronically with these forms.

    Three changes occurred with the form HUD-52723. First, respondents requested to provide the total number of units for all projects under the Annual Contributions Contract (ACC). Second, aligned the requirements for Limited Vacancy (Section 2, Line 14) to 24 CFR 990.150. Finally, respondents may enter the Resident Paid Utilities benefits for Energy Performance Contracts in a separate line (Section 3, Part B, Line 02). There is one change to the HUD-52722, HUD eliminated the Frozen Rolling Base checkbox in Section 1 and instead the respondents indicate a Rolling Base Consumption Level Category for each utility.

    Total Estimated Burdens:

    Information collection Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of
  • response
  • Responses
  • per annum
  • Burden
  • hour per
  • response
  • Annual
  • burden hours
  • Hourly cost
  • per response
  • Annual cost
    HUD-52722 7,000 1 0.75 5,250 5,250 $30.98 162,645 HUD-52723 7,000 1 0.75 5,250 5,250 30.98 162,645 Total 10,500 325,290
    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice solicits comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 as amended.

    Dated: June 13, 2017. Colette Pollard, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12720 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5997-N-22] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: HUD Conditional Commitment/Direct Statement of Appraised Value AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: July 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax:202-395-5806, Email: OIRA [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette [email protected], or telephone 202-402-3400. This is not a toll-free number. Person with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on December 20, 2016 at 81 FR 92839.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: HUD Conditional Commitment/Direct Endorsement Statement of Appraised Value.

    OMB Approval Number: 2502-0494.

    Type of Request: Revision of currently approved.

    Form Number: HUD 92800.5b.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Lenders must provide to loan applicants either a completed copy of form HUD-92800.5B, or a copy of the completed appraisal report, at or before loan closing. Form HUD 92800.5B serves as the mortgagee's conditional commitment/direct endorsement statement of value of FHA mortgage insurance on the property. The form provides a section for a statement of the property's appraised value and other required FHA disclosures to the homebuyer, including specific conditions that must be met before HUD can endorse a firm commitment for mortgage insurance. HUD uses the information only to determine the eligibility of a property for mortgage insurance.

    Respondents (i.e. affected public): Business.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1800.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 928,119.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Average Hours per Response: 12.

    Total Estimated Burden: 111, 374.

    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: May 23, 2017. Colette Pollard, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12687 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5997-N-20] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: FHA-Insured Mortgage Loan Servicing for Performing Loans Including: Collection and Payment of Mortgage Insurance Premiums, Escrow Administration, Providing Loan Information and Customer Services, Assessment of Post Endorsement Fees and Charges and Servicing Section 235 Loans AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: July 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax:202-395-5806, Email: OIRA [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Inez C. Downs, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email: Inez. C. [email protected], or telephone 202-402-8046. This is not a toll-free number. Person with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Downs.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on January 31, 2017at 82 FR 8837.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: FHA-Insured Mortgage Loan Servicing for Performing Loans Including: Collection and Payment of Mortgage Insurance Premiums, Escrow Administration, Providing Loan Information and Customer Services, Assessment of Post Endorsement Fees and Charges and Servicing Section 235 Loans.

    OMB Approval Number: 2502-0583.

    Type of Request: Revision of currently approved.

    Form Number: HUD-300, HUD-93 100, HUD-93 101, HUD-93 101-A, HUD-93 102, HUD-93 114.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: This information request is a comprehensive collection for mortgagees that service Federal Housing Administration “FHA” insured mortgage loans and the mortgagors, who are involved with collection and payment of mortgage insurance premiums, payment processing, escrow account administration, providing loan information and customer service, assessing post endorsement fees and charges and servicing Section 235 loans.

    Respondents (i.e. affected public): Servicers of FHA-insured mortgages.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 12,924.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 77,498,091.

    Frequency of Response: Monthly.

    Average Hours per Response: 30 minutes.

    Total Estimated Burden: 2,644,446.

    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: May 23, 2017. Inez C. Downs, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12693 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-6004-N-02] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Requirements for Designating Housing Projects AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, PIH, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: August 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-5564 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected] for a copy of the proposed forms or other available information. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 3178, Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109, (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Mussington.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Requirements for Designating Housing Projects.

    OMB Approval Number: 2577-0192.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Form Number: None.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The information collection burden associated with designated housing is required by statute. Section 10 of the Housing Opportunity and Extension Act of 1996 modified Section 7 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 to require Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) to submit a plan for designation for HUD approval before a project(s) can be designated as either elderly only, disabled only, or elderly and disabled. In this plan, PHAs must document why the designation is needed and provide the following information:

    1. Description of the designated housing plan;

    2. Justification for the designation;

    3. Availability of alternative housing resources for the non-designated population(s);

    4. Impact on the availability of accessible housing;

    5. A statement that existing tenants in good standing will not be evicted;

    6. A statement of the resources that will be made available if the PHA offers voluntary relocation benefits; and

    7. Information describing how the DHP is consistent with any outstanding court orders, lawsuits, investigations, Voluntary Compliance Agreements (VCAs), or Letters of Finding.

    Respondents (i.e. affected public): State, or Local Government.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 39.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 1.

    Frequency of Response: On Occasion.

    Average Hours per Response: 15 hours.

    Total Estimated Burdens: 585 hours.

    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: June 7, 2017. Merrie Nichols-Dixon, Director, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12718 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-6004-N-01] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Grant Drawdown Payment Request/LOCCS/VRS Voice Activated AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, PIH, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.

    Public and Indian Housing Grant recipients use the payment vouchers to request funds from HUD through the LOCCS/VRS voice activated system. The information collected on the form serves also as an internal control measure to ensure the lawful and appropriate disbursement of Federal funds.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: August 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-5564 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected] for a copy of the proposed forms or other available information. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., (L'Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109, (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Mussington.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Grant Drawdown Payment Request/LOCCS/VRS Voice Activated.

    OMB Approval Number: 2577-0166.

    Type of Request: Extension of currently approved collection.

    Form Numbers: 50080-CFP; 50080-NN, RSDE, RSDF, SC; 50080-PHTA; 50080-URP; 50080-FSS; 50080-IHBG; 50080-HOMI; 50080-TIHD.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Grant recipients use the applicable payment information to request funds from HUD through the LOCCS/VRS voice activated system. The information collected on the payment voucher will also be used as an internal control measure to ensure the lawful and appropriate disbursement of Federal funds as well as provide a service to program recipients.

    Respondents: PHAs, state or local government. Tribes and tribally designated housing entities.

    Grant program Form 50080-XXXX Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of
  • responses
  • (drawdowns
  • annually
  • per program)
  • Time per
  • response
  • (15 minutes each)
  • Burden hours
    Capital Fund 50080-CFP 3,100 46,500 .25 hours 11,625 Operating Fund 50080-OFND 3,100 85,200 .25 hours 21,300 Resident Opportunities and Supportive Services (ROSS) RSDE 50080-RSDE 5 14 .25 hours 3.5 Resident Opportunities and Supportive Services (ROSS) RSDF 50080-RSDF 5 28 .25 hours 7 Resident Opportunities and Supportive Services (ROSS) SC 50080-SC 482 5,784 .25 hours 1,446 Public Housing Technical Assistance 50080-PHTA 12 134 .25 hours 33.5 Hope VI 50080-URP 100 1,020 .25 hours 255 Family Self-Sufficiency 50080-FSS 700 8,400 .25 hours 2,100 Indian Housing Block Grant 50080-IHBG 361 4,332 .25 hours 83 Indian HOME 50080-HOMI 5 60 .25 hours 15 Traditional Indian Housing Development 50080-TIHD 32 384 .25 hours 96 4,802 151,856 36,964
    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: June 7, 2017. Merrie Nichols-Dixon, Director, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12719 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-RF-2017-N076; FXRS12630900000-167-FF09R81000] Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1018-0102; National Wildlife Refuge Special Use Permit Applications and Reports AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2017. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this IC, we must receive them by July 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or [email protected] (email). Please provide a copy of your comments to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or [email protected] (email). Please include “1018-0102” in the subject line of your comments. You may review the ICR online at http://www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to review Department of the Interior collections under review by OMB.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, at [email protected] (email) or (703) 358-2503 (telephone).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, consolidated all refuge units into a single National Wildlife Refuge System (System). It also authorized us to offer visitor and public programs, including those facilitated by commercial visitor and management support services, on lands of the System when we find that the activities are appropriate and compatible with the purpose(s) for which the refuge was established and the System's mission. The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) (Recreation Act) allows the use of refuges for public recreation when it is not inconsistent or does not interfere with the primary purpose(s) of the refuge. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.) (ANILCA) provides specific authorization and guidance for the administration and management of national wildlife refuges within the State of Alaska. Its provisions provide for the issuance of permits under certain circumstances.

    We issue special use permits for a specific period as determined by the type and location of the management activity or visitor service provided. These permits authorize activities such as:

    • Agricultural activities (haying and grazing, 50 CFR 29.1 and 29.2).

    • Beneficial management tools that we use to provide the best habitat possible on some refuges (50 CFR 30.11, 31.14, 31.16, and 36.41).

    • Special events, group visits and other one-time events (50 CFR 25.41, 25.61, 26.36, and 36.41).

    • Recreational visitor service operations (50 CFR 25.41, 25.61, and 36.41).

    • Guiding for fishing, hunting, wildlife education, and interpretation (50 CFR 25.41 and 36.41).

    • Commercial filming (43 CFR 5, 50 CFR 27.71) and other commercial activities (50 CFR 29.1 and 36.41).

    • Building and using cabins to support subsistence or commercial activities (in Alaska) (50 CFR 26.35 and 36.41).

    • Research, inventory and monitoring, and other noncommercial activities (50 CFR 26.36 and 36.41).

    We use three forms to collect applicant information:

    • FWS Form 3-1383-G (General Activities Special Use Application).

    • FWS Form 3-1383-C (Commercial Activities Special Use Application).

    • FWS Form 3-1383-R (Research and Monitoring Special Use Application).

    The information we collect helps ensure that: (1) Applicants are aware of the types of information that may be needed for permit issuance; (2) requested activities are appropriate and compatible with the purpose(s) for which the refuge was established and the System's mission; and (3) the applicant is eligible or is the most qualified applicant to receive the special use permit.

    We may collect the necessary information in a non-form format (through discussions in person or over the phone, over the Internet, by email, or by letter). In some instances, respondents will be able to provide information verbally. Often, a simple email or letter describing the activity will suffice. For activities (e.g., commercial visitor services, research, etc.) that might have a large impact on refuge resources, we may require applicants to provide more detail on operations, techniques, and locations. Because of the span of activities covered by special use permits and the different management needs and resources at each refuge, respondents may not be required to answer all questions. Depending on the requested activity, refuge managers have the discretion to ask for less information than appears on the forms. However, refuge managers must not ask for more or different information.

    We issue permits for a specific period as determined by the type and location of the use or service provided. We use these permits to ensure that the applicant is aware of the requirements of the permit and his/her legal rights. Refuge-specific special conditions may be required for the permit. We identify conditions as an addendum to the permit. Most of the special conditions pertain to how a permitted activity may be conducted and do not require the collection of information. However, some special conditions, such as activity reports, before and after site photographs, or data sharing, would qualify as an information collection, and we have included the associated burden below.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1018-0102.

    Title: National Wildlife Refuge Special Use Permit Applications and Reports, 50 CFR 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, & 36.

    Service Form Number(s): 3-1383-G, 3-1383-C, and 3-1383-R.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals and households; businesses and other for-profit organizations; nonprofit organizations; farms; and State, local, or tribal governments.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion for applications; annually or on occasion for reports.

    Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 7,865.

    Estimated Completion Time per Response: Varies from 30 minutes to 4 hours, depending on activity.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 16,756.

    Estimated Annual Non-hour Burden Cost: $270,300 for fees associated with applications for commercial use activities ($100.00 × an estimated 2,703 applications).

    III. Comments

    On February 24, 2017, we published in the Federal Register (82 FR 11601) a notice of our intent to request that OMB approve this information collection. In that notice, we solicited comments for 60 days, ending on April 25, 2017. We received two comments in response to that Notice:

    Comment 1: A respondent commented on the authorities and regulations that allow for certain commercial activities on wildlife refuges (specifically haying/grazing/farming and cabin rentals) and the fees that are charged, but not on the application forms themselves.

    FWS Response to Comment 1: The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act at 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(1) authorizes us to permit public accommodations, including commercial visitor services, on lands of the System when we find that these activities are compatible and appropriate with the purpose for which the refuge was established. The respondent did not address the information collection, and we did not make any changes to our requirements.

    Comment 2: A second respondent provided the following comment:

    (1) The information collected is not necessary because it appears not to be a lawfully authorized request. Although it is difficult to know which law cited by the FWS is applicable to which CFR given because the Federal Registry entry does not appear to comply with FR requirements for specificity, see 1 CFR 21 and 22. Regardless none of the laws cited; 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee, 16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4, 6 U.S.C. 3101 et seq. (it is unclear what “et seq.” is referring to) appear relevant at a minimum to Form 3-1383-C.

    The 16 U.S.C. 460k-460K-4 codes (subchapter LXVIII) is entitled “NATIONAL CONSERVATION RECREATIONAL AREAS”, these parts only concern recreation and do not even use the word commercial, economic, business, etc.

    16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee likewise address recreation and management, conservation, etc. but has no mention of the word “commercial” or any other type of “economic” activity.

    16 U.S.C. 3101 speaks to the needs of recreation and scientific purposes, et al. but no mention of commercial, economic or other business interests.

    Therefore, the information requested from form 3-1383-C regarding “Commercial Activities” would appear not only unnecessary but also unauthorized based on the authorities cited.

    Even the statement in Section I (Abstract) appears to acknowledge this fact: “We issue special use permits for a specific period as determined by the type and location of the management activity or visitor service provided.” No mention of commercial activities.

    (2) 29 CFR 29.1 is mentioned as both an agricultural activity and a commercial activity, however none of the statutory authority cited mentions anything to do with agricultural activity or commercial activity. Nor do they mention these activities as “permitable” activities. Therefore, the informational requests regarding 29 CFR 29.1 in regards to forms 3-1383-C would also appear unnecessary and also not authorized by the authorities cited.

    (3) 29 CFR 29.2 is mentioned as a farming activity however the regulation itself is clearly a “management activity” using various methods to achieve the management:

    “§ 29.2 Cooperative land management.

    Cooperative agreements with persons for crop cultivation, haying, grazing, or the harvest of vegetative products, including plant life, growing with or without cultivation on wildlife refuge areas may be executed on a share-in-kind basis when such agreements are in aid of or benefit to the wildlife management of the area.”

    Just performing “agricultural activities” does not necessarily bring the activity within the realm of “wildlife management” of the area. Regardless the authorities cited do not cross to 50 CFR 29.2 and if they did it could only authorize “cooperative agreements” not Special Use Permits, therefore this informational request must also be considered not only unnecessary but also not allowed by the authorities cited.

    (4) The informational requests within the forms given make no mention of how any potential commercial activity would comply with federal contracting law. As written these type of commercial activities would appear to unlawfully escape the Competition in Contract Act, Federal Acquisition Regulations and a host of other legal requirements like small business, minority and disadvantaged groups, wage requirements, etc. These types of informational requests and notifications would be required to be included within any permitting form if not addressed within other forms. Therefore, the information requests appear to be inadequate in this regard.

    (5) Lastly, the informational requests in the forms do not appear to comport with 1 CFR part 21 and 22 regarding authority citations. Specifically, the forms do not indicate the specific authority delegated by statute nor do they indicate any delegation from the Secretary of the Interior to the FWS, e.g. “The provisions of this subchapter and any such regulation shall be enforced by any officer or employee of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service designated by the Secretary of the Interior.” 16 U.S.C. 460k-3

    FWS Response to Comment 2: We forwarded Comment 2 to the DOI Solicitor's Office for review based on Jay H. questioning the authority under the cited statutes for the Service to collect information under FWS Form 3-1383-C (Commercial Activities Special Use Application). The requester did not believe that the FWS possessed the authority to act for the Secretary under the cited statutes, and did not believe that the cited statutes authorized the issuance of permits for commercial activities on national wildlife refuges. The following response to Comment 2 was provided by the DOI Solicitor's Office:

    “The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRSAA), at 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(1), states that the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), “. . . shall be administered by the Secretary through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.” The Secretary (through the FWS) is authorized, under such regulations as he may prescribe, to, “. . . permit the use of any area within the System for any purpose . . . whenever he determines that such uses are compatible with the major purposes for which the areas were established. (16 U.S.C. 668dd(d)(1)(A). The term, “compatible use,” is defined, at 16 U.S.C. 668ee(1), to mean, “. . . a wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a refuge that, in the sound professional judgement of the Director, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the System or the purposes of the refuge.”

    The two other statutes cited in the Federal Register notice are, 16 U.S.C. 460k-3, which refers to the authority to manage national wildlife refuges, among other conservation areas, and 16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq., which refers to management provisions for national wildlife refuges in Alaska. In both instances, the FWS has been charged with managing such wildlife refuges through the provision in the NWRSAA which states that the system shall be managed by the Secretary through the FWS.

    Among the regulations prescribed for management of the NWRS is 50 CFR 29.1, which specifically states that the FWS, “. . . may authorize economic use by appropriate permit only when we (FWS officials) have determined the use on a national wildlife refuge to be compatible.” That regulatory provision also cites to 16 U.S.C. 715s, which confirms Congress's intent that economic uses on national wildlife refuges may be permitted, directing for the deposit of, “. . . all revenues received . . . from the sale or other disposition of animals, salmonoid carcasses, timber, hay, grass, or other products of the soil, minerals, shells, sand, or gravel, from other privileges, or from leases of public accommodations or facilities incidental to but not in conflict with the basic purposes for which those areas of the National Wildlife Refuge System were established.”

    Clearly the Secretary's authority to manage the NWRS is delegated to the FWS, by the language of the NWRSAA cited above, and the FWS has the broad authority under the NWRSAA to permit commercial uses within national wildlife refuges which are compatible with the purpose for which an individual refuge was established and the purposes of the NWRS.”

    IV. Request for and Availability of Public Comments

    We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:

    • Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

    • The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;

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

    • Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.

    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.

    V. Authorities

    The authorities for this action are the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997; Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4); Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.); and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Dated: June 14, 2017. Madonna L. Baucum, Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12728 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-MB-2017-N077; FXMB12310900WHO-178-FF09M26000] Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1018-0023; Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program and Migratory Bird Surveys AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2017. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    You must submit comments on or before July 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or [email protected] (email). Please provide a copy of your comments to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail), or [email protected] (email). Please include “1018-0023” in the subject line of your comments. You may review the ICR online at http://www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to review Department of the Interior collections under review by OMB.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, at [email protected] (email) or (703) 358-2503 (telephone).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-711) and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742d) designate the Department of the Interior as the key agency responsible for (1) the wise management of migratory bird populations frequenting the United States, and (2) setting hunting regulations that allow appropriate harvests that are within the guidelines that will allow for those populations' well-being. These responsibilities dictate that we gather accurate data on various characteristics of migratory bird harvest. Based on information from harvest surveys, we can adjust hunting regulations as needed to optimize harvests at levels that provide a maximum of hunting recreation while keeping populations at desired levels.

    Under 50 CFR 20.20, migratory bird hunters must register for the Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program (HIP) in each State in which they hunt each year. State natural resource agencies must send names and addresses of all migratory bird hunters to Branch of Harvest Surveys, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Migratory Bird Management, on an annual basis.

    The Migratory Bird Hunter Survey is based on the Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program. We randomly select migratory bird hunters and ask them to report their harvest. The resulting estimates of harvest per hunter are combined with the complete list of migratory bird hunters to provide estimates of the total harvest for the species surveyed.

    The Parts Collection Survey estimates the species, sex, and age composition of the harvest, and the geographic and temporal distribution of the harvest. Randomly selected successful hunters who responded to the Migratory Bird Hunter Survey the previous year are asked to complete and return a postcard if they are willing to participate in the Parts Collection Survey. We provide postage-paid envelopes to respondents before the hunting season and ask them to send in a wing or the tail feathers from each duck or goose that they harvest, or a wing from each mourning dove, woodcock, band-tailed pigeon, snipe, rail, or gallinule that they harvest. We use the wings and tail feathers to identify the species, sex, and age of the harvested sample. We also ask respondents to report on the envelope the date and location of harvest for each bird. We combine the results of this survey with the harvest estimates obtained from the Migratory Bird Hunter Survey to provide species-specific national harvest estimates.

    The combined results of these surveys enable us to evaluate the effects of season length, season dates, and bag limits on the harvest of each species, and thus help us determine appropriate hunting regulations.

    The Sandhill Crane Harvest Survey is an annual questionnaire survey of people who obtained a sandhill crane hunting permit. At the end of the hunting season, we randomly select a sample of permit holders and ask them to report the date, location, and number of birds harvested for each of their sandhill crane hunts. Their responses provide estimates of the temporal and geographic distribution of the harvest as well as the average harvest per hunter, which, combined with the total number of permits issued, enables us to estimate the total harvest of sandhill cranes. Based on information from this survey, we adjust hunting regulations as needed.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1018-0023.

    Title: Migratory Bird Information Program and Migratory Bird Surveys, 50 CFR 20.20.

    Service Form Number: FWS Forms 3-165, 3-165A through E, 3-2056J through N.

    Type of Request: Revision to a currently approved collection.

    Description of Respondents: States and migratory game bird hunters.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory for HIP registration information; voluntary for participation in the surveys.

    Frequency of Collection: Annually or on occasion.

    Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • Completion time per
  • response
  • Total annual
  • burden hours *
  • Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program 49 784 157 hours 123,088 Migratory Bird Hunter Survey Form 3-2056J 37,000 37,000 5 minutes 3,083 Form 3-2056K 23,100 23,100 4 minutes 1,540 Form 3-2056L 8,900 8,900 4 minutes 593 Form 3-2056M 12,000 12,000 3 minutes 600 Parts Collection Survey Form 3-165 4,200 92,400 5 minutes 7,700 Form 3-165A 1,000 5,500 5 minutes 458 Form 3-165B 3,600 3,600 1 minute 60 Form 3-165C 400 400 1 minute 7 Form 3-165D 1,100 1,100 1 minute 18 Form 3-165E 900 1,350 5 minutes 113 Sandhill Crane Harvest Survey Form 3-2056N 4,000 4,000 3.5 minutes 233 Totals 96,249 190,134 137,493 * Burden hours are rounded
    III. Comments

    On February 24, 2017, we published in the Federal Register (82 FR 11603) a notice of our intent to request that OMB renew approval for this information collection. In that notice, we solicited comments for 60 days, ending on April 25, 2017. We received five comments in response to the notice. One commenter objected to the surveys, but did not address the information collection requirements. Therefore, we did not provide a response. The remaining four comments are summarized below, along with the Service responses.

    Comment 1: Received April 7, 2017, from the Atlantic Flyway Council via email:

    The Atlantic Flyway Council provided comments in response to the four topics listed below (we have provided our responses following each separate comment from the Atlantic Flyway Council; see “Service Response”).

    Comment 1A: Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility.

    The Atlantic Flyway commented that the surveys are absolutely critical to the management of migratory birds and maintaining hunting seasons, and that without reliable data on harvest parameters derived from these surveys, our ability to make decisions could result in less than optimal levels of migratory bird populations and decrease in hunting opportunity. They commented that the surveys provide substantial evidence that game bird species are wisely managed, thus preventing meaningful legal challenges against migratory game bird hunting seasons.

    Service Response to Comment 1A: No response required.

    Comment 1B: The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information.

    The Atlantic Flyway stated that, while the methodology used to estimate the time burden was not clear, the estimates did not appear to be unreasonable, and that they did not believe the surveys caused a significant burden on respondents. Further, they stated that the necessity to collect the information outweighed the time burden of the survey.

    Service Response to Comment 1B: No response required.

    Comment 1C: Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

    The Atlantic Flyway Council stated that they believed these surveys are conducted in a reliable and efficient fashion and employ a methodology that provides accurate and reliable data. They also stated that the use of electronic surveys may allow for an increase in sample size which might increase the reliability and accuracy of the survey and reduce overall costs, as well as reduce the burden on respondents. They encouraged examination of those techniques and were anxious to work with the Service to improve or change the surveys.

    Service Response to Comment 1C: We are working with the USFWS's Information Resources and Technology Management (IRTM) to develop an online survey response platform to allow hunters to respond to the diary survey over the Internet, as an alternative to a paper form. This change to our survey platform will not be implemented until the 2018-2019 harvest season at the earliest. We intend to involve the flyways and other stakeholders in the development of this online form to make sure the implementation is smooth and does not increase the burden on survey respondents or impact the integrity of the data we collect.

    Comment 1D: Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents:

    The Atlantic Flyway reiterated their comment that they did not believe the surveys caused a significant burden on respondents, but encouraged examination of methods such as electronic surveys, which they said could reduce the burden.

    Service Response to Comment 1D: See Service response to comment 1C.

    Comment 2: Received April 17, 2017, from the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (hereafter NMDGF) via email:

    The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish provided comments in response to the four topics listed below (see Service response following each comment).

    Comment 2A: Regarding whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility; whether there are any questions they felt were unnecessary:

    The NMDGF stated their full support of the continuation of the Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program, the Migratory Bird Hunter Survey, Parts Collection Survey, and the Sandhill Crane Survey. NMDGF stated that the estimates of hunters and harvests from these surveys allow for informed decision making in setting harvest regulations and avoiding overharvest of migratory game birds that could lead to decreased population numbers as well as decreased hunting opportunities and local economic expenditures by hunters within NM.

    Service Response to Comment 2A: No response required.

    Comment 2B: Regarding the accuracy of our estimate of burden for this collection of information:

    The NMDGF noted that the surveys are voluntary, and does not believe they cause significant burden, and that our estimate of the burden is accurate.

    Service Response to Comment 2B: No response required.

    Comment 2C: Regarding ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected:

    The NMDGF believes that the surveys are conducted appropriately, allowing for accurate and usable estimates of the number of hunters and harvests, and allowing New Mexico to evaluate decisions regarding hunting season selections within the Federal hunting frameworks.

    Service Response to Comment 2C: No response required.

    Comment 2D: Regarding ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents:

    The NMDGF stated that, while they do not believe the surveys cause a significant burden, NMDFG encourages critical examination of the current methods to reduce burden wherever possible. However, they noted that any changes to the methodology would require appropriate funding and resources for sampling design and development and proper implementation of changes to ensure reliability and usability of the resulting data.

    Service Response to Comment 2D: In the next several years, we intend to undertake a critical review of the sampling design of this survey, as part of an effort to modernize our overall data management processes. As stated previously in this document, we will also be moving to an online harvest diary form, which should reduce the burden on respondents by making it easier to fill out and submit the form. We fully intend to involve State agency partners in this modification to the survey.

    Comment 3: Received April 24, 2017, from the Pacific Flyway Council, via email:

    The Pacific Flyway Council provided comments in response to the 4 topics listed below (see Service Response following each comment).

    Comment 3A: Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility:

    The Pacific Flyway Council stated that the data obtained from these surveys are absolutely critical to the proper management of migratory game birds, and that, without this information, their ability to make appropriate decisions could result in less than optimal migratory bird populations and a decrease in hunting recreation. They also stated that the surveys provide substantial evidence regarding wise management of migratory birds that prevents meaningful legal challenges against migratory bird hunting seasons.

    Service Response to Comment 3A: No response required.

    Comment 3B: Regarding the accuracy of our estimate of burden for this collection of information:

    The Pacific Flyway Council believed the estimates did not appear to be unreasonable, and that the surveys do not cause a significant burden on respondents. Further, they stated that the necessity to collect the information far outweighs the time and effort to collect it.

    Service Response to Comment 3B: No response required.

    Comment 3C: Regarding ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected:

    The Pacific Flyway Council stated they believed the surveys are conducted in an appropriate fashion, but stated that there could be improvements in the approaches and techniques used to increase efficiency and reliability or use new and changing technologies, specifically, that the use of electronic surveys might allow for increase in sample size and increased reliability and accuracy. The flyway council encouraged examination of these techniques and expressed willingness to work with the Service to improve or change the surveys, but noted that these explorations would require appropriate funding for development and implementation.

    Service Response to Comment 3C: As stated in Service response 2D above, in the next several years, we intend to undertake a critical review of the sampling design of this survey, as part of an effort to modernize our overall data management processes. We will also be moving to an online harvest diary form which should reduce the burden on respondents by making it easier to fill out and submit the form. We fully intend to involve flyway partners in this modification to the survey, which should allow us to increase sample sizes where needed while maintaining reliability and accuracy of the survey.

    Comment 3D: Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents:

    The Pacific Flyway Council reiterated that they did not believe the surveys caused a significant burden on respondents, but suggested the use of electronic surveys as a possible way to reduce the burden on respondents.

    Service Response to Comment 3D: See 3B above.

    Comment 4: Received April 27, 2017, from the Central Flyway Council, via email:

    The Central Flyway Council provided comments in response to the four topics listed below (see Service response following each comment). The Council stated that they fully support continuation of the harvest surveys with their current protocol and methodology.

    Comment 4A: Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility:

    The Central Flyway Council stated that the data obtained from these surveys are critical to the scientifically based management of migratory game birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and that the four flyway councils (Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific) make informed decisions in setting and adjusting harvest regulations with this information. Without this information collection, the Flyway feels that less than optimal hunting regulations could be selected, resulting in a decrease in hunting recreation and local economic expenditures. They also stated that in the Central Flyway 140,000 goose hunters, 200,000 duck hunters, and 370,000 dove hunters spend approximately 3 million days afield, thanks in part to the information collected in these surveys and other Service migratory bird monitoring programs.

    Service Response to Comment 4A: No response required.

    Comment 4B: Regarding the accuracy of our estimate of burden for this collection of information:

    The Central Flyway Council believes the accuracy of the estimates is appropriate based on their experience with migratory bird hunters across 10 States, and that the surveys do not cause a significant burden on respondents.

    Service Response to Comment 4B: No response required.

    Comment 4C: Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected:

    The Central Flyway Council stated that they believe the surveys are conducted in an appropriate fashion that provides accurate and precise estimates of migratory bird hunter and harvest. They also stated that until alternative methodologies have been developed and vetted, mailing surveys is the sole method for obtaining high-quality information with migratory bird surveys. They noted that this information collection allows individual States to evaluate human-dimension decisions (e.g., timing of seasons, boundaries of hunting zones) related to the States' hunting season selections within the Federal framework for migratory bird seasons.

    Service Response to Comment 4C: No response required.

    Comment 4D: Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents:

    The Central Flyway Council reiterated that they did not believe the surveys caused a significant burden on respondents, but encouraged the examination of methods to reduce the burden of the surveys on respondents, and stated they were willing to work with the Service on any improvements or changes in the future. They further noted that these changes would require appropriate funding for their development and implementation, and also said there is a need to ensure comparability with previous methods.

    Service Response to Comment 4D: As stated in Service response 2D above, in the next several years, we intend to undertake a critical review of the sampling design of this survey, as part of an effort to modernize our overall data management processes. We will also be moving to an online harvest diary form, which should reduce the burden on respondents by making it easier to fill out and submit the form. We fully intend to involve flyway partners in this modification to the survey, which should allow us to increase sample sizes where needed, while maintaining reliability and accuracy of the survey.

    IV. Request for and Availability of Public Comments

    We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:

    • Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

    • The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;

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

    • Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.

    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.

    V. Authorities

    The authorities for this action are the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j), and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Dated: June 14, 2017. Madonna L. Baucum, Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12724 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R7-ES-2017-N057; FF07CAMM00.FX.ES111607MRG02] Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1018-0066; Marine Mammal Marking, Tagging, and Reporting Certificates, and Registration of Certain Dead Marine Mammal Hard Parts AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. We summarize the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. This information collection is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2017. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. However, under OMB regulations, we may continue to conduct or sponsor this information collection while it is pending at OMB.

    DATES:

    You must submit comments on or before July 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or [email protected] (email). Please provide a copy of your comments to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail), or [email protected] (email). Please include “1018-0066” in the subject line of your comments. You may review the ICR online at http://www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to review Department of the Interior collections under review by OMB.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, at [email protected] (email) or (703) 358-2503 (telephone).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    Under section 101(b) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361-1407), Alaska Natives residing in Alaska and dwelling on the coast of the North Pacific or Arctic Oceans may harvest polar bears, northern sea otters, and Pacific walruses for subsistence or handicraft purposes. Section 109(i) of the MMPA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to prescribe marking, tagging, and reporting regulations applicable to the Alaska Native subsistence and handicraft take.

    On behalf of the Secretary, we implemented regulations at 50 CFR 18.23(f) for Alaska Natives harvesting polar bears, northern sea otters, and Pacific walruses. These regulations enable us to gather data on the Alaska Native subsistence and handicraft harvest and on the biology of polar bears, northern sea otters, and Pacific walruses in Alaska to determine what effect such take may be having on these populations. The regulations also provide us with a means of monitoring the disposition of the harvest to ensure that any commercial use of products created from these species meets the criteria set forth in section 101(b) of the MMPA. We use three forms to collect the information: FWS Form 3-2414 (Polar Bear Tagging Certificates), FWS Form 3-2415 (Walrus Tagging Certificates), and FWS Form 3-2416 (Sea Otter Tagging Certificates). The information we collect includes, but is not limited to:

    • Date of kill;

    • Sex of the animal;

    • Kill location;

    • Age of the animal (i.e., adult, subadult, cub, or pup);

    • Form of transportation used to make the kill of polar bears;

    • Amount of time (i.e., hours/days hunted) spent hunting polar bears;

    • Type of take (live-killed or beach-found) for walrus;

    • Number of otters present in and number of otters harvested from pod;

    • Condition of the polar bear and whether or not bear cubs were present; and

    • Name of the hunter or possessor of the specified parts at the time of marking, tagging, and reporting.

    We use FWS Form 3-2406 (Registration of Certain Dead Marine Mammal Hard Parts) to record the collection of bones, teeth, or ivory of dead marine mammals by non-Native and Natives not eligible to harvest marine mammals under the MMPA. It is legal to collect such parts from a beach or from land within a quarter of a mile of the ocean (50 CFR 18.26). The information we collect via Form 3-2406 includes, but is not limited to:

    • Date and location found.

    • Age, sex, and size of the animal.

    • Tag numbers.

    • Name, address, phone number, and birthdate of the collector.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1018-0066.

    Title: Marine Mammal Marking, Tagging, and Reporting Certificates, and Registration of Certain Dead Marine Mammal Hard Parts, 50 CFR 18.23(f) and 18.26.

    Service Form Number(s): FWS Forms 3-2406, 3-2414, 3-2415, and 3-2416.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals and households.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • Completion
  • time per
  • response
  • (minutes)
  • Total annual burden hours
    3-2414 (Polar Bear) 25 60 15 15 3-2415 (Walrus) 100 500 15 125 3-2416 (Sea Otter) 75 1,280 15 320 3-2406 (Beach Found) 300 300 15 75 Totals 500 2,140 535

    Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Costs: None.

    III. Comments

    On February 24, 2017, we published in the Federal Register (82 FR 11598) a notice of our intent to request that OMB approve this information collection. In that notice, we solicited comments for 60 days, ending on April 25, 2017. We received one comment in response to that notice:

    Email comment dated April 24, 2017 from Marine Mammal Commission.

    The Marine Mammal Commission supports the continuation of the information collection programs related to the taking of marine mammals for subsistence and handicraft purposes by Alaska Natives. Collection of this information is authorized under section 109(i) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. This information is important for tracking Native use of marine mammals and to provide the documentation that marine mammal parts were legally taken.

    The Commission also supports the continued use of FWS Form 3-2406 for registering marine mammal hard parts found on beaches and near shore areas. Under applicable regulations, these parts can be retained only if they are registered with the FWS (or NMFS). As such, retention of the registration form is necessary.

    FWS Response: None required.

    IV. Request for and Availability of Public Comments

    We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:

    • Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

    • The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;

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

    • Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.

    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.

    V. Authorities

    The authorities for this action are the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361-1407) and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Dated: June 14, 2017. Madonna L. Baucum, Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12727 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Geological Survey [GX17RB00CMFCA00] Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1028-NEW; Current and Future Landsat User Requirements AGENCY:

    U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a new information collection; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We (the U.S. Geological Survey) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC.

    DATES:

    To ensure that your comments are considered, we must receive them on or before August 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this information collection to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 807, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); (703) 648-7197 (fax); or [email protected] (email). Please reference `Information Collection 1028-NEW, Current and Future Landsat User Requirements' in all correspondence.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rudy Schuster, Supervisory Social Scientist, at (970) 226-9165 or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    The USGS Land Remote Sensing (LRS) Program is currently planning for the next generation of Landsat satellites. These satellites will continue the multi-decadal continuous collection of moderate-resolution, multispectral, remotely-sensed imagery through the Landsat program. Landsat satellite imagery has been available at no cost to the public since 2008, which has resulted in the distribution of millions of scenes each subsequent year, as well as tens of thousands of Landsat users registering with USGS to access the data. In order to continue to provide high quality imagery that meets the needs of users, LRS is collecting current and future user requirements for sensor and satellite attributes. These attributes include spatial resolution, spectral bands, frequency of acquisition, and many others. LRS will use the information from this collection to understand if they are currently meeting the needs of their user community and to help determine the features of future Landsat satellites. Questions will be asked to determine user characteristics, current uses of imagery, preferred attributes of Landsat imagery, and benefits of Landsat imagery. All current Landsat imagery users who are registered with USGS will be invited to take part in the survey.

    To protect the confidentiality and privacy of survey respondents, the data from the survey will not be associated with any respondent's email address at any time and will only be analyzed and reported in aggregate. All files containing PII will be password-protected, housed on secure USGS servers, and only accessible to the research team. The data from the survey will be aggregated and statistically analyzed and the results will be published in publically available USGS reports.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1028-NEW.

    Title: Current and Future Landsat User Requirements.

    Type of Request: New information collection.

    Affected Public: General public.

    Respondent's Obligation: None. Participation is voluntary.

    Frequency of Collection: One time only.

    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 11,000.

    Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses: 11,000.

    Estimated Time per Response: 20 minutes.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 3,667.

    Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: None.

    Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number and current expiration date.

    III. Request for Comments

    We are soliciting comments as to: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) how to minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Please note that the comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your personal mailing address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: April 12, 2017. Sharon Taylor, Fort Collins Science Center Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12726 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4338-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Natural Resources Revenue [Docket No. ONRR-2011-0008; DS63644000 DR2000000.CH7000 178D0102R2 ] Agency Information Collection Activities: Suspensions Pending Appeal and Bonding AGENCY:

    Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), ONRR is inviting comments on the renewal of a collection of information that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This ICR covers the paperwork requirements in the regulations under 30 CFR 1243.

    DATES:

    Submit written comments on or before August 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this ICR to ONRR by using one of the following three methods: (Please use “ICR 1012-0006” as an identifier in your comment).

    1. Electronically go to http://www.regulations.gov. In the entry titled “Enter Keyword or ID,” enter “ONRR-2012-0006” and then click “Search.” Follow the instructions to submit public comments. ONRR will post all comments.

    2. Email comments to Mr. Luis Aguilar, Regulatory Specialist, at [email protected].

    3. Hand-carry or mail comments, using an overnight courier service, to ONRR. Our courier address is Building 53, Entrance E-20, Denver Federal Center, West 6th Ave. and Kipling St., Denver, Colorado 80225. Visitor parking is available near entrance E-20, with a phone to request entry. Call Mr. Armando Salazar at (303) 231-3585 or Ms. Janet Giron at (303) 231-3088 to gain entrance.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions on technical issues, contact Ms. Kimberly Werner, Office of Enforcement (OE), ONRR, at (303) 231-3801 or email to [email protected]. For other questions, contact Mr. Luis Aguilar, at (303) 231-3418, or email to [email protected]. You may also contact Mr. Aguilar to obtain copies (free of charge) of (1) the ICR and (2) the regulations that require the subject collection of information. You may also review the information collection request online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Abstract: The Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior is responsible for mineral resource development on Federal and Indian lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Under various laws, the Secretary's responsibility is to manage mineral resources production on Federal and Indian lands and the OCS, collect the royalties and other mineral revenues due, and distribute the funds collected. The Secretary also has a trust responsibility to manage Indian lands and seek advice and information from Indian beneficiaries. ONRR performs the minerals revenue management functions for the Secretary and assists the Secretary in carrying out the Department's trust responsibility for Indian lands. We have posted those laws pertaining to mineral leases on Federal and Indian lands and the OSC at http://www.onrr.gov/Laws_R_D/PubLaws/default.htm.

    I. General Information

    When a company or an individual enters into a lease to explore, develop, produce, and dispose of minerals from Federal or Indian lands, that company or individual agrees to pay the lessor a share in an amount or value of production from the leased lands. The lessee is required to report various kinds of information to the lessor relative to the disposition of the minerals, such as developing, transporting, processing, purchasing, or selling such minerals. The information collected includes data necessary to ensure that production is accurately valued and that royalties are appropriately paid.

    If ONRR determines that a lessee has not properly reported or paid, we may issue an order to pay, a Notice of Noncompliance, or a Civil Penalty Notice requiring correct reporting or payment. Lessees then have a right to appeal ONRR's determination(s).

    II. Information Collection

    Regulations at 30 CFR part 1243 govern the submission of appropriate surety instruments to suspend compliance with orders or decisions and to stay the accrual of civil penalties (if the Office of Hearings and Appeals grants a lessee's petition to stay accrual of civil penalties), pending administrative appeal for Federal and Indian leases. For Federal oil and gas leases, under 30 U.S.C. 1724(l) and its implementing regulations in 30 CFR part 1243, appellants who are requesting a suspension without providing a surety must submit information to demonstrate financial solvency. This ICR covers the burden hours associated with submitting financial statements or surety instruments required to stay an ONRR order, decision, or accrual of civil penalties.

    Stay of Payment Pending Appeal

    Title 30 CFR 1243.1 states that lessees or recipients of ONRR orders may suspend compliance with an order if they appeal under 30 CFR part 1290. Pending appeal, ONRR may suspend the payment requirement if the appellant submits a formal agreement of payment in case of default such as a bond or other surety; for Federal oil and gas leases, the appellant may demonstrate financial solvency. If the Office of Hearings and Appeals grants a lessee's, or other recipient of a Notice of Noncompliance or Civil Penalty Notice, request to stay the accrual of civil penalties under 30 CFR 1241.55(b)(2) and 1241.63(b)(2), the lessee or other recipient must post a bond or other surety; for Federal oil and gas leases, the appellant may demonstrate financial solvency.

    ONRR accepts the following surety types: Form ONRR-4435, Administrative Appeal Bond; form ONRR-4436, Letter of Credit; form ONRR-4437, Assignment of Certificate of Deposit; Self-bonding; and U.S. Treasury Securities.

    When one of the surety types is selected and put in place, appellants must maintain the surety until completion of the appeal. If the appeal is decided in favor of the appellant, ONRR returns the surety to the appellant. If the appeal is decided in favor of ONRR, then we will take action to collect the total amount due or draw down on the surety. We draw down on a surety if the appellant fails to comply with requirements relating to amount due, timeframe, or surety submission or resubmission. Whenever ONRR must draw down on a surety, we must draw down the total amount due, which is defined as unpaid principal plus the interest accrued to the projected receipt date of the surety payment. Appellants may refer to the Surety Instrument Posting Instructions, which are on our Web site at http://www.onrr.gov/compliance/appeals.htm.

    Forms and Other Surety Types Form ONRR-4435, Administrative Appeal Bond

    Appellants may file Form ONRR-4435, Administrative Appeal Bond, which ONRR uses to secure the financial interests of the public and Indian lessors during the entire administrative and judicial appeal process. Under 30 CFR 1243.4, appellants are required to submit their contact and surety amount information on the bond to obtain the benefit of suspension of an obligation to comply with an order. The bond must be issued by a qualified surety company that the U.S. Department of the Treasury approves (see Department of the Treasury Circular No. 570, revised periodically in the Federal Register). The Director for ONRR or the delegated bond-approving officer maintains these bonds in a secure facility. After the appeal has concluded, ONRR may release and return the bond to the appellant or collect payment on the bond. If collection is necessary for a remaining balance, ONRR will issue a demand for payment to the surety company with a notice to the appellant. We will also include all interest accrued on the affected receivable.

    Form ONRR-4436, Letter of Credit

    Appellants may choose to file form ONRR-4436, Letter of Credit, with no modifications. Requirements at 30 CFR 1243.4 continues to apply. The Director or the delegated bond-approving officer maintains the Letter of Credit (LOC) in a secure facility. The appellant is responsible for verifying that the bank provides a current Fitch rating to ONRR. After the appeal has been concluded, we may release and return the LOC to the appellant or collect payment on the LOC. If collection is necessary for a remaining balance, we will issue a demand for payment, which includes all interest assessed on the affected receivable, to the bank with a notice to the appellant.

    Form ONRR-4437, Assignment of Certificate of Deposit

    Appellants may choose to secure a debt by requesting to use a Certificate of Deposit (CD) from a bank with the required minimum rating and submitting form ONRR-4437, Assignment of Certificate of Deposit. Requirements at 30 CFR 1243.4 continues to apply. Appellants must file the request with ONRR prior to the invoice due date. We will accept a book-entry CD that explicitly assigns the CD to the Director. If collection of the CD is necessary for an unpaid balance, we will return unused CD funds to the appellant after total settlement of the appealed issues, including applicable interest charges.

    Self-Bonding

    For Federal oil and gas leases, regulations at 30 CFR 1243.201, provide that no surety instrument is required when a person representing the appellant periodically demonstrates, to the satisfaction of ONRR, that the guarantor or appellant is financially solvent or otherwise able to pay the obligation. Appellants must submit a written request to “self-bond” every time a new appeal is filed. To evaluate the financial solvency and exemption from requirements of appellants to maintain a surety related to an appeal, ONRR requires appellants to submit a consolidated balance sheet, subject to annual audit. In some cases, we also require copies of the most recent tax returns (up to 3 years) filed by appellants.

    In addition, appellants must annually submit financial statements, subject to annual audit, to support their net worth. ONRR uses the consolidated balance sheet or business information supplied to evaluate the financial solvency of a lessee, designee, or payor seeking a stay of payment obligation pending review. If appellants do not have a consolidated balance sheet documenting their net worth or if they do not meet the $300 million net worth requirement, ONRR selects a business information or credit reporting service to provide information concerning an appellant's financial solvency. ONRR charges the appellant a $50 fee each time we need to review data from a business information or credit reporting service. The fee covers our costs in determining an appellant's financial solvency.

    U.S. Treasury Securities

    Appellants may choose to secure their debts by requesting to use a U.S. Treasury Security (TS). Appellants must file the letter of request with ONRR prior to the invoice due date. The TS must be a U.S. Treasury note or bond with maturity equal to or greater than 1 year. The TS must equal 120 percent of the appealed amount plus 1 year of estimated interest (necessary to protect ONRR against interest rate fluctuations). ONRR only accepts book-entry TS.

    III. OMB Approval

    We are requesting OMB's approval to continue to collect this information. Not collecting this information would limit the Secretary's ability to discharge the duties of the office and also may result in loss of royalty and other payments. Proprietary information submitted to ONRR under this collection is protected, and there are no questions of a sensitive nature included in this information collection. A response is mandatory in order to suspend compliance with an order pending appeal.

    IV. Data

    Title: Suspensions Pending Appeal and Bonding.

    OMB Control Number: 1012-0006.

    Bureau Form Numbers: forms ONRR-4435, ONRR-4436, and ONRR-4437.

    Frequency: Annually and on occasion.

    Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: 105 Federal or Indian appellants.

    Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: 210 hours.

    The following table shows the estimated annual burden hours by CFR section and paragraph. We have not included in our estimates certain requirements performed in the normal course of business and considered usual and customary.

    Respondents' Estimated Annual Burden Hours Citation 30 CFR Part 1243 Reporting and recordkeeping requirement Hour burden Average number of annual responses Annual burden hours 1243.4(a)(1); 1243.6; 1243.7(a); 1243.8(a)(2) and (b)(2); 1243.101(b); 1243.202(c) How do I suspend compliance with an order?
  • (a) If you timely appeal an order, and if that order or portion of that order: (1) Requires you to make a payment, and you want to suspend compliance with that order, you must post a bond or other surety instrument or demonstrate financial solvency * * *
  • 2 hours 40 (surety instruments: Forms ONRR-4435, ONRR-4436, ONRR-4437, or TS) 80
    1243.200(a) and (b); 1243.201(c)(1), (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii) and (d)(2) How do I demonstrate financial solvency?
  • (a) To demonstrate financial solvency under this part, you must submit an audited consolidated balance sheet, and, if requested by the ONRR bond-approving officer, up to 3 years of tax returns to the ONRR, * * *
  • (b) You must submit an audited consolidated balance sheet annually, and, if requested, additional annual tax returns on the date ONRR first determined that you demonstrated financial solvency as long as you have active appeals, or whenever ONRR requests * * *
  • 2 hours 65 self-bonding submissions 130
    Total Burden 105 210

    Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-hour” Cost Burden: There are no additional recordkeeping costs associated with this information collection. However, ONRR estimates 5 appellants per year will pay a $50 fee to obtain credit data from a business information or credit reporting service, which is a total “non-hour” cost burden of $250 per year (5 appellants per year × $50 = $250).

    Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments: Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires each agency to “* * * provide 60-day notice in the Federal Register * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *.” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information that ONRR collects; and (4) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    The PRA also requires agencies to estimate the total annual reporting “non-hour cost” burden to respondents or record-keepers resulting from the collection of information. If you have costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. You should describe the methods that you use to estimate (1) major cost factors, including system and technology acquisition, (2) expected useful life of capital equipment, (3) discount rate(s), and (4) the period over which you incur costs. Capital and startup costs include, among other items, computers and software that you purchase to prepare for collecting information; monitoring, sampling, and testing equipment; and record storage facilities. Generally, your estimates should not include equipment or services purchased: (i) Before October 1, 1995; (ii) to comply with requirements not associated with the information collection; (iii) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the Federal government; or (iv) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

    We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our ICR submission for OMB approval, including appropriate adjustments to the estimated burden. We will provide a copy of the ICR to you without charge upon request. We also will post the ICR at http://www.onrr.gov/Laws_R_D/FRNotices/ICR0122.htm.

    Public Comment Policy: ONRR will post all comments, including names and addresses of respondents at http://www.regulations.gov. Before including Personally Identifiable Information (PII), such as your address, phone number, email address, or other personal information in your comment(s), you should be aware that your entire comment (including PII) may be made available to the public at any time. While you may ask us, in your comment, to withhold PII from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    ONRR Information Collection Coordinator: Jeffrey Parrillo (202) 208-7072.

    Authority

    The authorities for this action are the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 192), Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1353), Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-382—Dec. 22, 1982), and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Gregory J. Gould, Director, Office of Natural Resources Revenue.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12596 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4335-30-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1008] Certain Carbon Spine Board, Cervical Collar, CPR Masks and Various Medical Training Manikin Devices, and Trademarks, Copyrights of Product Catalogues, Product Inserts and Components Thereof; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order Against Three Respondents Found in Default; Issuance of a Cease and Desist Order; Termination of the Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has issued a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) against certain products of Medsource International Co., Ltd.; Medsource Factory, Inc.; and Basic Medical Supply, LLC. The Commission has also issued a cease and desist order (“CDO”) against respondent Basic Medical Supply, LLC. The investigation is terminated.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Needham, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission instituted this investigation on June 24, 2016, based on an amended complaint, as supplemented, filed by Laerdal Medical Corp. of Wappingers Falls, New York, and Laerdal Medical AS of Stavanger, Norway (together, “Laerdal”). 81 FR 41349-50. The investigation was instituted to determine whether there is a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain carbon spine board, cervical collar, CPR masks, various medical training manikin devices, trademarks, copyrights of product catalogues and products inserts, and components thereof by reason of one or more of: (1) Infringement of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,090,058 (“the '058 patent”); (2) infringement of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,476,656 (“the '656 mark”); (3) infringement of U.S. Copyright Registration Nos. VA 1-879-023 or VA 1-879-026 (“the '023 and '026 copyrights”); and (4) infringement and misappropriation of certain Laerdal trade dresses. Id. at 41349. The Commission's notice of investigation named as respondents Shanghai Evenk International Trading Co., Ltd., Shanghai Honglian Medical Instrument Development Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Jolly Medical Education Co., Ltd., all of Shanghai, China; Zhangjiagang Xiehe Medical Apparatus & Instruments Co., Ltd., Zhangjiagang New Fellow Med Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Yongxin Medical Equipment Co., Ltd., and Jiangsu Yongxin Medical-Use Facilities Making, Co., Ltd, all of Zhangjiagang City, China; Jiangyin Everise Medical Devices Co., Ltd., of Jiangyin City, China; Medsource International Co., Ltd. (“Medsource International”) and Medsource Factory, Inc. (“Medsource Factory”), both of PuDong, China; and Basic Medical Supply, LLC (“Basic Medical”) of Richmond, Texas (collectively, “Respondents”). Id. at 41350. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was also named as a party. Id.

    On November 7, 2016, the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) ordered all of the respondents to show cause why they should not be held in default for failing to respond to the amended complaint and Notice of Investigation, and set a response deadline of November 14, 2016. Order No. 5. No responses were filed. On November 21, 2016, the ALJ issued an initial determination (Order No. 6) finding all respondents in default pursuant to Commission Rules 210.16 and 210.17. No petitions for review of the ID were filed. On December 20, 2016, the Commission determined not review the ID, and sought submission from the parties and the public on remedy, the public interest, and bonding.

    The Commission received responsive submissions from Laerdal and OUII on January 5, 2017, and reply submissions from Laerdal and OUII on January 10, 2017. The submissions agreed that the appropriate remedy is the entry of a limited exclusion order against all respondents and the entry of a cease and desist order against Basic Medical, that the public interest factors do not weigh against granting these remedial orders, and that bonding should be set at 100 percent of the entered value of the infringing products.

    The Commission finds that the statutory requirements of section 337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) and Commission Rule 210.16(a)(1) (19 CFR 210.16(a)(1)) are met with respect to all respondents. Pursuant to section 337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) and Commission Rule 210.16(c) (19 CFR 210.16(c)), the Commission presumes the facts alleged in the complaint to be true. The Commission finds that Laerdal's amended complaint sufficiently alleged a violation of section 337 by Medsource International, Medsource Factory, and Basic Medical with respect to claim 1 of the '058 patent and the '656 mark. The Commission, however, finds that even when the factual allegations of Laerdal's amended complaint are presumed true, Laerdal has not shown a violation of section 337 with respect to the '023 copyright, the '026 copyright, the trade dresses, or any of the other respondents.

    The Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief in this investigation is: (a) A limited exclusion order against Medsource International, Medsource Factory, and Basic Medical prohibiting the unlicensed entry of cervical collars that infringe claim 1 of the '058 patent and CPR masks that infringe the '656 mark; and (b) an order that Basic Medical cease and desist from importing, selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for sale, transferring (except for exportation), or soliciting U.S. agents or distributors of imported cervical collars that infringe claim 1 of the '058 patent and CPR masks that infringe the '656 mark. The Commission has further determined that the public interest factors enumerated in section 337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) do not preclude the issuance of the limited exclusion order and cease and desist order. Finally, the Commission has determined that the bond for importation during the period of Presidential review shall be in the amount of 100 percent of the entered value of the imported subject articles of the respondents. The investigation is terminated.

    The Commission's orders and opinion were delivered to the President and the United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance.

    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: June 14, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12689 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [CPCLO Order No. 001-2017] Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of Records; Correction AGENCY:

    United States Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (Department or DOJ) published a notice in the Federal Register, 82 FR 25812, on June 5, 2017, concerning a System of Records Notice (SORN) for a new DOJ system of records titled, “DOJ Insider Threat Program Records (ITPR),” JUSTICE/DOJ-018. The document contains two incorrect SORN reference numbers. References to JUSTICE/DOJ-001 should be replaced by JUSTICE/DOJ-018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Beth Zelman, Attorney Advisor, 202-305-9318.

    Correction:

    In the Federal Register of June 5, 2017, in FR Doc. 2017-11445, on page 25813, in the SORN title and the “SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER” section, correct the DOJ SORN reference number to read:

    JUSTICE/DOJ-018 SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER:

    DOJ Insider Threat Program Records (ITPR), JUSTICE/DOJ-018.

    Dated: June 12, 2017. Peter A. Winn, Acting Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer, United States Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12703 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-NW-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE National Institute of Justice [OMB Number 1121-NEW] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed New Information Collection Activity; Comment Request, Proposed Study Entitled “Evaluation of the Bureau of Justice Assistance Sexual Assault Kit Initiative” AGENCY:

    National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice

    ACTION:

    60-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until August 18, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Christine Crossland, National Institute of Justice, Office of Research & Evaluation, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20531 (overnight 20001) or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the National Institute of Justice, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Evaluate whether, and if so how, the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of this information collection:

    1. Type of Information Collection: Site visits, which will include individual and group interviews.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Evaluation of the Bureau of Justice Assistance Sexual Assault Kit Initiative.

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: The applicable component within the U.S. Department of Justice is the National Institute of Justice in the Office of Justice Programs.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Sexual assault kits (SAKs) are invaluable tools used in investigations to collect evidence such as DNA and to document injuries from alleged victims; this evidence in turn is used to identify and prosecute offenders and to exonerate innocent suspects. Despite the importance of SAKs, backlogs of unsubmitted and untested kits have emerged in jurisdictions across the country (e.g., Peterson and Hickman, 2005; Strom et al., 2009). The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) established the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI) to provide assistance to jurisdictions who are addressing these issues. In FY 2015, 20 sites were funded through SAKI to engage in reforms intended to improve the national response to sexual assault cases.

    The objectives of the current study are to conduct an evaluability assessment of all 20 FY2015 sites to determine their readiness to participate in an evaluation of the SAKI and to develop a comprehensive and rigorous evaluation plan to ultimately determine the extent to which SAKI reforms have resulted in intended (and/or unintended) system changes. The evaluability assessment data collection process will include visits to the 20 sites, which will be comprised of individual and group interviews with a maximum of 20 respondents per site.

    The types of respondents who will be asked to respond to requests for interviews will include the SAKI Site Coordinator, representatives from sectors involved in working groups (e.g., law enforcement, forensic medical personnel, forensic laboratory personnel, prosecutors, victim advocates, victim treatment providers), specialized staff (e.g., cold case detectives, police administrative support, victim compensation staff).

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated average burden for a respondent completing a site visit interview is approximately 60 minutes. A maximum of 20 respondents will be interviewed, either individually or in groups, at each of the 20 sites. Therefore, the total number of estimated respondents for the entire evaluability site visit data collection is 400 (20 sites × 20 respondents per site).

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The maximum estimated public burden associated with this collection is 400 hours. It is estimated that each of the 400 site visit interviews will take 60 minutes to complete (400 respondents × 60 minutes = 400 hours).

    If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: June 14, 2017 Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12623 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Bureau of Labor Statistics Proposed Collection; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the “Current Population Survey (CPS).” A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice on or before August 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to Erin Good, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 4080, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20212. Written comments also may be transmitted by fax to 202-691-5111 (this is not a toll-free number).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Erin Good, BLS Clearance Officer, 202-691-7763 (this is not a toll-free number). (See ADDRESSES section.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The CPS has been the principal source of the official Government statistics on employment and unemployment for over 75 years. The labor force information gathered through the survey is of paramount importance in keeping track of the economic health of the Nation. The survey is the only source of monthly data on total employment and unemployment. The Employment Situation news release contains data from this survey and is designated as a Principal Federal Economic Indicator (PFEI). Moreover, the survey also yields data on the characteristics of persons not in the labor force. The CPS data are used monthly, in conjunction with data from other sources, to analyze the extent to which, and with what success, the various components of the American population are participating in the economic life of the Nation.

    The labor force data gathered through the CPS are provided to users in the greatest detail possible, in conjunction with the demographic information obtained in the survey. In brief, the labor force data can be broken down by sex, age, race, ethnicity, marital status, family composition, educational level, certification and licensing status, disability status, and other characteristics. Through such breakdowns, one can focus on the employment situation of specific population groups as well as on general trends in employment and unemployment. Information of this type can be obtained only through demographically oriented surveys such as the CPS.

    The basic CPS data also are used as an important platform on which to base the data derived from the various supplemental questions that are administered in conjunction with the survey. By coupling the basic data from the monthly survey with the special data from the supplements, one can get valuable insights on the behavior of American workers and on the social and economic health of their families.

    There is wide interest in the monthly CPS data among Government policymakers, legislators, economists, the media, and the general public. While the data from the CPS are used in conjunction with data from other surveys in assessing the economic health of the Nation, they are unique in various ways. Specifically, they are the basis for much of the monthly Employment Situation report, a PFEI. They provide a monthly, nationally representative measure of total employment, including farm work, self-employment, and unpaid family work; other surveys are generally restricted to the nonagricultural wage and salary sector, or provide less timely information. The CPS provides data on all job seekers, and on all persons outside the labor force, while payroll-based surveys cannot, by definition, cover these sectors of the population. Finally, the CPS data on employment, unemployment, and on persons not in the labor force can be linked to the demographic characteristics of the many groups that make up the Nation's population, while the data from other surveys often have limited demographic information. Many groups, both in the government and in the private sector, are eager to analyze this wealth of demographic and labor force data.

    II. Current Action

    Office of Management and Budget clearance is being sought for the Current Population Survey (CPS).

    III. Desired Focus of Comments

    The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Agency: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    Title: Current Population Survey (CPS).

    OMB Number: 1220-0100.

    Affected Public: Households.

    Total Respondents: 53,000 per month.

    Frequency: Monthly.

    Total Responses: 636,000.

    Average Time per Response: 7.6 minutes.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 80,560 hours.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $0.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): $0.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of June, 2017. Kimberley Hill, Chief, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12603 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-24-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Bureau of Labor Statistics Proposed Collection, Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95). This program helps to ensure that the requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed revision of the “Report on Current Employment Statistics.” A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice on or before August 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to Carol Rowan, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 4080, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20212. Written comments also may be transmitted by fax to 202-691-5111 (this is not a toll free number).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carol Rowan, BLS Clearance Officer, 202-691-7628 (this is not a toll free number). (See ADDRESSES section.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Current Employment Statistics (CES) program provides current monthly statistics on employment, hours, and earnings, by industry and geography. CES estimates are among the most visible and widely-used Principal Federal Economic Indicators (PFEIs). CES data are also among the timeliest of the PFEIs, with their release each month by the BLS in the Employment Situation, typically on the first Friday of each month. The statistics are fundamental inputs in economic decision processes at all levels of government, private enterprise, and organized labor.

    The CES monthly estimates of employment, hours, and earnings are based on a sample of U.S. nonagricultural establishments. Information is derived from approximately 297,000 reports (from a sample of 147,000 employers with State Unemployment Insurance (UI) accounts comprised of 634,000 individual worksites), as of February 2017. Each month, firms report their employment, payroll, and hours on forms identified as the BLS-790. The sample is collected under a probability-based design. Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands collect an additional 7,000 reports.

    A list of all form types currently used appears in the table below. Respondents receive variations of the basic collection forms, depending on their industry.

    The CES program is a voluntary program under Federal statute. Reporting to the State agencies is voluntary in all but three States (Oregon, North Carolina, and South Carolina), Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. To our knowledge, the States that do have mandatory reporting rarely exercise their authority. The collection form's confidentiality statement cites the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 and mentions the State mandatory reporting authority.

    II. Current Action

    Office of Management and Budget clearance is being sought for the Report on Current Employment Statistics.

    Automated data collection methods are now used for most of the CES sample. Approximately 139,000 reports are received through Electronic Data Interchange as of February 2017. Web data collection accounts for 48,000 reports. Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing is used to collect 73,000. Fax is also a significant collection mode, as 8,000 reports are collected via this method. Touchtone Data Entry is used for 7,000 reports.

    The balance of the sample is collected through other methods including submission of transcripts, emails, and other special arrangements.

    III. Desired Focus of Comments

    The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Agency: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    Title: Report on Current Employment Statistics.

    OMB Number: 1220-0011.

    Affected Public: State or local governments; Businesses or other for profit; Non-profit institutions.

    Form Reports Minutes per report Frequency of response Annual
  • responses
  • Annual burden hours
    A—Mining and Logging 1,283 10 12 15,396 2,566 B—Construction 11,503 10 12 138,036 23,006 C—Manufacturing 9,837 10 12 118,044 19,674 E—Service Providing Industries 195,448 10 12 2,345,376 390,896 G—Public Administration 60,382 6 12 724,584 72,458 S—Education 11,025 6 12 132,300 13,230 Fax790 A,B,C,E,G,S 8,205 10 12 98,460 16,410 Total 297,683 3,572,196 538,240

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $0

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): $0

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of June 2017. Eric P. Molina, Acting Chief, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12598 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-24-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Bureau of Labor Statistics Proposed Collection; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed reinstatement of the “Current Population Survey (CPS) Displaced Worker, Job Tenure, and Occupational Mobility Supplement” to be conducted in January 2018 and January 2020. A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the Addresses section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice on or before August 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to Erin Good, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 4080, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20212. Written comments may also be transmitted by fax to 202-691-5111 (this is not a toll free number).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Erin Good, BLS Clearance Officer, 202-691-7763 (this is not a toll-free number). (See ADDRESSES section.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The CPS Displaced Worker, Job Tenure, and Occupational Mobility Supplement is conducted biennially and was last collected in January 2016.

    This supplement will gather information on workers who have lost or left their jobs because their plant or company closed or moved, there was insufficient work for them to do, or their position or shift was abolished. Data will be collected on the extent to which displaced workers received advance notice of job cutbacks or the closing of their plant or business. For those workers who have been reemployed, the supplement will gather data on the types of jobs they found and will compare current earnings with those from the lost job. The incidence and nature of occupational changes in the preceding year will be queried. The survey also probes for the length of time workers (including those who have not been displaced) have been with their current employer. Additional data to be collected include information on the receipt of unemployment compensation, the loss of health insurance coverage, and the length of time spent without a job.

    Because this supplement is part of the CPS, the same detailed demographic information collected in the CPS will be available on respondents to the supplement. Comparisons will be possible across characteristics such as sex, race and ethnicity, age, and educational attainment of the respondent.

    The information collected by this survey will be used to determine the size and nature of the population affected by job displacements and the needs and scope of programs serving adult displaced workers. It also will be used to assess employment stability by determining the length of time workers have been with their current employer and estimating the incidence of occupational change over the course of a year. Combining the questions on displacement, job tenure, and occupational mobility will enable analysts to obtain a more complete picture of employment stability.

    II. Current Action

    Office of Management and Budget clearance is being sought for the CPS Displaced Worker, Job Tenure, and Occupational Mobility Supplement to the CPS. A reinstatement, without change, of this previously approved collection, for which approval has expired, is needed to provide the Nation with timely information about displaced workers, job tenure, and occupational mobility.

    III. Desired Focus of Comments

    The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    Type of Review: Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired.

    Agency: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    Title: CPS Displaced Worker, Job Tenure, and Occupational Mobility Supplement.

    OMB Number: 1220-0104.

    Affected Public: Households.

    Total Respondents: 53,000.

    Frequency: Biennially.

    Total Responses: 53,000.

    Average Time per Response: 8 minutes.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 7,067 hours.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $0.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): $0.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of June, 2017. Kimberley Hill, Chief, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12602 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-24-P
    NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION [NARA-2017-051] Records Schedules; Availability and Request for Comments AGENCY:

    National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when agencies no longer need them for current Government business. The records schedules authorize agencies to preserve records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and to destroy, after a specified period, records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. NARA publishes notice in the Federal Register for records schedules in which agencies propose to destroy records they no longer need to conduct agency business. NARA invites public comments on such records schedules.

    DATES:

    NARA must receive requests for copies in writing by July 19, 2017. Once NARA finishes appraising the records, we will send you a copy of the schedule you requested. We usually prepare appraisal memoranda that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. You may also request these. If you do, we will also provide them once we have completed the appraisal. You have 30 days after we send to you these requested documents in which to submit comments.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice by contacting Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA) using one of the following means:

    Mail: NARA (ACRA); 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740-6001.

    Email: [email protected].

    FAX: 301-837-3698.

    You must cite the control number, which appears in parentheses after the name of the agency that submitted the schedule, and a mailing address. If you would like an appraisal report, please include that in your request.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Margaret Hawkins, Director, by mail at Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA); National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740-6001, by phone at 301-837-1799, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NARA publishes notice in the Federal Register for records schedules they no longer need to conduct agency business. NARA invites public comments on such records schedules, as required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a).

    Each year, Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing records retention periods and submit these schedules for NARA's approval. These schedules provide for timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the agency to dispose of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.

    The schedules listed in this notice are media neutral unless otherwise specified. An item in a schedule is media neutral when an agency may apply the disposition instructions to records regardless of the medium in which it creates or maintains the records. Items included in schedules submitted to NARA on or after December 17, 2007, are media neutral unless the item is expressly limited to a specific medium. (See 36 CFR 1225.12(e).)

    Agencies may not destroy Federal records without Archivist of the United States' approval. The Archivist approves destruction only after thoroughly considering the records' administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private people directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not the records have historical or other value.

    In addition to identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records (or notes that the schedule has agency-wide applicability when schedules cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency); provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction); and includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it also includes information about the records. You may request additional information about the disposition process at the addresses above.

    Schedules Pending

    1. Department of Agriculture, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (DAA-0258-2017-0002, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records related to social media applications, including web publishing, social networking, and media sharing.

    2. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary (DAA-0016-2017-0002, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Electronic mail dated prior to 2011 that is no longer readable, for all Department components.

    3. Department of Defense, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DAA-0374-2017-0002, 2 items, 1 temporary item). Records relating to practice exercises for verifying location of weapons systems. Proposed for permanent retention are records generated by the verification process.

    4. Department of Energy, Agency-wide (DAA-0434-2017-0005, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Master files of an electronic information system used to track and manage requests for access to facilities by foreign visitors.

    5. Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (DAA-0566-2017-0014, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to manage financial transactions with agency customers.

    6. Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (DAA-0566-2017-0016, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Records of agency responses to audits by the Government Accountability Office and Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, including audit files, process tracking files, and confirmation of final decision files.

    7. Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (DAA-0566-2017-0024, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to manage international adoption cases.

    8. Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps (DAA-0127-2017-0004, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to track, review, and report on actions taken regarding environmental law and policies.

    9. Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps (DAA-0127-2017-0006, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used for logistics management including inventory, requisition, and fulfillment.

    10. Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps (DAA-0127-2017-0007, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to track and manage buildings containing hazardous substances.

    11. Department of State, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs (DAA-0059-2017-0005, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Records of the Office of Press and Public Diplomacy including program files related to public diplomacy and outreach activities, and copies of briefing materials.

    12. Department of State, Office of Inspector General (DAA-0059-2017-0002, 4 items, 2 temporary items). Records include working files and investigative case files of allegations of waste, fraud, and mismanagement. Proposed for permanent retention are Principal Officer subject files, final reports and associated compliance files.

    13. Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau (DAA-0173-2016-0011, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records include data and statistical reports related to the telecommunications industry.

    14. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Agency-wide (DAA-0255-2017-0008, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Routine documentation related to visitors who use agency health and first aid facilities.

    15. National Archives and Records Administration, Government-wide (DAA-GRS-2015-0006, 7 items, 7 temporary items). General Records Schedule for records produced in agency budget formulation, execution, reporting, and administration.

    16. National Archives and Records Administration, Research Services (N2-220-17-1, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Records of the National Commission on the Observance of International Women's Year including routine administrative and facilitative documents relating to conferences and records covered by the General Records Schedule. These records were accessioned to the National Archives but lack sufficient historical value to warrant their continued preservation.

    17. National Credit Union Administration, Asset Management and Assistance Center (DAA-0413-2017-0001, 7 items, 7 temporary items). Records related to credit union liquidations including acquired liquidation documents, accounting records, financial and management reports, liquidation files, loan and collection files, and real property sales documents.

    Laurence Brewer, Chief Records Officer for the U.S. Government.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12730 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
    NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Contractor Budget, Representation, and Certification AGENCY:

    National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), as part of a continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the following renewal of a currently approved collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    DATES:

    Written comments should be received on or before August 18, 2017 to be assured consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the information collections to Dawn Wolfgang, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Suite 5067, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; Fax No. 703-519-8579; or Email at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to the address above or telephone 703-548-2279.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Number: 3133-0189.

    Title: Contractor Budget, Representation, and Certification.

    Abstract: Standardized information from prospective outside counsel is essential to the NCUA in carrying out its responsibility as regulator, conservator, and liquidating agent for federally insured credit unions. The information will enable the NCUA to further standardize the data it uses to select outside counsel, consider additional criteria in making its selections, and improve efficiency and recordkeeping related to its selection process.

    Type of Review: Extension of a previously approved collection.

    Affected Public: Private Sector: Businesses or other for-profits.

    Estimated No. of Respondents: 100.

    Estimated Annual Frequency: 1.

    Estimated Annual No. of Responses: 100.

    Estimated Burden Hours per Respondent: 2.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 200.

    Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. The public is invited to submit comments concerning: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper execution of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    By Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, the National Credit Union Administration, on June 14, 2017.

    Dated: June 14, 2017. Dawn D. Wolfgang, NCUA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12645 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY:

    National Science Foundation.

    ACTION:

    Submission for OMB review; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2017, and no comments were received. NSF is forwarding the proposed renewal submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance simultaneously with the publication of this second notice. The full submission may be found at: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Comments: Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Written comments on this notice must be received by July 19, 2017, to be assured consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. Send comments to address below.

    FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230; telephone (703) 292-7556; or send email to [email protected] Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, which is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year (including federal holidays).

    NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title of collection: NSF Surveys to Measure Customer Service Satisfaction.

    OMB Number: 3145-0157.

    Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to renew an information collection.

    Abstract:

    Proposed Project: On September 11, 1993, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12862, “Setting Customer Service Standards,” which calls for Federal agencies to provide service that matches or exceeds the best service available in the private sector. Section 1(b) of that order requires agencies to “survey customers to determine the kind and quality of services they want and their level of satisfaction with existing services.” The National Science Foundation (NSF) has an ongoing need to collect information from its customer community (primarily individuals and organizations engaged in science and engineering research and education) about the quality and kind of services it provides and use that information to help improve agency operations and services.

    Estimate of Burden: The burden on the public will change according to the needs of each individual customer satisfaction survey; however, each survey is estimated to take approximately 30 minutes per response.

    Respondents: Will vary among individuals or households; business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; farms; federal government; state, local or tribal governments.

    Estimated number of responses per survey: This will vary by survey.

    Dated: June 13, 2017. Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12577 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 AGENCY:

    National Science Foundation.

    ACTION:

    Notice of permit issued.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Or by email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On April 25, 2017 the National Science Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of a permit application received. The permit was issued on June 14, 2017 to: John H. Postlethwait, Permit No. 2018-001.

    Nadene G. Kennedy, Polar Coordination Specialist, Office of Polar Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12690 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2017-0086] Information Collection: 10 CFR Part 81, “Standard Specifications for Granting of Patent Licenses” AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “Standard Specifications for the Granting of Patent Licenses.”

    DATES:

    Submit comments by August 18, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0086. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Mail comments to: David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Mail Stop: T-2 F43, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0086 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0086.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The supporting statement is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17088A276.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    NRC's Clearance Officer: A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by contacting NRC's Clearance Officer, David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email: [email protected]

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0086 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

    II. Background

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.

    1. The title of the information collection: 10 CFR part 81, “Standard Specifications for Granting of Patent Licenses.”

    2. OMB approval number: 3150-0121.

    3. Type of submission: Extension.

    4. The form number, if applicable: N/A.

    5. How often the collection is required or requested: Applications for licenses are submitted once. Other reports are submitted annually or as other events require.

    6. Who will be required or asked to respond: Applicants for and holders of NRC licenses to NRC inventions.

    7. The estimated number of annual responses: 1.

    8. The estimated number of annual respondents: 1.

    9. The estimated number of hours needed annually to comply with the information collection requirement or request: 37; however, no applications are anticipated during the next three years.

    10. Abstract: As specified in part 81 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), the NRC may grant nonexclusive licenses or limited exclusive licenses to its patented inventions to responsible applicants. Applicants for licenses to NRC inventions are required to provide information which may provide the basis for granting the requested license. In addition, all license holders must submit periodic reports on efforts to bring the invention to a point of practical application and the extent to which they are making the benefits of the invention reasonably accessible to the public. Exclusive license holders must submit additional information if they seek to extend their licenses, issue sublicenses, or transfer the licenses. In addition, if requested, exclusive license holders must promptly supply to the United States Government copies of all pleadings and other papers filed in any patent infringement lawsuit, as well as evidence from proceedings relating to the licensed patent.

    III. Specific Requests for Comments

    The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:

    1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?

    2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?

    3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?

    4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of June, 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12725 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 40-3392; NRC-2017-0143] Honeywell International, Inc.; Metropolis Works AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    License renewal application; opportunity to request a hearing and to petition for leave to intervene.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering an application for the renewal of source materials license, SUB-526, from Honeywell International, Inc. (Honeywell), for its Metropolis Works (MTW) facility, located in Metropolis, Illinois. Honeywell submitted its license renewal application (LRA) by letter dated February 8, 2017. Originally issued on December 17, 1958, the license has been renewed many times, most recently on May 11, 2007. License SUB-526 authorizes Honeywell's MTW facility to convert uranium ore into pure uranium hexafluoride, via the dry conversion process, for use in enrichment operations. In its February 8, 2017, LRA, Honeywell requests a renewed license term of 40 years.

    DATES:

    A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by August 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0143 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0143. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] Honeywell's February 8, 2017, LRA is available in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML17048A263; and the NRC staff's May 2, 2017, acceptance of Honeywell's LRA and notice of timely renewal status is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17111A740.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tilda Liu, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 404-997-4730; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction

    The NRC has received, by letter dated February 8, 2017, a license renewal application (LRA) from Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell or the applicant) for its Metropolis Works (MTW) facility, located in Metropolis, Illinois. Honeywell is the holder of a source materials license (Number SUB-526), issued by the NRC pursuant to part 40 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). Originally issued on December 17, 1958, the license has been renewed many times, most recently on May 11, 2007. License SUB-526 authorizes Honeywell's MTW facility to convert uranium ore into pure uranium hexafluoride, via the dry conversion process, for use in enrichment operations. In its LRA, Honeywell requests a renewed license term of 40 years.

    An administrative review, documented in a letter to Honeywell dated May 2, 2017, found the LRA acceptable to begin a formal technical review. If the LRA is approved, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the NRC's regulations. These findings will be documented in a safety evaluation report and an environmental assessment.

    II. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.

    As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.

    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.

    Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.

    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by August 18, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).

    If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

    III. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the document is submitted through the NRC's E Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing system.

    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.

    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. For example, in some instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of June 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Jacob Zimmerman, Chief, Enrichment and Conversion Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety, Safeguards, and Environmental Review, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12696 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2017-0140] Biweekly Notice: Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Biweekly notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.

    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from May 23, 2017, to June 2, 2017. The last biweekly notice was published on June 6, 2017.

    DATES:

    Comments must be filed by July 19, 2017. A request for a hearing must be filed by August 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):

    • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0140. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN-8-D36M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0140 facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0140.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this document.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0140 facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

    II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.

    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.

    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards consideration determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.

    A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.

    As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.

    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.

    Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.

    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.

    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by August 18, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).

    If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

    B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at hearin[email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing system.

    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.

    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. For example, in some instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

    For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.

    Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3), Westchester County, New York

    Date of amendment request: December 14, 2016, as supplemented by letter dated April 19, 2017. Publicly available versions are in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML16355A066 and Accession No. ML17114A467, respectively.

    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the Appendix C Technical Specifications (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.1.2 for IP2 and IP3 and Appendix A TS LCO 3.7.13 for IP2. These LCOs ensure that the fuel to be loaded into the Shielded Transfer Canister (STC) meets the design basis for the STC and has an acceptable rack location in the IP2 spent fuel pit before the STC is loaded with fuel. The proposed changes to these LCOs would increase the population of IP3 fuel eligible for transfer to the IP2 spent fuel pit and maintain full core offload capability for IP3.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below, with NRC staff's edits in square brackets:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment would modify the IP2 and IP3 Technical Specifications (TS) to incorporate the results of revised criticality, thermal, and shielding and dose analyses and evaluations.

    [For IP2,] the proposed amendment was evaluated for impact on the following previously evaluated events and accidents: STC Criticality Accidents, SFP Criticality Accidents, Boron Dilution Accidents, Fuel Handling Accidents, Loss of Spent Fuel Pool [SFP] Cooling, and Natural Events.

    [IP2] STC Criticality Accidents

    The STC criticality accident considered were: Abnormal temperature, dropped, mislocated, and misloaded fuel assemblies, and misalignment between the active fuel region and the neutron absorber.

    The probability of an STC criticality accident will not increase significantly due to the proposed changes because the individual fuel assemblies will be loaded into the STC in the same manner, using the same equipment, procedures, and other administrative controls (i.e. fuel move sheets) that are currently used.

    The consequences of an STC criticality accident are not changed because the reactivity analysis demonstrates that the same subcriticality criteria and requirements continue to be met for these accidents.

    [IP2] SFP Criticality Accidents

    The SFP criticality accident of record considered the following accidents (1) a dropped fuel assembly or an assembly placed alongside a rack, (2) a misloaded fuel assembly, and (3) abnormal heat loads. Because the IP2 and IP3 fuel assemblies are identical [with] regards [to] those parameters that are utilized in the design basis criticality analysis (DBA) to qualify fresh fuel these accidents are bounding for IP3 fuel.

    The probability of an SFP criticality accident will not increase significantly due to the proposed changes because the individual fuel assemblies will be loaded into the SFP in the same manner, using the same equipment, procedures, and other administrative controls (i.e. fuel move sheets) that are currently used.

    The consequences of an SFP criticality accident are not changed because the reactivity analysis demonstrates that the same subcriticality criteria and requirements continue to be met for this accident.

    [IP2] STC Thermal Accidents

    The thermal analyses demonstrate that the postulated accidents (rupture of the HI-TRAC water jacket, 50-gallon transported fuel tank rupture and fire, simultaneous loss of water from the water jacket and HI-TRAC annulus, fuel misload, hypothetical tipover, and crane malfunction) continue to meet their acceptance criteria.

    The probability of an STC thermal accident will not increase significantly because the individual fuel assemblies will be loaded into the SFP in the same manner, using the same equipment, procedures, and other administrative controls (i.e. fuel move sheets) that are currently used.

    The consequences of an STC thermal accident will not increase significantly because the thermal analysis demonstrates that the same thermal acceptance criteria and requirements continue to be met for this accident.

    [IP2] Boron Dilution Accident

    The probability of a boron dilution event remains the same because the proposed change does not alter the manner in which the IP2 spent fuel cooling system or any other plant system is operated, or otherwise increase the likelihood of adding significant quantities of unborated water into the spent fuel pit.

    The consequences of the boron dilution event remains the same. The reactivity of the STC filled with the most reactive combination of approved fuel assemblies in unborated water results in a keff less than 0.95. Thus, even in the unlikely event of a complete dilution of the spent fuel pit water, the STC will remain safely subcritical.

    [IP2] Fuel Handling Accident

    The probability of an FHA will not increase significantly due to the proposed changes because the individual fuel assemblies will be moved between the STC and the spent fuel pit racks and the STC and HI-TRAC will be moved in the same manner, using the same equipment, procedures, and other administrative controls (i.e. fuel move sheets) that are currently used.

    The consequences of the existing fuel handling accident remain bounding because the IP3 fuel assembly design is essentially the same as the IP2 design and the IP3 fuel assemblies to be transferred to IP2 will be cooled a minimum of 6 years. This compares with a cooling time of 84 hours used in the existing FHA radiological analysis. The 6-year cooling time results in a significant reduction in the radioactive source term available for release from a damaged fuel assembly compared to the source term considered in the design basis FHA radiological analysis. The consequences of the previously analyzed fuel assembly drop accident, therefore, continue to provide a bounding estimate of offsite dose for this accident.

    [IP2] Loss of Spent Fuel Pool Cooling

    The probability of a loss of spent fuel pit cooling remains the same because the proposed change does not alter the manner in which the IP2 spent fuel cooling loop is operated, designed or maintained.

    The consequences of a loss of spent fuel pit cooling remains the same because the thermal design basis for the spent fuel pit cooling loop provides for all fuel pit rack locations to be filled at the end of a full core discharge and therefore the design basis heat load effectively includes any heat load associated with the assemblies within the STC.

    [IP2] Natural Events

    The natural events considered include the following accidents (1) a seismic event, (2) high winds, tornado and tornado missiles, (3) flooding and (4) a lightning strike.

    The probability of natural event will not increase due to the proposed changes because there are no elements of the proposed changes that influence the occurrence of any natural event.

    The consequences of a natural event will not increase due to the proposed changes because the structural analyses design limits continue to be met. A lightning strike may cause ignition of the VCT fuel but this event is addressed under STC thermal accidents.

    [For IP3,] the proposed amendment was evaluated for impact on the following previously evaluated events and accidents: STC Criticality Accidents, SFP Criticality Accidents, Boron Dilution Accidents, Fuel Handling Accidents, Loss of Spent Fuel Pool Cooling, and Natural Events.

    [IP3] STC Criticality Accidents

    The STC criticality accident considered were: Abnormal temperature, dropped, mislocated, and misloaded fuel assemblies, and misalignment between the active fuel region and the neutron absorber.

    The probability of an STC criticality accident will not increase significantly due to the proposed changes because the individual fuel assemblies will be loaded into the STC in the same manner, using the same equipment, procedures, and other administrative controls (i.e. fuel move sheets) that are currently used.

    The consequences of an STC criticality accident are not changed because the reactivity analysis demonstrates that the same subcriticality criteria and requirements continue to be met for these accidents.

    [IP3] STC Thermal Accidents

    The thermal analyses demonstrate that the postulated accidents (rupture of the HI-TRAC water jacket, 50-gallon transported fuel tank rupture and fire, simultaneous loss of water from the water jacket and HI-TRAC annulus, fuel mislead, hypothetical tipover, and crane malfunction) continue to meet their acceptance criteria. The probability of an STC thermal accident will not increase significantly because the individual fuel assemblies will be loaded into the SFP in the same manner, using the same equipment, procedures, and other administrative controls (i.e. fuel move sheets) that are currently used.

    The consequences of an STC thermal accident will not increase significantly because the thermal analysis demonstrates that the same thermal acceptance criteria and requirements continue to be met for this accident.

    [IP3] Boron Dilution Accident

    The probability of a boron dilution event remains the same because the proposed change does not alter the manner in which the IP3 spent fuel cooling system or any other plant system is operated, or otherwise increase the likelihood of adding significant quantities of unborated water into the spent fuel pit.

    The consequences of the boron dilution event remains the same. The reactivity of the STC filled with the most reactive combination of approved fuel assemblies in unborated water results in a keff less than 0.95. Thus, even in the unlikely event of a complete dilution of the spent fuel pit water, the STC will remain safely subcritical.

    [IP3] Fuel Handling Accident

    The probability of an FHA will not increase significantly due to the proposed changes because the individual fuel assemblies will be moved between the STC and the spent fuel pit racks and the STC and HI-TRAC will be moved in the same manner, using the same equipment, procedures, and other administrative controls (i.e. fuel move sheets) that are currently used.

    The consequences of the existing fuel handling accident remain bounding because only IP3 fuel is moved in the IP3 spent fuel pit. The IP3 fuel assemblies to be transferred to IP2 will be cooled a minimum of 6 years. This compares with a cooling time of 84 hours used in the existing FHA radiological analysis. The 6-year cooling time results in a significant reduction in the radioactive source term available for release from a damaged fuel assembly compared to the source term considered in the design basis FHA radiological analysis. The consequences of the previously analyzed fuel assembly drop accident, therefore, continue to provide a bounding estimate of offsite dose for this accident.

    [IP3] Loss of Spent Fuel Pool Cooling

    The probability of a loss of spent fuel pit cooling remains the same because the proposed change does not alter the manner in which the IP3 spent fuel cooling loop is operated, designed or maintained.

    The consequences of a loss of spent fuel pit cooling remains the same because the thermal design basis for the spent fuel pit cooling loop provides for all fuel pit rack locations to be filled at the end of a full core discharge and therefore the design basis heat load effectively includes any heat load associated with the assemblies within the STC.

    [IP3] Natural Events

    The natural events considered include the following accidents (1) a seismic event, (2) high winds, tornado and tornado missiles, (3) flooding and (4) a lightning strike.

    The probability of natural event will not increase due to the proposed changes because there are no elements of the proposed changes that influence the occurrence of any natural event.

    The consequences of a natural event will not increase due to the proposed changes because the structural analyses design limits continue to be met. A lightning strike may cause ignition of the VCT fuel but this event is addressed under STC thermal accidents.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed TS changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. No new modes of operation are introduced by the proposed changes. The proposed changes will not create any failure mode not bounded by previously evaluated accidents.

    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident, from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment would modify the TS to incorporate the results of revised criticality, thermal and shield and dose analyses. The margin of safety required by 10 CFR 50.58(b)(4) remains unchanged. New criticality evaluations for both the STC [and the IP2 SFP] confirm that operation in accordance with the proposed amendment continues to meet the required subcriticality margins. The thermal analyses demonstrate that the postulated accidents (rupture of the HI-TRAC water jacket, 50-gallon transported fuel tank rupture and fire, simultaneous loss of water from the water jacket and HI-TRAC annulus, fuel misload, hypothetical tipover, and crane malfunction) continue to meet their acceptance criteria without a significant loss of safety margin. The shielding and dose analyses demonstrate that the shielding and radiation protection requirements continue to be met without a significant loss of safety margin.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601.

    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

    Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland

    Date of amendment request: March 28, 2017. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17087A374.

    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TSs) to change the low level of the refueling water tank (RWT) to reflect a needed increase in the required borated water volume and change the allowable value of the RWT level-low function.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment increases the required volume of water in the RWT to maintain the existing design requirements. The increase is necessary due to an increase in the RWT Level—Low RAS [recirculation actuation signal] setpoint, which allows more water to stay in the tank following a LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident]. The modification to the allowable value of the RWT level-low (function 5a) resolves a non-conservative TS per the guidance of Administrative Letter 98-10 “Dispositioning of Technical Specifications That Are Insufficient to Assure Plant Safety.”

    The RWT is not an accident initiator. The RWT is required to supply adequate borated water to perform its mitigation function as assumed in the accident analyses. With the proposed increase in the minimum required water volume, the RWT maintains its design margin for supplying the required amount of borated water to the reactor core and the containment sump.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment increases the required volume of water in the RWT to maintain the existing design requirements. The increase is necessary due to an increase in the RWT Level—Low RAS setpoint, which allows more water to stay in the tank following a LOCA. The modification to the allowable value of the RWT level-low (function 5a) resolves a non-conservative TS per the guidance of Administrative Letter 98-10 “Dispositioning of Technical Specifications That Are Insufficient to Assure Plant Safety.”

    The proposed amendment does not impose any new or different requirements. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analyses. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analyses assumptions and current plant operating practice.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment increases the required volume of water in the RWT to maintain the existing design requirements. The increase is necessary due to an increase in the RWT Level—Low RAS setpoint, which allows more water to stay in the tank following a loss-of-coolant accident. The modification to the allowable value of the RWT level-low (function 5a) resolves a non-conservative TS per the guidance of Administrative Letter 98-10 “Dispositioning of Technical Specifications That Are Insufficient to Assure Plant Safety.”

    The proposed amendment does not affect the design, operation, and testing methods for systems, structures and components specified in applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC). With the proposed increase in the minimum required water volume, the RWT maintains its design margin for supplying the required amount of borated water to the reactor core and the containment sump. The RWT will continue to meet all of its requirements as described in the plant licensing basis (including the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report and the TS Bases). Similarly, there is no impact to Safety Analysis acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.

    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

    Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: April 5, 2017. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17095A081.

    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Technical Specifications to allow greater flexibility in performing surveillance testing in Modes 1, 2, or 3 of emergency diesel generators and Class 1E batteries. The proposed changes are based on Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-283-A, Revision 3, “Modify Section 3.8 Mode Restriction Notes.”

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes modify Mode restriction Notes to allow performance of the Surveillance in whole or in part to reestablish Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) Operability, and to allow the crediting of unplanned events that satisfy the Surveillances. The EDGs and their associated emergency loads are accident mitigating features, and are not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. To manage any increase in risk, the proposed changes require an assessment to verify that plant safety will be maintained or enhanced by performance of the Surveillance in the current prohibited Modes. The radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated during the period that the EDG is being tested to reestablish operability are no different from the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated while the EDG is inoperable. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased.

    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration to the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change to the methods governing normal plant operation. The changes do not alter the assumptions made in the safety analysis.

    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The purpose of Surveillances is to verify that equipment is capable of performing its assumed safety function. The proposed changes will only allow the performance of the Surveillances to reestablish Operability, and the proposed changes may not be used to remove an EDG from service. In addition, the proposed changes will potentially shorten the time that an EDG is unavailable because testing to reestablish Operability can be performed without a plant shutdown. The proposed changes also require an assessment to verify that plant safety will be maintained or enhanced by performance of the Surveillance in the normally prohibited Modes.

    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.

    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

    Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: April 27, 2017. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17121A449.

    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would revise Technical Specification 5.5.12, “Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,” to allow for the permanent extension of the Type A integrated leak rate testing and Type C leak rate testing frequencies, and would also delete a one-time exception.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed activity involves revision of the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station (QCNPS) Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.12, Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program, to allow the extension of the QCNPS, Units 1 and 2, Type A containment integrated leakage rate test interval to 15 years, and the extension of the Type C local leakage rate test interval to 75 months. The current Type A test interval of 120 months (10 years) would be extended on a permanent basis to no longer than 15 years from the last Type A test. The existing Type C test interval of 60 months for selected components would be extended on a performance basis to no longer than 75 months. Extensions of up to nine months (total maximum interval of 84 months for Type C tests) are permissible only for non-routine emergent conditions.

    The proposed extension does not involve either a physical change to the plant or a change in the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled. The containment is designed to provide an essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment for postulated accidents. As such, the containment and the testing requirements invoked to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident, and do not involve the prevention or identification of any precursors of an accident.

    The change in dose risk for changing the Type A Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT) interval from three-per-ten years to once-per-fifteen-years, measured as an increase to the total integrated dose risk for all internal events accident sequences for QCNPS, is 1.0E-02 person-rem/yr (0.31%) using the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) guidance with the base case corrosion included. The change in dose risk drops to 2.7E-03 person-rem/yr (0.08%) when using the EPRI Expert Elicitation methodology. The values calculated per the EPRI guidance are all lower than the acceptance criteria of less than or equal to 1.0 person-rem/yr or less than 1.0% person-rem/yr defined in Section 1.3 of Attachment 3 to this LAR. Therefore, this proposed extension does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.

    As documented in NUREG-1493, “Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test Program,” dated January 1995, Types B and C tests have identified a very large percentage of containment leakage paths, and the percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by Type A testing is very small. The QCNPS, Units 1 and 2 Type A test history supports this conclusion.

    The integrity of the containment is subject to two types of failure mechanisms that can be categorized as: (1) Activity based, and, (2) time based. Activity based failure mechanisms are defined as degradation due to system and/or component modifications or maintenance. Local leak rate test requirements and administrative controls such as configuration management and procedural requirements for system restoration ensure that containment integrity is not degraded by plant modifications or maintenance activities. The design and construction requirements of the containment combined with the containment inspections performed in accordance with American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Section XI, and TS requirements serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is detectable only by a Type A test. Based on the above, the proposed test interval extensions do not significantly increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously granted in amendments 220 and 214 to allow one-time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for QCNPS, Units 1 and 2, respectively. This exception was for an activity that has already taken place; therefore, this deletion is solely an administrative action that does not result in any change in how QCNPS, Units 1 and 2 are operated.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment to TS 5.5.12, “Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,” involves the extension of the QCNPS, Units 1 and 2 Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months. The containment and the testing requirements to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident.

    The proposed change does not involve a physical modification to the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed), nor does it alter the design, configuration, or change the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled beyond the standard functional capabilities of the equipment.

    The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously granted under TS Amendments 220 and 214 to allow the one-time extension of the ILRT test frequency for QCNPS, Units 1 and 2, respectively. This exception was for an activity that has already taken place; therefore, this deletion is solely an administrative action that does not result in any change in how the QCNPS units are operated.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment to TS 5.5.12 involves the extension of the QCNPS, Units 1 and 2 Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for selected components. This amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system set points, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The specific requirements and conditions of the TS Containment Leak Rate Testing Program exist to ensure that the degree of containment structural integrity and leak-tightness that is considered in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The overall containment leak rate limit specified by TS is maintained.

    The proposed change involves the extension of the interval between Type A containment leak rate tests and Type C tests for QCNPS, Units 1 and 2. The proposed surveillance interval extension is bounded by the 15-year ILRT interval and the 75-month Type C test interval currently authorized within NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A. Industry experience supports the conclusion that Types B and C testing detects a large percentage of containment leakage paths and that the percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by Type A testing is small. The containment inspections performed in accordance with ASME Section Xl and TS serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is detectable only by Type A testing. The combination of these factors ensures that the margin of safety in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The design, operation, testing methods and acceptance criteria for Types A, B, and C containment leakage tests specified in applicable codes and standards would continue to be met, with the acceptance of this proposed change, since these are not affected by changes to the Type A and Type C test intervals.

    The proposed amendment also deletes exceptions previously granted to allow one-time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for QCNPS, Units 1 and 2. This exception was for an activity that has taken place; therefore, the deletion is solely an administrative action and does not change how QCNPS is operated and maintained. Thus, there is no reduction in any margin of safety.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Nuclear Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.

    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

    Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 251, Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: April 9, 2017. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17101A637.

    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the Technical Specifications (TSs) to remove various reporting requirements. Specifically, the amendments would remove the requirements to prepare various special reports, the Startup Report, and the Annual Report. In addition, the amendments would revise the TSs to remove the completion time for restoring spent fuel pool water level to address inoperability of one of the two parallel flow paths in the residual heat removal or safety injection headers for the Emergency Core Cooling Systems and to make other administrative changes, including updating plant staff and responsibilities and correcting a misspelling.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The actions, surveillance requirements, and administrative controls associated with the proposed changes to the technical specifications (TS) are not initiators of any accidents previously evaluated, so the probability of accidents previously evaluated is unaffected by the proposed changes. The proposed changes do not alter the design, function, operation, or configuration of any plant structure, system, or component (SSC). The capability of any operable TS-required SSC to perform its specified safety function is not impacted by the proposed changes. As a result, the outcomes of accidents previously evaluated are unaffected. Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes do not challenge the integrity or performance of any safety-related systems. No plant equipment is installed or removed, and the changes do not alter the design, physical configuration, or method of operation of any plant SSC. No physical changes are made to the plant, so no new causal mechanisms are introduced. Therefore, the proposed changes to the TS do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The ability of any operable SSC to perform its designated safety function is unaffected by the proposed changes. The proposed changes do not alter any safety analyses assumptions, safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or method of operating the plant. The changes do not adversely impact plant operating margins or the reliability of equipment credited in the safety analyses. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney—Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.

    NRC Branch Chief: Undine S. Shoop.

    NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa

    Date of amendment request: April 20, 2017. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17111A631.

    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specifications (TSs) Section 3.1.2, “Reactivity Anomalies,” with a change to the method of calculating core reactivity for the purpose of performing the reactivity anomaly surveillance. The proposed change would allow performance of the reactivity anomaly surveillance on a comparison of monitored to predicted core reactivity. The reactivity anomaly verification is currently determined by a comparison of monitored versus predicted control rod density.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change does not affect any plant systems, structures, or components designed for the prevention or mitigation of previously evaluated accidents. The proposed change would only modify how the reactivity anomaly surveillance is performed. Verifying that the core reactivity is consistent with predicted values ensures that accident and transient safety analyses remain valid. This amendment changes the TS requirements such that, rather than performing the surveillance by comparing monitored to predicted control rod density, the surveillance is performed by a direct comparison of core keff. Present day on-line core monitoring systems, such as 3D MONICORE and ACUMEN, are capable of performing the direct measurement of reactivity.

    Therefore, since the reactivity anomaly surveillance will continue to be performed by a viable method, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of a previously evaluated accident.

    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change does not involve any changes to the operation, testing, or maintenance of any safety-related, or otherwise important to safety systems. All systems important to safety will continue to be operated and maintained within their design bases. The proposed changes to the Reactivity Anomalies TS will only provide a new, more efficient method of detecting an unexpected change in core reactivity.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change is to modify the method for performing the reactivity anomaly surveillance from a comparison of monitored to predicted control rod density to a comparison of monitored to predicted core keff. The direct comparison of keff provides a technically superior method of calculating any differences in the expected core reactivity. The reactivity anomaly surveillance will continue to be performed at the same frequency as is currently required by the TS, only the method of performing the surveillance will be changed. Consequently, core reactivity assumptions made in safety analyses will continue to be adequately verified. The proposed change has no impact to the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: William Blair, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.

    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

    NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point Beach Nuclear Plant (Point Beach), Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin

    Date of amendment request: March 31, 2017. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17090A511.

    Description of amendment request: The amendments would document a risk-informed resolution strategy to resolve low risk, legacy design code non-conformances associated with construction trusses in the containment buildings of Point Beach, Units 1 and 2. The proposed license amendment request (LAR) is a risk-informed licensing basis change. The proposed change is acceptance of the final configuration of the construction trusses, including the attached containment spray piping and ventilation ductwork, and the containment liners/walls adjacent to the trusses, using a risk-informed resolution. Accordingly, the proposed change meets the criteria set forth in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.174, “An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment [PRA] in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis,” and the generic guidance in RG 1.200, “An Approach for Determining the Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities.”

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The probability of an accident previously evaluated is not changed. The containment structures and the containment spray piping and ventilation ducts attached to the construction trusses are accident mitigation equipment. They are not accident initiators.

    The acceptance of the final configuration of Point Beach Units 1 and 2 results in a change in core damage frequency and large early release frequency that is within acceptance guidelines and does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. Although failures are postulated in the PRA analysis, the engineering calculations in support of the LAR conclude that the construction trusses and the associated structures/components remain structurally sound in the event of a design basis seismic or thermal event and there is no adverse impact or change to any station SSC's [structure, system, and components] design function and there is no change to accident mitigation response.

    This change has no impact on station fire risk caused by a seismic event.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change does not install any new or different type of equipment in the plant. The proposed change does not create any new failure modes for existing equipment or any new limiting single failures. Engineering calculations conclude the construction trusses, equipment supported by the trusses, and containment liners remain capable of withstanding design basis seismic and thermal events and remain capable of performing their designated design functions. Additionally, the proposed change does not involve a change in the methods governing normal plant operation, and all safety functions will continue to perform as previously assumed in the accident analyses. Thus, the proposed change does not adversely affect the design function or operation of any structures, systems and components important to safety.

    There are no new accidents identified associated with acceptance of the final modified configuration of Unit 1 and the current configuration of Unit 2.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The effects of the change, ΔCDF [core damage frequency] and ΔLERF, [large early release frequency] are within the acceptance guidelines shown in Figures 4 and 5 of Regulatory Guide 1.174. Consequently, the change does not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    The containment structures and liners, construction trusses, and equipment supported by the trusses remain fully capable of performing their specified design functions as concluded by supporting engineering calculations.

    Modifications associated with implementation of NFPA [National Fire Protection Association] 805 are planned that will provide protection of the reactor coolant system feed and bleed capability and result in additional safety margin.

    The proposed change does not affect the margin of safety associated with confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed change does not alter any safety analyses assumptions, safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or methods of operating the plant. The changes do not adversely impact the reliability of equipment credited in the safety analyses. The proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition.

    The station will implement new seismic and thermal event limits to ensure the construction trusses and associated equipment are inspected and/or analyzed for any event exceeding elastic stress limits to determine their capability to withstand a subsequent design basis event prior to Unit restart.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: William Blair, Managing Attorney—Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, 700 Universe Boulevard, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.

    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

    Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: April 27, 2017. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17118A049.

    Description of amendment request: The requested amendments propose changes to combined license (COL) Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Table 2.7.2-2 to revise the minimum chilled water flow rates to the supply air handling units serving the Main Control Room and the Class 1E electrical rooms, and the unit coolers serving the normal residual heat removal system and chemical and volume control system pump rooms. The proposed COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Design Control Document (Tier 1) changes require additional changes to corresponding Tier 2 component data information in Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Chapter 9. Because this proposed change requires a departure from Tier 1 information in the Westinghouse Electric Company's AP1000 Design Control Document, the licensee also requested an exemption from the requirements of the Generic Design Control Document Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1).

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes to COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Table 2.7.2-2, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Table 9.2.7-1, and associated UFSAR design information to identify the revised equipment parameters for the nuclear island nonradioactive ventilation system (VBS) air (VAS) unit coolers and reduced chilled water system (VWS) cooling coil flow rates do not adversely impact the plant response to any accidents which are previously evaluated. The function of the cooling coils to provide chilled water to the VBS AHUs and VAS unit coolers is not credited in the safety analysis.

    No safety-related structure, system, component (SSC) or function is adversely affected by this change. The VWS safety-related function of containment isolation is not affected by this change. The change does not involve an interface with any SSC accident initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus, the probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the plant-specific UFSAR are not affected. The proposed changes do not involve a change to the predicted radiological releases due to postulated accident conditions, thus, the consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected. The proposed changes do not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated as the VWS, VBS and VAS do not provide safety-related functions and the functions of each system to support required room environments are not changed.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes to COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Table 2.7.2-2, UFSAR Table 9.2.7-1, and associated UFSAR design information to identify the revised equipment parameters for VBS AHUs and VAS unit coolers and reduced VWS cooling coil flow rates do not affect any safety-related equipment, and do not add any new interfaces to safety-related SSCs. The VWS function to provide chilled water is not adversely impacted. The function of the VAS to provide ventilation and cooling to maintain the environment of the serviced areas within the design temperature range is not adversely impacted by this change. No system or design function or equipment qualification is affected by these changes as the change does not modify the operation of any SSCs. The changes do not introduce a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect safety or safety-related equipment. Revised equipment parameters, including the reduced cooling coil flow rates, do not adversely impact the function of associated components.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The changes to COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Table 2.7.2-2, UFSAR Table 9.2.7-1, and associated UFSAR design information do not affect any other safety-related equipment or fission product barriers. The requested changes will not adversely affect compliance with any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the requested changes as previously evaluated accidents are not impacted.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.

    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

    Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, 50-296, and 72-052, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 1, 2, and 3, and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), Limestone County, Alabama Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327, 50-328, and 72-034, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units 1 and 2, and ISFSI, Hamilton County, Tennessee Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket Nos. 50-390, 50-391, and 72-1048, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Units 1 and 2, and ISFSI, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: January 4, 2017. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17004A340.

    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the Emergency Plans for BFN, Units 1, 2, and 3, and its ISFSI; SQN, Units 1 and 2, and its ISFSI; and WBN, Units 1 and 2, and its ISFSI, to adopt the Emergency Action Level (EAL) schemes based on Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 6, which has been endorsed by the NRC as documented in a letter dated March 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12346A463). The proposed changes to TVA's EAL schemes to adopt the guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not reduce the capability to meet the emergency planning requirements established in 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E. The proposed changes do not reduce the functionality, performance, or capability of TVA's Emergency Response Organization (ERO) to respond in mitigating the consequences of accidents. The TVA ERO functions will continue to be performed as required.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below.

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes to TVA's EAL schemes to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, “Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,” do not reduce the capability to meet the emergency planning requirements established in 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR [Part] 50, Appendix E. The proposed changes do not reduce the functionality, performance, or capability of TVA's ERO to respond in mitigating the consequences of any design basis accident.

    The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and configuration of the facilities or the manner in which the plants are operated and maintained. The proposed change does not adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSC) to perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptable limits. The proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types and amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation exposure.

    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes to TVA's EAL schemes to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not involve any physical changes to plant systems or equipment. The proposed changes do not involve the addition of any new plant equipment. The proposed changes will not alter the design configuration, or method of operation of plant equipment beyond its normal functional capabilities. All TVA ERO functions will continue to be performed as required. The proposed changes do not create any new credible failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators.

    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from those that have been previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes to TVA's EAL schemes to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not alter or exceed a design basis or safety limit. There is no change being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed changes. There are no changes to setpoints or environmental conditions of any SSC or the manner in which any SSC is operated. Margins of safety are unaffected by the proposed changes to adopt the NEI 99-01, Revision 6, EAL scheme guidance. The applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR [Part] 50, Appendix E will continue to be met.

    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve any reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.

    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.

    III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.

    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal Register as indicated.

    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.

    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation, and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.

    Duke Energy Progress Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (Robinson), Darlington County, South Carolina Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (Harris), Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina

    Date of amendment request: August 19, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated May 4, October 3, and November 17, 2016.

    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Robinson Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5.b and the Harris TS 6.9.1.6.2 to adopt the methodology reports DPC-NE-1008-P, Revision 0, “Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-5/SIMULATE-3 for Westinghouse Reactors”; DPC-NF-2010, Revision 3, “Nuclear Physics Methodology for Reload Design”; and DPC-NE-2011-P, Revision 2, “Nuclear Design Methodology Report for Core Operating Limits of Westinghouse Reactors,” for application specific to Robinson and Harris.

    Date of issuance: May 18, 2017.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance.

    Amendment Nos.: 253 (Robinson) and 157 (Harris). A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17102A923; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluations enclosed with the amendments.

    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-23 and NPF-63: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : February 2, 2016 (81 FR 5492). The supplemental letter dated May 4, 2016, provided additional information that expanded the scope of the application as originally noticed, and changed the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. Accordingly, the NRC published a second proposed no significant hazards consideration determination in the Federal Register on August 2, 2016 (81 FR 50746). This notice superseded the original notice in its entirety. The supplemental letters dated October 3 and November 17, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope beyond the second notice, and did not change the NRC staff's proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    The Commission's related evaluations of the amendments are contained in the Safety Evaluations dated May 18, 2017.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina

    Date of amendment request: December 21, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated June 29, July 13, August 15, November 1, November 17, 2016, and February 27, 2017.

    Brief description of amendments: The amendments adopted the approved changes to Standard Technical Specifications for General Electric (BWR/4) [Boiling Water Reactor] Plants, NUREG-1433, Revision 4, to allow relocation of specific technical specification surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program. The changes are described in Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-425, Revision 3, “Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control—RITSTF Initiative 5b” (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML090850642), and are described in the Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996).

    Date of issuance: May 24, 2017.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days of issuance.

    Amendment Nos.: 276 (Unit 1) and 304 (Unit 2). A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17096A129; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.

    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : March 29, 2016 (81 FR 17504). The supplemental letters dated June 29, July 13, August 15, November 1, November 17, 2016, and February 27, 2017, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 24, 2017.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina

    Date of amendment request: May 26, 2016, as supplemented by letter dated December 19, 2016.

    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical Specifications (TSs) by adding a new Administrative Controls section to establish, implement, and maintain a Diesel Fuel Oil Testing Program. It also relocated to this program the current TS surveillance requirements (SRs) for evaluating diesel fuel oil, along with the SRs for draining, sediment removal, and cleaning of each main fuel oil storage tank at least once every 10 years. In addition, the licensee took an exception to NRC Regulatory Guide 1.137, Revision 1, “Fuel-Oil Systems for Standby Diesel Generators,” to allow for the ability to perform sampling of new fuel oil offsite prior to its addition to the fuel oil storage tanks.

    Date of issuance: May 24, 2017.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance.

    Amendment No.: 158. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17048A184; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.

    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63: Amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : October 11, 2016 (81 FR 70178). The supplemental letter dated December 19, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 24, 2017.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina

    Date of amendment request: June 29, 2016, as supplemented by letter dated November 4, 2016.

    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.11.1.4, “Liquid Holdup Tanks”; TS 3/4.11.2.5, “Explosive Gas Mixture”; and TS 6.8.4.j, “Gas Storage Tank Radioactivity Monitoring Program.” The amendment deleted TS Definition 1.16, “GASEOUS RADWASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM”; TS 3/4.11.1.4, “Liquid Holdup Tanks”; and TS 3/4.11.2.5, “Explosive Gas Mixture.” The amendment relocated the deleted requirements for these TSs to licensee control under TS 6.8.4.j, “Gas Storage Tank Radioactivity Monitoring Program.” The description for TS 6.8.4.j, “Gas Storage Tank Radioactivity Monitoring Program,” was modified to include the controls for potentially explosive gas mixtures contained in the Gaseous Waste Processing System and the quantity of radioactivity contained in unprotected outdoor liquid storage tanks. The amendment relocated requirements associated with TS 3/4.11.1.4 and TS 3/4.11.2.5 to the licensee-controlled Plant Programs Procedure PLP-114, “Relocated Technical Specifications and Design Basis Requirements.”

    Date of issuance: May 25, 2017.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance.

    Amendment No.: 159. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17074A672; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.

    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63: The amendment revised the Facility Operating License and TSs.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : October 25, 2016 (81 FR 73433). The supplemental letter dated November 4, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 25, 2017.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan

    Date of amendment request: July 11, 2016.

    Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved adoption of NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-545, Revision 3, “TS [Technical Specification] Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify SR [Surveillance Requirement] Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 Testing,” dated October 21, 2015. Specifically, the amendment deleted Palisades Nuclear Plant TS 5.5.7, “Inservice Testing Program,” and added a new defined term, “INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM,” to the TSs. All existing references to the “Inservice Testing Program,” in the Palisades Nuclear Plant TS SRs are replaced with “INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM” so that the SRs refer to the new definition in lieu of the deleted program.

    Date of issuance: May 30, 2017.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days.

    Amendment No.: 262. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17082A465; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.

    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: Amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : August 30, 2016 (81 FR 59663).

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 30, 2017.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Oswego County, New York Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Wayne County, New York Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: July 26, 2016, as supplemented by letter dated October 6, 2016.

    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Inservice Testing Program requirements in each plant's technical specifications (TSs). The changes included deleting the current TS requirements for the Inservice Testing Program, adding a new defined term, “INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM,” to the TSs, and revising other TSs to reference this new defined term instead of the deleted program.

    Date of issuance: May 26, 2017.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance.

    Amendment Nos.: 191, 192, 197, 197, 320, 298, 212, 254, 247, 223, 209, 227, 161, 313, 317, 266, 261, 124, and 290. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17073A067. Documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluations enclosed with the amendments.

    Facility Operating License Nos.: NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37, NPF-66, DPR-53, DPR-69, NPF-62, DPR-19, DPR-25, NPF-11, NPF-18, DPR-63, NPF-69, DPR-44, DPR-56, DPR-29, DPR-30, DPR-18, and DPR-50. Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : November 8, 2016 (81 FR 78648).

    The Commission's related evaluations of the amendments are contained in Safety Evaluations dated May 26, 2017.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2, Beaver County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: June 24, 2016, as supplemented by letters dated September 13, 2016; December 15, 2016; and March 16, 2017.

    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the Renewed Facility Operating License to reflect the direct transfer of Toledo Edison Company's 18.26 percent leased interest in Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2, and Ohio Edison Company's 21.66 percent leased interest in Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2, from FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company to FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation, LLC.

    Date of issuance: May 30, 2017.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance.

    Amendment No.: 187. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17115A123.

    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-73: Amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : January 23, 2017 (82 FR 7880). The supplemental letter dated March 16, 2017, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 14, 2017.

    Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan

    Date of amendment request: July 21, 2016, as supplemented by letter dated September 26, 2016.

    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirements (SRs), consistent with the NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-545, Revision 3, “TS Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify SR Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 Testing.” Specifically, the change revised the TSs to eliminate Section 5.5.6, “Inservice Testing Program.” A new defined term, “INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM,” was added to the TS Definitions section. TS SRs that previously referred to the Inservice Testing Program from Section 5.5.6 were revised to refer to the new defined term, “INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM.”

    Date of issuance: May 24, 2017.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance.

    Amendment Nos.: 335 (Unit 1) and 317 (Unit 2). A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17103A106; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.

    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : September 27, 2016 (81 FR 66307). The supplemental letter dated September 26, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 24, 2017.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, Surry Power Station, Units No. 1 and No. 2, Surry County, Virginia

    Date of amendment request: May 18, 2016, as supplemented by letters dated February 10, 2017; March 1, 2017; and March 10, 2017.

    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical Specification 3.14 “Circulating and Service Water Systems,” to extend the Allowed Outage Time for only one operable Service Water flow path to the Changing Pump Service Water subsystem and to the Main Control Room/Emergency Switchgear Room air conditioning subsystem.

    Date of issuance: May 31, 2017.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance.

    Amendment Nos.: 289 (Unit 1) and 289 (Unit 2). A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17100A253; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.

    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7: Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : October 25, 2016 (81 FR 73443). The supplemental letters dated February 10, 2017; March 1, 2017; and March 10, 2017, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2017.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of June 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Eric J. Benner, Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12732 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Excepted Service AGENCY:

    U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice identifies Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency that were established or revoked from January 1, 2017 to January 31, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Senior Executive Resources Services, Senior Executive Service and Performance Management, Employee Services, 202-606-2246.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with 5 CFR 213.103, Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities available for use by all agencies are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency are not codified in the CFR, but the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) publishes a notice of agency-specific authorities established or revoked each month in the Federal Register at www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/. OPM also publishes an annual notice of the consolidated listing of all Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities, current as of June 30, in the Federal Register.

    Schedule A

    No schedule A authorities to report during January 2017.

    Schedule B

    No schedule B authorities to report during January 2017.

    Schedule C

    The following Schedule C appointing authorities were approved during January 2017.

    Agency name Organization name Position title Authorization no. Effective date COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Office of Commissioners Special Assistant (2) CC170001
  • CC170002
  • 01/09/2017
  • 01/09/2017
  • DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary of Defense Special Assistant (Russia, Ukraine, & Eurasia) DD170034 01/04/2017 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary (2) Advisor (2) DT170028
  • DT170029
  • 01/06/2017
  • 01/06/2017
  • DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Secretary Special Assistant DY170038 01/04/2017

    The following Schedule C appointing authorities were revoked during January 2017.

    Agency name Organization name Position title Request no. Date vacated DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations Legislative Analyst DA160002 01/02/2017 Farm Service Agency State Executive Director—Washington DA120107 01/20/2017 State Executive Director—District of Columbia DA160091 01/20/2017 State Executive Director—Alaska DA130166 01/20/2017 State Executive Director—Illinois DA130172 01/20/2017 State Executive Director—Kansas DA130175 01/20/2017 State Executive Director—Maine DA130201 01/20/2017 State Executive Director—Michigan DA130198 01/20/2017 State Executive Director—Ohio DA130203 01/20/2017 State Executive Director—Wyoming DA130191 01/20/2017 State Executive Director, North Carolina DA140021 01/20/2017 Office of Communications Advance Associate (2) DA160144
  • DA160178
  • 01/20/2017
  • 01/20/2017
  • Advance Lead DA090125 01/20/2017 Deputy Director of Scheduling DA160014 01/20/2017 Press Assistant DA160166 01/20/2017 Senior Advisor For Strategic Communications DA160083 01/20/2017 Office of the Chief Information Officer Senior Advisor DA160092 01/20/2017 Office of the Secretary Confidential Assistant DA160147 01/20/2017 Director of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Outreach DA140001 01/20/2017 Senior Advisor DA160032 01/20/2017 Special Assistant DA160122 01/20/2017 Special Assistant and Advisor to the Secretary DA160071 01/20/2017 White House Liaison DA160141 01/20/2017 Office of the Under Secretary Farm and Foreign Agricultural Service State Executive Director DA160070 01/20/2017 Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development Director, Legislative and Public Affairs Staff DA120022 01/20/2017 Risk Management Agency Senior Advisor DA090166 01/20/2017 Rural Housing Service State Director—Colorado DA130053 01/20/2017 State Director—Alaska DA130137 01/20/2017 State Director—California DA160021 01/20/2017 State Director—Idaho DA130151 01/20/2017 State Director—Indiana DA130148 01/20/2017 State Director—Missouri DA130164 01/20/2017 State Director—Nebraska DA130138 01/20/2017 State Director—Washington DA130134 01/20/2017 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Office of Policy and Strategic Planning Senior Advisor for Manufacturing Policy DC140166 01/03/2017 Advocacy Center Policy Advisor
  • Special Advisor
  • DC160162
  • DC160149
  • 01/20/2017
  • 01/20/2017
  • Office of the Assistant Secretary and Director General for United States and Foreign Commercial Service Senior Advisor DC160210 01/20/2017 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance Senior Advisor
  • Special Assistant
  • DC160030
  • DC160075
  • 01/20/2017
  • 01/20/2017
  • Office of the Assistant Secretary for Global Markets Special Advisor DC130057 01/20/2017 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Industry and Analysis Director, Office of Advisory Committees and Industry Outreach DC170008 01/20/2017 Senior Advisor DC170006 01/20/2017 Senior Director DC160101 01/20/2017 Special Assistant DC160180 01/20/2017 Bureau of Industry and Security Chief of Staff DC170007 01/20/2017 Congressional Affairs Specialist DC160124 01/20/2017 Special Assistant DC160176 01/20/2017 Office of the Director General of the United States and Foreign Commercial Service and Assistant Secretary for Global Markets Advisor
  • Director of Outreach
  • Special Advisor
  • DC150140
  • DC130086
  • DC160209
  • 01/20/2017
  • 01/20/2017
  • 01/20/2017
  • Economic Development Administration Senior Advisor (3) DC160195
  • DC160166
  • DC160163
  • 01/20/2017
  • 01/20/2017
  • 01/20/2017
  • Press Secretary DC160146 01/20/2017 Special Assistant DC150136 01/20/2017 Immediate Office of the Secretary Executive Assistant to the Secretary DC150168 01/20/2017 Special Advisor to the Secretary and Director of the Immediate Office of the Secretary DC160090 01/20/2017 National Travel and Tourism Special Assistant DC160002 01/20/2017 Office of Business Liaison Deputy Director
  • Special Assistant
  • DC160186
  • DC160110
  • 01/20/2017
  • 01/20/2017
  • Office of Executive Secretariat Associate Director, Office of the Executive Secretariat DC160184 01/20/2017 Confidential Assistant DC170009 01/20/2017 Deputy Director DC170001 01/20/2017 Special Advisor DC160192 01/20/2017 Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs Associate Director
  • Associate Director for Oversight
  • DC160108
  • DC150141
  • 01/20/2017
  • 01/20/2017
  • Confidential Assistant DC160105 01/20/2017 Director of Intergovernmental Affairs DC160161 01/20/2017 Office of Strategic Planning Confidential Assistant DC150164 01/20/2017 Office of Policy and Strategic Planning Policy Advisor DC150065 01/20/2017 Office of Public Affairs Deputy Director of Public Affairs and Director of Speechwriting DC160106 01/20/2017 Deputy Director of Speechwriting DC160107 01/20/2017 Press Assistant (2) DC160165
  • DC160197
  • 01/20/2017
  • 01/20/2017
  • Speechwriter and Press Assistant DC160141 01/20/2017 Office of Scheduling and Advance Director of Scheduling and Special Advisor to the Secretary DC160196 01/20/2017 Scheduling and Advance Assistant DC160203 01/20/2017 Senior Advisor DC160185 01/20/2017 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Economic Development Chief of Staff for Economic Development DC110094 01/20/2017 Director of External Affairs DC160151 01/20/2017 Director of Public Affairs DC160157 01/20/2017 Senior Advisor DC160038 01/20/2017 Special Assistant DC160005 01/20/2017 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration Senior Advisor DC120024 01/20/2017 Office of the Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration Director, Shared Services Change and Communications Management DC160096 01/20/2017 Senior Advisor and Chief of Staff to the Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration DC160119 01/20/2017 Special Assistant to the Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration DC160181 01/20/2017 Office of the Chief Information Officer Chief of Staff DC160010 01/20/2017 Office of the Chief of Staff Advance Assistant DC150146 01/20/2017 Advance Specialist (2) DC150110
  • DC160088
  • 01/20/2017
  • 01/20/2017
  • Confidential Assistant DC160190 01/20/2017 Deputy Director of Advance and Special Assistant to the Secretary DC150106 01/20/2017 Director of Advance and Protocol and Senior Advisor for Strategic Initiatives DC150115 01/20/2017 Director, Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships DC160034 01/20/2017 Senior Advisor to the Secretary DC130066 01/20/2017 Special Advisor to the Chief of Staff DC160191 01/20/2017 Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary Associate Director of Strategic Partnerships DC160100 01/20/2017 Policy Advisor DC150154 01/20/2017 Special Advisor DC160116 01/20/2017 Office of the Deputy Secretary Special Advisor DC160199 01/20/2017 Special Assistant DC160189 01/20/2017 Office of the Director Associate Director of Legislative, Education and Intergovernmental Affairs DC160033 01/20/2017 Senior Advisor DC150139 01/20/2017 Senior Advisor for Minority-Owned Business Enterprise Policy DC160031 01/20/2017 Senior Advisor to the National Director on Business Development DC160117 01/20/2017 Office of the General Counsel Deputy Counsel for Strategic Initiatives DC140156 01/20/2017 Senior Counsel to the General Counsel DC160143 01/20/2017 Special Assistant DC150035 01/20/2017 Office of the Under Secretary Chief Speechwriter and Senior Advisor