Federal Register Vol. 82, No.121,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 121 (June 26, 2017)

Page Range28747-28981
FR Document

82_FR_121
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 28777 - Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Dental CategoryPDF
82 FR 28981 - Delegation of Authority Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017PDF
82 FR 28747 - Amending Executive Order 13597PDF
82 FR 28820 - 2017 Fee Schedule for National Travel and Tourism Office for the Advance Passenger Information System (APIS)/I-92 Program, I-94 International Arrivals Program, and Survey of International Air Travelers ProgramPDF
82 FR 28910 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
82 FR 28910 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 28873 - Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the TUG INDEPENDENCEPDF
82 FR 28928 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Birth AffidavitPDF
82 FR 28877 - United States v. General Electric Co., et al., Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact StatementPDF
82 FR 28887 - United States, et al. v. The Dow Chemical Co., et al., Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact StatementPDF
82 FR 28851 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 28850 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
82 FR 28911 - Information Collection: Design Information Questionnaire-IAEA N-71 and Associated Forms N-72, N-73, N-74, N-75, N-76, N-77, N-91, N-92, N-93, and N-94PDF
82 FR 28864 - National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions ReceivedPDF
82 FR 28863 - Lists of Designated Primary Medical Care, Mental Health, and Dental Health Professional Shortage AreasPDF
82 FR 28862 - Low-Income Levels Used for Various Health Professions and Nursing Programs Authorized in Titles III, VII, and VIII of the Public Health Service ActPDF
82 FR 28848 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewals; Comment Request (3064-0083 & 0194)PDF
82 FR 28912 - Submission for Review: OPM Form 1203-FX (Occupational Questionnaire)PDF
82 FR 28875 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Pima Pineapple Cactus (Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina) Draft Recovery PlanPDF
82 FR 28827 - Review of National Marine Sanctuaries and Marine National Monuments Designated or Expanded Since April 28, 2007; Notice of Opportunity for Public CommentPDF
82 FR 28785 - Fisheries Off West Coast States; Modifications of the West Coast Commercial Salmon Fisheries; Inseason Actions #1 Through #4PDF
82 FR 28927 - Digital Sequence Information on Genetic Resources Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 28788 - Special Conditions: Safran Aircraft Engines, Silvercrest-2 SC-2D; Rated Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient TemperaturePDF
82 FR 28943 - Agency Information Collection Activity: The Veterans' Outcome Assessment (VOA) (Veteran Survey Interview)PDF
82 FR 28944 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Fiduciary AgreementPDF
82 FR 28819 - Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 229 Under Alternative Site Framework; Charleston, West VirginiaPDF
82 FR 28929 - Fourth Drone Advisory Committee (DAC) MeetingPDF
82 FR 28829 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Contests, Challenges, and AwardsPDF
82 FR 28836 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
82 FR 28858 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extralabel Drug Use in AnimalsPDF
82 FR 28834 - Application to Export Electric Energy; Rainbow Energy Marketing CorporationPDF
82 FR 28832 - Notice of Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use ActPDF
82 FR 28817 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 2018 National Sample Survey of Registered NursesPDF
82 FR 28848 - Notice of Request for Comment on the Exposure Draft of a Proposed Federal Financial Accounting Technical Release Entitled Implementation Guidance for Establishing Opening BalancesPDF
82 FR 28833 - Application To Export Electric Energy; Talen Energy Marketing, LLCPDF
82 FR 28832 - Certification Notice-249; Notice of Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use ActPDF
82 FR 28818 - Request for Comment; Notice of Development of Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account (To Define and Measure the Economic Impact of Outdoor Recreation)PDF
82 FR 28856 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 28823 - Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People's Republic of China: Final Rescission of 2015-2016 Antidumping Duty New Shipper ReviewPDF
82 FR 28819 - Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People's Republic of China: Final Rescission of 2014-2016 Countervailing Duty New Shipper ReviewPDF
82 FR 28824 - Dioctyl Terephthalate From the Republic of Korea: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Determination of Critical CircumstancesPDF
82 FR 28833 - Application to Export Electric Energy; MAG Energy Solutions, Inc.PDF
82 FR 28816 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Louisiana Advisory Committee To Discuss Civil Rights Topics in the StatePDF
82 FR 28874 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension, Without Change, of an Existing Information Collection; Comment Request; OMB Control No. 1653-0022PDF
82 FR 28928 - Quarterly Rail Cost Adjustment FactorPDF
82 FR 28816 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 28938 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to an Executive Order Issued on September 23, 2001, Titled “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism”PDF
82 FR 28938 - Supplemental Identification Information for One Individual Designated Pursuant to Executive Order 13224PDF
82 FR 28800 - Proceedings of the Copyright Royalty Board; Violation of Standards of ConductPDF
82 FR 28827 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program Application Cover SheetPDF
82 FR 28946 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 10 Species of Giant Clams as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species ActPDF
82 FR 28929 - Thirtieth RTCA SC-225 Rechargeable Lithium Batteries and Battery Systems PlenaryPDF
82 FR 28908 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Logging Operations StandardPDF
82 FR 28906 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Report on Occupational Employment and WagesPDF
82 FR 28837 - Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P.; Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, L.P.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and Pacific Connector Pipeline Projects, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Sessions; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 28846 - Kaukauna Utilities; Notice Soliciting Scoping CommentsPDF
82 FR 28848 - Bayshore Solar A, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 28836 - HD Project One LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 28847 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
82 FR 28845 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 28814 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 28913 - 1889 BDC, Inc., et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
82 FR 28826 - Export Trade Certificate of ReviewPDF
82 FR 28829 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 28815 - Notice of Intent To Request Revision and Extension of a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
82 FR 28929 - Fourteenth RTCA SC-228 Plenary SessionPDF
82 FR 28872 - Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 28871 - Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 28814 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive LicensePDF
82 FR 28934 - U.S. Merchant Marine Academy Board of Visitors MeetingPDF
82 FR 28773 - Safety Zone; Danvers River, Beverly, MAPDF
82 FR 28855 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 28906 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comments Requested; Request To Be Included on the List of Pro Bono Legal Service Providers for Individuals in Immigration Proceedings (Form EOIR-56)PDF
82 FR 28802 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Endangered Listing Determination for the Taiwanese Humpback Dolphin Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)PDF
82 FR 28857 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Medical Devices; Reports of Corrections and RemovalsPDF
82 FR 28796 - Safety Zone, Delaware River; Pipe-RemovalPDF
82 FR 28772 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Long Creek, Hempstead, NYPDF
82 FR 28860 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Annual Reporting for Custom Device ExemptionPDF
82 FR 28763 - Commission Delegated Authority Provisions and Technical AmendmentsPDF
82 FR 28749 - Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, et al.; Free and Restricted Percentages for the 2016-17 Crop Year for Tart CherriesPDF
82 FR 28870 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 28909 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Application for Use of Public Space by Non-DOL Agencies in the Frances Perkins BuildingPDF
82 FR 28907 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Records of Tests and Examinations of Mine Personnel Hoisting EquipmentPDF
82 FR 28830 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 28860 - Issuance of Priority Review Voucher; Rare Pediatric Disease ProductPDF
82 FR 28931 - Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or Modification of a Railroad Signal SystemPDF
82 FR 28932 - Petition for Waiver of CompliancePDF
82 FR 28834 - Orders Granting Authority To Import and Export Natural Gas, To Import and Export Liquefied Natural Gas, and Vacating Prior Authorization During April 2017PDF
82 FR 28875 - Threatened Species; Exemption From Threatened Species Permits for a Qualifying Beluga Sturgeon Aquaculture FacilityPDF
82 FR 28919 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating to ICE Clear Europe's End-of-Day Price Discovery PolicyPDF
82 FR 28917 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Implementation Date for Trade Modifiers When Reporting Transactions in U.S. Treasury SecuritiesPDF
82 FR 28924 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Fees for Use on Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.PDF
82 FR 28920 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related To Amend Its Fee Schedule To Replace Current Inverted Pricing Model With Low Fee ModelPDF
82 FR 28912 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 28941 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Application To Participate in the IRS Acceptance ProgramPDF
82 FR 28942 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Request for Miscellaneous DeterminationPDF
82 FR 28939 - Proposed Revision of Information Collection Request Submitted for Public Comment; Draft Model Non-Quantitative Treatment Limitations FormPDF
82 FR 28942 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
82 FR 28941 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
82 FR 28869 - Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 28866 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 28868 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 28868 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 28869 - National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 28868 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 28867 - National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 28869 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 28867 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 28868 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 28940 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Taxpayer Statement Regarding RefundPDF
82 FR 28790 - Special Conditions: General Electric Company, GE9X Engine Models; Endurance Test Special ConditionsPDF
82 FR 28760 - Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment ActPDF
82 FR 28770 - Special Local Regulation; Zimovia Strait, Wrangell, AKPDF
82 FR 28853 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Approval of an Application From the Center for Improvement in Healthcare Quality for Continued CMS Approval of Its Hospital Accreditation ProgramPDF
82 FR 28798 - Safety Zone; Nights in Venice Fireworks, Beach Thorofare, Ocean City, NJPDF
82 FR 28927 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of TennesseePDF
82 FR 28932 - Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor Project in Los Angeles, CAPDF
82 FR 28861 - Arthritis Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 28852 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 28801 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; CFR UpdatePDF
82 FR 28775 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; CFR UpdatePDF
82 FR 28777 - Waiving Departmental Review of Appraisals and Valuations of Indian PropertyPDF
82 FR 28794 - Proposed Amendment, Revocation, and Establishment of Class D and E Airspace; Enid Vance AFB, OK; Enid Woodring Municipal Airport, OK; Enid, OK; and Vance AFB, OKPDF
82 FR 28758 - Airworthiness Directives; DG Flugzeugbau GmbH GlidersPDF
82 FR 28930 - Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application for an Exemption From Daimler Trucks North America LLCPDF
82 FR 28757 - Regulation D: Reserve Requirements of Depository InstitutionsPDF
82 FR 28755 - Regulation A: Extensions of Credit by Federal Reserve BanksPDF
82 FR 28935 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special PermitsPDF
82 FR 28937 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special PermitsPDF

Issue

82 121 Monday, June 26, 2017 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Marketing Orders: Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, et al., 28749-28755 2017-13241 Agricultural Research Agricultural Research Service NOTICES Exclusive Licenses; Approvals: Oregon State University, 28814 2017-13255 2017-13256 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Agricultural Research Service

See

National Agricultural Statistics Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 28814-28815 2017-13264
Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Proposed Final Judgments and Competitive Impact Statements: United States v. General Electric Co., et al., 28877-28886 2017-13327 United States, et al. v. The Dow Chemical Co., et al., 28887-28906 2017-13326 Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 2018 National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses, 28817-28818 2017-13293 Generic Clearance for Internet Nonprobability Panel Pretesting, 28816-28817 2017-13280 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 28850-28851 2017-13320 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 28851-28853 2017-13198 2017-13321 Hospital Accreditation Programs; Center for Improvement in Healthcare Quality, 28853-28855 2017-13207 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Evaluation of Employment Coaching for TANF and Other Low-Income Populations, 28856-28857 2017-13288 Multistate Financial Institution Data Match and Federally Assisted State Transmitted Levy, 28855-28856 2017-13252 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Louisiana Advisory Committee, 28816 2017-13283 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Long Creek, Hempstead, NY, 28772-28773 2017-13246 Safety Zones: Danvers River, Beverly, MA, 28773-28775 2017-13253 Special Local Regulations: Zimovia Strait, Wrangell, AK, 28770-28772 2017-13208 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: Delaware River; Pipe-Removal, 28796-28798 2017-13247 Nights in Venice Fireworks, Beach Thorofare, Ocean City, NJ, 28798-28800 2017-13206 NOTICES Certificates of Alternative Compliance: Tug Independence, 28873-28874 2017-13329 Meetings: Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee, 28871-28873 2017-13257 2017-13258 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

Economic Analysis Bureau

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission RULES Commission Delegated Authority Provisions and Technical Amendments, 28763-28770 2017-13243 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Contests, Challenges, and Awards, 28829 2017-13300 Copyright Royalty Board Copyright Royalty Board PROPOSED RULES Proceedings of the Copyright Royalty Board; Violation of Standards of Conduct, 28800-28801 2017-13277 Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 28829-28832 2017-13237 2017-13261 Economic Analysis Bureau Economic Analysis Bureau NOTICES Development of Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account (To Define and Measure the Economic Impact of Outdoor Recreation), 28818-28819 2017-13289 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Applications To Export Electric Energy: MAG Energy Solutions, Inc., 28833 2017-13284 Rainbow Energy Marketing Corp., 28834 2017-13295 Talen Energy Marketing, LLC, 28833-28834 2017-13291 Authority To Export and Import Liquefied Natural Gas: Downeast LNG, Inc., et al., 28834-28836 2017-13233 Self-Certifications: Coal Capability Under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act, 28832 2017-13290 2017-13294
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Indiana; CFR Update, 28775-28777 2017-13192 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Dental Category, 28777 C1--2017--12338 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Indiana; CFR Update, 28801-28802 2017-13193 Federal Accounting Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board NOTICES Guidance: Implementation for Establishing Opening Balances, 28848 2017-13292 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Gliders, 28758-28760 2017-13127 PROPOSED RULES Amendment, Revocation, and Establishment of Class D and E Airspace: Enid Vance AFB, OK; Enid Woodring Municipal Airport, OK; Enid, OK; and Vance AFB, OK, 28794-28796 2017-13184 Special Conditions: General Electric Company, GE9X Engine Models; Endurance Test Special Conditions, 28790-28793 2017-13210 Safran Aircraft Engines, Silvercrest-2 SC-2D; Rated Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature, 28788-28790 2017-13305 NOTICES Meetings: Drone Advisory Committee, 28929 2017-13301 RTCA SC-225 Rechargeable Lithium Batteries and Battery Systems Plenary, 28929-28930 2017-13274 RTCA SC-228 Plenary Session, 28929 2017-13259 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 28848-28849 2017-13311 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: Kaukauna Utilities, 28846-28847 2017-13270 Combined Filings, 28836, 28845-28848 2017-13265 2017-13266 2017-13267 2017-13299 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Jordan Cove Energy Project, LP and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP, Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and Pacific Connector Pipeline Projects, 28837-28845 2017-13271 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Bayshore Solar A, LLC, 28848 2017-13269 HD Project One LLC, 28836 2017-13268 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Exemption Applications: Daimler Trucks North America, LLC, 28930-28931 2017-13126 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Applications for Approval of Discontinuance or Modification of a Railroad Signal System, 28931-28932 2017-13235 Petitions for Waivers of Compliance: Southern California Regional Rail Authority, 28932 2017-13234 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System RULES Extensions of Credit by Federal Reserve Banks, 28755-28756 2017-13106 Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions, 28757-28758 2017-13107 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor Project, Los Angeles, CA, 28932-28934 2017-13204 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Species: Exemption From Threatened Species Permits for a Qualifying Beluga Sturgeon Aquaculture Facility, 28875 2017-13232 Pima Pineapple Cactus (Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina) Draft Recovery Plan, 28875-28877 2017-13309 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Annual Reporting for Custom Device Exemption, 28860-28861 2017-13245 Extralabel Drug Use in Animals, 28858-28860 2017-13296 Reports of Corrections and Removals, 28857-28858 2017-13248 Meetings: Arthritis Advisory Committee, 28861-28862 2017-13203 Priority Review Vouchers: Rare Pediatric Disease Product, 28860 2017-13236 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 28938-28939 2017-13278 2017-13279 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Reorganizations Under Alternative Site Framework: Foreign-Trade Zone 229, Charleston, WV, 28819 2017-13302 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES List of Petitions: National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 28864-28866 2017-13314 Lists of Designated Primary Medical Care, Mental Health, and Dental Health Professional Shortage Areas, 28863-28864 2017-13313 Low-Income Levels Used for Various Health Professions and Nursing Programs Authorized in the Public Health Service Act, 28862-28863 2017-13312 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

RULES Waiving Departmental Review of Appraisals and Valuations of Indian Property, 28777-28785 2017-13191
Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 28939-28943 2017-13211 2017-13222 2017-13223 2017-13224 2017-13225 2017-13226 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Dioctyl Terephthalate From the Republic of Korea, 28824-28826 2017-13285 Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People's Republic of China, 28819-28820, 28823-28824 2017-13286 2017-13287 Export Trade Certificates of Review: California Almond Export Association, LLC, 28826 2017-13262 Fee Schedule: National Travel and Tourism Office for the Advance Passenger Information System/I-92 Program, I-94 International Arrivals Program, and Survey of International Air Travelers Program, 28820-28823 2017-13427 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Request To Be Included on the List of Pro Bono Legal Service Providers for Individuals in Immigration Proceedings, 28906 2017-13251
Labor Department Labor Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Use of Public Space by Non-DOL Agencies in the Frances Perkins Building, 28909-28910 2017-13239 Logging Operations Standard, 28908-28909 2017-13273 Records of Tests and Examinations of Mine Personnel Hoisting Equipment, 28907-28908 2017-13238 Report on Occupational Employment and Wages, 28906-28907 2017-13272 Legal Legal Services Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 28910 2017-13350 Library Library of Congress See

Copyright Royalty Board

Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Meetings: U.S. Merchant Marine Academy Board of Visitors, 28934-28935 2017-13254 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration RULES Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act, 28760-28763 2017-13209 National Agricultural National Agricultural Statistics Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 28815-28816 2017-13260 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Small Business Innovation Research Program Application Cover Sheet, 28827 2017-13276 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 28867-28868 2017-13212 2017-13213 National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 28869 2017-13214 National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, 28867 2017-13215 National Eye Institute, 28868 2017-13216 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 28868 2017-13218 National Human Genome Research Institute, 28869 2017-13217 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 28866-28867 2017-13220 National Institute on Drug Abuse, 28868-28869 2017-13219 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries Off West Coast States: Modifications of the West Coast Commercial Salmon Fisheries; Inseason Actions Number 1 Through Number 4, 28785-28787 2017-13307 PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Species: 90-day Finding on a Petition To List 10 Species of Giant Clams as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act, 28946-28977 2017-13275 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Endangered Listing Determination for the Taiwanese Humpback Dolphin Under the Endangered Species Act, 28802-28813 2017-13250 NOTICES Review of National Marine Sanctuaries and Marine National Monuments Designated or Expanded, 28827-28829 2017-13308 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Design Information Questionnaire, 28911-28912 2017-13316 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 28910-28911 2017-13372 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Occupational Questionnaire, 28912 2017-13310 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Special Permit Applications, 28935-28938 2017-12127 2017-12128 2017-12129 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents EXECUTIVE ORDERS Executive Order 13597; Amendment (EO 13802), 28747-28748 2017-13458 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017; Delegation of Authority (Memorandum of June 21, 2017), 28979-28981 2017-13491 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 28912-28913 2017-13227 Applications: 1889 BDC, Inc., et al., 28913-28917 2017-13263 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., 28920-28924 2017-13228 Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., 28924-28927 2017-13229 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 28917-28919 2017-13230 ICE Clear Europe Ltd., 28919-28920 2017-13231 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Tennessee, 28927 2017-13205 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Birth Affidavit, 28928 2017-13328 Meetings: Digital Sequence Information on Genetic Resources, 28927-28928 2017-13306 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 28870-28871 2017-13240 Meetings: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 28869 2017-13221 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Quarterly Rail Cost Adjustment Factor, 28928-28929 2017-13281 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

Immigration U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Immigration Bond, 28874 2017-13282 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Fiduciary Agreement, 28944 2017-13303 The Veterans' Outcome Assessment, 28943-28944 2017-13304 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 28946-28977 2017-13275 Part III Presidential Documents, 28979-28981 2017-13491 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.

82 121 Monday, June 26, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 930 [Doc. No. AMS-SC-16-0105; SC16-930-5 FR] Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, et al.; Free and Restricted Percentages for the 2016-17 Crop Year for Tart Cherries AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule implements a recommendation from the Cherry Industry Administrative Board (Board) to establish free and restricted percentages for the 2016-17 crop year under the marketing order for tart cherries grown in the states of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin (order). The Board locally administers the marketing order and is comprised of producers and handlers of tart cherries operating within the production area, and a public member. This action establishes the proportion of tart cherries from the 2016 crop which may be handled in commercial outlets at 71 percent free and 29 percent restricted. These percentages should stabilize marketing conditions by adjusting supply to meet market demand and help improve grower returns.

DATES:

Effective June 27, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven W. Kauffman, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected].

Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This final rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 930, both as amended (7 CFR part 930), regulating the handling of tart cherries produced in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175.

This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the order provisions now in effect, free and restricted percentages may be established for tart cherries handled during the crop year. This final rule establishes free and restricted percentages for tart cherries for the 2016-17 crop year, beginning July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This final rule establishes free and restricted percentages for the 2016-17 crop year. This rule establishes the proportion of tart cherries from the 2016 crop which may be handled in commercial outlets at 71 percent free and 29 percent restricted. This action should stabilize marketing conditions by adjusting supply to meet market demand and help improve grower returns. The carry-out and the final percentages were recommended by the Cherry Industry Administrative Board (Board) at a meeting on September 8, 2016.

Section 930.51(a) of the order provides authority to regulate volume by designating free and restricted percentages for any tart cherries acquired by handlers in a given crop year. Section 930.50 prescribes procedures for computing an optimum supply based on sales history and for calculating these free and restricted percentages. Free percentage volume may be shipped to any market, while restricted percentage volume must be held by handlers in a primary or secondary reserve, or be diverted or used for exempt purposes as prescribed in §§ 930.159 and 930.162 of the regulations. Exempt purposes include, in part, the development of new products, sales into new markets, the development of export markets, and charitable contributions. Sections 930.55 through 930.57 prescribe procedures for inventory reserve. For cherries held in reserve, handlers would be responsible for storage and would retain title of the tart cherries.

Under § 930.52, only those districts with an annual average production over the prior three years of at least six million pounds are subject to regulation, and any district producing a crop which is less than 50 percent of its annual average of the previous five years is exempt. The regulated districts for the 2016-17 crop year are: District 1—Northern Michigan; District 2—Central Michigan; District 3—Southern Michigan; District 4—New York; District 7—Utah; District 8—Washington; and District 9—Wisconsin. Districts 5 and 6 (Oregon and Pennsylvania, respectively) are not regulated for the 2016-17 season.

Demand for tart cherries and tart cherry products tends to be relatively stable from year to year. Conversely, annual tart cherry production can vary greatly. In addition, tart cherries are processed and can be stored and carried over from crop year to crop year, further impacting supply. As a result, supply and demand for tart cherries are rarely in balance.

Because demand for tart cherries is inelastic, total sales volume is not very responsive to changes in price. However, prices are very sensitive to changes in supply. As such, an oversupply of cherries can have a sharp negative effect on prices, driving down grower returns. The Board, aware of this economic relationship, focuses on using the volume control provisions in the order to balance supply and demand to stabilize industry returns.

Pursuant to § 930.50 of the order, the Board meets on or about July 1 to review sales data, inventory data, current crop forecasts and market conditions for the upcoming season and, if necessary, to recommend preliminary free and restricted percentages if anticipated supply would exceed demand. After harvest is complete, but no later than September 15, the Board meets again to update its calculations using actual production data, consider any necessary adjustments to the preliminary percentages, and determine if final free and restricted percentages should be recommended to the Secretary.

The Board uses sales history, inventory, and production data to determine whether there is a surplus, and if so, how much volume should be restricted to maintain optimum supply. The optimum supply represents the desirable volume of tart cherries that should be available for sale in the coming crop year. Optimum supply is defined as the average free sales of the prior three years plus desirable carry-out inventory. Desirable carry-out is the amount of fruit needed by the industry to be carried into the succeeding crop year to meet market demand until the new crop is available. Desirable carry-out is set by the Board after considering market circumstances and needs. Section 930.151(b) specifies that desirable carry-out can range from zero to a maximum of 100 million pounds.

In addition, USDA's “Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders” (http://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/1982-guidelines-fruit-vegetable-marketing-orders) specify that 110 percent of recent years' sales should be made available to primary markets each season before recommendations for volume regulation are approved. This requirement is codified in § 930.50(g) of the order, which specifies that, in years when restricted percentages are established, the Board shall make available tonnage equivalent to an additional 10 percent of the average sales of the prior three years for market expansion (market growth factor).

After the Board determines optimum supply, desirable carry-out, and market growth factor, it must examine the current year's available volume to determine whether there is an oversupply situation. Available volume includes carry-in inventory (any inventory available at the beginning of the season) along with that season's production. If production is greater than the optimum supply minus carry-in, the difference is considered surplus. This surplus tonnage is divided by the sum of production in the regulated districts to reach a restricted percentage. This percentage must be held in reserve or used for approved diversion activities, such as exports.

The Board met on June 23, 2016, and computed an optimum supply of 287 million pounds for the 2016-17 crop year using the average of free sales for the three previous seasons and a desirable carry-out of 57 million pounds. The Board determined three months of sales would be a good estimate for what was needed at the end of the season, as there is a three-month gap between the calculation of carry-out at the end of one season and the availability of fruit in the next season. The recommended carry-out of 57 million pounds is approximately a quarter of average annual sales.

The Board then subtracted the estimated carry-in of 81.3 million pounds from the optimum supply to calculate the production needed from the 2016-17 crop to meet optimum supply. This number, 205.7 million pounds, was subtracted from the Board's estimated 2016-17 production of 351.3 million pounds to calculate a surplus of 145.6 million pounds of tart cherries. The Board also complied with the market growth factor requirement by adding 23 million pounds (average sales for prior three years of 230 million times 10 percent) to the free supply. The surplus minus the market growth factor was then divided by the expected production in the regulated districts (348 million pounds) to reach a preliminary restricted percentage of 35 percent for the 2016-17 crop year.

The Board then discussed whether this calculation would provide sufficient supply to grow sales while being able to supply orders that are already scheduled, including filling remaining orders from a USDA purchase made the previous season. The Board, after considering anticipated supply needs for the 2016-17 season, decided to make an economic adjustment of 22 million pounds to increase the available supply of tart cherries. This economic adjustment further reduced the preliminary surplus to 100.6 million pounds. After these adjustments, the preliminary restricted percentage was recalculated as 29 percent (100.6 million pounds divided by 348 million pounds).

The Board met again on September 8, 2016, to consider final volume regulation percentages for the 2016-17 season. The final percentages are based on the Board's reported production figures and the supply and demand information available in September. The total production for the 2016-17 season was 341 million pounds, 10 million pounds below the Board's June estimate. In addition, growers diverted 26 million pounds in the orchard, leaving 315 million pounds available to market, 310 million pounds of which are in the restricted districts. Using the actual production numbers, and accounting for the recommended desirable carry-out and economic adjustment, as well as the market growth factor, the restricted percentage was recalculated.

The Board subtracted the carry-in figure used in June of 81.3 million pounds from the optimum supply of 287 million pounds to determine 205.7 million pounds of 2016-17 production would be necessary to reach optimum supply. The Board subtracted the 205.7 million pounds from the actual production of 341.3 million pounds, resulting in a surplus of 135.6 million pounds of tart cherries. The surplus was then reduced by subtracting the economic adjustment of 22 million pounds and the market growth factor of 23 million pounds, resulting in an adjusted surplus of 90.6 million pounds. The Board then divided this final surplus by the available production of 310 million pounds in the regulated districts (336.1 million pounds minus 26.4 million pounds of in-orchard diversion) to calculate a restricted percentage of 29 percent with a corresponding free percentage of 71 percent for the 2016-17 crop year, as outlined in the following table:

Millions
  • of pounds
  • Final Calculations: (1) Average sales of the prior three years 230.0 (2) Plus desirable carry-out 57.0 (3) Optimum supply calculated by the Board 287.0 (4) Carry-in as of July 1, 2016 81.3 (5) Adjusted optimum supply (item 3 minus item 4) 205.7 (6) Board reported production 341.3 (7) Surplus (item 6 minus item 5) 135.6 (8) Total economic adjustments 22.0 (9) Market growth factor 23.0 (10) Adjusted Surplus (item 7 minus items 8 and 9) 90.6 (11) Supply in regulated districts 336.1 (12) In-Orchard Diversion 26.4 (13) Production minus in orchard diversion 309.7 Final Percentages: Percent Restricted (item 10 divided by item 13 × 100) 29 Free (100 minus restricted percentage) 71

    The primary purpose of setting restricted percentages is an attempt to bring supply and demand into balance. If the primary market is oversupplied with cherries, grower prices decline substantially. Restricted percentages have benefited grower returns and helped stabilize the market as compared to those seasons prior to the implementation of the order. The Board believes the available information indicates that a restricted percentage should be established for the 2016-17 crop year to avoid oversupplying the market with tart cherries. Consequently, based on its discussion of this issue and the result of the above calculations, the Board recommended final percentages of 71 percent free and 29 percent restricted by a vote of 16 in favor, 2 opposed, and 2 abstentions.

    Though production came in below the Board's June, 2016, estimate, the initial restriction percentage remained the same due to the substantial in-orchard diversion. During the discussion of the proposed restriction, several members supported the proposed percentages as there was no change from the preliminary 29 percent restriction recommended in June. They believed deviating from the percentages announced in June would be disruptive to the industry, as processors have already made agreements with growers.

    Another member noted when there was a crop failure in 2012, there was not enough reserve to maintain sales and warned against being unprepared in the future. The member also noted that in the last four years, even with volume regulation and an increase in imported products, overall domestic sales have increased since 2013, including modest growth in both juice and piefill.

    Some members opposed to the proposed restriction expressed concern regarding competition from imported tart cherry juice concentrate. In particular, they were concerned that the additional volume from imports is not accounted for in the Optimum Supply Formula (OSF), thus not capturing overall supply and demand.

    Others were of the opinion that the Board's recent actions to expand the use of diversion credits in new markets or through grower diversion were allowing the industry to remain competitive without making additional adjustments to supply. Another member countered that not all handlers are helped by new market diversion credits and cannot sell all of their product under a restriction.

    When asked how much of the market currently being served by imports could be supplied by the domestic handlers, some members stated they could utilize the full adjusted calculated surplus of 90.6 million pounds. Others noted that trying to compete for those markets by matching the price of imported concentrate would drop grower returns to an unsustainable level.

    One member summarized that, although there is a carrying cost for storing restricted fruit, and the industry appears to be at a trade disadvantage, the Board should account for those factors all the while focusing on continuing to grow sales. Though there was much discussion regarding the market impact of imports, there was no motion made by any Board member to make a further economic adjustment to the calculation based on imported product.

    After reviewing the available data, and considering the concerns expressed, the Board determined that a 29 percent restriction with a carry-out volume of 57 million pounds meets sales needs and establishes some reserves without oversupplying the market. Thus, the Board recommended establishing final percentages of 71 percent free and 29 percent restricted. The Board could meet and recommend the release of additional volume during the crop year if conditions so warranted.

    Final Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

    The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

    There are approximately 600 producers of tart cherries in the regulated area and approximately 40 handlers of tart cherries who are subject to regulation under the order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms have been defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

    According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and Board data, the average annual grower price for tart cherries during the 2015-16 season was approximately $0.347 per pound. With total utilization at 251.1 million pounds, the total 2015-16 crop value is estimated at $87 million. Dividing the crop value by the estimated number of producers (600) yields an estimated average annual receipt per producer of $145,000. This is well below the SBA threshold for small producers. In 2015, The Food Institute estimated a free on board (f.o.b.) price of $0.96 per pound for frozen tart cherries, which make up the majority of processed tart cherries. Multiplying the f.o.b price by total utilization of 251.1 million pounds results in an estimated handler-level tart cherry value of $241 million. Dividing this figure by the number of handlers (40) yields an estimated average annual handler receipts of $6 million, which is below the SBA threshold for small agricultural service firms. Assuming a normal bell-curve distribution, the majority of producers and handlers of tart cherries may be classified as small entities.

    The tart cherry industry in the United States is characterized by wide, annual fluctuations in production. According to NASS, the pounds of tart cherry production for the years 2012 through 2015 were 85 million, 291 million, 301 million, and 251 million, respectively. Because of these fluctuations, supply and demand for tart cherries are rarely equal.

    Demand for tart cherries is inelastic, meaning changes in price have a minimal effect on total sales volume. However, prices are very sensitive to changes in supply, and grower prices vary widely in response to the large swings in annual supply, with prices ranging from a low of 7.3 cents per pound in 1987 to a high of 59.4 cents per pound in 2012.

    Because of this relationship between supply and price, oversupplying the market with tart cherries would have a sharp negative effect on prices, driving down grower returns. The Board, aware of this economic relationship, focuses on using the volume control authority in the order to align supply with demand and stabilize industry returns. This authority allows the industry to set free and restricted percentages as a way to bring supply and demand into balance. Free percentage cherries can be marketed by handlers to any outlet, while restricted percentage volume must be held by handlers in reserve, diverted, or used for exempted purposes.

    This rule controls the supply of tart cherries by establishing percentages of 71 percent free and 29 percent restricted for the 2016-17 crop year. These percentages should stabilize marketing conditions by adjusting supply to meet market demand and help improve grower returns. This rule regulates tart cherries handled in Michigan, New York, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. The authority for this action is provided for in §§ 930.50, 930.51(a) and 930.52 of the order. The Board recommended this action at a meeting on September 8, 2016.

    This rule will result in some fruit being diverted from the primary domestic markets. However, as mentioned earlier, the USDA's “Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders” (http://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/1982-guidelines-fruit-vegetable-marketing-orders) specify that 110 percent of recent years' sales should be made available to primary markets each season before recommendations for volume regulation are approved. The quantity that is available under this action is greater than 110 percent of the average quantity shipped in the prior three years.

    In addition, there are secondary uses available for restricted fruit, including the development of new products, sales into new markets, the development of export markets, and being placed in reserve. While these alternatives may provide different levels of return than the sales to primary markets, they play an important role for the industry. The areas of new products, new markets, and the development of export markets utilize restricted fruit to develop and expand the markets for tart cherries. In 2015-16, these activities accounted for over 27 million pounds in sales, 12 million of which were exports.

    Placing tart cherries into reserves is also a key part of balancing supply and demand. Although handlers bear the handling and storage costs for fruit in reserve, reserves stored in large crop years are used to supplement supplies in short crop years. The reserves allow the industry to mitigate the impact of oversupply in large crop years, while allowing the industry to maintain supply to markets in years when production falls below demand. Further, storage and handling costs are more than offset by the increase in price when moving from a large crop to a short crop year.

    In addition, the Board recommended an increased carry-out of 57 million pounds and made a demand adjustment of 22 million pounds in order to make the regulation less restrictive. Even with the restriction, over 300 million pounds of fruit will be available to the domestic market. Consequently, it is not anticipated that this regulation will unduly burden growers or handlers.

    While this action could result in some additional costs to the industry, these costs are more than outweighed by the benefits. The purpose of setting restricted percentages is to attempt to bring supply and demand into balance. If the primary market (domestic) is oversupplied with cherries, grower prices decline substantially. Without volume control, the primary market will likely be oversupplied, resulting in lower grower prices.

    The three districts in Michigan, along with the districts in New York, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin, are the restricted areas for this crop year with a combined total production of 310 million pounds. A 29 percent restriction means 220 million pounds will be available to be shipped to primary markets from these five states. The 220 million pounds from the restricted districts, 5 million pounds from the unrestricted districts (Oregon and Pennsylvania), and the 81 million pound carry-in inventory would make a total of 306 million pounds available as free tonnage for the primary markets. This is similar to the 305 million pounds of free tonnage made available last year. This is enough to cover the 251 million pounds of total utilization in 2015-16, while providing substantial carry-out. Further, the Board could meet and recommend the release of additional volume during the crop year if conditions so warranted.

    Prior to the implementation of the order, grower prices often did not cover the cost of production. The most recent costs of production determined by representatives of Michigan State University are an estimated $0.33 per pound. To assess the impact that volume control has on the prices growers receive for their product, an econometric model has been developed. Based on the model, the use of volume control would have a positive impact on grower returns for this crop year. With volume control, grower prices are estimated to be approximately $0.06 per pound higher than without restrictions. In addition, absent volume control, the industry could start to build large amounts of unwanted inventories. These inventories would have a depressing effect on grower prices.

    Retail demand is assumed to be highly inelastic, which indicates that changes in price do not result in significant changes in the quantity demanded. Consumer prices largely do not reflect fluctuations in cherry supplies. Therefore, this action should have little or no effect on consumer prices and should not result in a reduction in retail sales.

    The free and restricted percentages established by this rule provide the market with optimum supply and apply uniformly to all regulated handlers in the industry, regardless of size. As the restriction represents a percentage of a handler's volume, the costs, when applicable, are proportionate and should not place an extra burden on small entities as compared to large entities.

    The stabilizing effects of this action benefit all handlers by helping them maintain and expand markets, despite seasonal supply fluctuations. Likewise, price stability positively impacts all growers and handlers by allowing them to better anticipate the revenues their tart cherries would generate. Growers and handlers, regardless of size, benefit from the stabilizing effects of this restriction. In addition, the increased carry-out should provide processors enough supply to meet market needs going into the next season.

    The Board considered alternatives in its preliminary restriction discussions that affected this action. Regarding demand, the Board began with the actual sales average of 230 million pounds. However, the Board noted that some previously contracted sales would be due for delivery in the coming season. In order to avoid undersupplying the market, the Board determined that the calculation of the optimum supply should include an additional adjustment for that purpose. After discussion, an adjustment of an additional 22 million pounds was made in the 2016-17 available supply of tart cherries as it was determined that this amount would best meet the industry's sales needs. Thus, the other alternative levels were rejected.

    Regarding the carry-out value, the Board considered a range of alternatives. One member suggested the Board begin with 57 million pounds, approximately a quarter of average annual sales. Other members suggested alternatives as high as 70 million pounds. However, some members were concerned about leaving too much fruit on the market at the end of the season and depressing prices going into the next year. The Board determined three months of sales would be a good estimate for what is needed at the end of the season, as there is a three-month gap between the calculation of carry-out at the end of one season and the availability of fruit from the next season. Thus, the other alternatives were rejected.

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0177, Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

    This action will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large tart cherry handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

    As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule. Further, the public comments received concerning the proposal did not address the initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

    AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

    In addition, the Board's meeting was widely publicized throughout the tart cherry industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Board deliberations on all issues. Like all Board meetings, the June 23, 2016, and September 8, 2016, meetings were public meetings, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.

    A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2017 (82 FR 14481). Copies of the rule were sent via email to all Board members and tart cherry handlers. Finally, the rule was made available through the internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 30-day comment period ending April 20, 2017, was provided to allow interested persons to respond to the proposal.

    Eleven comments were received during the comment period in response to the proposal. Four comments favored the proposed regulation and seven comments opposed the proposed regulation. One comment received was signed by 67 industry members. The commenters included growers, handlers, Board members, an industry representative, economic policy and law students, individuals, and one anonymous cherry consumer. Most of the points made by the commenters in opposition had been discussed prior to the Board's vote recommending this action.

    The comment signed by 67 industry members asserted the United States government import data indicate that 40 percent of tart cherry consumption in the 2015 season was from imported products. AMS's analysis of the Foreign Agricultural Service's Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS) indicates an equivalent of more than 230 million pounds of cherries products were imported into the U.S. in the 2016 season. The imported volume has remained above 230 million pounds since the 2014 season. According to the data, tart cherry juice concentrate represents by far the largest segment of imports and has experienced tremendous growth beginning in 2012.

    Five of the comments in opposition, including the comment signed by 67 industry members, reference the absence of imported tart cherry products in the OSF. All of these commenters implied that not including imported tart cherry products into the OSF calculation disregards a large portion of the demand for tart cherries. As a result, these commenters since believe the proposed rule fails to bring supply into balance with demand in the targeted market. The comment with 67 signatures states the federal marketing order does not account for the total demand of tart cherry products in the US because imported products are not included in the formula. Another commenter suggested not considering imported products in the OSF indicates the Board's recommended restriction is arbitrary and capricious.

    The OSF presented to the Board included several adjustments to avoid the possibility of undersupplying the market. In determining demand, the Board takes into account many factors, including previous sales history and an analysis of economic factors having a bearing on the market. The final percentages recommended by the Board included several adjustments to supply additional fruit to the market. In calculating these adjustments for determining demand in the OSF, the Board also considered supplies of competing commodities and the additional ten percent added for the market growth factor. This was noted by one of the commenters voicing support for the proposed regulation. The economic adjustment added 22 million pounds and the market growth factor added 23 million pounds for an additional 55 million pounds beyond the average sales.

    Under the order, when computing and determining final percentages for recommendation to the Secretary, the Board must give consideration to several factors including supplies of competing commodities and economic factors having a bearing on cherry markets. At the meetings on June 23, 2016, and September 8, 2016, the Board discussed its concerns regarding the economic impact of imports. At the September meeting, following the motion to adopt the OSF as presented, several comments and observations were made regarding the matter of imports. However, none of the members suggested an alternative adjustment for imports. Additionally, the Board did not propose amending the order language in section 930.50 to include imports as a factor in calculating the OSF. Most of the comments at the September meeting supported the motion to adopt the OSF as presented.

    The comment with 67 signatures also states that the domestic industry has been unable to supply the significant growth in consumption of dried and juiced cherry products. Data concur that domestic production alone would not replace the imported volume in recent years. However, the Board reported steady or increased overall domestic sales from 2013-15, even though each of those seasons were regulated. The use of diversion credits allowed handlers to ship an additional 27.5 million pounds of restricted fruit during the 2015-16 season in addition to free sales. Despite this growth, the industry reported a remaining free inventory of over 80 million pounds going into the crop year, suggesting availability of domestic fruit is not a concern.

    Also at the September meeting, a Board member stated an adjustment to the OSF for imports is one alternative, but the Board's preferred alternative was to use restricted cherries for supplying new and competing commodity markets. Therefore, alternatives were considered consistent with Executive Order 13563. The member also stated that restricting cherries under the order aids in stabilizing grower prices. Placing excess cherries into the market is contrary to the purpose of the order. The Board supports utilizing exempted markets for restricted cherries as an alternative to storage. Exporting cherry products and participating in new product and new market projects allows handlers to sell restricted cherries into these markets.

    Should domestic handlers decide to compete in these new markets, in most cases, restricted cherries could be used and the handler could receive diversion credits under the diversion provisions of the order. Further, the Board recently recommended extending the maximum length of these activities from three years to five years, creating even more opportunities to pursue new markets. Consequently, handlers currently have ample opportunity to compete for new markets using restricted cherries while continuing to service traditional markets with unrestricted cherries. In addition, should industry efforts cause demand to exceed available volume, the Board could meet and recommend the release of additional volume.

    Another commenter opposed to the 29 percent or approximately 90 million pound restriction indicated the total percent restriction, over the past three years, was 69 percent. However, the percent restriction for each year cannot be added together to arrive at the total restriction over the last three years. The calculation to derive the percent restriction over the past three years is achieved by dividing the total adjusted surplus by the total production in regulated districts over the past three years. The pounds of regulated production for 2014, 2015, and 2016 seasons were 295 million with 59 million restricted, 240 million with 47 million restricted, and 310 million with 91 million restricted, respectively. The total 197 million pounds of surplus divided by the total regulated production of 845 million equals a 23 percent restriction. The miscalculation from the commenter in opposition overstated the total percent restriction for the past three years by triple.

    This commenter also stated that marketers of cherry products should not be forced to hold volume off the market while imported products enter the market freely. Contrary to the commenter's opinion, a Board member at the September 8, 2016, meeting stated that placing excess cherries into the market as a method of countering imports would only lower grower prices significantly and would not be positive for the grower community. Another Board member added that imports are capturing a less profitable market while the domestic industry is serving more profitable markets.

    One commenter indicated the OSF was calculated incorrectly by including the in-orchard diverted fruit as part of production in the formula. This individual suggested if the in-orchard diverted fruit was removed from production, the percentage would be 21 percent, instead of 29 percent restriction. However, 26.4 million pounds of in-orchard diversion were accounted for when calculating the volume subject to restriction from the regulated districts. This is consistent with the method used to account for fruit produced in unrestricted districts. The total production (341.3 million pounds) minus the in-orchard diversions (26.4 million pounds) and production in unrestricted districts (5.2 million pounds) left 309.7 million pounds subject to restriction. The Board divided the surplus of 90.6 million pounds by this volume to arrive at 29 percent restricted and 71 percent free market cherries.

    One comment, submitted twice, from two students in opposition to this regulation suggested the government should not intervene and require cherry farmers to restrict supply. This comment assumed the order restricts the amount of tart cherries that can be produced. Volume regulation under the order is a tool for the tart cherry industry to stabilize market conditions due to fluctuations in supply and the inelastic nature of demand for tart cherries. This action does not regulate growers' production of the commodity. This regulatory action is a restriction on domestic tart cherry products handled for the market. This regulation will only restrict cherries purchased for handling. Further, this action is a recommendation from the tart cherry industry as represented by the Board made up of growers, handlers, and a member of the public. The Board considered not regulating as a possible alternative, consistent with Executive Order 13563, but this consideration was rejected after reviewing production data.

    One commenter opposed the restriction because it would reduce tart cherry production and not allow the producers to benefit from maximizing the crop. The commenter also concluded the restriction would make it difficult for the industry to reach optimum supply. As previously mentioned, this action does not restrict tart cherry production. Production decisions are made well in advance of the recommendation for volume restriction, which is discussed just prior to harvest and finalized following harvest. Unlike some other commodities like row crops, tree crops such as tart cherries cannot be easily taken out of production. This action regulates only the handling of tart cherries.

    Regarding the commenter's second concern, USDA requires 110 percent of average sales be made available under any volume regulation. The Board recommended an economic adjustment for the 2016-17 season to make even more fruit available, going beyond the initial optimum supply calculation. While the restriction may not impact production costs, producers do experience a drop in price when the market is oversupplied. When the market approaches optimum supply, prices tend to be more stable.

    All four of the proponents of this action suggest the restriction will stabilize the cherry industry's economy. Three of the proponents made reference to the industry wide support for the recommended restriction, as represented by the Board's vote in which 16 members, the majority of the Board, voted in favor, two abstained and two opposed the recommended restriction. One of these proponents indicated this level of support is significantly greater than the requisite two-thirds majority required for Board action. Further, two proponents made reference that the action is supported by a large majority of the industry.

    Three proponents of this action recognized the Board's consideration of the opponents' concerns in their comments on the proposal. All three noted the matter of imports has been addressed by the Board at several meetings. One proponent recognized the Board established a committee to suggest alternative ways to increase domestic juice and juice concentrate sales. Another commenter suggested if growers and processors want to account for imports in a way other than through adjustments, then the Board should focus on amending the order language for determining optimum supply to account for imports.

    All three proponents made reference to the Board's efforts in promoting the exemption process as a method of competing with imported cherry products. One commenter noted the Board's recommendation for extending the time from one year to three years for new product and new market exemptions that was implemented in the previous season. As mentioned previously, the Board has recommended a further expansion of the timeframe. The additional time will allow opportunity for more cherries to qualify for exemption in response to the level of imported cherry products.

    One commenter referenced the opportunities available to use both in-orchard and post-harvest diversion to comply with a restriction. The commenter stated the Federal marketing order provides major incentive to expand sales by using restricted fruit to serve new markets, new products, and exports. Additionally, there is incentive in place for growers to divert excess fruit where there is no market or where the cost associated with marketing the fruit may not increase returns. Growers who choose to divert in the orchard can be issued certificates by the Board that can be sold to handlers to meet their restriction requirements.

    One commenter noted the Board felt the final calculations were appropriate. They also stated that the majority of the industry approved the order in its last referendum, believing that the order brings more returns to growers. Another proponent noted, even with the restriction, sales are not being lost due to lack of available unrestricted cherries. The carry-in from July 2016 (81 million lbs.) and the projected availability of free market carry-out (57 million lbs.) indicate the restriction is not a factor in limiting sales of tart cherry products. The Board deliberated thoroughly on whether or not to make an additional economic adjustment to account for imported cherry products. However, no motion was made for an additional adjustment to reflect the impact of imported cherry products. As one commenter noted, there is a lack of consensus on how to factor imports into the final calculation.

    Further, according to Foreign Agricultural Service's GATS database, though imported cherry products remained high (230 million lbs. equivalent) during the 2016 calendar year, the volume is down from the 2015 calendar year (267 million lbs. equivalent) and also below the 2014 calendar year (244 million lbs. equivalent). The final NASS prices for the 2016 season are not yet available, but from 2013-15, grower prices were stable, ranging from $0.34 to $0.36 per pound. Thus, when using available sales, utilization, and price data from previous years it is difficult to determine what, if any, specific negative impact imports have had on the market for domestic tart cherries and then account for that impact in the OSF.

    As previously stated, there are more than 309 million pounds of tart cherries available for free sales for 2016-17. This volume exceeds total sales from 2015-16 of both free and restricted cherries of 288 million pounds. Further, the order provides numerous alternatives for the use of restricted fruit, such as handler diversion, for complying with the recommended restriction. Additionally, the USDA announced the intent to purchase over 10 million pounds of cherry products in the 2016-2017 season as surplus purchases. Therefore, as stated in the RFA, it is not anticipated that this action will unduly burden growers or handlers.

    Accordingly, no changes will be made to the rule as proposed, based on the comments received.

    A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    After consideration of all relevant matter presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

    It is further found that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register (5 U.S.C. 553) because handlers are already shipping tart cherries from the 2016-17 crop. Further, handlers are aware of this rule, which was recommended at a public meeting. Also, a 30-day comment period was provided for in the proposed rule.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 930

    Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tart cherries.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 930 is amended as follows:

    PART 930—TART CHERRIES GROWN IN THE STATES OF MICHIGAN, NEW YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, OREGON, UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND WISCONSIN 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 930 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 601-674.

    2. Section 930.151 is revised to read as follows:
    § 930.151 Desirable carry-out inventory.

    For the 2016 crop year, the desirable carry-out inventory, for the purposes of determining an optimum supply volume, will be 57 million pounds.

    3. Section 930.256 is revised to read as follows:
    § 930.256 Free and restricted percentages for the 2016-17 crop year.

    The percentages for tart cherries handled by handlers during the crop year beginning on July 1, 2016, which shall be free and restricted, respectively, are designated as follows: Free percentage, 71 percent and restricted percentage, 29 percent.

    Dated: June 20, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13241 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Part 201 [Docket No. R-1565; RIN 7100 AE-79] Regulation A: Extensions of Credit by Federal Reserve Banks AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board”) has adopted final amendments to its Regulation A to reflect the Board's approval of an increase in the rate for primary credit at each Federal Reserve Bank. The secondary credit rate at each Reserve Bank automatically increased by formula as a result of the Board's primary credit rate action.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective June 26, 2017. The rate changes for primary and secondary credit were applicable beginning June 15, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Clinton Chen, Attorney (202/452-3952), or Sophia Allison, Special Counsel, (202/452-3565), Legal Division, or Lyle Kumasaka, Senior Financial Analyst (202/452-2382); for users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact 202/263-4869; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Reserve Banks make primary and secondary credit available to depository institutions as a backup source of funding on a short-term basis, usually overnight. The primary and secondary credit rates are the interest rates that the twelve Federal Reserve Banks charge for extensions of credit under these programs. In accordance with the Federal Reserve Act, the primary and secondary credit rates are established by the boards of directors of the Federal Reserve Banks, subject to the review and determination of the Board.

    On June 14, 2017, the Board voted to approve a 1/4 percentage point increase in the primary credit rate in effect at each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks, thereby increasing from 1.50 percent to 1.75 percent the rate that each Reserve Bank charges for extensions of primary credit. In addition, the Board had previously approved to renew the formula for the secondary credit rate, the primary credit rate plus 50 basis points. Under the formula, the secondary credit rate in effect at each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks increased by 1/4 percentage point as a result of the Board's primary credit rate action, thereby increasing from 2.00 percent to 2.25 percent the rate that each Reserve Bank charges for extensions of secondary credit. The amendments to Regulation A reflect these rate changes.

    The 1/4 percentage point increase in the primary credit rate was associated with an increase in the target range for the federal funds rate (from a target range of 3/4 to 1 percent to a target range of 1 to 11/4 percent) announced by the Federal Open Market Committee (“Committee”) on June 14, 2017, as described in the Board's amendment of its Regulation D published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.

    Administrative Procedure Act

    In general, the Administrative Procedure Act (12 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) (“APA”) imposes three principal requirements when an agency promulgates legislative rules (rules made pursuant to congressionally delegated authority): (1) Publication with adequate notice of a proposed rule; (2) followed by a meaningful opportunity for the public to comment on the rule's content; and (3) publication of the final rule not less than 30 days before its effective date. The APA provides that notice and comment procedures do not apply if the agency for good cause finds them to be “unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary to the public interest.” 12 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Section 553(d) of the APA also provides that publication not less than 30 days prior to a rule's effective date is not required for (1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction; (2) interpretive rules and statements of policy; or (3) an agency finding good cause for shortened notice and publishing its reasoning with the rule. 12 U.S.C. 553(d). The APA further provides that the notice, public comment, and delayed effective date requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 do not apply “to the extent that there is involved . . . a matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.” 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) (emphasis added).

    Regulation A establishes the interest rates that the twelve Reserve Banks charge for extensions of primary credit and secondary credit. The Board has determined that the notice, public comment, and delayed effective date requirements of the APA do not apply to the final amendments to Regulation A for several reasons. The amendments involve a matter relating to loans, and are therefore exempt under the terms of the APA. In addition, the Board has determined that notice, public comment, and delayed effective date would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest because delay in implementation of changes to the rates charged on primary credit and secondary credit would permit insured depository institutions to profit improperly from the difference in the current rate and the announced increased rate. Finally, because delay would undermine the Board's action in responding to economic data and conditions, the Board has determined that “good cause” exists within the meaning of the APA to dispense with the notice, public comment, and delayed effective date procedures of the APA with respect to the final amendments to Regulation A.

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required.1 As noted previously, a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required if the final rule involves a matter relating to loans. Furthermore, the Board has determined that it is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule. Accordingly, the RFA's requirements relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.

    1 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR part 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board reviewed the final rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget. The final rule contains no requirements subject to the PRA.

    List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 201

    Banks, Banking, Federal Reserve System, Reporting and recordkeeping.

    Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board is amending 12 CFR part 201 as follows:

    PART 201—EXTENSIONS OF CREDIT BY FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS (REGULATION A) 1. The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 248(i)-(j), 343 et seq., 347a, 347b, 347c, 348 et seq., 357, 374, 374a, and 461.

    2. In § 201.51, paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised to read as follows:
    § 201.51 Interest rates applicable to credit extended by a Federal Reserve Bank.2

    2 The primary, secondary, and seasonal credit rates described in this section apply to both advances and discounts made under the primary, secondary, and seasonal credit programs, respectively.

    (a) Primary credit. The interest rate at each Federal Reserve Bank for primary credit provided to depository institutions under § 201.4(a) is 1.75 percent.

    (b) Secondary credit. The interest rate at each Federal Reserve Bank for secondary credit provided to depository institutions under § 201.4(b) is 2.25 percent.

    By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 19, 2017. Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13106 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-02-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Part 204 [Docket No. R-1566; RIN 7100 AE-80] Regulation D: Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board”) is amending Regulation D (Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions) to revise the rate of interest paid on balances maintained to satisfy reserve balance requirements (“IORR”) and the rate of interest paid on excess balances (“IOER”) maintained at Federal Reserve Banks by or on behalf of eligible institutions. The final amendments specify that IORR is 1.25 percent and IOER is 1.25 percent, a 0.25 percentage point increase from their prior levels. The amendments are intended to enhance the role of such rates of interest in moving the Federal funds rate into the target range established by the Federal Open Market Committee (“FOMC” or “Committee”).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective June 26, 2017. The IORR and IOER rate changes were applicable on June 15, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Clinton Chen, Attorney (202-452-3952), or Sophia Allison, Special Counsel (202-452-3198), Legal Division, or Thomas Keating, Financial Analyst (202-973-7401), or Laura Lipscomb, Section Chief (202-973-7964), Division of Monetary Affairs; for users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact 202-263-4869; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Statutory and Regulatory Background

    For monetary policy purposes, section 19 of the Federal Reserve Act (“the Act”) imposes reserve requirements on certain types of deposits and other liabilities of depository institutions. Regulation D, which implements section 19 of the Act, requires that a depository institution meet reserve requirements by holding cash in its vault, or if vault cash is insufficient, by maintaining a balance in an account at a Federal Reserve Bank (“Reserve Bank”).1 Section 19 also provides that balances maintained by or on behalf of certain institutions in an account at a Reserve Bank may receive earnings to be paid by the Reserve Bank at least once each quarter, at a rate or rates not to exceed the general level of short-term interest rates. Institutions that are eligible to receive earnings on their balances held at Reserve Banks (“eligible institutions”) include depository institutions and certain other institutions.2 Section 19 also provides that the Board may prescribe regulations concerning the payment of earnings on balances at a Reserve Bank.3 Prior to these amendments, Regulation D specified a rate of 1.00 percent for both IORR and IOER.4

    1 12 CFR 204.5(a)(1).

    2 Section 19(b)(1)(A) defines “depository institution” as any insured bank as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or any bank which is eligible to make application to become an insured bank under section 5 of such Act; any mutual savings bank as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or any bank which is eligible to make application to become an insured bank under section 5 of such Act; any savings bank as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or any bank which is eligible to make application to become an insured bank under section 5 of such Act; any insured credit union as defined in section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act or any credit union which is eligible to make application to become an insured credit union pursuant to section 201 of such Act; any member as defined in section 2 of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act; [and] any savings association (as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act) which is an insured depository institution (as defined in such Act) or is eligible to apply to become an insured depository institution under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. See 12 U.S.C. 461(b)(1)(A). Eligible institution also includes any trust company, corporation organized under section 25A or having an agreement with the Board under section 25, or any branch or agency of a foreign bank (as defined in section 1(b) of the International Banking Act of 1978). 12 U.S.C. 461(b)(12)(C); see 12 CFR 204.2(y) (definition of “eligible institution”).

    3 See 12 U.S.C. 461(b)(12).

    4 See 12 CFR 204.10(b)(5).

    II. Amendments to IORR and IOER

    The Board is amending § 204.10(b)(5) of Regulation D to specify that IORR is 1.25 percent and IOER is 1.25 percent. This 0.25 percentage point increase in the IORR and IOER was associated with an increase in the target range for the federal funds rate, from a target range of 3/4 to 1 percent to a target range of 1 to 11/4 percent, announced by the FOMC on June 14, 2017, with an effective date of June 15, 2017. The FOMC's press release on the same day as the announcement noted that:

    Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in May indicates that the labor market has continued to strengthen and that economic activity has been rising moderately so far this year. Job gains have moderated but have been solid, on average, since the beginning of the year, and the unemployment rate has declined. Household spending has picked up in recent months, and business fixed investment has continued to expand. On a 12-month basis, inflation has declined recently and, like the measure excluding food and energy prices, is running somewhat below 2 percent. Market-based measures of inflation compensation remain low; survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations are little changed, on balance.

    Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability. The Committee continues to expect that, with gradual adjustments in the stance of monetary policy, economic activity will expand at a moderate pace, and labor market conditions will strengthen somewhat further. Inflation on a 12-month basis is expected to remain somewhat below 2 percent in the near term but to stabilize around the Committee's 2 percent objective over the medium term. Near term risks to the economic outlook appear roughly balanced, but the Committee is monitoring inflation developments closely.

    In view of realized and expected labor market conditions and inflation, the Committee decided to raise the target range for the federal funds rate to 1 to 11/4 percent. The stance of monetary policy remains accommodative, thereby supporting some further strengthening in labor market conditions and a sustained return to 2 percent inflation.

    A Federal Reserve Implementation note released simultaneously with the announcement stated that:

    The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System voted unanimously to raise the interest rate paid on required and excess reserve balances to 1.25 percent, effective June 15, 2017.

    As a result, the Board is amending § 204.10(b)(5) of Regulation D to change IORR to 1.25 percent and IOER to 1.25 percent.

    III. Administrative Procedure Act

    In general, the Administrative Procedure Act (12 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) (“APA”) imposes three principal requirements when an agency promulgates legislative rules (rules made pursuant to congressionally delegated authority): (1) Publication with adequate notice of a proposed rule; (2) followed by a meaningful opportunity for the public to comment on the rule's content; and (3) publication of the final rule not less than 30 days before its effective date. The APA provides that notice and comment procedures do not apply if the agency for good cause finds them to be “unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary to the public interest.” 12 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Section 553(d) of the APA also provides that publication not less than 30 days prior to a rule's effective date is not required for (1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction; (2) interpretive rules and statements of policy; or (3) an agency finding good cause for shortened notice and publishing its reasoning with the rule. 12 U.S.C. 553(d).

    The Board has determined that good cause exists for finding that the notice, public comment, and delayed effective date provisions of the APA are unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary to the public interest with respect to the final amendments to Regulation D. The rate increases for IORR and IOER that are reflected in the final amendments to Regulation D were made with a view towards accommodating commerce and business and with regard to their bearing upon the general credit situation of the country. Notice and public comment would prevent the Board's action from being effective as promptly as necessary in the public interest, and would not otherwise serve any useful purpose. Notice, public comment, and a delayed effective date would create uncertainty about the finality and effectiveness of the Board's action and undermine the effectiveness of that action. Accordingly, the Board has determined that good cause exists to dispense with the notice, public comment, and delayed effective date procedures of the APA with respect to the final amendments to Regulation D.

    IV. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required.5 As noted previously, the Board has determined that it is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule. Accordingly, the RFA's requirements relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.

    5 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

    V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR part 1320, appendix A.1), the Board reviewed the final rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget. The final rule contains no requirements subject to the PRA.

    List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 204

    Banks, Banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board amends 12 CFR part 204 as follows:

    PART 204—RESERVE REQUIREMENTS OF DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS (REGULATION D) 1. The authority citation for part 204 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 248(a), 248(c), 461, 601, 611, and 3105.

    2. Section 204.10 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:
    § 204.10 Payment of interest on balances.

    (b) * * *

    (5) The rates for IORR and IOER are:

    Rate
  • (%)
  • IORR 1.25 IOER 1.25
    By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 19, 2017. Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13107 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0343; Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-005-AD; Amendment 39-18936; AD 2017-13-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Gliders AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Models DG-400, DG-500M, DG-500MB, DG-800A, and DG-800B gliders. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a manufacturing defect in certain textile fabric covered fuel hoses, which could cause the fuel hose to fail. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective July 31, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 31, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0343; or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    For service information identified in this AD, contact DG Flugzeugbau GmbH, Otto-Lilienthal Weg 2, D-76646 Bruchsal, Germany; telephone: +49 (0)7251 3202-0; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/en/?noredirect=en_US. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2017-0343.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Models DG-400, DG-500M, DG-500MB, DG-800A, and DG-800B gliders. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 21, 2017 (82 FR 18722). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country.

    The MCAI states:

    During service and annual inspection, DG found that some fuel hoses with textile fabric covering, installed from the beginning of the year 2015, had become weak or untight with time. The suspected root cause for this premature degradation is a manufacturing defect of a certain batch of fuel hoses.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, may lead to kinking of the fuel hoses, possibly resulting in a reduced fuel supply and consequent partial or total loss of available power.

    To address this unsafe condition, DG-Flugzeugbau published Technical Note TN 800-44, 500-10, DG-SS-02 providing inspection and replacement instructions.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires inspection and replacement of the affected fuel hoses.

    The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2017-0343-0002. Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

    • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical note No. 800-44, 500-10, DG-SS-02, dated November 9, 2016, and co-published as one document; DG-400 diagram 8, 6 TN DG-SS-02; DG-500M diagram 14, TN 500/10; DG-500MB diagram 14, TN 500/10; DG-800A/LA diagram 11, TN 800/44; DG-800B Solo 2625 diagram 11, TN 800/44; DG-800B Solo 2625 diagram 11a, TN 800/44; DG-800B Solo 2625 diagram 11b, TN 800/44; and DG-800B ab W.Nr. 8-155/from ser. no. 8-155 on, diagram 11d, TN 800/44, all diagrams issued October 2016. In combination, the service information describes procedures for inspecting and replacing the fuel hoses on different aircraft model variants covered by the applicability of this AD. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 59 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with each inspection required by this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the inspection cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $10,030, or $170 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that each replacement action required by this AD will take about 8 work-hours and require parts costing $500. Based on these figures, we estimate the replacement cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $69,620, or $1,180 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0343; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: 2017-13-06 DG FlugzeugbauGmbH: Amendment 39-18936; Docket No. FAA-2017-0343; Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-005-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 31, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Models DG-400, DG-500M, DG-500MB, DG-800A, and DG-800B gliders, all serial numbers, that:

    (1) Have textile fabric covered fuel hoses installed in the fuselage; and

    (2) are certificated in any category.

    Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD:

    Metal fabric covered fuel hoses installed in the engine area are not affected by this AD.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 28: Fuel.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a manufacturing defect in certain textile fabric covered fuel hoses, which could cause the fuel hose to fail. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the fuel hose, which could cause reduced fuel supply and result in partial or total loss of power.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions:

    (1) Within the next 30 days after July 31, 2017 (the effective date of this AD), inspect all textile fabric covered fuel hoses located in the fuselage following Instructions 1. of DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical note (TN) No. 800-44, 500-10, DG-SS-02, dated November 9, 2016.

    Note 2 to paragraph (f)(1) through (6) of this AD:

    DG Flugzeugbau GmbH TN No. 800-44, DG Flugzeugbau GmbH TN No. 500-10, and DG Flugzeugbau GmbH TN No. DG-SS-02, are all dated November 9, 2016, and co-published as one document.

    (2) If any kinking or wet fabric covering is found during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, within the next 14 days after the inspection, replace all textile fabric covered fuel hoses located in the fuselage following Instructions 2. of DG Flugzeugbau GmbH TN No. 800-44, 500-10, DG-SS-02, dated November 9, 2016, and DG-400 diagram 8, 6 TN DG-SS-02; DG-500M diagram 14, TN 500/10; DG-500MB diagram 14, TN 500/10; DG-800A/LA diagram 11, TN 800/44; DG-800B Solo 2625 diagram 11, TN 800/44; DG-800B Solo 2625 diagram 11a, TN 800/44; DG-800B Solo 2625 diagram 11b, TN 800/44; and DG-800B ab W.Nr. 8-155/from ser. no. 8-155 on, diagram 11d, TN 800/44, as applicable, all diagrams issued October 2016.

    (3) If no kinking or wet fabric covering is found during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, within the next 12 months after July 31, 2017 (the effective date of this AD), replace all textile fabric covered fuel hoses located in the fuselage following the instructions and diagrams specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD.

    (4) Within 12 months after doing the replacements required in paragraph (f)(2) or (f)(3) of this AD, as applicable, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months, inspect all fuel hoses in the fuselage for any signs of wear, fissures, kinks, lack of tight fit, or leaks. For this inspection, the ignition switch must be turned on to run the electric fuel pump to demonstrate an operating fuel pressure. Do this inspection following Instructions 4. of DG Flugzeugbau GmbH TN No. 800-44, 500-10, DG-SS-02, dated November 9, 2016.

    (5) If any signs of wear, fissures, kinks, lack of tight fit, or leaks are found during any inspection required in paragraph (f)(4) of this AD, replace the defective fuel hose in the fuselage following the instructions and diagrams specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. Continue with the repetitive inspections as specified in paragraph (f)(4) of this AD.

    (6) If no signs of wear, fissures, kinks, lack of tight fit, or leaks are found during any inspection required in paragraph (f)(4) of this AD, at intervals not to exceed 10 years, replace the fuel hoses in the fuselage with new fuel hoses following the instructions and diagrams specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD.

    (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC on any glider to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

    (h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2016-0259, dated December 21, 2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2017-0343-0002.

    (i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) DG-400 diagram 8, issued October 2016 TN DG-SS-02.

    (ii) DG-500M diagram 14, issued October 2016 TN 500/10.

    (iii) DG-500MB diagram 14, issued October 2016 TN 500/10.

    (iv) DG-800A/LA diagram 11, issued October 2016 TN 800/44.

    (v) DG-800B Solo 2625 diagram 11, issued October 2016 TN 800/44.

    (vi) DG-800B Solo 2625 diagram 11a, issued October 2016 TN 800/44.

    (vii) DG-800B Solo 2625 diagram 11b, issued October 2016 TN 800/44.

    (viii) DG-800B ab W.Nr. 8-155/from ser. no. 8-155 on, diagram 11d, issued October 2016 TN 800/44.

    (ix) DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical note (TN) No. 800-44, 500-10, DG-SS-02, dated November 9, 2016.

    Note 3 to paragraph (i)(2)(ix) of this AD:

    DG Flugzeugbau GmbH TN No. 800-44, DG Flugzeugbau GmbH TN No. 500-10, and DG Flugzeugbau GmbH TN No. DG-SS-02, are all dated November 9, 2016, and co-published as one document.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, DG Flugzeugbau GmbH, Otto-Lilienthal Weg 2, D-76646 Bruchsal, Germany; telephone: +49 (0)7251 3202-0; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/en/?noredirect=en_US.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0343.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 19, 2017. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13127 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 14 CFR Parts 1264 and 1271 RIN 2700-AE30 [Document Number NASA-17-039: Docket Number—NASA-2017-0002] Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act AGENCY:

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule with request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is publishing for public comment an interim final rule to adjust the civil monetary penalties within its jurisdiction for inflation, as required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the Inflation Adjustment Act or the Act), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and further amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Act). The revision to this rule is part of NASA's retrospective plan under Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 completed in August 2011. NASA's full plan can be accessed on the Agency's open Government Web site at http://www.nasa.gov/open/.

    DATES:

    This interim final rule is effective August 25, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bryan R. Diederich, Office of the General Counsel, NASA Headquarters, telephone (202) 358-0216.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Inflation Adjustment Act, as amended by the 2015 Act, requires Federal agencies to adjust the civil penalty amounts within their jurisdiction for inflation by July 1, 2016, and then by January 15 every year thereafter.1 Agencies must make the initial 2016 adjustments through an interim final rulemaking published in the Federal Register.2 Under the amended Act, any increase in a civil penalty made under the Act will apply to penalties assessed after the increase takes effect, including penalties whose associated violation predated the increase.3 The inflation adjustments mandated by the Act serve to maintain the deterrent effect of civil penalties and to promote compliance with the law.

    1See 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    2 The statute also provides that, for the initial 2016 adjustment, an agency may adjust a civil penalty by less than the otherwise required amount if (1) it determines, after publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing an opportunity for comment, that increasing the civil penalty by the otherwise required amount would have a negative economic impact or that the social costs of increasing the civil penalty by the otherwise required amount outweigh the benefits, and (2) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget concurs with that determination. Inflation Adjustment Act section 4(c), codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. NASA has chosen not to make use of this exception.

    3 Inflation Adjustment Act section 6, codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    II. Method of Calculation

    The Inflation Adjustment Act prescribes a specific method for calculating the inflation adjustments.4 As amended by the 2015 Act, the Act provides that the maximum (and minimum, if applicable) amounts for each civil penalty must be increased by the “cost-of-living adjustment,” a term that the Act defines. For purposes of the initial adjustments that agencies must make by July 1, 2016, the “cost-of-living adjustment” is defined as the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index between (1) October of the calendar year during which the civil penalty amount was established or adjusted under a provision of law other than the Inflation Adjustment Act and (2) October 2015. The Consumer Price Index to be used for purposes of this calculation is the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) published by the Department of Labor.5 The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has published guidance for implementing this requirement.6 OMB's guidance memorandum provides multipliers that agencies should use to adjust penalty amounts based on the year the penalty was established or last adjusted under authority other than the Inflation Adjustment Act.

    4 Inflation Adjustment Act section 5, codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    5 U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI Tables, http://www.bls.gov/cpi/#tables.

    6 Memorandum from Shaun Donovan, Director, Office of Management and Budget, to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies (Feb. 24, 2016), https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m-16-06.pdf.

    To determine the new penalty amount, the agency must apply the multiplier reflecting the “cost-of-living adjustment” 7 to the penalty amount as it was most recently established or adjusted under a provision of law other than the Inflation Adjustment Act. The agency must then round that amount to the nearest dollar.8 The increase made by this initial adjustment may not exceed 150 percent of the penalty amount in effect on the date the 2015 Act was enacted, November 2, 2015.

    7  The multipliers reflecting the “cost-of-living adjustment” that OMB provides are rounded to five decimal places. NASA has used the OMB multipliers in calculating its civil penalty adjustments.

    8 In rounding to the nearest dollar, NASA has rounded down where the digit immediately following the decimal point is less than 5 and has rounded up where the digit immediately following the decimal point is 5 or greater.

    III. Description of the Interim Final Rule

    This interim final rule establishes the inflation-adjusted maximum amounts for each civil penalty within NASA's jurisdiction. The following table lists the civil penalties within NASA's jurisdiction and summarizes the relevant information needed to calculate the inflation adjustments pursuant to the statutory method.

    Law Penalty description Penalty amount
  • as established
  • or last
  • adjusted under
  • a provision
  • other than the
  • Inflation
  • Adjustment Act
  • Year penalty
  • established
  • or last
  • adjusted under
  • a provision
  • other than the
  • Inflation
  • Adjustment Act
  • Penalty amount
  • in effect on
  • November 2, 2015
  • Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 Maximum penalties for false claims $5,000 1986 $5,000 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1989, Public Law 101-121, sec. 319 Minimum penalty for use of appropriated funds to lobby or influence certain contracts 10,000 1989 10,000 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1989, Public Law 101-121, sec. 319 Maximum penalty for use of appropriated funds to lobby or influence certain contracts 100,000 1989 100,000 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1989, Public Law 101-121, sec. 319 Minimum penalty for failure to report certain lobbying transactions 10,000 1989 10,000 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1989, Public Law 101-121, sec. 319 Maximum penalty for failure to report certain lobbying transactions 100,000 1989 100,000

    NASA followed the procedure outlined above in part II to calculate the adjusted civil penalty amounts. In accordance with the statutory requirements and OMB guidance, NASA multiplied each penalty amount as established or last adjusted under a provision other than the Inflation Adjustment Act by the OMB multiplier corresponding to the appropriate year, and then rounded that amount to the nearest dollar, to calculate the new, inflation-adjusted civil penalty amount. The following chart summarizes the results of these calculations:

    Law Penalty description Penalty amount
  • as established
  • or last
  • adjusted under
  • a provision
  • other than the
  • Inflation
  • Adjustment Act
  • Year penalty
  • established
  • or last
  • adjusted under
  • a provision
  • other than the
  • Inflation
  • Adjustment Act
  • OMB
  • “cost-of-living
  • adjustment”
  • multiplier
  • New penalty
  • amount
  • New penalty
  • amount
  • adjusted for
  • 150% threshold
  • Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 Maximum Penalties for False Claims $5,000 1986 2.15628 $10,781 $10,781 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1989, Public Law 101-121, sec. 319 Minimum Penalty for use of appropriated funds to lobby or influence certain contracts 10,000 1989 1.89361 18,936 18,936 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1989, Public Law 101-121, sec. 319 Maximum Penalty for use of appropriated funds to lobby or influence certain contracts 100,000 1989 1.89361 189,361 189,361 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1989, Public Law 101-121, sec. 319 Minimum penalty for failure to report certain lobbying transactions 10,000 1989 1.89361 18,936 18,936 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1989, Public Law 101-121, sec. 319 Maximum penalty for failure to report certain lobbying transactions 100,000 1989 1.89361 189,361 189,361

    This rule codifies these civil penalty amounts by amending parts 1264 and 1271 of title 14 of the CFR.

    IV. Legal Authority and Effective Date

    NASA issues this rule under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990,9 as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996,10 and further amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015,11 which requires NASA to adjust the civil penalties within its jurisdiction for inflation according to a statutorily prescribed formula.

    9 Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (1990).

    10 Public Law 104-134, section 31001(s)(1), 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-373 (1996).

    11 Public Law 114-74, section 701, 129 Stat. 584, 599 (2015).

    The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires an agency to publish a rule at least 30 days before its effective date.12 This rule satisfies that requirement.

    12See 5 U.S.C. 533(d).

    V. Request for Comment

    Although notice and comment rulemaking procedures are not required, NASA invites comments on this notice. Commenters are specifically encouraged to identify any technical issues raised by the rule.

    VI. Regulatory Requirements Notice and Comment

    Under the APA, notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if NASA finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.13 This interim final rule adjusts the civil penalty amounts within the NASA's jurisdiction for inflation, as required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and further amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. The amendments in this interim final rule are technical, and they merely apply the statutory method for adjusting civil penalty amounts. For these reasons, NASA has determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. Moreover, the statute expressly requires NASA to make these initial adjustments through an interim final rulemaking to be published by July 1, 2016,14 and OMB's guidance confirms that agencies need not complete a notice-and-comment process before promulgating the rule.15 Therefore, the amendments are adopted in final form.

    13 5 U.S.C. 533(b)(B).

    14 Inflation Adjustment Action, section 4(b)(1)(A), codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    15 Memorandum from Shaun Donovan, Director, Office of Management and Budget, to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies 3 (Feb. 24, 2016), https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m-16-06.pdf.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis.16

    16 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a).

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,17 NASA reviewed this interim final rule. No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the interim final rule.

    17 44 U.S.C. 3506-.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Parts 1264 and 1271

    Claims, Penalties, Lobbying.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration amends 14 CFR parts 1264 and 1271 as follows:

    PART 1264—IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL PENALTIES ACT OF 1986 1. The authority citation for part 1264 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    31 U.S.C. 3809, 51 U.S.C. 20113(a).

    § 1264.102 [Amended]
    2. In § 1264.102, paragraphs (a) and (b), remove the number “$5,000” and add in its place the number “$10,781”. PART 1271—NEW RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING 3. The authority citation for part 1271 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Section 319, Pub. L. 101-121 (31 U.S.C. 1352); Pub. L. 97-258 (31 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.).

    Subpart D—Penalties and Enforcement
    § 1271.400 [Amended]
    4. In § 1271.400: a. In paragraphs (a) and (b), remove the words “not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000” and add in their place the words “not less than $18,936 and not more than $189,361”; and b. In paragraph (e), remove the two occurrences of “$10,000” and add in their places “$18,936” and remove “$100,000” and add in its place “$189,361”. Appendix A to Part 1271 [Amended] 6. In appendix A to part 1271, in paragraph following paragraph (3) and in the last paragraph of the appendix, remove the words “not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000” and add in their place the words “not less than $18,936 and not more than $189,361”. Cheryl E. Parker, NASA Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13209 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 17 CFR Parts 5, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 48, 140, and 150 RIN 3038-AE42 Commission Delegated Authority Provisions and Technical Amendments AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission” or “CFTC”) is adopting final rules to establish new and amend certain existing delegations of authority to Commission staff. The Commission is also adopting amendments to update statutory authority citations and correct limited typographical and technical errors in certain rules.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective June 26, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Van Wagner, Chief Counsel, Division of Market Oversight, (202) 418-5481, [email protected]; Jeanette Curtis, Special Counsel, Division of Market Oversight, (202) 418-5669, [email protected]; Gretchen L. Lowe, Chief Counsel, Division of Enforcement, (202) 418-5379, [email protected]; or Edward Wehner, IT Specialist, Office of Data and Technology, (202) 418-6764, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. Commission Delegations of Authority

    The Commission is adopting final rules to establish new and amend certain existing delegations of authority to Commission staff. Previously, the Commission delegated, to the Director of the Division of Market Oversight (“DMO”), various authorities for implementing certain Commission regulations.1 Many of these delegated authorities have been carried out by staff in DMO's Surveillance Branch. However, as a result of the recent Commission organizational restructuring, which moved DMO's Surveillance Branch to the Division of Enforcement (“DOE”), the Commission has completed a full review of DMO delegated authorities and decided to remove certain delegated authorities from the DMO Director, other division directors, and certain Commission staff. The Commission is delegating such authorities to the Director of DOE or the Director of the Office of Data and Technology (“ODT”). In addition, the Commission is adding new delegations of authority to certain of the part 48 provisions that govern the registration of Foreign Boards of Trade (“FBOT”).

    1 17 CFR 5.20(d), 11.2(a), 16.07, 18.03, 19.00(a)(3), 20.8, 21.05, 140.72(a), 140.73, 140.74, 140.97, 150.3(b), and 150.4(e) (Commission delegations of authority to the DMO Director prior to this final rule).

    B. Statutory Authority Citations and Technical Corrections

    For certain regulations, the Commission is revising the statutory authority citations to reflect the most current citation. On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) into law.2 Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act amended provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) 3 to establish a comprehensive framework for the regulation of swaps and security-based swaps. However, according to the Federal Register drafting handbook, it is recommended that the Commission only list the current United States Code (“U.S.C.”) citation when it is available.4 As such, the Commission need only cite the Dodd-Frank Act as the amending statutory authority for each rule part until such amendments are codified in the U.S.C. Since the Dodd-Frank Act provisions have been codified in the U.S.C., the Commission is revising the citation authority preceding certain Commission regulations to reflect the current U.S.C. citations.

    2 Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (July 21, 2010).

    3 7 U.S.C. 1 et seq. (2012).

    4See National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, Document Drafting Handbook, section 3.12 (Authority citations), 3-26 (May 2017 update, Revision 2, June 7, 2017).

    In addition, the Commission is amending certain of its regulations to revise a limited number of typographical and formatting errors, and to delete a duplicate regulation.

    II. Amended Regulations A. Part 5

    Part 5 of the Commission's regulations governs off-exchange foreign currency transactions. Section 5.20(d) covers Commission delegated authority to the DMO Director to make special calls for information on controlled accounts from retail foreign exchange dealers, futures commission merchants (“FCMs”) and introducing brokers (“IBs”), and to make special calls for information on open contracts in accounts carried or introduced by FCMs, IBs, and foreign brokers. The Commission is amending its delegation of authority in § 5.20(d) to remove the DMO Director from its list of delegates and to delegate such authority to the DOE Director, or such other employee or employees as the Director may designate from time to time. The Commission is also deleting the Dodd-Frank Act reference from the part 5 statutory authority citation.

    B. Part 11

    Part 11 of the Commission's regulations establishes rules relating to investigations. Section 11.2(a) delegates authority to the DOE Director, the Director of the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight (“DSIO”), the Director of the Division of Clearing and Risk (“DCR”), the Director of DMO, the Chief Economist, and members of their staffs acting within the scope of their respective responsibilities, to conduct investigations in particular matters. The Commission has decided to delegate such investigatory authority to the DOE Director and members of Commission staff acting pursuant to the Director's authority and under the Director's direction to conduct investigations. The Commission is amending its delegation of authority in § 11.2(a) to remove the Chief Economist and the Directors of DSIO, DCR and DMO and their staff from its list of delegates. The Commission is also updating the part 11 statutory authority citation to reflect the correct numerical ordering of the statutory provisions cited.

    C. Part 16

    Part 16 of the Commission's regulations governs reports by designated contract markets and swap execution facilities. Section 16.07(a) delegates authority to the DMO Director to determine the form, manner and time of filing reports required in §§ 16.00(b) and 16.01(d). Section 16.07(b) delegates authority to the DMO Director to determine the format, coding structure and electronic data transmission procedures used by reporting markets pursuant to §§ 16.00(b)(1), 16.01(d)(1) and 16.06. The Commission is amending its delegations of authority in § 16.07(a) and (b) to remove the DMO Director from its list of delegates and to delegate such authority to the ODT Director, with the concurrence of the DMO Director, or such other employee or employees as the Directors each may designate from time to time. The Commission is also deleting the Dodd-Frank Act reference from the part 16 statutory authority citation and updating the part 16 statutory authority citation to reflect the correct numerical ordering of the statutory provisions cited. The Commission is also amending the outline formatting of § 16.07.

    D. Part 17

    Part 17 of the Commission's regulations governs reports by reporting markets, futures commission merchants, clearing members, and foreign brokers. In § 17.03, the Commission is adding a delegation of authority, pursuant to § 17.01(e), to the ODT Director, in consultation with the DMO Director, or such other employee or employees as the Directors each may designate from time to time, to issue requests for Forms 102 and 71. The Commission is also making typographical corrections to the time formatting in § 17.02, and deleting the Dodd-Frank Act reference from the part 17 statutory authority citation.

    E. Part 18

    Part 18 of the Commission's regulations governs reports by certain traders. Section 18.03 governs Commission delegated authority to the DMO Director to issue special calls for certain reports and information to be furnished by traders, and to request information related to the maintenance of books and records. The Commission is amending its delegation of authority in § 18.03 to remove the DMO Director from its list of delegates for issuing special calls for information pursuant to §§ 18.00 and 18.05, and to delegate such authority to the DOE Director, or such other employee or employees as the Director may designate from time to time. The Commission is also amending its delegation of authority in § 18.03 to remove the DMO Director from its list of delegates for issuing special calls for information pursuant to § 18.04, and to delegate such authority to the ODT Director, in consultation with the DMO Director, or such other employee or employees as the Directors each may designate from time to time. Finally, the Commission is deleting the Dodd-Frank Act reference from the part 18 statutory authority citation.

    F. Part 19

    Part 19 of the Commission's regulations governs reports by persons holding bona fide hedge positions, and by merchants and dealers in cotton. Section 19.00(a)(3) governs Commission delegated authority to the DMO Director to issue special calls for Series `04 reports (cash market positions of large traders in cotton and grains). The Commission is amending its delegation of authority in § 19.00(a)(3) to remove the DMO Director from its list of delegates and to delegate such authority to the DOE Director, or such other employee or employees as the Director may designate from time to time. The Commission is also deleting the Dodd-Frank Act reference from the part 19 statutory authority citation.

    G. Part 20

    Part 20 of the Commission's regulations governs large trader reporting for physical commodity swaps. Section 20.8 governs Commission delegated authority to the DMO Director to: Issue special calls for certain forms, books and records; determine the form and manner of reporting; and determine compliance schedules. The Commission is amending its delegation of authority in § 20.8 to remove the DMO Director as its delegate for issuing § 20.6(d) special calls for books and records, and to delegate such authority to the DOE Director, or such other employee or employees as the Director may designate from time to time. The Commission is also amending its § 20.8 delegation of authority to remove the DMO Director as its delegate for issuing § 20.5 requests for 102S and 40S filings, and to delegate such authority to the ODT Director, in consultation with the DMO Director, or such other employee or employees as the Directors each may designate from time to time. Finally, the Commission is amending its § 20.8 delegation of authority to remove the DMO Director as its delegate for determining the form and coding structure of reporting in § 20.7, and will delegate such authority to the ODT Director, with the concurrence of the DMO Director, or such other employee or employees as the Directors each may designate from time to time. Finally, the Commission is also making typographical corrections to the time formatting in § 20.5, and deleting the Dodd-Frank Act reference from the part 20 statutory authority citation.

    H. Part 21

    Part 21 of the Commission's regulations governs various types of Commission special calls. Section 21.05 particularly governs Commission delegated authority to the DMO Director to issue special calls for information on certain controlled accounts and open interest contracts in certain accounts. The Commission is amending its delegation of authority in § 21.05 to remove the DMO Director from its list of delegates and to delegate such authority to the DOE Director, or such other employee or employees as the Director may designate from time to time. The Commission is also deleting the Dodd-Frank Act reference from the part 21 statutory authority citation.

    I. Part 48

    Part 48 of the Commission's regulations governs the registration of FBOTs. The Commission is amending the part 48 rules to add a new § 48.11 that addresses delegations of authority to DMO. Section 48.11 will address delegations with respect to the following provisions:

    1. Section 48.7 governs FBOT requirements for registration. The Commission is delegating authority, pursuant to § 48.7, for the DMO Director and his designated staff to request additional information and documentation in connection with an application for registration.

    2. Section 48.9 governs the revocation of an FBOT's registration. The Commission is delegating authority, pursuant to § 48.9(a)(1) and (c), for the DMO Director and his designated staff to: (i) Notify an FBOT that, pursuant to § 48.9(a)(1), the registered FBOT or the clearing organization has failed to satisfy any registration requirements or conditions for registration; and (ii) pursuant to § 48.9(c), request that the FBOT file a written demonstration, containing such supporting data, information, and documents, in such form and manner and within such timeframe as the Commission may specify, that the foreign board of trade or clearing organization is in compliance with the registration requirements and/or conditions for registration.

    3. Section 48.10 requires that FBOTs that wish to make additional contracts available to trade by members or participants located in the United States with direct access to the FBOT's trade-matching system must submit to the Commission a written request before offering the additional contracts in the U.S. The FBOT can offer the additional contracts for trading 10 business days after the Commission receives the FBOT's written request unless the Commission notifies the FBOT that additional time is needed to complete its review of policy or other issues pertinent to the additional contracts. The Commission is delegating authority, under § 48.10, for the DMO Director and his designated staff to, within the 10-day review period, notify an FBOT whether additional time is needed to complete its review of policy or other issues pertinent to the additional contracts, or that the contract can be made available for trading by direct access.

    J. Part 140

    Part 140 of the Commission's regulations governs organization, functions and procedures of the Commission. The Commission is making the following amendments to the part 140 regulations.

    1. Section 140.72, pertaining to delegation of authority to disclose confidential information to a registered entity, swap execution facility, swap data repository, registered futures association or self-regulatory organization.

    Currently, § 140.72 delegates authority directly to the various Commission Division directors and certain identified senior staff positions to disclose confidential information. The Commission is amending its delegation of authority in § 140.72(a) to delegate authority to Division directors and their designated staff members.

    2. Section 140.73, pertaining to delegation of authority to disclose information to United States, states, and foreign government agencies and foreign futures authorities.

    Currently, § 140.73 delegates authority directly to the various Commission Division directors and certain identified senior staff positions to disclose confidential information. The Commission is amending its delegation of authority in § 140.72(a) to delegate authority to Division directors and their designated staff members.

    3. Section 140.74, pertaining to delegation of authority to issue special calls for series 03 reports and Form 40.

    The Commission is amending § 140.74 to remove the delegation of authority to the DMO Director, and to delegate such authority to the DOE Director, or such other employee or employees as the Director may designate from time to time, for issuing special calls for series 03 reports. The Commission is also amending § 140.74 to delete a duplicate rule provision regarding authority to issue special calls for Form 40.

    4. Section 140.97, pertaining to delegation of authority regarding requests for classification of positions as bona fide hedging.

    The Commission is amending § 140.97 to remove the delegation of authority to the DMO Director, and to delegate such authority to the DOE Director, or such other employee or employees as the Director may designate from time to time.

    K. Part 150

    Part 150 of the Commission's regulations governs limits on positions. Sections 150.3(b) and 150.4(e) govern Commission delegated authority to the DMO Director to issue calls for information related to claims of exemptions from positions limits, certain position, trading and business relationship information, and to determine the form, coding structure and transmission procedures for submitting data. The Commission is amending its special call delegation of authority in §§ 150.3(b) and 150.4(e) to remove the DMO Director from its list of delegates and to delegate such authority to the DOE Director, or such other employee or employees as the Director may designate from time to time. The Commission is also amending its form and manner delegation of authority in § 150.4(e) to remove the DMO Director from its list of delegates and to delegate such authority to the ODT Director, with the concurrence of the DOE Director, or such other employee or employees as the Directors each may designate from time to time. The Commission is also deleting the Dodd-Frank Act reference from the part 150 statutory authority citation.

    III. Administrative Compliance A. Administrative Procedure Act

    The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) 5 generally requires a Federal agency to publish notice of a proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and to allow opportunity for public comment before promulgating a final rule.6 This requirement does not apply, however, to “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” 7 This final rule makes conforming amendments to various Commission regulations to reflect the recent organizational restructuring at the Commission, including corresponding updates to Commission delegations of authority to staff, which changes fit squarely into the category of “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” 8 This final rule also corrects typographical errors and outdated statutory references, which have no impact on substantive rights or obligations under the CEA and are entirely ministerial and procedural in nature. Therefore, this rulemaking is excepted from the public rulemaking provisions of the APA.9 Conforming amendments to certain delegations of authority to reflect organizational changes, updating of relevant statutory authority and other technical corrections, will not cause any party to undertake new or additional efforts to comply with the regulations as revised. This final rule shall become effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

    5 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.

    6 5 U.S.C. 553.

    7 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Notice or hearing is not required in these circumstances by the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.

    8 Id.

    9 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the Commission to consider whether the regulations it adopts will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.10 The Commission is obligated to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule for which the agency publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to section 553(b) of the APA.11 However, this rulemaking is excepted from the public rulemaking provisions of the APA.12 Accordingly, the Commission is not obligated to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking.

    10See 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

    11 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

    12 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) (“rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice”); 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) (“agency for good cause finds . . . that notice and public procedure thereon are . . . unnecessary . . . .”).

    C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information contained in a rulemaking unless the information collection displays a currently valid control number issued by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.13 This rulemaking contains no collection of information that obligates the Commission to obtain a control number from OMB.

    13See 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    D. Cost-Benefit Considerations 1. Introduction

    Section 15(a) of the CEA requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its actions before promulgating a regulation under the CEA or issuing certain orders.14 Section 15(a) further specifies that the costs and benefits shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern: (1) Protection of market participants and the public; (2) efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; (3) price discovery; (4) sound risk management practices; and (5) other public interest considerations. The Commission considers the costs and benefits resulting from its discretionary determinations with respect to the section 15(a) factors.

    14 7 U.S.C. 19(a).

    The Commission is amending its delegations of authority in §§ 5.20(d), 11.2(a), 16.07, 18.03, 19.00(a)(3), 20.8, 21.05, 140.72(a), 140.73, 140.74, 140.97, 150.3(b) and 150.4(c), and in part 48. The Commission is also amending certain statutory citations in, and making limited technical and typographical corrections to parts 5, 11, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 140, and 150. For assessing whether and to what extent costs or benefits are likely to flow from the amendments, the Commission is using the CEA and related regulations that currently instruct market participants as to which delegated authorities may ask for and receive requested information. The proposed amendments do not change the status quo.

    2. Costs

    There are no costs to the industry or the public associated with the amendments to certain Commission delegations of authority, regulation statutory citations, or typographical errors in the regulations.

    3. Benefits

    The Commission believes that market participants and the public will benefit from these ministerial rule amendments since the updated delegations of authority will reflect the Commission's “mission to identify and prosecute violations of law and regulation” and “foster increased efficiencies through knowledge sharing and cross training under unified leadership; thus benefitting the Commission's surveillance mission and enforcement responsibilities.” 15 The amendments will also benefit market participants and the public by eliminating outdated statutory authority references in the regulation text and making limited technical and typographical corrections.

    15See Remarks of Acting Chairman J. Christopher Giancarlo before the 42nd Annual International Futures Industry Conference in Boca Raton, FL, CFTC: A New Direction Forward (March 15, 2017) available at http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opagiancarlo-20.

    4. Section 15(a) Factors

    Protection of market participants and the public. The Commission believes that correcting minor technical and typographical errors in certain parts of its rules and updating certain delegations of authority to accurately reflect recent organizational changes advances its mission to protect market participants and the public.

    Efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets. The Commission believes that the amendments will not materially affect the efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets because the rule changes are ministerial and do not affect the operations of markets.

    Price discovery. The Commission believes that the amendments will not materially affect the price discovery process because the rule changes are ministerial and do not affect the operations of markets.

    Sound risk management practices. The Commission believes that the amendments will not materially affect sound risk management practices because the rule changes are ministerial and do not affect how market participants conduct risk management.

    Other public interest considerations. The Commission has not identified any other public interest consideration.

    List of Subjects 17 CFR Part 5

    Commodity futures, Consumer protection, Foreign currencies, Off-exchange transactions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities, Trade practices.

    17 CFR Part 11

    Administrative practice and procedure, Investigations.

    17 CFR Part 16

    Contract markets, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Swap execution facilities.

    17 CFR Part 17

    Brokers, Clearing members, Foreign brokers, Futures commission merchants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Reporting markets.

    17 CFR Part 18

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Traders.

    17 CFR Part 19

    Bona fide hedge positions, Cotton, Grains, Merchants and dealers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    17 CFR Part 20

    Administrative practice and procedure, Large traders, Physical commodity swaps, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    17 CFR Part 21

    Brokers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Special calls.

    17 CFR Part 48

    Foreign boards of trade, Registration requirements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    17 CFR Part 140

    Authority delegations (government agencies), Conflicts of interest, Organization and functions (government agencies).

    17 CFR Part 150

    Cotton, Grains, Position limits.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission amends 17 CFR chapter I as set forth below:

    PART 5—OFF-EXCHANGE FOREIGN CURRENCY TRANSACTIONS 1. The authority citation for part 5 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6h, 6i, 6k, 6m, 6n, 6o, 8, 9, 9a, 12, 12a, 13b, 13c, 16a, 18, 19, 21, and 23.

    2. In § 5.20, revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 5.20 Special calls for account and transaction information.

    (d) Delegation of authority to the Director of the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight and the Director of the Division of Enforcement. The Commission hereby delegates, until the Commission orders otherwise, to the Director of the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight and the Director of the Division of Enforcement, or to the respective Director's designees, the authority set forth in this section to make special calls for information on controlled accounts from retail foreign exchange dealers, futures commission merchants and from introducing brokers, and to make special calls for information on open contracts in accounts carried or introduced by futures commission merchants, introducing brokers, and foreign brokers. Either Director may submit to the Commission for its consideration any matter that has been delegated pursuant to this section. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prohibit the Commission, at its election, from exercising the authority delegated in this section to the Directors.

    PART 11—RULES RELATING TO INVESTIGATIONS 3. The authority citation for part 11 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 4a(j), 9, 12, 12a(5) and 15.

    4. In § 11.2, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 11.2 Authority to conduct investigations.

    (a) The Director of the Division of Enforcement and members of the Commission staff acting pursuant to his authority and under his direction may conduct such investigations as he deems appropriate to determine whether any persons have violated, are violating, or are about to violate the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended, or the rules, regulations or orders adopted by the Commission pursuant to that Act, or, in accordance with the provisions of section 12(f) of the Act, whether any persons have violated, are violating or are about to violate the laws, rules or regulations relating to futures or options matters administered or enforced by a foreign futures authority, or whether an applicant for registration or designation meets the requisite statutory criteria. For this purpose, the Director may obtain evidence through voluntary statements and submissions, through exercise of inspection powers over boards of trade, reporting traders, and persons required by law to register with the Commission, or when authorized by order of the Commission, through the issuance of subpoenas. The Director shall report to the Commission the results of his investigations and recommend to the Commission such enforcement action as he deems appropriate.

    PART 16—REPORTS BY CONTRACT MARKETS AND SWAP EXECUTION FACILITIES 5. The authority citation for part 16 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 2, 6a, 6c, 6g, 6i, 7, and 7b-3.

    6. Revise § 16.07 to read as follows:
    § 16.07 Delegation of authority to the Director of the Office of Data and Technology and to the Director of the Division of Market Oversight.

    (a) The Commission hereby delegates, until the Commission orders otherwise, the authority set forth in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section to the Director of the Office of Data and Technology, with the concurrence of the Director of the Division of Market Oversight, or such other employee or employees as the Directors each may designate from time to time. The Commission hereby delegates, until the Commission orders otherwise, the authority set forth in paragraph (d) of this section to the Director of the Division of Market Oversight, to be exercised by such Director or by such other employee or employees of such Director as may be designated from time to time by the Director. The Directors may submit to the Commission for its consideration any matter which has been delegated in this paragraph. Nothing in this paragraph prohibits the Commission, at its election, from exercising the authority delegated in this paragraph.

    (b) Pursuant to §§ 16.00(b) and 16.01(d), as applicable, the authority to, with the concurrence of the Director of the Division of Market Oversight or the Director's delegate, determine whether reporting markets must submit data in hard copy, and the time that such data may be submitted where the Director determines that a reporting market is unable to meet the requirements set forth in the regulations.

    (c) Pursuant to §§ 16.00(b)(1), 16.01(d)(1), and 16.06, the authority to, with the concurrence of the Director of the Division Market Oversight or the Director's delegate, approve the format, coding structure and electronic data transmission procedures used by reporting markets.

    (d) Pursuant to § 16.02, the authority to determine the specific content of any daily trade and supporting data report, request that such reports be accompanied by data that identifies or facilitates the identification of each trader for each transaction or order included in a submitted trade and supporting data report, and establish the time for the submission of and the manner and format of such reports.

    PART 17—REPORTS BY REPORTING MARKETS, FUTURES COMMISSION MERCHANTS, CLEARING MEMBERS, AND FOREIGN BROKERS 7. The authority citation for part 17 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 2, 6a, 6c, 6d, 6f, 6g, 6i, 6t, 7, 7a, and 12a.

    8. In § 17.02, revise paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) and (c)(2)(i) and (ii) to read as follows:
    § 17.02 Form, manner and time of filing reports.

    (b) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) The applicable reporting party shall submit a completed Form 102 to the Commission no later than 9 a.m. on the business day following the date on which the special account becomes reportable, or on such other date as directed by special call of the Commission or its designee, and as periodically required thereafter by paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section. Such form shall include all required information, including the names of the owner(s) and controller(s) of each trading account that is not an omnibus account, and that comprises a special account reported on the form, provided that, with respect to such owners(s) and controller(s), information other than the names of such parties may be reported in accordance with the instructions and schedule set forth in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section. Unless otherwise specified by the Commission or its designee, the stated time is Eastern Time for information concerning markets located in that time zone, and Central Time for information concerning all other markets.

    (ii) With respect to the owner(s) and controller(s) of each trading account that is not an omnibus account, and that comprises a special account reported on Form 102, information other than the names of such parties must be provided on Form 102 no later than 9 a.m. on the third business day following the date on which the special account becomes reportable, or on such other date as directed by special call of the Commission or its designee, and as periodically required thereafter by paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section. Unless otherwise specified by the Commission or its designee, the stated time is Eastern Time for information concerning markets located in that time zone, and Central Time for information concerning all other markets.

    (c) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) The clearing member shall submit a completed Form 102 to the Commission no later than 9 a.m. on the business day following the date on which the volume threshold account becomes reportable, or on such other date as directed by special call of the Commission or its designee, and as periodically required thereafter by paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) of this section. Such form shall include all required information, including the names of the owner(s) and controller(s) of each volume threshold account reported on the form that is not an omnibus account, provided that, with respect to such owners(s) and controller(s), information other than the names of such parties may be reported in accordance with the instructions and schedule set forth in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section. Unless otherwise specified by the Commission or its designee, the stated time is Eastern Time for information concerning markets located in that time zone, and Central Time for information concerning all other markets.

    (ii) With respect to the owner(s) and controller(s) of each volume threshold account reported on Form 102 that is not an omnibus account, information other than the names of such parties must be provided on Form 102 no later than 9 a.m. on the third business day following the date on which the volume threshold account becomes reportable, or on such other date as directed by special call of the Commission or its designee, and as periodically required thereafter by paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) of this section. Unless otherwise specified by the Commission or its designee, the stated time is Eastern Time for information concerning markets located in that time zone, and Central Time for information concerning all other markets.

    9. In § 17.03, revise paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) and add paragraph (h) to read as follows:
    § 17.03 Delegation of authority to the Director of the Office of Data and Technology or the Director of the Division of Market Oversight.

    (e) Pursuant to § 17.01(c), the authority shall be designated to the Director of the Office of Data and Technology, in consultation with the Director of the Division of Market Oversight, or such other employee or employees as the Directors each may designate from time to time, to make special calls on Form 71 for omnibus volume threshold account originators and omnibus reportable sub-account originators information as set forth in § 17.01(c).

    (f) Pursuant to § 17.01(e), the authority shall be designated to the Director of the Office of Data and Technology, in consultation with the Director of the Division of Market Oversight, or such other employee or employees as the Directors each may designate from time to time, to request information required to be filed by futures commission merchants, clearing members, foreign brokers, and reporting markets as set forth in § 17.01.

    (g) Pursuant to § 17.02(b)(4), the authority shall be designated to the Director of the Division of Market Oversight to determine the date on which each futures commission merchant, clearing member, or foreign broker shall update or otherwise resubmit every Form 102 that it has submitted to the Commission for each of its special accounts.

    (h) Pursuant to § 17.02(c)(4), the authority shall be designated to the Director of the Division of Market Oversight to determine the date on which each clearing member shall update or otherwise resubmit every Form 102 that it has submitted to the Commission for each of its volume threshold accounts.

    PART 18—REPORTS BY TRADERS 10. The authority citation for part 18 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 2, 4, 5, 6a, 6c, 6f, 6g, 6i, 6k, 6m, 6n, 6t, 12a, and 19.

    11. Revise § 18.03 to read as follows:
    § 18.03 Delegation of authority.

    (a) The Commission hereby delegates, until the Commission orders otherwise, the authority to make special calls on traders for information as set forth in §§ 18.00 and 18.05 to the Director of the Division of Enforcement, or such other employee or employees as the Director may designate from time to time.

    (b) The Commission hereby delegates, until the Commission orders otherwise, the authority to make special calls for information as set forth in § 18.04 to the Director of the Office of Data and Technology to be exercised by the Director, in consultation with the Director of the Division of Market Oversight, or such other employee or employees as the Directors each may designate from time to time.

    (c) The Directors of the Division of Enforcement and Office of Data and Technology may submit to the Commission for its consideration any matter which has been delegated in this section.

    (d) Nothing in this section prohibits the Commission, at its election, from exercising the authority delegated in this section.

    PART 19—REPORTS BY PERSONS HOLDING BONA FIDE HEDGE POSITIONS PURSUANT TO § 1.3(z) OF THIS CHAPTER AND BY MERCHANTS AND DEALERS IN COTTON 12. The authority citation for part 19 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 6g(a), 6i, and 12a(5).

    13. In § 19.00, revise paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
    § 19.00 General provisions.

    (a) * * *

    (3) All persons holding or controlling positions for future delivery that are reportable pursuant to § 15.00(p)(1) of this chapter who have received a special call for series `04 reports from the Commission or its designee. Filings in response to a special call shall be made within one business day of receipt of the special call unless otherwise specified in the call. For the purposes of this paragraph, the Commission hereby delegates to the Director of the Division of Enforcement, or such other employee or employees as the Director may designate from time to time, authority to issue calls for series `04 reports.

    PART 20—LARGE TRADER REPORTING FOR PHYSICAL COMMODITY SWAPS 14. The authority citation for part 20 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 5, 6, 6a, 6c, 6f, 6g, 6t, 12a, 19.

    15. In § 20.5, revise paragraphs (a)(4) and (b) to read as follows:
    § 20.5 Series S filings.

    (a) * * *

    (4) Change updates. If any change causes the information filed by a clearing member or swap dealer on a Form 102 for a consolidated account to no longer be accurate, then such clearing member or swap dealer shall file an updated Form 102 with the Commission no later than 9 a.m. on the business day after such change occurs, or on such other date as directed by special call of the Commission, provided that, a clearing member or swap dealer may stop providing change updates for a Form 102 that it has submitted to the Commission for any consolidated account upon notifying the Commission or its designee that the account in question is no longer reportable as a consolidated account and has not been reportable as a consolidated account for the past six months. Unless otherwise specified by the Commission or its designee, the stated time is Eastern Time for information concerning markets located in that time zone, and Central Time for information concerning all other markets.

    (b) 40S filing. Every person subject to books or records requirement under § 20.6 shall after a special call upon such person by the Commission file with the Commission a 40S filing at such time and place as directed in the call. A 40S filing shall consist of the submission of a Form 40, which shall be completed by such person as if any references to futures or option contracts were references to paired swaps or swaptions as defined in § 20.1.

    16. Revise § 20.8 to read as follows:
    § 20.8 Delegation of authority.

    (a) The Commission hereby delegates, until it orders otherwise, to the Director of the Division of Enforcement, or such other employee or employees as the Director may designate from time to time, the authority in § 20.6(d) for issuing a special call.

    (b) The Commission hereby delegates, until it orders otherwise, to the Director of the Division of Market Oversight or such other employee or employees as the Director may designate from time to time, the authority in § 20.10 for determining the described compliance schedules.

    (c) The Commission hereby delegates, until it orders otherwise, to the Director of the Office of Data and Technology, in consultation with the Director of the Division of Market Oversight, or such other employee or employees as the Directors each may designate from time to time, the authority:

    (1) In § 20.5(a)(3) for issuing a special call for a 102S filing; and

    (2) In § 20.5(b) for issuing a special call for a 40S filing.

    (d) The Commission hereby delegates, until it orders otherwise, to the Director of the Office of Data and Technology, with the concurrence of the Director of the Division of Market Oversight, or such other employee or employees as the Directors each may designate from time to time, the authority, in § 20.7, for providing instructions or determining the format, coding structure, and electronic data transmission procedures for submitting data records and any other information required under this part.

    (e) The Directors of the Division of Enforcement, Division of Market Oversight, and the Office of Data and Technology may submit to the Commission for its consideration any matter which has been delegated in this section.

    (f) Nothing in this section prohibits the Commission, at its election, from exercising the authority delegated in this section.

    PART 21—SPECIAL CALLS 17. The authority citation for part 21 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 2a, 4, 6a, 6c, 6f, 6g, 6i, 6k, 6m, 6n, 7, 7a, 12a, 19 and 21.

    18. Revise § 21.05 to read as follows:
    § 21.05 Delegation of authority.

    The Commission hereby delegates, until the Commission orders otherwise, the special call authority set forth in §§ 21.01 and 21.02 to the Director of the Division of Enforcement, or such other employee or employees as the Director may designate from time to time. The Director of the Division of Enforcement may submit to the Commission for its consideration any matter which has been delegated in this paragraph. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prohibit the Commission, at its election, from exercising the authority delegated in this section.

    PART 48—REGISTRATION OF FOREIGN BOARDS OF TRADE 19. The authority citation for part 48 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 5, 6 and 12a, unless otherwise noted.

    20. Add § 48.11 to read as follows:
    § 48.11 Delegation of authority.

    (a) The Commission hereby delegates, until it orders otherwise, to the Director of the Division of Market Oversight, or such other employee or employees as the Director may designate from time to time, the authority:

    (1) In § 48.7, to request additional information and documentation in connection with an application for registration;

    (2) In § 48.9(a)(1), to notify a registered foreign board of trade that it or the clearing organization has failed to satisfy any registration requirements or conditions for registration;

    (3) In § 48.9(c), to request that a registered foreign board of trade file with the Commission a written demonstration, containing such supporting data, information, and documents, in such form and manner and within such timeframe as the Commission may specify, that the foreign board of trade or clearing organization is in compliance with the registration requirements and/or conditions for registration; and

    (4) In § 48.10, to notify a foreign board of trade whether additional time is needed for staff to complete its review of policy or other issues pertinent to the additional contracts, or that the contract can be made available for trading by direct access.

    (b) The Director of the Division of Market Oversight may submit to the Commission for its consideration any matter which has been delegated in this section.

    (c) Nothing in this section prohibits the Commission, at its election, from exercising the authority delegated in this section.

    PART 140—ORGANIZATION, FUNCTIONS, AND PROCEDURES OF THE COMMISSION 21. The authority citation for part 140 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 2(a)(12), 12a, 13(c), 13(d), 13(e), and 16(b).

    22. In § 140.72, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 140.72 Delegation of authority to disclose confidential information to a registered entity, swap execution facility, swap data repository, registered futures association or self-regulatory organization.

    (a) Pursuant to the authority granted under sections 2(a)(11), 8a(5) and 8a(6) of the Act, the Commission hereby delegates, until such time as the Commission orders otherwise, to the Executive Director, the Director of the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, the Director of the Division of Clearing and Risk, the Chief Accountant, the General Counsel, the Director of the Division of Market Oversight, the Director of the Division of Enforcement, the Chief Economist of the Office of the Chief Economist, the Director of the Office of International Affairs, or such other employee or employees as the General Counsel, Directors, Chief Accountant or Chief Economist each may designate from time to time, the authority to disclose to an official of any registered entity, swap execution facility, swap data repository, registered futures association, or self-regulatory organization as defined in section 3(a)(26) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, any information necessary or appropriate to effectuate the purposes of the Act, including, but not limited to, the full facts concerning any transaction or market operation, including the names of the parties thereto. This authority to disclose shall be based on a determination that the transaction or market operation disrupts or tends to disrupt any market or is otherwise harmful or against the best interests of producers, consumers, or investors or that disclosure is necessary or appropriate to effectuate the purposes of the Act.

    23. In § 140.73, revise paragraph (a) introductory text to read as follows:
    § 140.73 Delegation of authority to disclose information to United States, States, and foreign government agencies and foreign futures authorities.

    (a) Pursuant to sections 2(a)(11), 8a(5) and 8(e) of the Act, the Commission hereby delegates, until such time as the Commission orders otherwise, to the General Counsel, the Director of the Division of Enforcement, the Director of the Division of Market Oversight, the Director of the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, the Director of the Division of Clearing and Risk, the Chief Economist of the Office of the Chief Economist, the Director of the Office of International Affairs, or such other employee or employees as the General Counsel, Chief Economist or Directors listed in this section each may designate from time to time the authority to furnish information in the possession of the Commission obtained in connection with the administration of the Act, upon written request, to:

    24. Revise § 140.74 to read as follows:
    § 140.74 Delegation of authority to issue special calls for Series 03 Reports.

    (a) The Commodity Futures Trading Commission hereby delegates, until such time as the Commission orders otherwise, to the Director of the Division of Enforcement, or such other employee or employees as the Director may designate from time to time, the authority to issue special calls for series 03 reports under § 18.00 of this chapter.

    (b) The Director of the Division of Enforcement may submit any matter which has been delegated to the Director under this section to the Commission for its consideration.

    (c) Nothing in this section may prohibit the Commission, at its election, from exercising the authority delegated to the Director of the Division of Enforcement under paragraph (a) of this section.

    25. Revise § 140.97 to read as follows:
    § 140.97 Delegation of authority regarding requests for classification of positions as bona fide hedging.

    (a) The Commodity Futures Trading Commission hereby delegates, until such time as the Commission orders otherwise, to the Director of the Division of Enforcement, or such other employee or employees as the Director may designate from time to time, all functions reserved to the Commission in §§ 1.47 and 1.48 of this chapter.

    (b) The Director of the Division of Enforcement may submit any matter which has been delegated to the Director under paragraph (a) of this section to the Commission for its consideration.

    (c) Nothing in this section may prohibit the Commission, at its election, from exercising the authority delegated to the Director of the Division of Enforcement under paragraph (a) of this section.

    PART 150—LIMITS ON POSITIONS 26. The authority citation for part 150 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 6a, 6c, and 12a(5).

    27. In § 150.3, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 150.3 Exemptions.

    (b) Call for information. Upon call by the Commission or the Director of the Division of Enforcement, or such other employee or employees as the Director may designate from time to time, any person claiming an exemption from speculative position limits under this section must provide to the Commission or the Division of Enforcement such information as specified in the call relating to the positions owned or controlled by that person; trading done pursuant to the claimed exemption; the futures, options or cash market positions which support the claim of exemption; and the relevant business relationships supporting a claim of exemption.

    28. In § 150.4, revise paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 150.4 Aggregation of positions.

    (e) Delegation of authority. (1) The Commission hereby delegates, until it orders otherwise, to the Director of the Division of Enforcement, or such other employee or employees as the Director may designate from time to time, the authority:

    (i) In paragraph (b)(8)(iv) of this section to call for additional information from a person claiming the exemption in paragraph (b)(8) of this section.

    (ii) In paragraph (c)(3) of this section to call for additional information from a person claiming an aggregation exemption under this section.

    (2) The Commission hereby delegates, until it orders otherwise, to the Director of the Office of Data and Technology, with the concurrence of the Director of the Division of Enforcement, or such other employee or employees as the Directors each may designate from time to time, the authority in paragraph (d) of this section to provide instructions or determine the format, coding structure, and electronic data transmission procedures for submitting data records and any other information required under this part.

    (3) The Directors of the Division of Enforcement and the Office of Data and Technology may submit to the Commission for its consideration any matter which has been delegated in this section.

    (4) Nothing in this section prohibits the Commission, at its election, from exercising the authority delegated in this section.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 20, 2017, by the Commission. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission. Note:

    The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

    Appendix to Commission Delegated Authority Provisions and Technical Amendments—Commission Voting Summary

    On this matter, Acting Chairman Giancarlo and Commissioner Bowen voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.

    [FR Doc. 2017-13243 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0223] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Zimovia Strait, Wrangell, AK AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary special local regulation to enable vessel movement restrictions for certain waters of the Zimovia Strait. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Wrangell Harbor during power boat races on July 4, 2017. This regulation would prohibit persons and vessels from transiting through, mooring, or anchoring within the specified race area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Southeast Alaska or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 3 p.m. on July 4, 2017 through 7 p.m. on July 4, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0223 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this rule, call or email LT Kristi Sloane, Sector Juneau, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard: telephone 907-463-2846, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations § Section U.S.C. United States Code COTP Captain of the Port II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it would be impracticable. The Wrangell Chamber of Commerce will be conducting power boat races from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. on July 4, 2017 for the Wrangell 4th of July Celebration. The boat races will be taking place approximately 100 yards off of the city dock in Wrangell, AK. The event organizers did not finalize the location of the power boat races in sufficient time for the Coast Guard to solicit public comments.

    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable for the reasons described above.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Commander, Seventeenth District has determined that potential risks of collision, allision, and wake damage associated with power boat racing will be a safety concern for any vessels (other than the participants) entering the race course. Boat races typically result in vessel and spectator congestion in the proximity of the race course. Vessel movement restrictions are necessary to ensure spectators remain an adequate distance from the specified race area thereby providing unencumbered access for emergency response craft in the event of a race-related emergency. This rule establishes a specified race area and ensurse the safety of this marine event by prohibiting persons and vessel operators from entering, transiting or remaining within the designated race zone during times of enforcement.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a special local regulation to restrict vessel movement within the race area from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. on July 4, 2017 to include Wrangell Harbor entrance and an area extending north along the shoreline approximately 600 yards. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the special local regulation without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the special local regulation. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around the proposed race area which would impact a small designated area in Wrangell Harbor for 4 hours. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the race area, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the race area.

    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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves implementation of a special local regulation lasting 4 hours that would prohibit entry within 100 yards of the event area. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

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

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

    33 U.S.C 1233.

    2. Add § 100.35T17-0223 to read as follows:
    § 100.35T17-0223 Special Local Regulation; Wrangell 4th of July Celebration Boat Races, Wrangell, AK.

    (a) Regulated area. The following area is specified as a race area: All waters of Zimovia Straits, Wrangell, AK North of Wrangell Harbor entrance connecting the following points: 56°28.055 N., 132°23.154 W., and 56°28.077 N., 132°23.074 W., until reaching the northwestern most end of Wrangell City pier at a line connecting the following points: 56°28.299 N., 132°23.454 W., and 56°28.276 N., 132°23.495 W.

    (b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR part 100, the regulated area shall be closed immediately prior to, during and immediately after the event to all persons and vessels not participating in the event and authorized by the event sponsor.

    (c) Authorization. All persons or vessels who desire to enter the designated race area created in this section while it is enforced must obtain permission from the on-scene patrol craft on VHF Ch 9.

    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. on July 4, 2017.

    Dated: June 15, 2017. M.F. McAllister, Commander, RADM, U.S. Coast Guard, Seventeenth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13208 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0523] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Long Creek, Hempstead, NY AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Loop Parkway Bridge across Long Creek, mile 0.7, at Hempstead, New York. This action is necessary in order to facilitate an annual fireworks display. The deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed position for approximately two and one half hours.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 9:30 p.m. on July 8, 2017 to 11:59 p.m. on July 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0523 is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email James M. Moore, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 212-514-4334, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Town of Hempstead Department of Public Safety submitted and the bridge owner, the New York State Department of Transportation, concurred with a temporary deviation request from the normal operating schedule to facilitate a public fireworks event.

    The Loop Parkway Bridge, mile 0.7, across Long Creek, has a vertical clearance of 21 feet at mean high water and 23 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.799(f).

    This temporary deviation will allow the Loop Parkway Bridge to remain closed from 9:30 p.m. through 11:59 p.m. on July 8, 2017 with a rain date of July 9, 2017. The waterway is used primarily by seasonal recreational vessels and occasional tug/barge traffic. Coordination with waterway users has indicated no objections to this short-term closure of the draw.

    Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. Additionally, there are alternate routes for vessels to pass.

    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 20, 2017. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13246 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0327] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Danvers River, Beverly, MA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for the navigable waters within a 300-yard radius of the swing span portion of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)/AMTRAK Bridge, at mile 0.05 on the Danvers River, between Salem and Beverly, Massachusetts. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels and the marine environment from potential hazards created during removal and replacement of the swing span portion of the MBTA Railroad Bridge. When enforced, this regulation prohibits entry of vessels or people into the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Boston or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective without actual notice from June 26, 2017 through November 1, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from June 20, 2017 through June 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0327 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 Mark Cutter, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Boston, telephone 617-223-4000, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register MBTA Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority NAD 83 North American Datum 83 NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On March 23, 2017, Sector Boston was made aware of a bridge rehabilitation project that includes the replacement of the swing span portion of MBTA Railroad Bridge, which spans the Danvers River in Beverly and Salem, Massachusetts. The COTP Boston has determined that the potential hazards associated with the bridge rehabilitation project will be a safety concern for anyone within the work area.

    The project is scheduled to begin on June 5, 2017 and be completed by November 1, 2017. During this project, removal and replacement of the swing span will take place. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The safety zone will be enforced during different periods when work barges and gantry cranes will be placed in the navigable channel or when other hazards to navigation arise. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via marine channel 16 (VHF-FM) 24 hours in advance to any period of enforcement or as soon as practicable in response to an emergency. If the project is completed prior to November 1, 2017, enforcement of the safety zone will be suspended and notice given via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The late finalization of project details did not give the Coast Guard enough time to publish an NPRM, take public comments, and issue a final rule before the construction work is set to begin. It would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay promulgating this rule as it is necessary to protect the safety of the public and waterway users.

    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest for the same reasons specified above.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal basis for this temporary rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP Boston has determined that potential hazards associated with the bridge rehabilitation project starting on June 5, 2017 and continuing through November 1, 2017 will be a safety concern for anyone within the work zone. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment within the safety zone while the bridge rehabilitation project is completed.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from June 5, 2017 through November 1, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters from surface to bottom of the Danvers River, MA within a 300-yard radius of the swing span portion of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)/AMTRAK Bridge. The duration of the zone is intended to protect people, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the bridge rehabilitation project. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

    The Coast Guard will notify the public and local mariners of this safety zone through appropriate means, which may include, but are not limited to, publication in the Federal Register, the Local Notice to Mariners, and Broadcast Notice to Mariners via marine Channel 16 (VHF-FM) in advance of any scheduled enforcement period. The regulatory text we are enforcing appears at the end of this document.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    The Coast Guard has determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone only impacts a small designated area of the Danvers River, (2) the zone will only be enforced when work barges and gantry cranes will be placed in the navigable channel during removal and replacement of the swing span or if necessitated by an emergency, (3) persons or vessels desiring to enter the safety zone may do so with permission from the COTP Boston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will notify the public of the enforcement of this rule via appropriate means, such as via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for all of the reasons discussed in the REGULATORY PLANNING AND REVIEW Section, 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 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such 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 this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves enforcing a temporary safety zone during the removal and replacement of the swing span MBTA Railroad Bridge, which spans the Danvers River in Beverly and Salem, Massachusetts. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) for Categorically Excluded Actions will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T01-0327 to read as follows:
    § 165.T01-0327 Safety Zone—Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority/AMTRAK Bridge—Danvers River, Beverly, MA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone. All navigable waters of the Danvers River, MA within a 300-yard radius of the swing span portion of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)/AMTRAK Bridge in position 42°32.355′ N, 070°53.28′ W (NAD 83).

    (b) Effective and enforcement period. This section is effective on June 20, 2017, through November 1, 2017, but will only be enforced during removal and replacement of the swing span portion of the MBTA Railroad Bridge or other instances which may cause a hazard to navigation, when deemed necessary by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Boston.

    (c) Regulations. When this safety zone is enforced, the regulations in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section, along with those contained in 33 CFR 165.23 apply:

    (1) No person or vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP) or the COTP's representatives. However, any vessel that is granted permission by the COTP or the COTP's representatives must proceed through the area with caution and operate at a speed no faster than that speed necessary to maintain a safe course, unless otherwise required by the Navigation Rules.

    (2) Any person or vessel permitted to enter the safety zone shall comply with the directions and orders of the COTP or the COTP's representatives. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing lights, or other means, the operator of a vessel within the zone shall proceed as directed. Any person or vessel within the safety zone shall exit the zone when directed by the COTP or the COTP's representatives.

    (3) To obtain permissions required by this regulation, individuals may reach the COTP or a COTP representative via Channel 16 (VHF-FM) or 617-223-5757 (Sector Boston Command Center).

    (d) Penalties. Those who violate this section are subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232.

    (e) Notification. Coast Guard Sector Boston will give notice through the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners for the purpose of enforcement of temporary safety zone. Sector Boston will also notify the public to the greatest extent possible of any period in which the Coast Guard will suspend enforcement of this safety zone.

    (f) COTP representative. The COTP's representative may be any Coast Guard commissioned, or petty officer or any federal, state, or local law enforcement officer who has been designated by the COTP to act on the COTP's behalf. The COTP's representative may be on a Coast Guard vessel, a Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel, a state or local law enforcement vessel, or a location on shore.

    C.C. Gelzer, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Boston.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13253 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0760; FRL-9963-70-Region 5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; CFR Update AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a request submitted by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) on December 13, 2016, to revise the Indiana state implementation plan (SIP). The submission revises and updates the Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) definition of “References to the Code of Federal Regulations,” from the 2013 edition to the 2015 edition.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on August 25, 2017, unless EPA receives adverse written comments by July 26, 2017. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0760 at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6031, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

    I. What is the background for this action? II. What revision did the state request be incorporated into the SIP? III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the background for this action?

    On May 25, 2016, IDEM published a “Notice of Public Information” in several newspapers, and on its Web site at http://www.in.gov/idem/6777.htm, providing a 30-day public comment period on the proposed revision to its SIP concerning update to the definition of “References to the Code of Federal Regulations.” A public hearing was held on August 10, 2016. IDEM did not receive any comments.

    On December 13, 2016, IDEM submitted a request to revise the definition of “References to the Code of Federal Regulations” in SIP rule 326 IAC 1-1-3 to mean the 2015 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

    II. What revision did the state request be incorporated into the SIP?

    IDEM has requested that EPA approve the Indiana Administrative Code rule revision:

    Rule 326 IAC 1-1-3, definition of “References to Code of Federal Regulations”.

    IDEM updated the reference to the CFR in 326 IAC 1-1-3 from the 2013 edition to the 2015 edition. This is solely an administrative change that allows Indiana to reference a more current version of the CFR. By amending 326 IAC 1-1-3 to reference the 2015 version of the CFR, the provision in Title 326 of the IAC will be consistent with the applicable CFR regulations as of July 30, 2015.

    III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving as a revision to the Indiana SIP an update of 326 IAC 1-1-3, “References to the Code of Federal Regulations.”

    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective August 25, 2017 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by July 26, 2017. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective August 25, 2017.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Indiana regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

    • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

    • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

    • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

    • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

    • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

    • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

    • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    This rule is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175, nor will it impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 25, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 1, 2017. Robert A. Kaplan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52, is amended as follows:

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. In § 52.770 the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entry for 1-1-3 “References to the Code of Federal Regulations” under Article 1, Rule 1 “Provisions Applicable Throughout Title 326” to read as follows:
    § 52.770 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Indiana Regulations Indiana citation Subject Indiana
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA approval date Notes
    Article 1. General Provisions Rule 1. Provisions Applicable Throughout Title 326 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1-1-3 References to the Code of Federal Regulations 12/7/2016 6/26/2017, [insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-13192 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 441 [EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0693; FRL-9957-10-OW] RIN 2040-AF26 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Dental Category Correction

    In rule document 2017-12338, beginning on page 27154, in the issue of Wednesday, June 14, 2017, make the following correction:

    § 441.20 General definitions [Corrected]

    On page 27177, in the second column, in the 18th line of paragraph (iii), “June 14, 2017” should read “June 14, 2027”.

    [FR Doc. C1-2017-12338 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] . BILLING CODE 1301-00-D
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of the Secretary 43 CFR Part 100 [167A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900] RIN 1093-AA20 Waiving Departmental Review of Appraisals and Valuations of Indian Property AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In 2016, Congress passed the Indian Trust Asset Reform Act (ITARA), which requires the Secretary of the Interior to establish and publish in the Federal Register minimum qualifications for individuals to prepare appraisals and valuations of Indian trust property. This rule establishes the minimum qualifications and implements provisions of ITARA that require the Secretary to accept appraisals and valuations without additional review or approval under certain circumstances.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on July 26, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Elizabeth Appel, Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action—Indian Affairs at [email protected] or (202) 273-4680.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. Summary of Final Rule III. Responses to Comments IV. Procedural Requirements A. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866) B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Takings (E.O. 12630) F. Federalism (E.O. 13132) G. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) H. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175) I. Paperwork Reduction Act J. National Environmental Policy Act K. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211) L. Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (E.O. 13771) I. Background

    On June 22, 2016, the Indian Trust Asset Reform Act, Public Law 114-178, was signed into law. Title III of the Act requires the Department of the Interior (Interior) to establish minimum qualifications for individuals to prepare appraisals and valuations of Indian trust property and allow an appraisal or valuation by a qualified person to be considered final without being reviewed or approved by Interior.

    On September 22, 2016, Interior published a proposed rule (81 FR 65319) to implement ITARA and requested public comments for 60 days. This final rule implements ITARA and responds to the comments received on the proposed rule. This rule establishes the minimum qualifications for individuals to prepare appraisals and valuations of Indian trust property and allows an appraisal or valuation by a qualified appraiser to be considered final without being reviewed or approved by Interior.

    The Act also requires appraisals and valuations of Indian trust property to be administered by a single administrative entity within Interior. This rule is finalized under the Office of the Secretary within the Department of the Interior to allow for flexibility if another entity or agency within Interior is designated the single entity to administer appraisals and valuations of Indian trust property.

    II. Summary of Final Rule

    This rule establishes a new Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part to establish the minimum qualifications for appraisers, employed by or under contract with an Indian tribe or individual Indian, to become qualified appraisers who may prepare an appraisal or valuation of Indian property that will, in certain circumstances, be accepted by the Department without further review or approval. The final rule clarifies that, because the Department is not reviewing and approving the appraisal or valuation, it is not liable for any deficiency or inaccuracy in the appraisal or valuation.

    Subpart A, General Provisions, defines terms used in the regulation, describes the purpose of the regulation, and provides the standard Paperwork Reduction Act compliance statement. The terms are defined to include, in the context of this regulation, any property that the U.S. Government holds in trust or restricted status for an Indian tribe or individual Indian, to include not just land, but also natural resources or other assets. Other important terms include “appraisal,” “valuation,” and “qualified appraiser.” Consistent with the statutory direction, the purpose of the regulations is written broadly, to include appraisals or valuations of any Indian trust property, including:

    • Appraisals and valuations of real property;

    • Appraisals and valuations of timber, minerals, or other property to the extent they contribute to the value of the whole property (for use in appraisals and valuations of real property); and

    • Appraisals and valuations of timber, minerals, or other property separate from appraisals and valuations of real property.

    Subpart B, Appraiser Qualifications, establishes the minimum qualifications an appraiser must meet to be considered a “qualified appraiser” and establishes that the Secretary must verify that the appraiser meets those minimum qualifications.

    This subpart requires that the verification information be submitted contemporaneously with the appraisal or valuation so that the Secretary can verify that the appraiser is a qualified appraiser at that point in time.

    Subpart C, Appraisals and Valuations, notes that some transactions requiring Secretarial approval under titles 25 and 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations (e.g., 25 CFR part 162, Leases and Permits; 25 CFR part 169, Rights-of-Way on Indian Land) require the submission of appraisals and valuations to the Department. This subpart also sets out the circumstances in which the Department will forego review and approval of the appraisal or valuation. The rule requires submission of the appraisal or valuation to the Department regardless of whether the Department will be reviewing and approving the appraisal or valuation. This requirement is included because the Department must use the results of the appraisal or valuation in completing the transaction requiring Secretarial approval.

    The rule requires the Department to forego review and approval of the appraisal or valuation and consider the appraisal or valuation final if three conditions are met: (1) The appraisal or valuation was completed by a qualified appraiser; (2) the Indian tribe or individual Indian expressed their intent to waive Departmental review and approval; and (3) no owner of any interest in the Indian property objects to the use of the appraisal or valuation without Departmental review and approval. The first condition is clearly required by ITARA. The second condition is implied by ITARA. The number of individual Indian owners of fractionated tracts that must express their intent to waive Departmental review and approval, under the second condition, would depend upon the underlying title 43 or title 25 requirements. For example, if the underlying transaction is a right-of-way, then the owners of a majority of the interests in the tract must express their intent to waive Departmental review and approval, consistent with the general consent requirements in 25 CFR part 169. The third condition, that no Indian property owner objects, is necessary to address situations where one or more owners of the tract still want Departmental review and approval of the appraisal or valuation, consistent with our trust responsibility to all owners of the Indian trust property.

    This subpart exempts certain transactions, thereby requiring Departmental review of the appraisal or valuation. The exempted transactions include transactions under any legislation expressly requiring the Department to review and approve an appraisal or valuation, such as the Land Buy Back Program under the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-291), and purchase at probate under 43 CFR part 30, because the judge will not be in a position to verify an appraiser's qualifications. The Department will also review any appraisal for an acquisition by the United States.

    III. Responses to Comments A. General Support for the Rule

    Several tribes stated their support of the ITARA provision to eliminate the current requirement for Office of Appraisal Services review to reduce delays. One tribe noted the importance of the Department accepting and approving, without further review or delay, any appraisal or valuation that complies with the appraiser's qualification standards and is satisfactory to the Indian property owner. Another tribe stated its support for the minimum qualifications for appraisal services.

    Response: This rule allows the Department to carry out Congress's specific direction in ITARA that the Department should not review or approve appraisals submitted by qualified appraisers.

    B. Minimum Qualifications for Appraisers

    One tribe stated that the qualifications for individuals to prepare appraisals and valuations of Indian property should be the same that apply to professional appraisers in the private sector.

    Response: The Department agrees with this comment and has strived to match the requirements for qualified appraisers to those requirements currently in place for its own appraisers and contracted appraisers.

    One tribe stated the procedures should require: (1) Departmental approval of appraisers who satisfy minimum qualifications; (2) Departmental review within a specified period with a default of automatic approval; (3) minimum requirements for qualifications of review appraisers.

    Response: This rule establishes minimum qualifications for appraisers conducting appraisals that do not need Departmental review. The Department will review the appraiser's qualifications to determine whether the appraiser meets the minimum qualifications when the appraisal is submitted. The tribe's request for a Departmental review of the appraiser's qualifications within a specified period, with a default of automatic approval, is not necessary because the process of ensuring an appraiser meets the minimal qualifications is intended to be less burdensome and faster than a review of the appraisal.

    One commenter stated that the rule's minimum qualifications for appraisers should be more stringent and the rule should require appraisals to be performed by a multidisciplinary group of experts who: (1) Meet all the criteria in the rule; (2) have completed a mandatory valuation ethics training course; and (3) have collaborated with Native American groups to better understand the cultural value of the lands in question. This commenter stated that the appraisal must account for cultural values of those with sacred ties to the ecosystems and lands. The commenter reasoned that the process of assigning value to an area is subjective, and using the knowledge and methodologies of a diverse group of experts and stakeholders would prevent a single individual from the power to assign a monetary value to sacred land.

    Response: The final rule does not incorporate the commenter's suggestions because an appraisal or valuation is, by definition, the opinion as to a property's value of a single person qualified to give such an opinion, rather than, as suggested by the commenter, the opinion of a multi-disciplinary team. The final rule's requirements for State licensure, good standing, and compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) address the commenter's other concerns.

    The Appraisal Institute stated that requiring generally accepted standards in the appraiser qualification criteria would enhance credibility and reliability of the appraisals being performed.

    Response: Section 100.200 of the rule requires qualified appraisers to meet USPAP rules and provisions applicable to appraisers, which are generally accepted standards; therefore, no change to the final rule is necessary in response to this comment.

    1. State Licensing as a Qualification

    Several tribes strongly objected to relying on State licensing for appraisers and a determination of good standing by State regulatory agencies, and asserted that the rule should instead rely on tribal licensing and require compliance with tribal laws and regulations.

    Response: Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), 12 U.S.C. 3331 et seq., each U.S. State or territory has a real estate appraiser regulatory agency that is responsible for licensing and certifying real estate appraisers and supervising their appraisal-related activities, as required by Federal law. The Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council has oversight authority over the States and The Appraisal Foundation to ensure the minimum qualifying criteria to license and certify real estate appraisers are implemented and that appraisers are held to a professional set of ethical standards. The final rule does not require compliance with tribal appraiser certification in lieu of State certification because, currently, State certification programs are the industry standard under FIRREA. In fact, the Department is unaware of a currently operating tribal appraiser certification program and requires State certification of its own appraisers and contractor appraisers. Tribes are welcome to adopt their own standards for appraisers; however, for the Department to accept the appraisal or valuation without further review, it would have to review the tribe's standards contemporaneously with the appraisal. In other words, only the State license and standards allow the Department to accept an appraisal without further review at this time.

    The DOI Self-Governance Advisory Committee and several tribes stated that tribes should be permitted to adopt their own standards consistent with USPAP and Federal law to meet the unique needs tribal Nations have in assuming appraisal responsibilities.

    Response: This rule provides that it will accept an appraisal or valuation without Departmental review only if the appraiser is a “qualified appraiser,” meaning, among other things, that the appraiser has a Certified General Appraiser license in the State in which the property is located, and complies with USPAP provisions applicable to appraisers. Tribes are welcome to adopt their own standards for appraisers; however, for the Department to accept the appraisal or valuation without further review, it would have to review the tribe's standards contemporaneously with the appraiser qualifications that are being submitted with the appraisal under this part.

    A tribal member suggested that tribes should have their own appraisal process so they don't have to pay $2,500 for an appraisal that reveals a property value of much less.

    Response: This rule will allow for the use of qualified appraisers at whatever cost they are available. To the extent the commenter is addressing the regulation's requirement to use appraisers qualified to conduct commercial appraisals even where the property may only require qualifications to conduct a residential appraisal, it is important to keep in mind that this rule does not require such appraiser qualifications in all instances. Rather, this rule requires those heightened appraiser qualifications only if the appraisal is being submitted for Departmental acceptance without further Departmental review.

    2. General Appraiser Certification as a Qualification

    One tribe stated that not all appraisers have the General Appraiser certification (e.g., residential appraisers), and that it is an additional burden to require it because it is hard to find appraisers on reservations and will be even harder to find appraisers with the General Appraiser certification. This tribe stated that, instead, the type of land being appraised should drive the qualifications for the appraiser. Likewise, another tribe stated that the use of a “Certified General Appraiser” in certain geographic areas, for example in the State of Oklahoma, would be futile and suggests instead requiring use of a “licensed appraiser.” Alternatively, the tribe suggests adding that the requirement for a Certified General Appraiser be waived if the tribe has made diligent efforts but has been unable to procure the services of a Certified General Appraiser.

    Response: The General Appraiser license is required for a “qualified appraiser” because these are appraisers that can submit any appraisal without further Departmental review or approval. If an appraiser has a license specific to residential appraisals, the appraiser may conduct its residential appraisals under the license, but the Department must review the appraisal to ensure that the appraisal is within the scope of the appraiser's license.

    3. Qualification for Specialty Appraisals

    A tribe stated that the appraiser should have expertise in valuation of resources involved in the appraisal. Likewise, the Indian Land Tenure Foundation noted that the appraiser performing specialty appraisals (timber and minerals) must have demonstrated the specialized skills.

    Response: Section 100.200(a)(3) requires compliance with USPAP competency requirements applicable to the type of property being appraised or valued, including competency in timber and mineral valuations if applicable to the subject property.

    A tribal commenter stated that the rule should require appraisers to have an understanding of general Federal Indian law and special obligations under tribe-specific relationships.

    Response: The rule does not impose the requirement for appraisers to have expertise in Federal Indian law or tribal relationships because this expertise is not necessary to conduct an accurate appraisal and, if required, would likely narrow the universe of qualified appraisers to an untenable supply level.

    4. Other Certifications

    A tribal member suggested requiring appraisers to be certified under the Certified Federal Surveyor Program from the Bureau of Land Management.

    Response: The final rule does not incorporate this suggestion because the Certified Federal Surveyor program applies to surveyors, rather than appraisers.

    5. Professional Designation of Appraisers

    The Appraisal Institute urged the Department to include in the minimum qualifications for appraisers recognition of professional designations from nationally recognized appraisal organizations that confer competency-based designations. The commenter suggested that a professional designation is necessary to ensure appraisers have experience with appraisal review because the Department will not be reviewing the appraiser's appraisals. The Appraisal Institute stated that eliminating Departmental review of the appraisal dramatically increases risks and likened the practice to performing accounting functions without any audit processes.

    Response: The final rule does not impose the additional requirement requested by the commenter for professional designation from a nationally recognized appraisal organization because the rule already requires qualified appraisers to have experience with appraisal review, as demonstrated by a State-issued appraisal license, good standing with the State appraiser regulatory agency, and compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) rules, including competency provisions. See 43 CFR 100.200. The additional requirement is unnecessary and the Department does not require this designation for its own contractors conducting appraisals.

    6. Database of Qualified Appraisers

    A tribe suggested having appraisers register online for searchability by those who would like to hire them to do appraisals and valuations.

    Response: The Appraisal Subcommittee has an online, searchable database of appraisers, and most State appraisal boards have searchable databases of appraisers licensed by that State.

    7. Review of an Appraiser's Minimum Qualifications

    One tribe stated that periodic review of qualifications should be required as standards and experience with individual appraisers change over time.

    Response: The rule requires the appraiser to submit qualifications with each appraisal to allow for Department's review of the appraiser's qualifications.

    B. Appraisals

    A tribal member stated that there is a fundamental misunderstanding as to what an appraisal is: Specifically, that an appraisal is not equivalent to value; rather, it is an expert opinion to inform the owners (the beneficiary) and trustee as to what somebody's opinion of fair market value is.

    Response: The Department agrees with this comment.

    1. Differentiating Appraisals From Valuations

    A tribal member asked whether an appraisal and a valuation are different, and whether either evaluates tribal rights such as water rights or gathering rights for medicine.

    Response: The final rule defines “appraisal” and “valuation” slightly differently; however, whether either evaluates tribal water rights or other rights will be determined by the statute and regulations authorizing the transaction rather than this regulation.

    Another tribal member stated that allotted land makes up most of the workload for appraisals, but under ILCA, only an “estimate of value” rather than an appraisal, is needed for a gift, sale, or exchange. He suggested instead defining what an “estimate of value” is.

    Response: This rule is establishing minimum qualifications for appraisers who may complete appraisals that the Department will rely upon without further review. The rule's definition of “valuation” could include the “estimate of value” mentioned by the commenter. If that “estimate of value” is prepared by an appraiser who meets the minimum qualifications of this rule, then the Department would accept the estimate of value without further review.

    2. Appraisal Standards

    Several tribes recommended that any appraisal or valuation of Indian property be in accordance with authority in title 25 of the CFR, appraisal standards in the current edition of USPAP, and use of appraisal industry-recognized valuation methods and techniques.

    Response: This rule does not establish appraisal standards. The standards for appraisals or valuations of Indian property are already set out in memoranda of understanding that govern tribes with a self-governance compact or contract.

    Several tribes suggested requiring adherence to the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (UASFLA) if the transaction is to the United States.

    Response: The final rule, at § 301(b)(2), clarifies that transactions transferring Indian property to the United States where the UASFLA applies are exempt from this rule.

    The Appraisal Institute stated that the proposed regulations should include a requirement that the appraisal or valuation reflect market value (as opposed to another value, such as “use value”) because market value is most appropriate to determine “just compensation” for a public use and otherwise because the standards have long been held as fair, reasonable, and just by Federal and local governments as the basis for Federal land acquisitions, land leases, rights-of-way, and other dispositions or uses.

    Response: This rule does not establish appraisal standards. The statute and regulations governing the particular transaction would dictate the standard for value to be used in the appraisal. To make the purpose of this new CFR part more transparent, the final rule updates the title of the CFR part from “Appraisals and Valuations of Indian Property” to “Waiving Departmental Review of Appraisals and Valuations of Indian Property.” Likewise, the final rule updates the subtitle C heading to “Appraisals and Valuations; Departmental Review and Waivers.”

    One commenter stated that there is no rule that could guarantee a credible appraisal because the client may dictate conditions and instructions to an appraiser that affects the result, so the appraisal review serves as a check and ensures the client's instructions adequately support approval for the conveyance.

    Response: The Department agrees with this comment. In ITARA, Congress allowed for reliance on an appraisal without Departmental review of the appraisal.

    One tribe stated requirements for formal appraisals for transactions for negotiated sales involving informed consent of owners should be clarified.

    Response: This suggestion is outside the scope of the authority Congress granted for rulemaking in ITARA. This rule does not specifically address requirements for appraisals regarding negotiated sales; this rule establishes the minimum qualifications for an appraiser in those situations where the appraisal of Indian property will not be subject to Departmental review.

    C. Process for Requesting Waiver of Departmental Review of Appraisal

    The Indian Land Tenure Foundation stated that a waiver of Departmental review should come after the appraisal is complete and not in the submission of the appraisal request.

    Response: The Department agrees; § 100.203 requires submission of the request for waiver of Departmental review to accompany the appraisal.

    The Foundation also stated that the practice of requiring the appraiser to attach a certificate of qualifications to each appraisal is not a burden and should be required.

    Response: The Department agrees; the person or entity submitting the appraisal has the option to waive Departmental review or not. If the submitter chooses to seek a waiver of Departmental review, then a certificate of the appraiser's qualifications must be included.

    D. Applicability of the Rule

    The American Gas Association, Interstate Gas Association of American, and the Utilities Group stated that ITARA was limited to those transactions where statutes expressly require an appraisal or valuation (such as the Indian Land Consolidation Act) and should not apply to all potential transactions under titles 25 and 43 (e.g., rights-of-way and renewals). These commenters pointed out that Section 305 of ITARA [25 U.S.C. 5635(c)(2)] applies only to those Indian land transactions “for which an appraisal or valuation is required,” while proposed § 100.300 would require an appraisal or valuation for all transactions requiring Secretarial analysis and approval under titles 25 and 43 of the CFR. The gas associations suggested addressing this by revising §§ 100.300 and 100.301 to state that appraisals and valuations must be submitted for transactions “requiring appraisals as part of their authorization statute” and where “an appraisal or valuation of the property is expressly required by the statute authorization the transaction.” These commenters stated that the automatic approval does not serve either tribes' or applicants' interest in transactions under statutes other than those specifically requiring an appraisal, for example, where Congress already addressed the standard and process for valuation by requiring Secretarial approval of just compensation.

    Response: ITARA does not discuss when an appraisal or valuation is required and this rulemaking does not affect whether a particular transaction requires an appraisal or valuation. The final rule does, however, refine § 100.300 to clarify that appraisals and valuations are not required for all transactions requiring Secretarial approval under titles 25 and 43 of the CFR.

    Several utilities and utility associations expressed concerns about the effect of the rule on projects and rights-of-way that serve the public's energy needs. Some stated that the rule should not apply to rights-of-way transactions because those transactions have their own statutory scheme. Some also stated that the rule conflicts with existing statutes governing rights-of-way across Indian land, and specifically the statutory requirement for “the payment of such compensation as the Secretary of the Interior shall determine to be just,” because the rule would allow an appraisal to be deemed final without the Secretary assuring just compensation. See 25 U.S.C. 325.

    Response: As discussed above, the statute and regulations governing the particular transaction determine whether an appraisal or valuation is required for that transaction. The Secretary may use an appraisal or a valuation as a tool for determining whether there is “just compensation” under the cited statute. For rights-of-way, the regulations at 25 CFR part 169 establish how the Secretary determines whether there is “just compensation” and provides for use of an appraisal or valuation as a tool for that determination under certain circumstances. This rule merely allows for the use of an appraisal or valuation without Departmental review of the appraisal or valuation under ITARA (as opposed to Departmental review of whether there is “just compensation”).

    Several of these utility group commenters stated that, if the rule does apply to rights-of-way transactions, then the rule should require a fair market value as just compensation for rights-of-way and renewals to public entities and utilities that benefit the public interest. Commenters stated that allowing above-market valuations would allow tribes, without monitoring by the Secretary, to attempt to take advantage of the public interest by exploiting the public entities' and utilities' presence on Federal trust land. One commenter likewise stated its concern that the rule will permit tribes to demand in excess of fair market value for renewals of rights-of-way for public entities and public utilities that benefit the public interest. The commenter stated that it made investments in infrastructure in reliance on use of fair market value as the standard for the rights-of-way and renewals under the right-of-way statutory framework requiring just compensation to be fair market value.

    Response: These comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking because this rulemaking addresses only appraiser qualifications for appraisals to be submitted and used without Departmental approval. This rulemaking does not address the standard for the underlying transaction. The statute and regulations governing the particular transaction determine whether fair market value or another standard is required.

    E. Other Comments

    One tribe opposed the provision in the preamble and discussed at tribal consultation sessions that would have stated that the Department is not liable for approving transactions based on appraisals submitted by a qualified appraisal. The tribe's opposition is to the apparent diminishment of the Federal trust responsibility. This tribe suggested Federal tort claims coverage or some other protection is appropriate to meet the trust responsibility, even where the tribe operates the program under self-governance. Another tribe stated there should be a presumption of Department liability for inaccurate appraisals unless the Department disapproved the appraisal.

    Response: The final rule, at section 304, adds regulatory text to explicitly state the Department's position that it cannot be liable for any deficiency or inaccuracy in the appraisal or valuation in those cases in which the tribe or individual Indian waives Departmental review and approval of the appraisal or valuation. A disclaimer of liability was discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule to inform individuals and entities who elect to forego Departmental review (as authorized by ITARA and this rule) that they are assuming any risks associated with their reliance upon the appraisal or valuation. It would be unreasonable to impose liability on the Department for appraisals the Department did not prepare and was specifically prohibited from reviewing at the direction of the individual or entity submitting it. The trust responsibility does not require that the Government act contrary to law, i.e., to review an appraisal or valuation we are specifically prohibited from reviewing. When an individual or entity chooses to waive Departmental review of the submission, that individual should not expect to be able to obtain relief from the Department for any negative consequences stemming from their use of that appraisal or valuation.

    A tribal member suggested having an online training program for appraisers.

    Response: This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking, but the Department suggests checking with the State for any appraiser training programs.

    A utilities group and gas associations stated their belief that the rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2) and a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. These commenters stated that a cost-benefit analysis is required because the rule: (1) Will result in a major increase in the costs of rights-of-way for state and local governments and public utilities, which will adversely affect industry and millions of consumers and taxpayers nationwide; and (2) will have an aggregate effect of over $100 million on the economy because of staggering renewal rates and the thousands of miles of rights-of-way across the nation. One gas company commenter also noted the escalating costs of rights-of-way through Indian lands and that the rule exacerbates the issue by failing to make clear that fair market value is the appropriate standard for appraising and valuing rights-of-way for public entities and utilities.

    Response: This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2) or a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 because the rule addresses only whether the Department will review the appraiser's qualifications or will review each individual appraisal. The contents or use of any particular appraisal or group of appraisals for a particular type of transaction is speculative and beyond the scope of this regulation.

    One commenter stated that if the proposed rule violates a treaty, then it should not go into effect.

    Response: The Department is unaware of the rule violating any treaty.

    A few commenters noted there has been, and will be, an increase in the demand for appraisals due to the Land Buy-Back Program and the purchase at probate provision.

    Response: While these commenters may be correct regarding the demand for appraisals, this rule exempts appraisals conducted under the Land Buy-Back Program and the purchase at probate provisions of the American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004.

    One tribe stated that development and use of mass appraisal systems and use of qualified third-party appraisers should be encouraged because there is a delay in Departmental review and approval of appraisals that has resulted in lost opportunities and repetitive appraisals because their longevity is limited.

    Response: The portion of the comment regarding mass appraisal systems is outside the scope of this rulemaking. This rule allows the use of qualified third-party appraisers.

    A tribal attorney stated that the rule should add a requirement to allow beneficiaries to view the work papers in appraisal reports.

    Response: This suggestion is outside the scope of the authority Congress granted for rulemaking in ITARA. Further, the Department was unable to identify legal authority to require the release of information under the control of the appraiser-client relationship.

    A tribal attorney stated that the rule should include language that appraisals will not expire.

    Response: This suggestion is outside the scope of the authority Congress granted for rulemaking in ITARA.

    A tribal member suggested a central Web site for value of the land.

    Response: This suggestion is outside the scope of the authority Congress granted for rulemaking in ITARA and may pose Privacy Act issues.

    IV. Procedural Requirements A. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

    E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The E.O. directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of the Interior certifies that this document will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). It does not change current funding requirements and any economic effects on small entities (e.g., the cost to obtain an appraiser license) would be incurred as part of their normal cost of doing business.

    C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

    (a) Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

    (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

    (c) Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of the U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

    E. Takings (E.O. 12630)

    This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.

    F. Federalism (E.O. 13132)

    Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

    G. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

    This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule: (a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

    (b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

    H. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175)

    The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in E.O. 13175 and have identified substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes that will result from this rulemaking. Tribes may be substantially and directly affected by this rulemaking because it allows for the submission of appraisals for transactions involving Indian property without Departmental review and approval. As such, the Department consulted with tribes on this rule as part of the consultation sessions addressing ITARA and hosted listening sessions with Indian tribes and trust beneficiaries at:

    • August 17, 2016—Listening session at the Indian Land Workgroup Group Symposium, Green Bay, Wisconsin • August 22, 2016—Tribal consultation in Albuquerque, New Mexico • August 26, 2016—Tribal consultation in Minneapolis, Minnesota • August 29, 2016—Tribal consultation in Seattle, Washington • August 31, 2016—Tribal consultation in Billings, Montana • September 7, 2016—Tribal consultation in Tulsa, Oklahoma • September 9, 2016—Tribal consultation in Sioux Falls, South Dakota • September 12, 2016—Tribal consultation in Palm Springs, California • September 19, 2016—Tribal consultation by teleconference • September 29, 2016—Tribal consultation in Window Rock, Arizona • October 4, 2016—Tribal consultation in Rapid City, South Dakota These dates and locations were announced in the Federal Register. See 81 FR 47176 (July 20, 2016), as corrected by 81 FR 51210 (August 3, 2016). The “Responses to Comments” section above summarizes comments received on the rule and how this final rule addresses those comments. I. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule contains an information collection that requires approval by OMB. The Department is seeking approval of a new information collection and a revision to an existing regulation, as follows.

    OMB Control Number: 1076-0188.

    Title: Appraisals & Valuations of Indian Property, 43 CFR 100.

    Brief Description of Collection: The Department is proposing to establish minimum qualifications for appraisers of Indian property that require the submission of the appraiser's qualifications to the Department for verification. Submission of the appraisal or valuation itself is already authorized by other OMB Control Numbers under the associated 43 CFR or 25 CFR part (for example, the submission of appraisals for leasing of Indian land is included in the lease information collection authorized by OMB Control Number 1076-0181).

    Type of Review: New collection.

    Respondents: Individuals and Private Sector.

    Obligation to Respond: To Obtain or Retain a Benefit.

    Number of Respondents: 155.

    Number of Responses: 465

    Frequency of Response: 3 per year, on average.

    Estimated Time per Response: One hour.

    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 465 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Non-Hour Cost Burden: $0.

    A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the form or regulation requesting the information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

    J. National Environmental Policy Act

    This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because this is an administrative and procedural regulation. (For further information see 43 CFR 46.210(i)). We have also determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

    K. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)

    This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

    L. E.O. 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because it imposes no more than de minimis costs.

    List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 100

    Indians, Indians—claims, Indians—lands, Mineral resources.

    For the reasons given in the preamble, the Department of the Interior amends 43 CFR subtitle A, by adding part 100 to read as follows:

    Title 43—Public Lands; Interior Subtitle A—Office of the Secretary of the Interior Department of the Interior PART 100—WAIVING DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW OF APPRAISALS AND VALUATIONS OF INDIAN PROPERTY Subpart A—General Provisions Sec. 100.100 What terms should I know for this part? 100.101 What is the purpose of this part? 100.102 Does this part apply to me? 100.103 How does the Paperwork Reduction Act affect this part? Subpart B—Appraiser Qualifications 100.200 What are the minimum qualifications for qualified appraisers? 100.201 Does a qualified appraiser have authority to conduct appraisals or valuations of any type of Indian property? 100.202 Will the Secretary verify the appraiser's qualifications? 100.203 What must the Tribe or individual Indian submit to the Secretary for verification of the appraiser's qualifications? 100.204 When must the Tribe or individual Indian submit a package for Secretarial verification of appraiser qualifications? Subpart C—Appraisals and Valuations; Departmental Review and Waivers 100.300 Must I submit an appraisal or valuation to the Department? 100.301 Will the Department review and approve my appraisal or valuation? 100.302 May I request Departmental review of an appraisal even if a qualified appraiser completed the appraisal or valuation? 100.303 What happens if the Indian Tribe or individual Indian does not agree with the submitted appraisal or valuation? 100.304 Is the Department liable if it approves a transaction for Indian property based on an appraisal or valuation prepared by a qualified appraiser? Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; Pub. L. 114-178.

    Subpart A—General Provisions
    § 100.100 What terms I should know for this part?

    Appraisal means a written statement independently and impartially prepared by a qualified appraiser setting forth an opinion of defined value of an adequately described property as of a specific date, supported by the presentation and analysis of relevant market information.

    Appraiser means one who is expected to perform an appraisal or valuation competently and in a manner that is independent, impartial, and objective.

    Indian means:

    (1) Any person who is a member of any Indian tribe, is eligible to become a member of any Indian tribe, or is an owner as of October 27, 2004, of a trust or restricted interest in land;

    (2) Any person meeting the definition of Indian under the Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 479) and the regulations promulgated thereunder; or

    (3) With respect to the inheritance and ownership of trust or restricted land in the State of California under 25 U.S.C. 2206, any person described in paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition or any person who owns a trust or restricted interest in a parcel of such land in that State.

    Indian property means trust property or restricted property.

    Indian tribe means an Indian tribe under section 102 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a).

    Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations means the program implementing the land consolidation provisions of the settlement agreement in Cobell v. Salazar, No. 1:96CV01285-JR (D.D.C.), as confirmed by Congress in the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-291).

    Qualified appraiser means an appraiser that is authorized to prepare an appraisal or valuation of Indian property because he or she meets the minimum qualifications of this part.

    Qualifications statement means a written overview of an appraiser's education, professional history and job qualifications, providing an indication of an appraiser's competency to perform specific types of assignments. The qualifications may include information regarding education (degrees and educational institutions or programs); professional affiliations, designations, certifications, and licenses; work experience (including companies or organizations, the dates of employment, job titles and duties, and any service as an expert witness); awards and publications; types of properties appraised; types of appraisal and valuation assignments; and clients.

    Restricted property means lands, natural resources, or other assets owned by Indian tribes or individual Indians that can only be alienated or encumbered with the approval of the United States because of limitations contained in the conveyance instrument, or limitations in Federal law.

    Secretary means the Secretary of the Interior or an authorized representative.

    Trust property means lands, natural resources, or other assets held by the United States in trust for Indian tribes or individual Indians.

    Us/we/our means the bureau, agency, or entity within the Department of the Interior that administers appraisals and valuations of Indian property.

    Valuation means all other valuation methods or a market analysis, such as a general description of market trends, values, or benchmarks, prepared by a qualified appraiser.

    § 100.101 What is the purpose of this part?

    This part describes the minimum qualifications for appraisers, employed by or under contract with an Indian tribe or individual Indian, to become qualified appraisers who may prepare an appraisal or valuation of Indian property that will be accepted by the Department without further review or approval when the Indian tribe or individual Indian waives Departmental review and approval.

    § 100.102 Does this part apply to me?

    This part applies to anyone preparing or relying upon an appraisal or valuation of Indian property.

    § 100.103 How does the Paperwork Reduction Act affect this part?

    The collections of information contained in this part have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and assigned OMB Control Number 1076-0188. Response is required to obtain a benefit.

    Subpart B—Appraiser Qualifications
    § 100.200 What are the minimum qualifications for qualified appraisers?

    (a) An appraiser must meet the following minimum qualifications to be a qualified appraiser under this part:

    (1) The appraiser must hold a current Certified General Appraiser license in the State in which the property appraised or valued is located;

    (2) The appraiser must be in good standing with the appraiser regulatory agency of the State in which the property appraised or valued is located; and

    (3) The appraiser must comply with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) rules and provisions applicable to appraisers (including but not limited to Competency requirements applicable to the type of property being appraised or valued and Ethics requirements). This includes competency in timber and mineral valuations if applicable to the subject property.

    § 100.201 Does a qualified appraiser have the authority to conduct appraisals or valuations of any type of Indian property?

    All qualified appraisers of Indian property must meet the Competency requirements of USPAP for the type of property being appraised or valued. Competency can be demonstrated by previous completed assignments on the type of properties being appraised, additional education or training in specific property types, or membership and/or professional designation by a related professional appraisal association or group.

    § 100.202 Will the Secretary verify the appraiser's qualifications?

    The Secretary will verify the appraiser's qualifications to determine whether the appraiser meets the requirements of § 100.200.

    § 100.203 What must the tribe or individual Indian submit to the Secretary for a verification of the appraiser's qualifications?

    The tribe or individual Indian must submit the following with the appraisal or valuation:

    (a) A copy of the appraiser's current Certified General Appraiser license;

    (b) A copy of the appraiser's qualifications statement;

    (c) The appraiser's self-certification that the appraiser meets the criteria in § 100.200; and

    (d) If the property contains natural resource elements that contribute to the value of the property, such as timber or minerals, a list of the appraiser's additional qualifications for the specific type of property being valued in the appraisal report.

    § 100.204 When must the tribe or individual Indian submit a package for Secretarial verification of appraiser qualifications?

    The tribe or individual Indian must submit the package of appraiser qualifications to the Secretary with the appraisal or valuation.

    Subpart C—Appraisals and Valuations; Departmental Review and Waivers
    § 100.300 Must I submit an appraisal or valuation to the Department?

    Appraisals and valuations of Indian property must be submitted to us if relied upon or required for transactions requiring Secretarial approval under titles 25 and 43 of the CFR (other than those under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act).

    § 100.301 Will the Department review and approve my appraisal or valuation?

    (a) The Department will not review the appraisal or valuation of Indian property and the appraisal or valuation will be considered final as long as:

    (1) The submission acknowledges the intent of the Indian tribe or individual Indian to waive Departmental review and approval;

    (2) The appraisal or valuation was completed by a qualified appraiser meeting the requirements of this part; and

    (3) No owner of any interest in the Indian property objects to use of the appraisal or valuation without Departmental review and approval.

    (b) The Department must review and approve the appraisal or valuation if:

    (1) Any of the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section are not met; or

    (2) The appraisal or valuation was submitted for:

    (i) Purchase at probate under 43 CFR part 30;

    (ii) The Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations;

    (iii) An acquisition by the United States to which the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions applies; or

    (iv) Specific legislation requiring the Department to review and approve an appraisal or valuation.

    § 100.302 May I request Departmental review of an appraisal even if a qualified appraiser completed the appraisal or valuation?

    If you do not specifically request waiver of Departmental review and approval under § 100.300(a)(1), the Department will review the appraisal or valuation.

    § 100.303 What happens if the Indian tribe or individual Indian does not agree with the appraisal or valuation prepared by their qualified appraiser?

    If the Indian tribe or individual Indian does not agree with the appraisal or valuation prepared by their qualified appraiser, the Indian tribe or individual Indian should not submit the appraisal or valuation under this part.

    § 100.304 Is the Department liable if it approves a transaction for Indian property based on an appraisal or valuation prepared by a qualified appraiser?

    The Department is not liable for any deficient or inaccurate appraisal or valuation provided by the tribe or individual Indian that it did not review or approve, even if the Department approved a transaction for Indian property (including but not limited to a lease, grant, sale, or purchase) based on the appraisal or valuation.

    Dated: June 20, 2017. James E. Cason, Associate Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13191 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 151117999-6370-01] RIN 0648-XF355 Fisheries Off West Coast States; Modifications of the West Coast Commercial Salmon Fisheries; Inseason Actions #1 Through #4 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Modification of fishing seasons; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces four inseason actions in the ocean salmon fisheries. These inseason actions modified the commercial salmon fisheries in the area from Cape Falcon, OR, to Point Arena, CA.

    DATES:

    The effective dates for the inseason actions are set out in this document under the heading Inseason Actions. Comments will be accepted through July 11, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0007, by any one of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0007, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Barry A. Thom, Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-6349.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peggy Mundy at 206-526-4323.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    In the 2016 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (81 FR 26157, May 2, 2016), NMFS announced the commercial and recreational fisheries in the area from the U.S./Canada border to the U.S./Mexico border, beginning May 1, 2016, and 2017 salmon fisheries opening earlier than May 1, 2017. NMFS is authorized to implement inseason management actions to modify fishing seasons and quotas as necessary to provide fishing opportunity while meeting management objectives for the affected species (50 CFR 660.409). Inseason actions in the salmon fishery may be taken directly by NMFS (50 CFR 660.409(a)—Fixed inseason management provisions) or upon consultation with the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and the appropriate State Directors (50 CFR 660.409(b)—Flexible inseason management provisions). The state management agencies that participated in the consultations described in this document were: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW).

    Management of the salmon fisheries is generally divided into two geographic areas: North of Cape Falcon (U.S./Canada border to Cape Falcon, OR) and south of Cape Falcon (Cape Falcon, OR, to the U.S./Mexico border). The inseason actions reported in this document affected fisheries south of Cape Falcon. Within the south of Cape Falcon area, the Klamath Management Zone (KMZ) extends from Humbug Mountain, OR, to Humboldt South Jetty, CA, and is divided at the Oregon/California border into the Oregon KMZ to the north and California KMZ to the south. All times mentioned refer to Pacific daylight time.

    Inseason Actions Inseason Action #1

    Description of action: Inseason action #1 modified the commercial salmon fishery from Cape Falcon, OR, to Humbug Mountain, OR, previously scheduled to open March 15, 2017, to remain closed through April 14, 2017.

    Effective dates: Inseason action #1 took effect on March 15, 2017, and remained in effect until superseded by inseason action #4 on April 15, 2017.

    Reason and authorization for the action: The purpose of this action was to conserve fishery impacts on the Klamath River fall Chinook stock (KRFC). The Council's Salmon Technical Team (STT) presented stock abundance forecasts for 2017. On the basis of these forecasts, the Regional Administrator (RA) determined that fisheries south of Cape Falcon, OR, will be constrained in 2017 to comply with the harvest control rule for KRFC, specified in the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Inseason actions to modify quotas and/or fishing seasons are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(i).

    Consultation date and participants: Consultation on inseason action #1 occurred on March 12, 2017. Participants in this consultation were staff from NMFS, CDFW, ODFW, and Council staff.

    Inseason Action #2

    Description of action: Inseason action #2 modified the commercial salmon fishery from Humbug Mountain, OR, to the Oregon/California Border (Oregon KMZ), previously scheduled to open March 15, 2017, to remain closed through April 30, 2017.

    Effective dates: Inseason action #2 took effect on March 15, 2017, and remained in effect through April 30, 2017.

    Reason and authorization for the action: The purpose of this action was to conserve fishery impacts on the KRFC. The STT presented stock abundance forecasts for 2017. On the basis of these forecasts, the RA determined that fisheries south of Cape Falcon, OR, will be constrained in 2017 to comply with the harvest control rule for KRFC, specified in the FMP. Inseason actions to modify quotas and/or fishing seasons are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(i).

    Consultation date and participants: Consultation on inseason action #2 occurred on March 12, 2017. Participants in this consultation were staff from NMFS, CDFW, ODFW, and Council staff.

    Inseason Action #3

    Description of action: Inseason action #3 cancelled the commercial salmon fishery from Horse Mountain, CA, to Point Arena, CA (Fort Bragg management area), previously scheduled to open April 16-30, 2017.

    Effective dates: Inseason action #3 took effect on April 16, 2017, and remained in effect through April 30, 2017.

    Reason and authorization for the action: The purpose of this action was to conserve fishery impacts on the KRFC. The STT presented stock abundance forecasts for 2017. On the basis of these forecasts, the RA determined that fisheries south of Cape Falcon, OR, will be constrained in 2017 to comply with the harvest control rule for KRFC, specified in the FMP. Inseason actions to modify quotas and/or fishing seasons are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(i).

    Consultation date and participants: Consultation on inseason action #3 occurred on March 12, 2017. Participants in this consultation were staff from NMFS, CDFW, ODFW, and Council staff.

    Inseason Action #4

    Description of action: Inseason action #4 modified the commercial salmon fishery from Cape Falcon, OR, to Humbug Mountain, OR. Under inseason action #1, above, this fishery, which was previously scheduled to open March 15, 2017, was closed through April 14, 2017. Under inseason action #4, the management area was divided at Florence South Jetty, OR, into two management areas; the fishery from Florence South Jetty, OR, to Humbug Mountain, OR, which remained closed through April 30, 2017; and the fishery from Cape Falcon, OR, to Florence South Jetty, OR, which opened April 15 through April 30, 2017, with the same landing requirements and gear restrictions as announced in the 2016 management measures (81 FR 26157, May 2, 2016).

    Effective dates: Inseason action #4 superseded inseason action #1 on April 15, 2017, and remained in effect through April 30, 2017.

    Reason and authorization for the action: The purpose of this action was to manage fishery impacts on KRFC while allowing access to more abundant stocks. On the basis of salmon abundance forecasts, the RA determined that fisheries south of Cape Falcon, OR, will be constrained in 2017 to comply with the harvest control rule for KRFC, specified in the FMP. Inseason actions to modify quotas and/or fishing seasons are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(i); inseason actions to modify boundaries, including landing boundaries, and establish closed areas are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(v).

    Consultation date and participants: Consultation on inseason action #4 occurred on April 10, 2017. Participants in this consultation were staff from NMFS, CDFW, ODFW, and Council staff.

    All other restrictions and regulations remained in effect as announced for the 2016 ocean salmon fisheries and 2017 salmon fisheries opening prior to May 1, 2017 (81 FR 26157, May 2, 2016) and as modified by prior inseason actions.

    The RA determined that the best available information indicated that Chinook salmon abundance forecasts and expected fishery effort supported the above inseason actions recommended by the states of Oregon and California. The states manage the fisheries in state waters adjacent to the areas of the U.S. exclusive economic zone in accordance with these Federal actions. As provided by the inseason notice procedures of 50 CFR 660.411, actual notice of the described regulatory actions was given, prior to the time the action was effective, by telephone hotline numbers 206-526-6667 and 800-662-9825, and by U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners broadcasts on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz.

    Classification

    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that good cause exists for this notification to be issued without affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because such notification would be impracticable. As previously noted, actual notice of the regulatory actions was provided to fishers through telephone hotline and radio notification. These actions comply with the requirements of the annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (81 FR 26157, May 25, 2016), the FMP, and regulations implementing the FMP, 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment was impracticable because NMFS and the state agencies had insufficient time to provide for prior notice and the opportunity for public comment between the time Chinook salmon catch and effort projections were developed and fisheries impacts were calculated, and the time the fishery modifications had to be implemented in order to ensure that fisheries are managed based on the best available scientific information, ensuring that conservation objectives and Endangered Species Act consultation standards are not exceeded. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), as a delay in effectiveness of these actions would allow fishing at levels inconsistent with the goals of the FMP and the current management measures.

    These actions are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411 and are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: June 21, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13307 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 121 Monday, June 26, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 33 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0586; Notice No. 33-17-01-SC] Special Conditions: Safran Aircraft Engines, Silvercrest-2 SC-2D; Rated Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed special conditions.

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes special conditions for the Safran Aircraft Engines (SAE), Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model. This engine will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with an additional takeoff rating that increases the exhaust gas temperature (EGT) limit to maintain takeoff thrust in certain high ambient temperature conditions for a maximum accumulated usage of 20 minutes in any one flight. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed 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:

    Send your comments on or before July 6, 2017.

    Certification of the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model is currently scheduled for August 2018. The substance of these special conditions has been subject to the notice and public comment procedure. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the applicant's certification of the engine, we are shortening the public comment period from 45 days to 10 days.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number [FAA-2017-0586] 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 of 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 8 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at http://www.transportation.gov/privacy.

    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 the Docket Operations Room in 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:

    Tara Fitzgerald, ANE-112, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts, 01803-5213; telephone (781) 238-7130; facsimile (781) 238-7199; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposed special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this special condition, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

    Background

    On April 19, 2011, SNECMA, now known as SAE, applied for a type certificate for the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model. On April 30, 2014, SAE requested an extension to their original type certificate application, which the FAA granted through June 30, 2015. On May 26, 2015, SAE requested another extension to their type certificate application, which the FAA granted through September 30, 2018.

    SAE proposed an additional takeoff rating to maintain takeoff thrust in certain high ambient temperature conditions with all engines operating (AEO) for the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model. Therefore, the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model would have two different takeoff ratings. The first rating corresponds with the rated takeoff thrust of the engine. The second takeoff rating maintains the takeoff thrust in certain high ambient temperature conditions. This additional takeoff rating is named “Rated Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature” (Rated TOTHAT). The Rated TOTHAT is an approved engine thrust developed under specified altitudes and temperatures within the operating limitations established for the engine during takeoff operation for a maximum usage of 20 minutes in any one flight.

    Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, SAE must show that the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 33, as amended by Amendments 33-1 through 33-34 in effect on the date of application.

    If the FAA finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model, 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 complying with the applicable product airworthiness regulations and the requirements of the special conditions, the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model must comply with the fuel venting and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34.

    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 Features

    The Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model will incorporate a novel or unusual design feature, referred to as “Rated TOTHAT”. This additional takeoff rating increases the EGT limit to maintain takeoff thrust in certain high ambient temperature conditions for a maximum of 20 minutes in any one flight.

    Discussion

    The Rated TOTHAT is designed for use during takeoff in specified high altitudes and high ambient temperature conditions to maintain thrust during takeoff for a maximum of 20 minutes in any one flight. These proposed special conditions contain additional mandatory post-flight inspection and maintenance action requirements associated with any use of the Rated TOTHAT. These requirements add a rating definition in part 1.1 and mandate mandatory inspections in the instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA); instructions for installing and operating the engine; engine rating and operating limitations; instrument connection; and endurance testing.

    The current requirements of the endurance test under § 33.87 represent a typical airplane flight profile and the severity of the takeoff rating. Therefore, the endurance test under § 33.87 covers normal, all-engines-operating takeoff conditions for which the engine control system limits the engine to the takeoff thrust rating. It is intended to represent the airplane flight profile during takeoff under specified ambient temperatures for a time until the mandatory inspection and maintenance actions can be performed.

    These proposed special conditions require additional test cycles that include at least a 150 hours of engine operation as specified in § 33.87(a), to demonstrate the engine is capable of performing the Rated TOTHAT rating during AEO conditions without disassembly or modification.

    The associated engine deterioration, after use of the Rated TOTHAT, is not known without the intervening mandatory inspections in these special conditions. These mandatory inspections ensure the engine will continue to comply with its certification basis, which includes these proposed special conditions, after any use of the Rated TOTHAT. The applicant is expected to assess the deterioration from use of the Rated TOTHAT. The airworthiness limitations section (ALS) must prescribe the mandatory post-flight inspections and maintenance actions associated with any use of the Rated TOTHAT.

    These requirements maintain a level of safety equivalent to the level intended by the applicable airworthiness standards in effect on the date of application.

    Applicability

    As discussed above, these proposed special conditions are applicable to the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model. Should SAE apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

    Conclusion

    This action affects only the Rated TOTHAT features on the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model. It is not a rule of general applicability and applies only to SAE, who requested FAA approval of this engine feature.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33

    Aircraft, Engines, 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, and 44704.

    The Proposed Special Conditions

    Accordingly, the FAA proposes, the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for SAE, Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model.

    1. Part 1 Definition

    “Rated Take-off Thrust at High Ambient Temperature” (Rated TOTHAT) means the approved engine thrust developed under specified altitudes and temperatures within the operating limitations established for the engine during takeoff operation. Use is limited to two periods, no longer than 10 minutes each under one engine inoperative (OEI) conditions or 5 minutes each under AEO conditions in any one flight for a maximum accumulated usage of 20 minutes in any one flight. Each flight where the Rated TOTHAT is used must be followed by mandatory inspection and maintenance actions.

    2. Part 33 Requirements

    In addition to the airworthiness standards in 14 CFR part 33, effective February 1, 1965, amendments 33-1 through 33-34 applicable to the engine and the Rated TOTHAT, the following special conditions apply:

    (a) Section 33.4, Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.

    (1) The ALS must prescribe the mandatory post-flight inspections and maintenance actions associated with any use of the Rated TOTHAT.

    (2) The applicant must validate the adequacy of the inspections and maintenance actions required under paragraph 2(a)(1) of these special conditions.

    (3) The applicant must establish an in-service engine evaluation program to ensure the continued adequacy of the instructions for mandatory post-flight inspections and maintenance actions prescribed under paragraph 2(a)(1) of these special conditions, and of the data for thrust assurance procedures required by paragraph 2(b)(2) of these special conditions. The program must include service engine tests or equivalent service engine test experience on engines of similar design and evaluations of service usage of the Rated TOTHAT.

    (b) Section 33.5, Instruction manual for installing and operating the engine.

    (1) Installation Instructions:

    (i) The applicant must identify the means, or provisions for means, provided in compliance with the requirements of paragraph 2(e) of these special conditions.

    (ii) The applicant must specify that the engine thrust control system automatically resets the thrust on the operating engine to the Rated TOTHAT level when one engine fails during takeoff at specified altitudes and temperatures.

    (iii) The applicant must specify that the Rated TOTHAT is available by manual crew selection at specified altitudes and temperatures in AEO conditions.

    (2) Operating Instructions: The applicant must provide data on engine performance characteristics and variability to enable the airplane manufacturer to establish airplane thrust assurance procedures.

    (c) Section 33.7, Engine ratings and operating limitations.

    (1) Rated TOTHAT and the associated operating limitations are established as follows:

    (i) The thrust is the same as the engine takeoff rated thrust with extended flat rating corner point.

    (ii) The rotational speed limits are the same as those associated with the engine takeoff rated thrust.

    (iii) The applicant must establish a gas temperature steady-state limit and, if necessary, a transient gas over temperature limit for which the duration is no longer than 30 seconds.

    (iv) The use is limited to two periods of no longer than 10 minutes each under OEI conditions or 5 minutes each under AEO conditions in any one flight, for a maximum accumulated usage of 20 minutes in any one flight. Each flight where the Rated TOTHAT is used must be followed by mandatory inspections and maintenance actions prescribed by paragraph 2(a)(1) of these special conditions.

    (2) The applicant must propose language to include in the type certificate data sheet specified in § 21.41 for the following:

    (i) Rated TOTHAT and associated limitations.

    (ii) As required by § 33.5(b), Operating instructions, include a note stating that “Rated Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature (Rated TOTHAT) means the approved engine thrust developed under specified altitudes and temperatures within the operating limitations established for the engine. Use is limited to two periods, no longer than 10 minutes each under OEI conditions or 5 minutes each under AEO conditions in any one flight, for a maximum accumulated usage of 20 minutes in any one flight. Each flight where the Rated TOTHAT is used must be followed by mandatory inspection and maintenance actions.”

    (iii) As required by § 33.5(b), Operating instructions, include a note stating that the engine thrust control system automatically resets the thrust on the operating engine to the Rated TOTHAT level when one engine fails during takeoff at specified altitudes and temperatures, and the Rated TOTHAT is available by manual selection when all engines are operational during takeoff at specified altitudes and temperatures.

    (d) Section 33.28, Engine Control Systems.

    The engine must incorporate a means, or a provision for a means, for automatic availability and automatic control of the Rated TOTHAT under OEI conditions and must permit manual activation of the Rated TOTHAT under AEO conditions.

    (e) Section 33.29, Instrument connection.

    The engine must:

    (1) Have means, or provisions for means, to alert the pilot when the Rated TOTHAT is in use, when the event begins and when the time interval expires.

    (2) Have means, or provision for means, which cannot be reset in flight, to:

    (i) Automatically record each use and duration of the Rated TOTHAT, and

    (ii) Alert maintenance personnel that the engine has been operated at the Rated TOTHAT and permit retrieval of recorded data.

    (3) Have means, or provision for means, to enable routine verification of the proper operation of the means in paragraph 2(e)(1) and (e)(2) of these special conditions.

    (f) Section 33.85(b), Calibration tests.

    The applicant must base the calibration test on the thrust check at the end of the endurance test required by § 33.87 of these special conditions.

    (g) Section 33.87, Endurance test.

    (1) In addition to the applicable requirements of § 33.87(a):

    (i) The § 33.87 endurance test must be modified as follows:

    (A) Modify the thirty minute test cycle at the rated takeoff thrust in § 33.87(b)(2)(ii) to run one minute at rated takeoff thrust, followed by five minutes at the Rated TOTHAT, followed by the rated takeoff thrust for the remaining twenty-four minutes.

    (B) The modified thirty minute period described above in paragraph 2(g)(1)(i)(A) must be repeated ten times in cycles 16 through 25 of the § 33.87 endurance test.

    (2) After completion of the tests required by § 33.87(b), as modified in paragraph 2(g)(1)(i) above, and without intervening disassembly, except as needed to replace those parts described as consumables in the ICA, the applicant must conduct the following test sequence for a total time of not less than 120 minutes:

    (i) Ten minutes at Rated TOTHAT.

    (ii) Eighty-eight minutes at rated maximum continuous thrust.

    (iii) One minute at 50 percent of rated takeoff thrust.

    (iv) Ten minutes at Rated TOTHAT.

    (v) Ten minutes at rated maximum continuous thrust.

    (vi) One minute at flight idle.

    (3) The test sequence of §§ 33.87(b)(1) through (b)(6) of these special conditions must be run continuously. If a stop occurs during these tests, the interrupted sequence must be repeated unless the applicant shows that the severity of the test would not be reduced if the current tests were continued.

    (4) Where the engine characteristics are such that acceleration to the Rated TOTHAT results in a transient over temperature in excess of the steady-state temperature limit identified in paragraph 2(c)(1)(iii) of these special conditions, the transient gas overtemperature must be applied to each acceleration to the Rated TOTHAT of the test sequence in paragraph 2(g)(2) of these special conditions.

    (h) Section 33.93, Teardown inspection.

    The applicant must perform the teardown inspection required by § 33.93(a), after completing the endurance test prescribed by § 33.87 of these special conditions.

    (i) Section 33.201, Design and test requirements for Early ETOPS eligibility.

    In addition to the requirements of § 33.201(c)(1), the simulated ETOPS mission cyclic endurance test must include two cycles of 10 minute duration, each at the Rated TOTHAT; one before the last diversion cycle and one at the end of the ETOPS test.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on June 14, 2017. Carlos A. Pestana, Acting Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13305 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 33 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0537; Notice No. 33-17-02-SC] Special Conditions: General Electric Company, GE9X Engine Models; Endurance Test Special Conditions AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed special conditions.

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes special conditions for the General Electric turbofan engine models GE9X-105B1A, -105B1A1, -105B1A2, -105B1A3, -102B1A, -102B1A1, -102B1A2, -102B1A3, and -93B1A. These engine models will be referred to as “GE9X” in these special conditions. The engines will have a novel or unusual design features associated with the engine design. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed 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:

    Send your comments on or before August 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0537 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: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

    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 the 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:

    Dorina Mihail, ANE-111, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts, 01803-5213; telephone (781) 238-7153; facsimile (781) 238-7199; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to participate in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposed special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

    Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should not file proprietary or confidential business information in the docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document, and marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting information on a disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM, and identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is proprietary or confidential.

    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information, it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

    Background

    On January 29, 2016, General Electric Company (GE) applied for type certificate application for GE's GE9X turbofan engine models. The GE9X engine models are high-bypass-ratio engines that incorporate novel and unusual design features. The GE9X engine models incorporate new technologies such that it cannot run the endurance test conditions prescribed in § 33.87 without significant test-enabling modifications, making the test vehicle non-representative of the proposed type design. An alternative endurance test cycle has been developed that provides a level of safety equivalent with that intended by § 33.87. The proposed alternate endurance test provides the test conditions that allow the engine to be run in type design configuration and demonstrate engine operability and durability as well as systems functionality to a level intended by the current § 33.87 rule.

    Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, GE must show that the GE9X engine models meet the applicable provisions of part 33, as amended by Amendments 33-1 through 33-34.

    If the FAA finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the GE9X engine models 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 engine model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that engine model be amended later to include any other engine models that incorporate the same or similar novel or unusual design features, the special conditions would also apply to the other engine models under § 21.101.

    In addition to complying with the applicable product airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the GE9X engine models must comply with the fuel venting and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34.

    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 Features

    The GE9X engine models will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: Technological advances that reduce noise and emissions while improving fuel efficiency and increasing thrust, when compared to previous similar certificated GE engine models.

    The GE9X series engine type design incorporates new technologies such that it cannot run the endurance test conditions prescribed in § 33.87 without significant test-enabling modifications, making the test vehicle non-representative of the proposed type design. The modifications needed to run the § 33.87 endurance test have become increasingly complex over time, and reconciling the test results to the proposed type design has also become increasingly difficult.

    For past certifications, GE has shown that the proposed engine design, as modified, still represented the durability and operating characteristics of the intended type design but the modifications needed to the GE9X engine model to run the § 33.87 endurance test cannot be reconciled and would affect the test outcome.

    Discussion

    These proposed special conditions provide the necessary conditions for verification of engine-level and component-level effects as intended by the current § 33.87 endurance test. The special conditions include a demonstration for the oil, fuel, air bleed, and accessory drive systems as required in the current § 33.87 endurance test.

    The level of severity is provided by an engine test demonstration at the gas path limiting temperature and at shaft speed redlines and at the most extreme shaft speeds as determined through a critical point analysis (CPA). In addition, times on condition and cycle counts were developed to allow additional challenges to the new and novel features that would not have been as challenged by the current § 33.87 test schedule. The alternate test demonstrates no potential safety issue will develop while operating in service.

    The proposed cycles dwell time duration reflect that GE9X does not have a 10-minute OEI extension for the takeoff rating.

    The special conditions for § 33.4 and § 33.29 are added to support an equivalent compliance by means of mandatory inspections prescribed in paragraph (b)(3) of the § 33.87 special conditions.

    These special condition requirements maintain a level of safety equivalent to the level intended by the applicable airworthiness standards in effect on the date of application.

    Applicability

    As discussed above, the proposed special conditions are applicable to the GE9X engine model(s). Should GE apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model on the same type certificate incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

    Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the GE9X turbofan engine models. It is not a rule of general applicability and applies only to GE, who requested FAA approval of this engine feature.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33

    Aircraft, Engines, 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 Proposed Special Conditions Accordingly, the FAA proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for the GE9X engine models: GE9X-105B1A, -105B1A1, -105B1A2, -105B1A3, -102B1A, -102B1A1, -102B1A2, -102B1A3, and -93B1A. PART 33—REQUIREMENTS
    § 33.4 Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.

    (a) The Airworthiness Limitations section must prescribe the mandatory post-flight inspections and maintenance actions associated with any exceedance required by § 33.87, paragraph (b)(3), of these special conditions.

    § 33.29 Instrument connection.

    (a) The engine must have means, or provisions for means, to automatically record and alert maintenance personnel for each occurrence of any exceedance required by § 33.87 paragraph (b)(3), of these special conditions.

    § 33.87 Endurance Test.

    (a) General: The applicant must show that the endurance test schedule in combination with any prescribed mandatory actions provide an equivalent level of severity and demonstration of durability and operability as that intended by § 33.87(a) and (b) for a turbofan engine. When showing that the level of durability is equivalent with that intended by the rule, the applicant must consider the damage accumulated during the test for the limiting damage mechanisms for components and engine systems, up to and including the applicable limitations declared in the Type Certificate Data Sheets (TCDS). The test cycle content must create conditions in the engine for a sufficient amount of time to demonstrate no potential safety issue will develop from the limiting damage mechanisms while operating in service. The following minimum requirements apply:

    (1) The tests in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of these special conditions, for total cumulative and dwell time duration between ground idle and the takeoff thrust prescribed in these special conditions. The test cycle durations must include all maximums allowed in the TCDS and expected service operation.

    (2) Requirements of § 33.87(a)(1), (2), (4), and (6) applicable to turbofan engines.

    (3) Requirements of § 33.87(a)(3) applicable to the temperature of external surfaces of the engine, if limited.

    (4) Testing for maximum air bleed must be at least equal with the prescribed test required in § 33.87(a)(5). However, for these cycles, the thrust or the rotor shaft rotational speed may be less than 100 percent of the value associated with the particular operation being tested if the FAA finds that the validity of the endurance test is not compromised.

    (5) Testing for engine fuel, oil, and hydraulic fluid pressure and oil temperature must be at least equal with the prescribed test required in § 33.87(a)(7).

    (6) If the number of occurrences of either transient rotor shaft overspeed or transient gas over temperature is not limited, at least 155 accelerations must be made at the limiting overspeed or over temperature. If the number of occurrences is limited, that number of accelerations must be made at the limiting overspeed or over temperature.

    (7) One hundred starts must be made, of which 25 starts must be preceded by at least a two-hour engine shutdown. There must be at least 10 false engine starts, pausing for the applicant's specified minimum fuel drainage time, before attempting a normal start. There must be at least 10 normal restarts with not longer than 15 minutes since engine shutdown. The remaining starts may be made after completing the endurance testing prescribed by these special conditions.

    (8) Unless otherwise specified (i.e. (d)(2)), for accelerations from ground idle to takeoff, the throttle must be moved in not more than one second, except that, if different regimes of control operations are incorporated necessitating scheduling of the thrust-control lever motion in going from one extreme position to the other, a longer period of time is acceptable, but not more than two seconds.

    (i) When operating with max oil temperatures the throttle movement may be `stair-stepped' to allow for oil temperature stabilization for durations greater than two seconds.

    (9) The applicant must validate any analytical methods used for compliance with these special conditions. Validation includes the ability to accurately predict an outcome applicable to the engine being tested.

    (10) The applicant must perform the endurance test on an engine that substantially conforms to its type design. Modifications may be made as needed to achieve test conditions and/or engine operating conditions representative of the type design.

    (b) Conduct the endurance test at or above the declared shaft speeds and gas temperatures limits, and at or above conditions representative of critical points (speeds, temperatures, rated thrust) in the operating envelope.

    (1) Conduct the endurance test at or above the rated takeoff thrust and rated maximum continuous thrust and with the associated limits for rotor speeds and gas temperature (redlines), as follows:

    (i) Either rotor speed or gas temperature, or concurrent rotor speed and gas temperature if analysis indicates a combination of redline operational conditions is possible to occur in service, must be at least 100 percent of the values associated with the engine rating being tested.

    (ii) The cumulative test time duration and number of cycles must be representative of the rotor speed and gas temperature excursions to redlines that can be expected to occur in between overhauls.

    (iii) The time durations for each takeoff or maximum continuous segment must include all maximums allowed in the TCDS and expected service operation and must include the following cycles:

    (A) At least one (1) takeoff cycle of 5 minutes time duration at the low pressure rotor speed limit and gas temperature limit (redlines).

    (B) At least one (1) takeoff cycle of 5 minutes time duration at the high pressure rotor speed limit and gas temperature limit (redlines).

    (C) In lieu of the separate cycles specified in paragraphs (A) and (B) of this section, the applicant may run the low pressure and high pressure rotor speeds and gas temperature limits (redlines) in the same cycle. However in this case, the applicant must run at least 2 cycles of 5 minutes time duration each.

    (2) Conduct the endurance test at or above the rated takeoff thrust and the rated maximum continuous thrust with rotor speeds at or above those determined by a critical point analysis (CPA) and with gas temperature redline conditions as follows:

    (i) The applicant must determine through a CPA the highest rotor shaft rotational speeds (CPA speeds) expected to occur for each rotor shaft system within the declared operating envelope. The CPA must be conducted for the takeoff and maximum continuous rated thrust and must consider the declared operating envelope, engine deterioration, engine-to-engine variability, and any other applicable variables that can cause the engine to operate at the extremes of its performance ratings.

    (ii) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of these special conditions, conduct a cyclic test between ground idle and combined takeoff and maximum continuous thrust ratings, as follows:

    (A) Eighteen hours and forty five minutes (18.75 hours) cumulated time duration at or above the rated takeoff thrust, the gas temperature limit for takeoff (redline), and the CPA rotor speeds for takeoff determined per paragraph (b)(2)(i) of these special conditions.

    (B) Forty five (45) hours cumulated time duration at or above the rated maximum continuous thrust, the gas temperature limit for maximum continuous (redline), and the CPA rotor speeds for maximum continuous determined per paragraph (b)(2)(i) of these special conditions.

    (C) The time durations for each takeoff or maximum continuous segments must include all maximums allowed in the TCDS and expected service operation, and must include at least one maximum continuous cycle of 30 minutes run continuously.

    (3) If the cyclic shaft speed excursions specified in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of these special conditions cannot be demonstrated in the test, then an alternative equivalent with the rule intent must be provided. Alternatives may include alternate means of test demonstration, mandatory actions, or other means found acceptable to the FAA. The applicant must prescribe a mandatory action plan for engine operation between the shaft speeds demonstrated for a minimum of cumulated 18.75 hours at or above rated takeoff and 45 hours at or above rated maximum continuous, respectively, and the declared speed limits (redlines), as follows:

    (i) Prescribe post-event actions or operating limitations acceptable to the FAA for operation below the declared speed limits (redlines) and above the CPA speeds.

    (ii) If the test required by (b)(2)(ii) of these special conditions can only be accomplished at a rotor shaft speed lower than the CPA speed, prescribe post-event actions or operating limitations acceptable to the FAA for operation below that CPA speed and above the value demonstrated during the test.

    (c) Conduct the endurance test at the incremental cruise thrust that must be at least equal with the prescribed test required in § 33.87(b)(4). The 25 incremental test cycles must be uniformly distributed throughout the entire endurance test.

    (d) Conduct at least 300 cycles between ground idle and combined takeoff and maximum continuous thrust, as follows:

    (1) Each cycle to include acceleration to or above rated takeoff thrust, deceleration from takeoff to ground idle, followed by 5 to 15 seconds at ground idle, acceleration to or above rated maximum continuous thrust, and deceleration to ground idle.

    (2) The throttle movement from ground idle to rated takeoff or maximum continuous thrust and from rated takeoff thrust to ground idle should be not more than one (1) second, except that, if different regimes of control operations are incorporated necessitating scheduling of the thrust-control lever motion in going from one extreme position to the other, a longer period of time is acceptable, but not more than two seconds. The throttle move from rated maximum continuous thrust to ground idle should not be more than five (5) seconds.

    (3) The time durations for each cycle associated with either takeoff or maximum continuous thrust segments must include all maximums allowed in the TCDS and expected service operation, and must include the following cycles:

    (i) Three (3) cycles of 5 minutes each and one (1) cycle of 10 minutes at the takeoff thrust.

    (ii) Three (3) cycles of 30 minutes each at the maximum continuous thrust.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on June 1, 2017. Carlos A. Pestana, Acting Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13210 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9378; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-16] Proposed Amendment, Revocation, and Establishment of Class D and E Airspace; Enid Vance AFB, OK; Enid Woodring Municipal Airport, OK; Enid, OK; and Vance AFB, OK AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to: Remove Class D airspace for Enid Woodring Municipal Airport, OK, and Enid Vance AFB, OK; establish Class D airspace for Enid Woodring Regional Airport, Enid, OK, and Vance AFB, Vance AFB, OK; amend Class E airspace designated as a surface area for Enid Woodring Regional Airport; establish Class E airspace designated as a surface area for Vance AFB; remove Class E airspace designated as an extension of Class D and E surface area at Enid Woodring Municipal Airport, OK, and Enid Vance AFB, OK; establish Class E airspace designated as an extension of Class D and E surface area at Enid Woodring Regional Airport and Vance AFB; and amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Enid Woodring Regional Airport. Due to the differing operating hours of the two airports, the airspace descriptions would be separated for safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at these airports. Also, airspace redesign is necessary to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures (SIAPS) at Woodring Regional Airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-9378; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-16, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class D and E airspace in the Enid, OK, area.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-9378/Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-16.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by:

    Removing Class D airspace at Enid Woodring Municipal Airport, OK;

    Removing Class D airspace at Enid Vance AFB, OK;

    Establishing Class D airspace at Enid Woodring Regional Airport, Enid, OK, within a 4.5-mile radius of the airport; 1

    1 This Class D airspace would replace the Class D airspace at Enid Woodring Municipal Airport that is being proposed for removal in this action. This proposal would increase the existing 4.1-mile radius around the airport to a 4.5-mile radius. The part-time NOTAM language is included in the new legal description.

    Establishing Class D airspace at Vance AFB, Vance AFB, OK, within a 5.1-mile radius of the airport;

    Amending Class E airspace designated as a surface area within a 4.5-mile radius (increased from a 4.1-mile radius) of Enid Woodring Regional Airport, Enid, OK, removing the portion within a 5.1-mile radius of Vance AFB, and removing Vance AFB from the airspace description;

    Establishing Class E airspace designated as a surface area within a 5.1 mile radius of Vance AFB, Vance AFB, OK;

    Removing Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D or E surface area at Enid Vance AFB, OK;

    Removing Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D or E surface area at Enid Woodring Municipal Airport, OK;

    Establishing Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D or E surface area at Enid Woodring Regional Airport, Enid, OK, with a segment each side of the VOR/DME extending from the 4.5-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles north and 7 miles south of the airport;

    Establishing Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D or E surface area at Vance AFB, Vance AFB, OK, with a segment each side of the Vance VORTAC extending from the 5.1-mile radius to 6.1 miles south of the airport; and

    Amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Enid, OK, within a 7-mile radius (increasing from a 6.6-mile radius) of Woodring Regional Airport, removing the Woodring VOR/DME extensions, and updating the name of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    The FAA determined that due to the differing operating hours of the two airports, the airspace descriptions should be separated for safety and management of IFR operations at these airports. Also, after an airspace review of the Woodring Regional Airport, the FAA found airspace redesign necessary at Enid Woodring Regional Airport to accommodate new SIAPs at the airport and for the safety and management of IFR operations at these airports. The part-time NOTAM information would be included in the airspace descriptions for the new airspace and would be retained in the legal descriptions for the amended airspace.

    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ASW OK D Enid Woodring Municipal Airport, OK [Removed] ASW OK D Enid Vance AFB, OK [Removed] ASW OK D Enid, OK [New] Enid Woodring Regional Airport, OK (Lat. 36°22′33″ N., long. 97°47′22″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,800 feet within a 4.5-mile radius of Enid Woodring Regional Airport, excluding that portion of airspace west of long. 97°51′01″ W. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    ASW OK D Vance AFB, OK [New] Vance AFB, OK (Lat. 36°20′22″ N., long. 97°55′02″ W.) Enid Woodring Regional Airport, OK (Lat. 36°22′33″ N., long. 97°47′22″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,800 feet within a 5.1-mile radius of Vance AFB excluding that portion east of long. 97°51′01″ W., and excluding within a 4.5-mile radius of Enid Woodring Regional Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as a Surface Area. ASW OK E2 Enid, OK [Amended] Enid Woodring Regional Airport, OK (Lat. 36°22′33″ N., long. 97°47′22″ W.)

    That airspace within a 4.5-mile radius of Enid Woodring Regional Airport excluding that portion of airspace west of long. 97°51′01″ W. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    ASW OK E2 Vance AFB, OK [New] Vance AFB, OK (Lat. 36°20′22″ N., long. 97°55′02″ W.) Enid Woodring Regional Airport, OK (Lat. 36°22′33″ N., long. 97°47′22″ W.)

    That airspace within a 5.1-mile radius of Vance AFB excluding that portion east of the long. 97°51'01″ W., and excluding within a 4.5-mile radius of Enid Woodring Regional Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to Class D or Class E Surface Areas. ASW OK E4 Enid Vance AFB, OK [Removed] ASW OK E4 Enid Woodring Municipal Airport, OK [Removed] ASW OK E4 Enid, OK [New] Enid Woodring Regional Airport, OK (Lat. 36°22′33″ N., long. 97°47′22″ W.) Woodring VOR/DME (Lat. 36°22′26″ N., long. 97°47′17″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.4 miles each side of the 347° radial of the Woodring VOR/DME extending from the 4.5-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles north of the airport, and within 2.4 miles each side of the 177° radial of the Woodring VOR/DME extending from the 4.5-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles south of the airport.

    ASW OK E4 Vance AFB, OK [New] Vance AFB, OK (Lat. 36°20′22″ N., long. 97°55′02″ W.) Vance VORTAC (Lat. 36°20′42″ N., long. 97°55′06″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.3 miles each side of the 188° radial of the Vance VORTAC extending from the 5.1-mile radius of Vance AFB to 6.1 miles south of the airport.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASW OK E5 Enid, OK [Amended] Vance AFB, OK (Lat. 36°20′22″ N., long. 97°55′02″ W.) Enid Woodring Regional Airport, OK (Lat. 36°22′33″ N., long. 97°47′22″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within 8.7 miles east and west of Vance AFB extending to 15.2 miles north and south of Vance AFB, and that airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Enid Woodring Regional Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 19, 2017. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13184 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0400] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone, Delaware River; Pipe-Removal AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is proposing to establish temporary safety zones in portions of Billingsport Range, on the Delaware River, to facilitate the removal of existing pipelines along the river bed of the Federal Navigation Channel. The safety zones would be established for the waters of Billingsport Range, on the Delaware River, in the vicinity of working vessels and associated equipment. At times the working vessels and equipment may be in close proximity or impede the navigation channel. This regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters of the Delaware River, in the vicinity of pipeline-removal operations, and is intended to protect mariners from the associated hazards.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 11, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0400 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or if email Petty Officer Amanda Boone, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone (215) 271-4889, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive order FR Federal Register Pub. L. Public Law §  Section U.S.C. United States Code COTP Captain of the Port II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    Paulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Company and Buckeye Partners, L.P. notified the Coast Guard that removal of portions of old natural gas pipelines will need to be conducted in compliance with the Army Corps of Engineers request for removal due to the upcoming widening and deepening of the Delaware River, main navigational channel, in which the depth of the channel will be taken to 45 feet. The Captain of the Port Delaware Bay has determined that potential hazards associated with the pipe-removal operational would be a safety concern for anyone within a 150-yard radius of the working vessels.

    The Coast Guard is proposing to issue this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1 and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. The Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, has determined that potential hazards associated with pipe-removal operations, beginning on or about July 29, 2017, will be a safety concern for vessels attempting to transit the Delaware River, along Billingsport Range. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters within the safety zone while removal of the pipeline is being conducted.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard Captain of the Port is proposing to establish temporary safety zones on portions of the Delaware River on or about July 29, 2017, until October 31, 2017, unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port, to facilitate the removal of existing pipeline on the river bed of the Delaware River, along the Billingsport Range.

    With plans to widen the commercial shipping channel in the Delaware River, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) has requested both Paulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Company, LLC (PBF) and Buckeye Partners, L.P. (BPL) modify their existing pipelines across the river that could cause hazards to mariners in the expanded shipping channel. This specifically pertains to PBF's 8″ natural gas pipeline and BPL's 10″ and 12″ pipelines that run adjacent to Philadelphia International Airport to the Paulsboro Refinery. Due to the hazards related to underwater pipe-removal operations, safety zones will be established on the Delaware River waters within 150 yards of the working vessel(s) and related equipment.

    The proposed safety zones will be established for the duration of the pipe-removal operation. Vessels that desire to enter or transit through the safety zones will be required to contact working vessels on VHF-FM marine band channel 13 or 16, at least 1 hour prior to arrival.

    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zones is prohibited unless vessels obtain permission from the Captain of the Port or make satisfactory passing arrangements with the working vessels on scene per this rule and the Rules of the Road (33 CFR subchapter E).

    The Captain of the Port will implement and terminate the safety zone once all pipelines have been recovered and removal operations are completed. Notice of the implementation and the termination of the safety zone will be made in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zones. Although this regulation will restrict access to regulated areas, the effect of this rule will not be significant because vessels may be permitted to transit through the safety zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port or make satisfactory passing arrangements with the working vessels on scene in accordance with this rule and the Rules of the Road (33 CFR subchapter E). Extensive notification of the safety zone to the maritime public will be made via maritime advisories to allow mariners to alter their plans accordingly.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone which is limited in size and duration. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.

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

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting, contact the person named in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, above.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add temporary § 165.T05-0400, to read as follows:
    § 165.T05-0400 Safety Zone, Delaware River; Pipe-laying

    (a) Location. The following areas are safety zones: Includes all waters in Billingsport Range, on the Delaware River, within 150 yards of the working vessels and related equipment conducting pipe-removal operations.

    (b) Definitions. (1) The Captain of the Port means the Commander Sector Delaware Bay or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.

    (2) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, to assist with the enforcement of a safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section.

    (c) Regulations: The general safety zone regulations found in subpart C of this part apply to the safety zones created by this section. (1) The Captain of the Port will implement and terminate the safety zones once all pipelines have been removed and operations are completed. Notice of the implementation and the termination of the safety zone will be made in accordance with § 165.7.

    (2) Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zones is prohibited unless vessels obtain permission from the Captain of the Port (COTP) or make satisfactory passing arrangements, via VHF-FM marine band channel 13 or 16, with the working vessel on scene per this rule and the Rules of the Road (33 CFR subchapter E).

    (3) To request permission to enter a safety zone, the Captain of the Port's representative can be contact via VHF-FM channel 16. Vessels granted permission to enter and transit through a safety zone must do so in accordance with the directions provided by the Captain of the Port or designated representative. No person or vessel may enter or remain in a safety zone without permission from the Captain of the Port. All persons and vessels within a safety zone shall obey the directions or orders of the Captain of the Port or their designated representative.

    (4) At least one side of the main navigational channel will be kept clear for safe passage of vessels in the vicinity of the safety zone. At no time will the main navigational channel be closed to vessel traffic. Vessels that desire to enter or transit through a safety zone shall contact the working vessels on scene on VHF-FM marine band channel 13 or 16, at least 1 hour prior to arrival.

    (5) This section applies to all vessels that intend to transit through a safety zone except vessels that are engaged in the following operations: Enforcement of laws; service of aids to navigation, and emergency response.

    (d) Enforcement. These safety zones will be enforced with actual notice by the U.S. Coast Guard representatives on scene, as well as other methods listed in 33 CFR 165.7.

    Dated: June 20, 2017. Benjamin A. Cooper, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13247 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0541] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Nights in Venice Fireworks, Beach Thorofare, Ocean City, NJ AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone on the waters of Beach Thorofare in Ocean City, NJ on July 22, 2017. The safety zone will restrict vessel traffic from operating on a portion of Beach Thorofare while a fireworks event is taking place. This safety zone is necessary to protect the public, spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a fireworks display. The safety zone restricts vessels from transiting the zone during the effective period, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 11, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0541 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or if email Petty Officer Amanda Boone, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone (215) 271-4889, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive order FR Federal Register Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code COTP Captain of the Port II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On June 8, 2017 the Coast Guard was notified of Ocean City Nights in Venice fireworks event scheduled for July 22, 2017. The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Delaware Bay has determined that a temporary safety zone is necessary to provide safety on navigable waters during the fireworks event, and to enhance safety of the public, spectators and vessels.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    On July 22, 2017 a fireworks display event will take place on the waters of Beach Thorofare in Ocean City, NJ. The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in a portion of the waterway known as Beach Thorofare in Ocean City, NJ to ensure the safety of persons, vessels and the public during the event. The safety zone includes all navigable waters of Beach Thorofare within a 600 foot radius of the fireworks launch platform in approximate position 39°17′23″ N., 074°34′31″ W. near Ocean City, NJ. The fireworks displays are expected to occur between 9:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. In order to coordinate the safe movement of vessels within the area and to ensure that the area is clear of unauthorized persons and vessels before, during, and immediately after the fireworks launch, this zone will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.

    Access to this safety zone will be restricted during the specified date and time period. Only vessels or persons specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay or designated representative may enter or remain in the regulated area.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. This safety zone will impact the waters affected by this rule from 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 22, 2017, during a time of day when commercial and recreational vessels traffic is normally low. Notifications will be made to the maritime community via marine information broadcasts so mariners may adjust their plans accordingly. Notifications will be updated as necessary, to keep the maritime community informed of the status of the safety zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone which is limited in size and duration. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T05-0541 to read as follows:
    § 165.T05-0541 Safety Zone; Nights in Venice Fireworks, Beach Thorofare, Ocean City, NJ.

    (a) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard petty officer, warrant or commissioned officer on board a Coast Guard vessel and or on board another Federal, State, or local law enforcement vessel assisting the Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay with enforcement of the safety zone.

    (b) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All the waters of Beach Thorofare within a 600 foot radius of the fireworks launch platform in approximate position 39°17′W23″ N., 074°34′W31″ W. near Ocean City, NJ.

    (c) Regulations.

    (1) The general safety zone regulations found in § 165.23 apply to the safety zone created by this temporary section.

    (2) Under the general safety zone regulations in § 165.23, persons may not enter the safety zone described in paragraph (b) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

    (3) To request permission to enter the safety zone, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). All persons and vessels in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

    (d) Effective and enforcement period: This section will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 22, 2017.

    Benjamin A. Cooper, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Delaware Bay.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13206 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Royalty Board 37 CFR Part 350 [Docket No. 17-CRB-0013 RM] Proceedings of the Copyright Royalty Board; Violation of Standards of Conduct AGENCY:

    Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Copyright Royalty Judges seek reply comments regarding a proposed new Copyright Royalty Board rule that would authorize the Judges to bar, either temporarily or permanently, certain individuals and entities from participating in proceedings before the Judges.

    DATES:

    Comments are due no later than July 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The proposed rule is posted on the agency's Web site (www.loc.gov/crb) and at Regulations.gov (www.regulations.gov). Interested parties may submit comments via the Copyright Royalty Board's electronic filing system, eCRB, at https://app.crb.gov. Commenters must register to use the system prior to filing comments. Those who choose not to submit comments electronically should see How to Submit Comments in the Supplementary Information section below for online and physical addresses and further instructions.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anita Blaine, Program Specialist, at (202) 707-7658 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On April 20, 2017, the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) published a notice in the Federal Register seeking comments on a proposed rule that would authorize the Judges to bar, either temporarily or permanently, certain individuals and entities from participating in proceedings before the Judges.1 In response to the notice, the Judges received five comments, including two joint comments, from people and entities that regularly participate in proceedings before the Judges.2 The comments and the proposal are available on the CRB Web site and in eCRB.

    1 82 FR 18601.

    2 The Judges received a joint comment from a group referring to itself as “The Allocation Phase Parties,” which are Program Suppliers, Joint Sports Claimants, Commercial Television Claimants, Public Broadcasting Service, Settling Devotional Claimants, Canadian Claimants Group, and National Public Radio. The Judges also received a joint comment from a group referring to itself as Music Community Participants, which are SoundExchange, Inc., the Recording Industry Association of America, Inc., the American Association of Independent Music, the American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada, the Screen Actors Guild—American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies, Inc., and the National Music Publishers' Association. The Judges also received comments from Raul Galaz and from Worldwide Subsidy Group, LLC, dba Independent Producers Group. The Judges also received a comment from David Powell.

    While some of the comments were supportive of the proposal or certain aspects of it, others were critical and raised a number of issues with the proposal, including the scope of the proposal, potential abuses of the proposed provisions, the Constitutionality of some of the proposed provisions, and whether the proposal is even necessary. The Judges seek reply comments responding directly to issues that commenters raised regarding the proposal. While the Judges will review and consider all comments they receive on the proposal, they request that commenters limit their comments at this point to issues that other commenters raised in the initial round of comments, including ways to address criticisms that some commenters raised with respect to the proposal. Some commenters that criticized the proposal suggested alternative language that might remedy perceived shortfalls in the Judges' proposal. The Judges request comments on those proposals, or welcome alternative suggestions the Judges might adopt to address those perceived shortfalls, including the pros and cons of choosing any proposed alternative approach. In light of some of the negative comments, the Judges also seek comment on whether, on balance, the remedies currently available to the Judges for addressing ethical lapses of participants and counsel are adequate or preferable to the remedial rule the Judges proposed. In particular, the Judges seek detailed comments regarding the incidents to which the Judges referredin the notice proposing the provision (or others that commenters are aware of to which the Judges did not refer) and how remedies currently available were used to address those incidents and whether or not the extant remedies (e.g., discovery sanctions or loss of the presumption of validity regarding claims) adequately addressed those incidents or whether gaps in the current remedial framework might lead to future incidents that could compromise public confidence in the CRB ratemaking and royalty distribution system.

    Solicitation of Comments

    The Judges seek reply comments on the proposed new rule that respond to comments that the Judges received in response to the initial notice of proposed rulemaking.

    How To Submit Comments

    Interested members of the public must submit comments to only one of the following addresses. If not submitting online, commenters must submit an original of their comments, five paper copies, and an electronic version in searchable PDF format on a CD.

    Online: https://app.crb.gov or http://www.regulations.gov; or

    U.S. mail: Copyright Royalty Board, P.O. Box 70977, Washington, DC 20024-0977; or Overnight service (only USPS Express Mail is acceptable): Copyright Royalty Board, P.O. Box 70977, Washington, DC 20024-0977; or

    Commercial courier: Address package to: Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress, James Madison Memorial Building, LM-403, 101 Independence Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20559-6000. Deliver to: Congressional Courier Acceptance Site, 2nd Street NE., and D Street NE., Washington, DC; or

    Hand delivery: Library of Congress, James Madison Memorial Building, LM-401, 101 Independence Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20559-6000.

    Dated: June 21, 2017. Suzanne M. Barnett, Chief Copyright Royalty Judge.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13277 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-72-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0760; FRL-9963-69 Region 5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; CFR Update AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a request submitted by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management on December 13, 2016, to revise the Indiana state implementation plan (SIP). The submission revises and updates the Indiana Administrative Code definition of “References to the Code of Federal Regulations,” from the 2013 edition to the 2015 edition.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0760 at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6031, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the Indiana's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.

    EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule, and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: June 1, 2017. Robert A. Kaplan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13193 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 224 [Docket No. 160413329-7546-02] RIN 0648-XE571 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Endangered Listing Determination for the Taiwanese Humpback Dolphin Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, NMFS, have completed a comprehensive status review under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the Taiwanese humpack dolphin (Sousa chinensis taiwanensis) in response to a petition from Animal Welfare Institute, Center for Biological Diversity, and WildEarth Guardians to list the species. Based on the best scientific and commercial information available, including the draft status review report (Whittaker and Young, 2017), and taking into consideration insufficient efforts being made to protect the species, we have determined that the Taiwanese humpback dolphin has a high risk of extinction throughout its range and warrants listing as an endangered species.

    DATES:

    Comments on this proposed rule must be received by August 25, 2017. Public hearing requests must be requested by August 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0041, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D= NOAA-NMFS-2016-0041, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Chelsey Young, NMFS Office of Protected Resources (F/PR3), 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA. Attention: Taiwanese humpback dolphin proposed rule.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    You can find the petition, status review report, Federal Register notices, and the list of references electronically on our Web site at http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/dolphins/indo-pacific-humpback-dolphin.html. You may also receive a copy by submitting a request to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Attention: Taiwanese humpback dolphin proposed rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chelsey Young, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 427-8403.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On March 9, 2016, we received a petition from the Animal Welfare Institute, Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians to list the Taiwanese humpback dolphin (S. chinensis taiwanensis) as threatened or endangered under the ESA throughout its range. This population of humpback dolphin was previously considered for ESA listing as the Eastern Taiwan Strait distinct population segment (DPS) of the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (Sousa chinensis); however, we determined that the population was not eligible for listing as a DPS in our 12-month finding (79 FR 74954; December 16, 2014) because it did not meet all the necessary criteria under the DPS Policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). Specifically, we determined that while the Eastern Taiwan Strait population was “discrete,” the population did not qualify as “significant.” The second petition asserted that new scientific and taxonomic information demonstrates that the Taiwanese humpback dolphin is actually a subspecies, and stated that NMFS must reconsider the subspecies for ESA listing. On May 12, 2016, we published a positive 90-day finding for the Taiwanese humpback dolphin (81 FR 29515), announcing that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned action of listing the subspecies may be warranted, and explaining the basis for those findings. We also announced the initiation of a status review of the subspecies, as required by section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA, and requested information to inform the agency's decision on whether the species warranted listing as endangered or threatened under the ESA.

    Listing Species Under the Endangered Species Act

    We are responsible for determining whether species are threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). To make this determination, we first consider whether a group of organisms constitutes a “species” under section 3 of the ESA, then whether the status of the species qualifies it for listing as either threatened or endangered. Section 3 of the ESA defines species to include “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” On February 7, 1996, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; together, the Services) adopted a policy describing what constitutes a DPS of a taxonomic species (61 FR 4722). The joint DPS policy identified two elements that must be considered when identifying a DPS: (1) The discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2) the significance of the population segment to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs.

    Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as one “which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Thus, in the context of the ESA, the Services interpret an “endangered species” to be one that is presently at risk of extinction. A “threatened species,” on the other hand, is not currently at risk of extinction, but is likely to become so in the foreseeable future. In other words, a key statutory difference between a threatened and endangered species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction, either now (endangered) or in the foreseeable future (threatened). The statute also requires us to determine whether any species is endangered or threatened as a result of any of the following five factors: the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (ESA, section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E)). Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us to make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into account efforts being made by any State or foreign nation or political subdivision thereof to protect the species.

    Status Review

    The status review for the Taiwanese humpback dolphin was completed by NMFS staff from the Office of Protected Resources. To complete the status review, we compiled the best available data and information on the subspecies' biology, ecology, life history, threats, and conservation status by examining the petition and cited references, and by conducting a comprehensive literature search and review. We also considered information submitted to us in response to our petition finding. The draft status review report was subjected to independent peer review as required by the Office of Management and Budget Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (M-05-03; December 16, 2004). The draft status review report was peer reviewed by three independent specialists selected from the academic and scientific community, with expertise in cetacean biology, conservation and management, and specific knowledge of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin. The peer reviewers were asked to evaluate the adequacy, appropriateness, and application of data used in the draft status review report as well as the findings made in the “Assessment of Extinction Risk” section of the report. All peer reviewer comments were addressed prior to finalizing the draft status review report.

    We subsequently reviewed the status review report, and its cited references, and we believe the status review report, upon which this proposed rule is based, provides the best available scientific and commercial information on the Taiwanese humpback dolphin. Much of the information discussed below on the dolphin's biology, distribution, abundance, threats, and extinction risk is attributable to the status review report. However, we have independently applied the statutory provisions of the ESA, including evaluation of the factors set forth in section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E), our regulations regarding listing determinations, and our DPS policy in making the 12-month finding determination. The draft status review report (cited as Whittaker and Young 2017) is available on our Web site (see ADDRESSES section). In the sections below, we provide information from the report regarding threats to and the status of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin.

    Description, Life History, and Ecology of the Petitioned Species Species Description

    The Taiwanese humpback dolphin (Sousa chinensis taiwanensis) is a recently recognized subspecies of the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (Sousa chinensis; Wang et al., 2015). Sousa chinensis is a broadly distributed species within the family Delphinidae and order Cetartiodactyla, whereas the Taiwanese subspecies occurs in a restricted area of shallow waters off the western coast of Taiwan. The subspecies of Sousa chinensis occurring in the Eastern Taiwan Strait—Sousa chinensis taiwanensis (herein referred to as the Taiwanese humpback dolphin) was first described in 2002 during an exploratory survey of coastal waters off western Taiwan (Wang et al., 2004b). Prior to coastal surveys, there were few records mentioning the species in this region, save two strandings, a few photographs, and anecdotal reports (Wang, 2004). Since the first survey in 2002, researchers have confirmed their year-round presence in the Eastern Taiwan Strait (Wang and Yang, 2011).

    In terms of distinctive physical characteristics, the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin is generally easy to distinguish from other dolphin species in its range. In general, the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin is medium-sized, up to 2.8 m in length, and weighs 250-280 kg (Ross et al., 1994). It is characterized by a robust body, long distinct beak, short dorsal fin atop a wide dorsal hump, and round-tipped broad flippers and flukes (Jefferson and Karczmarski, 2001). The base of the fin measures 5-10 percent of the body length, and slopes gradually into the surface of the body; this differs from individuals in the western portion of the range, which have a larger hump that comprises about 30 percent of body width, and forms the base of an even smaller dorsal fin (Ross et al., 1994).

    When young, humpback dolphins appear dark grey with no or few light-colored spots, and transform to mostly white (appearing pinkish) as dark spots decrease with age. However, the developmental transformation of pigment differs between Taiwanese and Chinese humpback dolphin populations, and the spotting intensity on the dorsal fin of the Taiwanese population is significantly greater than that in other nearby populations in the Pearl River estuary (PRE) or Jiulong River estuaries of the Chinese mainland (Wang et al., 2008). In fact, Wang et al. (2008) concluded that these differences in pigmentation can be used to reliably distinguish the Taiwanese humpback dolphin from other nearby populations, and Wang et al. (2015) further confirmed that Taiwanese humpback dolphins were “clearly diagnosable from those of mainland China under the most commonly accepted 75 percent rule for subspecies delimitation, with 94 percent of one group being separable from 99 percent of the other.” Based on this information, as well as additional evidence of geographical isolation and behavioral differences, the authors concluded that the Taiwanese humpback dolphin qualifies as a subspecies, and revised the taxonomy of Sousa chinensis to include two subspecies: The Taiwanese humpback dolphin (S. chinensis taiwanensis) and the Chinese humpback dolphin (S. chinensis chinensis) (Wang et al., 2015). Because of the new information as presented in Wang et al. (2015), the Taxonomy Committee of the Society for Marine Mammalogy officially revised its list of marine mammal taxonomy to recognize the Taiwanese humpback dolphin as a subspecies (Committee on Taxonomy, 2016).

    Range, Distribution and Habitat Use

    The Taiwanese humpback dolphin has a very restricted range, residing in the shallow coastal waters of central western Taiwan throughout the year (Wang et al., 2007a; Wang et al., 2016), with no evidence of seasonal movements (Wang and Yang, 2011; Wang et al., 2016). Although the total distribution of the dolphin covers approximately 750 km2, the subspecies' core distribution encompasses approximately 512 km2 of coastal waters, from estuarine waters of the Houlong and Jhonggang rivers in the north, to waters of Waishanding Jhou to the south (Wang et al., 2016). This equates to a linear distance of approximately 170 km. However, the main concentration of the population occurs between the Tongsaio River estuary and Taisi, which encompasses the estuaries of the Dadu and Jhushuei rivers, the two largest river systems in western Taiwan (Wang et al., 2007a). Typically, the Taiwanese humpback dolphin is found within 3 km from the shore (Dares et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2016).

    Rarely, individuals have been sighted and strandings have occurred in near-shore habitat to the north and south of its current confirmed habitat; some of these incidents are viewed as evidence that the historical range of the population extended farther than its current range (Dungan et al., 2011). However, two specific anomalous sightings are considered incidences of vagrancy, involving sick or dying animals. All but two sightings have occurred in shallow water, less than 20 m, and as shallow as 1.5 m. The only two sightings that occurred in water deeper than 20 m occurred in habitat where dredging had occurred (Wang et al., 2007b). In fact, the Taiwanese humpback dolphin is thought to be geographically isolated from mainland Chinese populations, with water depth being the primary factor dictating their separation. The Taiwan Strait is 140-200 km wide, and consists of large expanses of water 50-70 m deep (the Wuchi and Kuanyin depressions). Despite extensive surveys, Taiwanese humpback dolphins have never been observed in water deeper than 30 m. As noted previously, the majority of sightings have been made in waters less than 20 m deep, but individuals have been known to cross deep (>30 m) shipping channels in inshore waters that have been dredged (Dares et al., 2014). Thus, deep water is thought to be the specific barrier limiting exchange with Chinese mainland populations (Jefferson and Karczmarski, 2001). Sousa species in general have limited mobility, and restriction to shallow, near-shore estuarine habitats is a significant barrier to movement (Karczmarski et al., 1997; Hung and Jefferson, 2004). Thus, confirmed present habitat constitutes a narrow region along the coast, which is affected by high human population density and extensive industrial development (Ross et al., 2010; Karczmarski et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016).

    Overall, water depth and the subspecies' need for access to inshore, estuarine waters, as well as the estuarine distribution of prey species, are likely the main factors underpinning habitat use and distribution of Taiwanese humpback dolphins (Dares et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2016). The input of freshwater to the habitat is thought to be important in sustaining estuarine productivity, and thus supporting the availability of prey for the dolphin (Jefferson, 2000). Across the Taiwanese humpback dolphin habitat, bottom substrate consists of soft sloping muddy sediment with elevated nutrient inputs primarily influenced by river deposition (Sheehy, 2010). These nutrient inputs support high primary production, which fuels upper trophic levels contributing to the dolphin's source of food. Thus, the characteristics defining distribution and habitat use of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin are similar to those of other humpback dolphin populations (Dares et al., 2014).

    Diet and Feeding

    Information on this Taiwanese humpback dolphin's foraging behavior and specific diet is limited, but the dolphins seem to have an opportunistic diet comprised primarily of estuarine fish (e.g., sciaenids, mugilids, congrids, clupeoids), and either do not or rarely feed on cephalopods and crustaceans (Wang et al., 2016). While the subspecies does not seem to show the same attraction to fishing vessels as the nearby Pearl River estuary (PRE) population, some evidence (e.g., net entanglements and observations of individuals feeding around and behind set gillnets and trawl nets, respectively) indicate that Taiwanese humpback dolphins may opportunistically feed in proximity to deployed fishing gear (Slooten et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2016). As is common to the species as a whole, the Taiwanese subspecies uses echolocation and passive listening to find its prey.

    Reproduction and Growth

    Little is known about the life history and reproduction of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin, and estimating life history parameters for the subspecies has proven difficult due to the lack of carcasses available for study (Wang et al., 2016). A recent analysis of life history patterns for individuals in the PRE population may offer an appropriate proxy for understanding life history of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin, as the PRE population similarly inhabits estuarine and freshwater-influenced environments affected by comparable threats of pollution, as well as industrial development and fishing activity (Jefferson et al., 2012). Additionally, life history traits of the PRE population are similar to the South African population, suggesting that some general assumptions of productivity can be gathered, even on the genus-level (Jefferson and Karczmarski, 2001; Jefferson et al., 2012). However, it should be noted that environmental factors (e.g., food availability, habitat status) may affect important rates of reproduction and generation time in different populations, and thus comparisons should be regarded with some caution.

    Maximum longevity for PRE and South African populations is 39 and 40 years, respectively (Jefferson et al., 2012; Jefferson and Karcsmarski, 2001); therefore, we assume that the Taiwanese humpback dolphin experiences a similar life expectancy. Likewise, we also expect the Taiwanese humpback dolphin to have an age at sexual maturity for females similar to that for the PRE and South African populations (12-14 years). In general, it has been assumed that the Taiwanese subspecies experiences long calving intervals, between 3 and 5 years (Jefferson et al., 2012). A recent study on the reproductive parameters of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin confirmed this assumption, and estimated the mean calving interval (defined as the period between the estimated birth months of two successive calves) to be 3.26 years ± SD 1.23 years (Chang et al., 2016). However, it is important to note that the results of this study are based on only 4 years of data; therefore, females with potentially longer calving intervals would not have been observed or recorded. Taiwanese humpback dolphin births occur throughout the year, but decrease in late summer and through mid-winter, with 69 percent of the estimated months of birth occurring in spring and summer (Chang et al., 2016). In terms of survival, between 1 and 3 calves survive annually to the age of 1-year (mean = 2.75), with survival of calves declining across the initial 3 years of life, from 0.778 (at 6 months) to 0.667 (at 1 year), and from 0.573 to 0.563 at ages of 2 and 3 years, respectively (Chang et al., 2016). Chang et al. (2016) hypothesized that the relatively low calf survival observed in the Taiwanese humpback dolphin population is more likely due to anthropogenic factors (e.g., fisheries interactions and habitat destruction) than natural causes. Overall, the Taiwanese humpback dolphin is likely long-lived, slow to mature, and has low recruitment rates and long calving intervals. These life history parameters indicate slow population growth, which contributes to a limited capacity for the subspecies to exhibit resilience to anthropogenic stressors (Chang et al., 2016).

    Population Structure

    No genetic data exist for the Taiwanese humpback dolphin; therefore, the genetic connectivity within the population cannot be directly assessed. However, in such a small population, social behavior and habitat connectivity may provide clues to the connectivity of the population as a whole. In general, humpback dolphin (Sousa spp.) populations are known for having generally weak, fluctuating associations in `fission-fusion' societies (i.e., social groups that change in size and composition as time passes and individuals move throughout the environment; Dungan, 2016; Wang et al., 2016; Dungan, 2012; Jefferson, 2000). However, a recent study of association patterns in Taiwanese humpback dolphins found that the Taiwanese subspecies exhibits stronger, persistent relationships among individuals, particularly among cohorts of mother-calf pairs (Dungan et al., 2016), with a unique level of stability in the population compared to other humpback dolphin populations (Wang et al., 2016). This high social cohesion is most likely related to cooperative calf rearing, wherein raising offspring with the assistance of peers or kin can increase offspring survivorship and thereby increase the fitness of the population (Dungan et al., 2016). This behavior is thought to be an adaptive response to the dolphin's degraded, geographically restricted environment (which makes it difficult for mothers to support offspring on their own), and to their small population size (which has likely increased the relatedness of individuals) (Dungan, 2011). Calves and their inferred mothers seem to have central positions in the social network, which suggests that mother-calf pairs may be the key underlying factor for overall network structure (Dungan et al., 2016). Given the subspecies' unique cohesive social network, persisting associations, and the reliance on cooperative rearing behaviors of mother-calf groups for reproductive fitness and survival, disruption of these social patterns could have significant ramifications regarding the dolphin's ability to reproduce as well as calf survivorship (Dungan et al., 2016), which is already reportedly low (Chang et al., 2016).

    Population Abundance and Trends

    There are only two formal estimates of abundance for the Taiwanese humpback dolphin. The first study estimated a population size of 99 individuals (coefficient of variation (CV) = 52 percent, 95 percent confidence interval (CI) = 37-266) based on surveys that used line transects to count animals from 2002 to 2004 (Wang et al., 2007b). A new estimate of population abundance with data collected between 2007 and 2010 using mark-recapture methods of photo identification allowed for higher-precision measurements (Wang et al., 2012). Yearly population estimates from this study ranged from 54 to 74 individuals in 2009 and 2010, respectively (CV varied from 4 percent to 13 percent); these estimates were 25 to 45 percent lower than those from 2002-2004 (Wang et al., 2012). Carrying capacity for the Taiwanese humpback dolphin has been estimated at 250 individuals (which was set higher than the highest point estimate abundance from Wang et al. (2012)), as extrapolated from the mean density estimate for the population (Araújo et al., 2014); this estimate suggests that the population abundance has been reduced from historical levels.

    An analysis of potential biological removal (PBR), which, under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), is a measure of the maximum number of individuals that can be removed from a population without depleting it (Wade, 1998), was conducted to assess the sustainability and stability of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin in the face of present threats, and their projected future trends (Slooten et al., 2013). Using the most current abundance estimate, and assuming that the Taiwanese humpback dolphin population is a closed and discrete population based on information provided in Wang et al. (2012), Slooten et al. (2013) assessed the number of individuals in the population that may be lost due to occurrences other than natural mortality and still allow for population stability and recovery. The authors calculated that a sustainable population could withstand no more than one human-caused dolphin death every 7 to 7.6 years. Thus, even a single human-caused mortality per year would exceed the PBR by a factor of seven (Slooten et al., 2013). Their assessment took into account all non-natural mortality including fishing, pollution, vessel strikes, habitat destruction, and other human activities, and determined that current removal of individuals from the population exceeds the PBR necessary for population stability which would prevent decline, support natural population growth, and allow for improved status (Slooten et al., 2013). Given the population's mortality rate of 1.5 percent (Wang et al., 2012), current rates of population decline are likely unsustainable.

    An extremely low population size estimate (fewer than 100 individuals) is well supported by current available data, and recent population viability analyses (PVAs) suggest that the population is declining due to the synergistic effects of habitat degradation and detrimental fishing interactions (Araújo et al., 2014; Huang et al., 2014). Araújo et al. (2014) modeled population trajectory over 100 years using demographic factors alongside different levels of mortality attributed to bycatch, and loss of carrying capacity due to habitat loss/degradation. The model predicted a high probability of ongoing population decline under all scenarios. For instance, population size was predicted to be smaller than the initial size in more than 76 percent of all model runs, with the final population size predicted to be <1 individual (i.e., extinction) in 66 percent of all model runs (Araújo et al., 2014). Another PVA was performed by using an individual-based model to account for parametric uncertainty and demographic stochasticity (Huang et al., 2014). Although this model showed wide variation in population growth estimates (ranging from a significant decline of −0.113 to a moderate increase of 0.0317), the end result for the subspecies was still an overall decline, with 69.4 percent of simulations predicting a population decline of greater than 25 percent within one generation (i.e., 22 years) and the majority of simulations (54 percent) predicting local extinction within 100 years (Huang et al., 2014).

    Overall, although the two PVA studies differed in their findings with regard to the relative importance of bycatch and habitat loss threats, both assessments concluded that the subspecies is in serious danger of going extinct (Wang et al., 2016). Ultimately, strong evidence suggests that the Taiwanese humpback dolphin population size is critically small, and rates of decline are high and likely unsustainable. Further, it is clear that loss of only a single individual within the population per year would substantially reduce population growth rate and is thus unsustainable (Dungan et al., 2011, Slooten et al., 2013)

    Assessment of Extinction Risk

    The ESA (section 3) defines an endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is defined as “any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Neither we nor the USFWS have developed formal policy guidance about how to interpret the definitions of threatened and endangered with respect to what it means to be “in danger of extinction.” We consider the best available information and apply professional judgment in evaluating the level of risk faced by a species in deciding whether the species is threatened or endangered. We evaluate demographic risks, such as low abundance and productivity, and threats to the species, including those related to the factors specified in ESA section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E).

    For purposes of assessing extinction risk for the Taiwanese humpback dolphin, we reviewed the best available information on the species and evaluated the overall risk of extinction facing the Taiwanese humpback dolphin, now and in the foreseeable future. The term “foreseeable future” was discussed qualitatively in the status review report and defined as the timeframe over which threats could be projected with a reasonable amount of confidence. After considering the life history of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin, availability of data, and types of threats, we determined that a reasonable foreseeable future should extend out several decades (>50 years). The foreseeable future timeframe is also a function of the reliability of available data regarding the identified threats and extends only as far as the data allow for making reasonable predictions about the species' response to those threats. Given the Taiwanese humpback dolphin's life history traits, including longevity estimated to be upwards of 40 years, estimated maturity range of 12-14 years, low reproductive rates and long calving intervals of >3 years, it would likely take more than a few decades (i.e., multiple generations) for any management actions to be realized and reflected in population abundance indices. Similarly, the impact of present threats to the subspecies could be realized in the form of noticeable population declines within this time frame, as demonstrated by the very low PBR estimate for the dolphin and current mortality rate of 1.5 percent. As the main operative threats to the subspecies include habitat destruction and entanglement in fishing gear, this time frame would allow for reliable predictions regarding the impact of current levels of fishery-related mortality and the previously discussed impacts of habitat destruction as a result of land reclamation and other activities on the biological status of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin.

    In determining the extinction risk of a species (and in this case, a subspecies), it is important to consider both the demographic risks facing the species as well as current and potential threats that may affect the species' status. To this end, a demographic risk analysis was conducted for the Taiwanese humpback dolphin. A demographic risk analysis is an assessment of the manifestation of past threats that have contributed to the species' current status and informs the consideration of the biological response of the species to present and future threats. This analysis evaluated the population viability characteristics and trends available for the dolphin, such as abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial structure and connectivity, and diversity, to determine the potential risks these demographic factors pose to the subspecies. The information from this demographic risk analysis was considered alongside the information previously presented on threats to the subspecies, including those related to the factors specified by the ESA section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E) (and summarized in a separate Threats Assessment section below) and used to determine an overall risk of extinction for the Taiwanese humpback dolphin. Thus, scientific conclusions about the overall risk of extinction faced by the Taiwanese humpback dolphin under present conditions and in the foreseeable future are based on our evaluation of the subspecies' demographic risks and section 4(a)(1) threat factors. Our assessment of overall extinction risk considered the likelihood and contribution of each particular factor, synergies among contributing factors, and the cumulative impact of all demographic risks and threats on the subspecies.

    Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary, when making a listing determination for a species, to take into consideration those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect the species. Therefore, prior to making a listing determination, we also assess such protective efforts to determine if they are adequate to mitigate the existing threats.

    Evaluation of Demographic Risks Abundance

    We identified the critically low population abundance of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin as the demographic factor contributing most heavily to the subspecies' risk of extinction. With fewer than 100 individuals and low productivity, even a single human-caused mortality per year is expected to negatively impact the subspecies' continued viability. For example, current annual mortality is estimated at 1.5 percent (Wang et al., 2012) and recent PVAs, which model future scenarios taking into account increasing threats of fishing and habitat loss, confirm the unsustainable decline of the population (Araújo et al., 2014; Huang and Karczmarski, 2014; Huang et al., 2014). In fact, both available PVA assessments conclude that the subspecies is in danger of going extinct (Wang et al., 2016). Overall, the small and declining population size of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin contributes to a high risk of extinction, which is compounded by a variety of ongoing threats to the population and its habitat.

    Growth Rate/Productivity

    The Taiwanese humpback dolphin is associated with a slow rate of reproduction, long calving intervals, low recruitment rates and a long period of female-calf association. A recent study on the reproductive parameters of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin indicates low calf survival rate and fecundity (Chang et al., 2016). For the Taiwanese humpback dolphin, low fecundity is likely caused by current threats of habitat contamination, stress, and prey disruption (Chang et al., 2016). As such, ongoing exposure to pollution and stress derived from interactions with anthropogenic activity may act to further reduce reproductive rates of this subspecies in the future. Trends of decreasing reproductive rate are likely to prevent the population's adaptability to stress and impede its ability to increase population levels, even if mitigation efforts are made to address other threats such as bycatch and habitat destruction. Overall, the Taiwanese humpback dolphin's reproductive rate may be expected to decrease over time without efforts to mitigate habitat contamination and stress due to anthropogenic activity occurring throughout the population's range. For the Taiwanese humpback dolphin, a low rate of reproduction and fecundity now, and likely reductions in those rates in the future, contribute to a high risk of extinction.

    Spatial Structure/Connectivity

    As previously discussed, genetic data are not available for the Taiwanese humpback dolphin; therefore, the genetic connectivity within the population cannot be directly assessed. In such a small population, however, social behavior and habitat connectivity may provide clues to the connectivity of the population as a whole. For the Taiwanese humpback dolphin, habitat includes a very narrow strip of near shore waters. Analysis of social behavior of the population has revealed significant and high levels of interconnectedness and gregarious behavior across this habitat range (Dungan, 2011; Dungan et al., 2016). The population is not subdivided into smaller social groups, as is the case for larger mainland Chinese populations (Dungan, 2011). Rather, the Taiwanese humpback dolphin exhibits high social cohesion relating to its strong population isolation, low abundance, confined geographic distribution, and anthropogenic stressors that have diminished the biological productivity of Taiwan's west coast over the last ~60 years (Dungan et al., 2016; Dungan, 2011). As such, the subspecies' social structure may be unusual relative to other S. chinensis populations in that individual dolphins appear to be using stronger, longer-lasting relationships in order to cope with these environmental and demographic differences (Dungan et al., 2016).

    As previously discussed, the high social cohesion observed in the Taiwanese humpback dolphin is most likely related to cooperative calf rearing; this behavior is thought to be an adaptive response to the dolphin's degraded, geographically restricted environment (which makes it difficult for mothers to support offspring on their own), and to their small population size (which has likely increased the relatedness of individuals) (Dungan, 2011). The social structure of this small population may be disrupted by several factors. For instance, damming of freshwater input or construction and land reclamation preventing the transit of individuals across its near shore range may lead to genetic and social fragmentation. Currently, the direct impact of habitat alteration on the genetic and social connectivity of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin is based on limited data. Disruption of social structure through mortality or habitat fragmentation may hinder the transfer of information and destabilize the community structure that aids in the adaptability of the small population in the future. Current threats to habitat, fishing entanglement, and direct mortality continue to increase, and may disrupt the social stability and physical connectivity among individuals of the subspecies, particularly through the deaths of breeding females. However, the extent to which these effects directly impact the connectivity of the small and isolated population remains uncertain. Based on the narrow habitat range and isolated nature of the population, with high within-population connectivity, continued alteration and fragmentation of this connectivity due to increasingly constricted habitat may hinder its future ability to adapt to threats, and, therefore, contributes moderately to the subspecies' risk of extinction.

    Diversity

    While data do not exist to address the genetic diversity of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin, there are several reasons to believe that diversity is reduced in the subspecies. First, with fewer than 100 and possibly fewer than 75 individuals in this reproductively isolated subspecies (which is well below the minimum population size (i.e., at least 250 individuals) required for marine mammals to resist stochastic genetic diversity loss (Huang et al., 2014)), the gene pool may be experiencing critical bottlenecks. Next, social structure is highly connected in the population. This suggests that genetic substructure within the population does not exist, and diversification within the population is not supported by current environmental or behavioral mechanisms. Low diversity may contribute to low capacity for the population to adapt to changes in the marine environment projected in future climate scenarios. The combination of low diversity and small population size most likely increases the population's vulnerability to current and increasing threats. Insufficient data are available to directly determine the effect of small population size on the genetic diversity of the population. However, although insufficient data are available, evidence from abundance and social structure suggest that diversity is likely low, and may contribute moderately to the extinction risk of the subspecies.

    Summary of Factors Affecting the Taiwanese Humpback Dolphin

    As described above, section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.11(c)) state that we must determine whether a species (or in this case, a subspecies) is endangered or threatened because of any one or a combination of the following factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We evaluated whether and the extent to which each of the foregoing factors contributed to the overall extinction risk of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin. We summarize information regarding each of these threats below according to the factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. The best available information indicates that habitat destruction, modification, or curtailment of the subspecies' habitat or range (e.g., land reclamation, fresh water diversion, and pollution) and other natural or manmade factors (e.g., bycatch and fisheries entanglement and vessel strikes) contribute significantly to the subspecies' risk of extinction. We also determined that the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to control these threats is also contributing significantly to the dolphin's extinction risk. We determined that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes, disease, or predation are not operative threats on the species, although we do recognize that these threats may act synergistically with the more high-risk threats. See Whittaker and Young (2017) for additional discussion of all ESA section 4(a)(1) threat categories.

    Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species Habitat or Range

    As previously discussed in the Range, Distribution and Habitat Use section of this proposed rule, the Taiwanese humpback dolphin is an obligatory shallow water inshore species known for its restricted distribution and narrow habitat selectivity; thus, degradation of coastal habitats can have significant consequences for the subspecies, including impacts to persistence and distribution of the subspecies (Karczmarski et al., 2016). Like many estuarine habitats, that of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin is negatively impacted by highly concentrated human activity. In fact, out of Taiwan's human population of 23 million, approximately 90 percent live in counties bordering the west coast of Taiwan, and thus abutting the Taiwanese humpback dolphin's habitat (Ross et al., 2010). In addition to high population density, the coastal region is associated with persistent industrial development, land reclamation, and freshwater diversion, all of which destroy and degrade estuarine habitat upon which the Taiwanese humpback dolphin depends (Sheehy, 2009; Thamarasi, 2014). Below, we discuss several factors that may be contributing to the destruction, modification, or curtailment of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin's habitat and/or range, including coastal development/land reclamation, freshwater diversion, and contaminants/pollutants.

    Land reclamation due to industrial activity and coastal development contributes to widespread loss and degradation of Taiwanese humpback dolphin habitat. Over the past three decades, the west coast of Taiwan has undergone large alterations of coastal environments due to embankment, land reclamation, coastal construction, and shoreline development, including the construction of break-walls and dredging activities. These activities have increased over the last 50 years and are expected to continue into the future, largely unchecked (Wang et al., 2004a; Wang et al., 2007a; Karczmarski et al., 2016). In fact, recent studies have documented extensive loss of native estuarine habitat across the Taiwanese humpback dolphin's range. For example, from 1995 to 2007, actions taken to control for erosion and flooding, as well as the expansion of structures such as fishing ports, power plants, and other public facilities, resulted in a 20 percent decline in natural coastline within the Taiwanese humpback dolphin's habitat (Wang et al., 2016).

    Another study estimated that land reclamation activities since 1972 have destroyed over 222 km2 of habitat along the western coast of Taiwan, equating to 23 percent and 40 percent of dolphin habitat and foraging habitat, respectively (Karczmarski et al., 2016). However, the authors note that this is likely an underestimation of true impacts, as the study only considered habitat loss due to land reclamation and did not account for other impacts to the dolphin's habitat (Karczmarski et al., 2016). Results of this study indicate that the dolphin likely had a continuous distribution prior to any land reclamation activities, whereas the subspecies' current distribution appears fragmented into two zones separated by an area of potential avoidance. Therefore, Karczmarski et al. (2016) concluded that the current discontinuous distribution of Taiwanese humpback dolphins is likely due to varying levels of habitat degradation rather than “natural patchiness of their environment.”

    In contrast, Dares et al. (2017) found that Taiwanese humpback dolphins exhibited temporal and spatial variation in mean densities across their range, and that dolphin density was not directly linked to any environmental factors (e.g., depth, sea surface temperature, salinity, and proximity to the nearest source of fresh water). In fact, all metrics analyzed in the study, including dolphin sightings, dolphin density, and mother-calf pairs, were higher in waters adjacent to major reclamation projects as compared to more natural waters where major reclamation activities had not occurred. Unlike other cetacean species, Taiwanese humpback dolphins are confined to a relatively small amount of suitable habitat and restricted to shallow estuarine waters; therefore, the dolphins do not have the option to relocate to other areas when high quality habitats are degraded or lost to reclamation activities (Dares et al., 2017). Therefore, the authors conclude that “rather than a real preference for waters adjacent to reclaimed coastlines” the patterns observed in the study are likely because the locations of these large construction sites and activities are in close proximity to the two largest estuaries in the range of the subspecies (Dares et al., 2017).

    Despite the differences in distribution and habitat use observed in these recent studies, the large elimination of suitable habitat negatively affects the Taiwanese humpback dolphin in several ways. First, habitat fragmentation due to high levels of industrial development may reduce connectivity among estuaries along the narrowly distributed range of the population. This can physically limit the ability of individuals to associate with each other, which could have detrimental impacts on the dolphin's reproductive output and calf survivorship, particularly given the subspecies' high social cohesion and dependence on cooperative calf-rearing behaviors (Dungan et al., 2016). Next, waste discharge from industrial activity leads to water and sediment contamination. Given the extremely limited availability of suitable habitat for the dolphin, use of lower quality habitat near coastal developments because of land reclamation can also expose the dolphins to areas of higher effluent discharge and pollutants (Dares et al., 2017). Finally, dredging and hydraulic sand fill methods used frequently for industrial land reclamation in the area not only encroach upon limited habitat, but also have the potential to disrupt the distribution of vital prey species of the population (Ross et al., 2010; Dungan et al., 2011).

    In addition to land reclamation, fresh water diversion likely has significant impacts to the Taiwanese humpback dolphin, as the subspecies is dependent upon freshwater inflow to support the productivity and ecosystem health of its estuarine habitat. This habitat need of freshwater inflow for the Taiwanese humpback dolphin is similar to that shown for the PRE population of humpback dolphins in mainland China, where freshwater inflow has been shown to support steady estuarine ecosystem production upon which the dolphin relies for prey (Jefferson and Hung, 2004). This freshwater flow is drastically reduced by dams, flood control, and river diversions related to industrial development and diversion for agricultural and municipal purposes (Dungan et al., 2011). In Taiwan, freshwater flow from all major rivers to estuaries has decreased by as much as 80 percent due to anthropogenic diversion (Ross et al., 2010). Landsat data also show a drastic reduction and weakening of annual discharge from major rivers along Taiwan's west coast since 1972, as indicated by the reduced width of the channel and alluvial fans at river mouths (Karczmarski et al., 2016). Dams are already in place for many rivers in Western Taiwan, and have resulted in widespread loss of estuarine mudflat habitat, which is vital to Taiwanese humpback dolphin foraging and productivity. For example, the Coshui (Juoshuei) River that once supplied sediment to the Waisanding sand bar has been diverted and restricted by the Formosa Petrochemical Corporation plant, resulting in shifts and shrinking of the sand bar (Chen, 2006). Taiwanese dams and their total capacity have increased exponentially over the past century, resulting in significant loss and alteration of natural estuarine systems. Finally, pollution and habitat contamination pose a threat to the health of long-lived species such as the humpback dolphin. Due to concentrated industrial and human activity, high levels of pollution are discharged into the habitat of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin (Wang et al., 2007a). The sources of these pollutants include marine boat repair, fish processing, fueling stations, ship dumping, pipeline leakage, municipal and residential waste, industrial effluent, and livestock runoff (Ross et al., 2010). The discharge of toxic pollutants into coastal waters of Taiwan is largely unregulated. For instance, an estimated 740,000 tons of waste oil from boats enters the marine environment in Taiwan each year (Wang et al., 2007b). In addition, over 70 percent of wastewater is discharged into river systems untreated, and subsequently runs off into near shore estuarine habitat (Chen et al., 2007). Particularly damaging are persistent organic, heavy metal, and trace metal pollutants which negatively interact with cetacean development and reproduction and are associated with carcinogenic and teratogenic properties (Reijnders, 2003; Ramu et al., 2005). These toxins have been found to accumulate and become concentrated in the marine sediment off the coast of Taiwan affected by freshwater input, impacting the Taiwanese humpback dolphin habitat (Chen et al., 2007; Hung et al., 2010). Even toxins which were banned in the 1980s, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), remain present in poorly maintained machinery and industrial equipment, thus their accumulation is expected to continue in the future (Chou et al., 2004).

    Pollution can affect the Taiwanese humpback dolphin in two ways: Directly influencing the health of the animal or influencing prey that the dolphin later ingests, thus leading to bioaccumulation of toxins in the dolphin. To date, only one study has analyzed the potential bioaccumulation of toxins specifically for the Taiwanese humpback dolphin population. Riehl et al. (2012), using a life-history based contaminant accumulation model for marine mammals, estimated that 68 percent of the population is at risk for immunotoxicity based on a 17 mg/kg lipid weight (LW) threshold for immunotoxicity (noting that there are several lower level thresholds shown to impact the health of marine mammals). Model outputs using a “best-case” scenario (e.g., diet of 100 percent Johnius spp.) resulted in average adult males reaching the threshold concentration just prior to turning 9.3 years of age. In contrast, the average adult female would only acquire enough PCBs to reach concentrations of 2.84 mg/kg LW due to offloading much of their body burden to their offspring after giving birth (Riehl et al., 2012). Although the study was based on limited species-specific data inputs to the model, humpback dolphins in the PRE, affected by similar threats of industrial development and habitat contamination, have demonstrated elevated concentrations of organochlorines including PCBs, hexachlorocyclohexanes (HCHs), and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethanes (DDTs) (Parsons, 2004; Ramu et al., 2005; Jefferson et al., 2006). For example, in humpback dolphins off the coast of Hong Kong, the concentration of DDTs was as high as 470 μg/g LW, and PCBs as high as 78 μg/g (Ramu et al., 2005). Toxicity analysis (which compares these concentrations with known toxic effects from other marine mammals) strongly suggests that these chemicals impair reproduction and suppress immune function in the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (Ramu et al., 2005). This is particularly concerning given the already low reproductive rate of the dolphin.

    Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or Educational Purposes

    We assessed two factors that may contribute to the overutilization of the subspecies: Whale watching and scientific research. While some whale watching and recreational observation of marine mammals occurs off the coast of Taiwan, it is unlikely that these activities contribute heavily to the extinction risk for the Taiwanese humpback dolphin relative to other threats. However, some tours targeting the Taiwanese humpback dolphin have been permitted to operate despite recommendations against any boat-based dolphin watch tour targeting the subspecies (Wang, pers. comm., 2017; Wang et al., 2007a). Therefore, while whale watching tours on their own are unlikely to pose a significant threat to the dolphin, any additional stressor on the population likely acts synergistically with other more prominent threats and contributes to the subspecies' extinction risk.

    It is also unlikely that scientific monitoring has a negative impact on the Taiwanese humpback dolphin. The dolphin was only first observed in 2002, and since then several scientific surveys have sought to characterize its status and abundance. The low frequency of these surveys, and reliance on non-invasive photo identification, are unlikely to pose serious threats to the subspecies.

    Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    There are few regulations in place for the protection of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin. For example, the Taiwanese humpback dolphin is listed under Taiwan's Wildlife Conservation Act as a Level I protected species, which grants species the highest level of legal protection. Article 4 of the Act designates humpback dolphins as “protected wildlife”, and Article 18 states that these animals are “not to be disturbed, abused, hunted [or] killed” (Wang et al., 2016). Nonetheless, there appear to be no associated regulatory or enforcement actions for the prevention of bycatch and entanglement of the population, or extensive habitat degradation (Wang et al., 2016). For example, several years after Ross et al. (2010) published recommendations for legally protecting the confirmed and suitable habitat for the Taiwanese humpback dolphins, the Forestry Bureau of Taiwan proposed “Major Wildlife Habitat” for the dolphins in 2014; however, the proposed protected area did not cover the minimum area recommended for protection (Wang et al., 2016). Given the already restricted amount of suitable habitat available to the dolphin, providing legal protection for an area that does not cover the subspecies' entire distribution may put the dolphins at risk of encountering increased threats occurring just outside the protected area (also known as the “edge effect”; see original citations in Wang et al., 2016). Furthermore, regardless of potential inadequacies of the proposed protected area, the “Major Wildlife Habitat” proposal has not yet been implemented (Wang et al., 2016). Therefore, based on current knowledge of the population, and despite providing the highest level of legislative protection, the Wildlife Conservation Act appears inadequate to control for the primary threats to the species and has thus far proven unsuccessful in slowing population decline.

    While many recommendations have been made to guide the future conservation and recovery of the population (Wang et al., 2004a; Wang et al., 2007a; Ross et al., 2010; Ross et al., 2011), no current regulatory mechanisms are in place to address the major threats to the subspecies and its future viability. Development and industrialization of the region are largely unregulated. Likewise, fishing and marine mammal bycatch are also unregulated.

    Therefore, based on the foregoing information, we conclude that existing regulations for the Taiwanese humpback dolphin are inadequate. That is, the laws that are in place currently are not effectively controlling for the main identified threats to the species (e.g., habitat destruction and fishing interactions) and will likely not prevent future population decline.

    Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    We assessed several potential threats that fall under the category of Other Natural or Manmade Factors, including bycatch and entanglement in fishing gear, vessel strikes, acoustic disturbance, and climate change. Among these threats, injury and mortality due to bycatch and entanglement in fishing gear and vessel strikes were by far the most significant threats to the continued existence of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin. We discuss these threats in detail below. Detailed information on the other threats (i.e., acoustic disturbance and climate change) can be found in the draft status review report (Whittaker and Young, 2017).

    As noted previously, entanglement and mutilation due to interactions with fishing gear are likely the most serious direct and immediate threat to the Taiwanese humpback dolphin (Wang et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2017). Bycatch poses a significant threat to small cetaceans in general, where entanglement in fishing gear results in widespread injury and mortality (Read et al., 2006). Taiwanese fisheries reports indicate that entanglement in fishing gear kills thousands of small cetaceans in the region (Chou, 2006). Although there are many types of fishing gear used throughout the subspecies' habitat, the two fishing gear types most hazardous to small cetaceans are gillnets and trammel nets, thousands of which are set in coastal waters off western Taiwan (Dungan et al., 2011; Slooten et al., 2013).

    Injury due to entanglement is evident in the Taiwanese humpback dolphin population, identified by characteristic markings on the body, including constrictive line wraps, and direct observation of gear wrapped around the dolphin (Slooten et al., 2013). One study determined that over 30 percent of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin population exhibits evidence of fisheries interactions including wounds, scars, and entanglement (Wang et al., 2007a; Slooten et al., 2013), with 59.2 percent of injuries (lethal and non-lethal) observed confirmed to have originated from fisheries interactions (Slooten et al., 2013). In a more recent study that expands upon Slooten et al. (2013), Wang et al. (2017) determined that nearly 60 percent of the individuals examined in the study (n = 78) bore major injuries caused by human activities, with 93 major injuries recorded on 46 individuals. The authors defined “major injuries” as those that would likely comprise the dolphin's health, survivorship or reproductive potential. Not only was a large proportion of the population injured, more than half of the individuals suffered multiple injuries, with several new injuries observed. Consequently, this means that the risk of injury by human activities is ongoing. In fact, from 2007 to 2015, 11 new human-caused injuries were recorded on 9 individuals. Therefore, the population incurred a minimum of 1.38 new injuries each year of the study, which resulted in a total major injury rate of 1.13 individuals/year (Wang et al., 2017). However, the authors note that despite the fact that all metrics evaluated in the study were high, they were still likely underestimates of the total impacts. For example, fatal injuries in which the animal dies immediately or soon after could not be considered and thus were not factored into the overall measure of impact. Two individuals have been found dead since 2009 with indications of gillnet entanglement injuries (Wang et al., 2017) and thus far, there has been no action to reduce any of the major threats identified more than a decade ago at the first workshop on the conservation and research needs of the subspecies (Wang et al., 2004a; Wang et al., 2017). Overall, without immediate actions to control for threats from local fisheries (especially net fisheries) and other major threats identified to the subspecies, the Taiwanese humpback dolphin likely faces imminent extinction (Wang et al., 2017).

    In addition to direct effects of fishing activity on the Taiwanese humpback dolphin, indirect effects of fishing include: Depletion of prey resources, pollution, noise disturbance, altered behavioral responses to prey aggregation in fishing gear, and potential changes to social structure arising from the deaths of individuals. Individuals of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin have shown potential evidence of disturbance due to such effects (Slooten et al., 2013). For example, recent surveys have observed dolphins with emaciated and poor body condition, suggesting declines in prey abundance, increased foraging effort, or disease (Slooten et al., 2013). While most Taiwanese humpback dolphin prey species are small and not commercially valuable (Barros et al., 2004), decreases in their abundance due to bycatch and subsequent fishmeal production may lead to over-exploitation, and reduce prey availability for the dolphin (Slooten et al., 2013). Increased prey aggregation due to fishing can also attract mothers and calves, putting them at greater risk of entanglement and injury; this has been observed in the PRE population, and is most likely behavior common to the Taiwanese humpback dolphin as well (Jefferson, 2000). Finally, death and injury of individuals due to fishing activity can disrupt social structure, which may affect the survival of calves or transfer of generational information throughout the social network. For example, loss of a mature female may impact the trajectory of learning and survival techniques passed on to a calf in its first several years.

    In addition to bycatch and entanglement, fishing activities can affect dolphins by increasing the likelihood of vessel strikes due to increased boat traffic. The waters off Taiwan are highly concentrated with human boat activity, including transportation, industrial shipping, commercial fishing, sand extraction, harbor dredging, and commercial dolphin watching. This activity is unmitigated, and its concentration has increased dramatically over the past few decades. In fact, the trend in boating and fishing activity in the region has increased by more than 750 percent since the 1950s, and its increase is expected to continue into the foreseeable future (Huang and Chuang, 2010). Fishing vessels alone contribute a large fraction of this boating activity; an estimated 6,300 fishing vessels are currently active inside the dolphins' habitat (operating from ports in the six coastal counties fronting the dolphins' habitat), and 45 percent of them are regularly engaged in fishing coastal waters (Slooten et al., 2013). The fleet is over-capitalized due to technological improvements, and thus fishing pressure and negative interactions between fishing gear/vessels and cetaceans are increasing (Wang et al., 2007b). Additionally, this traffic is unregulated, and poses a threat to the limited and narrow habitat available to the subspecies. The noise from these vessels may be disorienting for the dolphins, which rely upon acoustic sensory systems to communicate, forage, and interact with their environment, and thus increase the potential for a strike. In addition, individuals, especially females and calves, may be attracted to fishing vessels due to elevated prey concentration, which can lead to mortality via vessel strike. Humpback dolphins off the coast of Hong Kong, which interact with comparable levels of vessel traffic and face similar threats to habitat, have demonstrated unmistakable evidence of propeller cuts on their bodies, and vessel strikes have been determined as the conclusive cause of mortality in a high proportion of stranding incidents (Jefferson, 2000).

    Aside from direct mortality, interaction with vessel traffic may alter behavior of the dolphin, causing stress, reducing foraging efficiency, increasing the threat of predation, and altering behaviors that support its productivity. For instance, in individuals off the coast of Hong Kong, mother-calf pairs demonstrated the greatest level of disturbance by vessel traffic; it has been hypothesized that separation of the calf due to vessel disturbance could easily increase risk of predation, aside from the direct injury of a vessel strike (Van Parijs and Corkeron, 2001).

    Overall Extinction Risk Summary

    We identified several threats that likely affect the continued survival of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin, including destruction, modification, and curtailment of its habitat (e.g., land reclamation, industrial, agricultural, and municipal pollution, and river diversion), and other natural or manmade factors, such as bycatch and entanglement in fishing gear, vessel strikes, and acoustic disturbance. Of these threats, destruction and modification of habitat through land reclamation, river flow diversion, and pollution, as well as entanglement and bycatch pose the highest risk of extinction for the Taiwanese humpback dolphin. These threats are immediate, and intensity of these threats is likely to increase in the future. Regulations to mitigate these threats are not currently in place, and plans for mitigation have not yet been implemented. The analysis of demographic factors above identified several characteristics that elevate the population's vulnerability to these threats. For example, heavily diminished and declining population size drastically elevates the impact of even a single mortality event. Evidence suggests that diversity of the population is low, which reduces the resiliency of the population to threats and changes in its habitat. The population appears to be cohesive, most likely due to low population size and the narrow extent of its habitat. The potential for future disruption of social structure due to habitat fragmentation may heavily impact the transfer of generational information, calf survival, and foraging success. Finally, the population exhibits naturally low rates of reproduction and productivity, and data suggest that stress and habitat pollution act to further reduce the population's fecundity and productivity. Given these demographic characteristics, the aforementioned threats work synergistically to disrupt social structure, increase stress, limit food availability, and reduce fecundity while resulting in direct loss through mortality, injury, and prevention of population recovery. Due to the immediacy and intensity of threats, and demographic characteristics increasing the vulnerability of the population, we have concluded that the Taiwanese humpback dolphin has an overall high risk of extinction.

    Conservation Efforts

    Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary, when making a listing determination for a species, to take into account those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation to protect the species.

    Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), scientists, activists and residents of Taiwan have invested significant amounts of time and resources into the conservation of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin (Wang et al., 2016). For example, a series of workshops have been conducted to discuss the conservation of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin. These took place in 2004, 2007, 2011 and 2014, bringing together scientists, policy makers, and international partners to discuss conservation options for the subspecies. The overarching goals of each workshop were to define the conservation status, current threats, and outline potential conservation measures that would best help to improve the status of the subspecies. Since these workshops, research on the population has increased greatly, and understanding of the subspecies' abundance and population trends have improved. However, actions have yet to be taken by the local government to reduce any of the major existing threats faced by the subspecies (Wang et al., 2016). We could not find any additional information on protective efforts for the Taiwanese humpback dolphin that would reduce its current risk of extinction.

    Proposed Determination

    Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that we make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of the species and taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any state or foreign nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and conserve the species. We have independently reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information, including the petition, public comments submitted on the 90-day finding (81 FR 1376; January 12, 2016), the draft status review report (Whittaker and Young, 2017), and other published and unpublished information, and we have consulted with species experts and individuals familiar with the Taiwanese humpback dolphin subspecies. We considered each of the section 4(a)(1) factors to determine whether it contributed significantly to the extinction risk of the species on its own. We also considered the combination of those factors to determine whether they collectively contributed significantly to the extinction risk of the species. Therefore, our determination set forth below is based on a synthesis and integration of the foregoing information, factors and considerations, and their effects on the status of the subspecies throughout its range.

    We conclude that the Taiwanese humpback dolphin is presently in danger of extinction throughout its range. We summarize the factors supporting this conclusion as follows: (1) The best available information indicates that the subspecies has a critically small population of less than 100 individuals, which is likely declining; (2) the Taiwanese humpback dolphin has a very restricted range, occurring only in the shallow waters off the western coast of Taiwan; (3) the subspecies possesses life history characteristics that increase its vulnerability to threats, including that it is long-lived and has a late age of maturity, slow population growth, and low rate of reproduction and fecundity; (4) the subspecies is confined to limited habitat in a heavily impacted area of coastline where ongoing habitat destruction (including coastal development, land reclamation, and fresh water diversion) contributes to a high risk of extinction; (5) the Taiwanese humpback dolphin is experiencing unsustainable rates of fisheries interactions, including mortality and major injuries due to bycatch and entanglement in fishing gear; and (6) existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate for addressing the most important threats of habitat destruction and fisheries interactions.

    As a result of the foregoing findings, which are based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that the Taiwanese humpback dolphin is presently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. Accordingly, the Taiwanese humpback dolphin meets the definition of an endangered species, and thus warrants listing as an endangered species at this time.

    Effects of Listing

    Conservation measures provided for species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA include the development and implementation of recovery plans (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); designation of critical habitat, if prudent and determinable (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); a requirement that Federal agencies consult with NMFS under section 7 of the ESA to ensure their actions do not jeopardize the species or result in adverse modification or destruction of designated critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536); and, for endangered species, prohibitions on the import and export of any endangered species; the sale and offering for sale of such species in interstate or foreign commerce; the delivery, receipt, carriage, shipment, or transport of such species in interstate or foreign commerce and in the course of a commercial activity; and the “take” of such species within the U.S., within the U.S. territorial sea, or on the high seas (16 U.S.C. 1538). Recognition of the species' imperiled status through listing may also promote conservation actions by Federal and state agencies, foreign entities, private groups, and individuals.

    Identifying Section 7 Consultation Requirements

    Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) of the ESA and NMFS/FWS regulations require Federal agencies to confer with us on actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of species proposed for listing, or that result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a proposed species is ultimately listed, Federal agencies must consult on any action they authorize, fund, or carry out if those actions may affect the listed species or its critical habitat and ensure that such actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or result in adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat should it be designated. It is unlikely that the listing of this subspecies under the ESA will increase the number of section 7 consultations because the subspecies occurs outside of the United States and is unlikely to be affected by Federal actions.

    Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)) as: (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the ESA, on which are found those physical or biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. “Conservation” means the use of all methods and procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing under the ESA is no longer necessary. Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) requires that, to the extent prudent and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the listing of a species. However, critical habitat cannot be designated in foreign countries or other areas outside U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12(g)). The Taiwanese humpback dolphin is endemic to Taiwan and does not occur within areas under U.S. jurisdiction. There is no basis to conclude that any unoccupied areas under U.S. jurisdiction are essential for the conservation of the subspecies. Therefore, we do not intend to propose any critical habitat designations for the subspecies.

    Public Comments Solicited on Listing

    To ensure that the final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and effective as possible, we solicit comments and suggestions from the public, other governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, environmental groups, and any other interested parties. Comments are encouraged on this proposal (See DATES and ADDRESSES). Specifically, we are interested in new or updated information regarding: (1) The range, distribution, and abundance of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin; (2) the genetics and population structure of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin; (3) habitat within the range of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin that was present in the past, but may have been lost over time; (4) any threats to the Taiwanese humpback dolphin (e.g., fishing gear entanglement, habitat destruction, etc.); (5) current or planned activities within the range of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin and their possible impact on the subspecies; (6) recent observations or sampling of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin; and (7) efforts being made to protect the Taiwanese humpback dolphin.

    Role of Peer Review

    In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for public disclosure of peer review planning, and opportunities for public participation. The OMB Bulletin, implemented under the Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554), is intended to enhance the quality and credibility of the Federal government's scientific information, and applies to influential scientific information or highly influential scientific assessments disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. To satisfy our requirements under the OMB Bulletin, we obtained independent peer review of the status review report. Independent specialists were selected from the academic and scientific community for this review. All peer reviewer comments were addressed prior to dissemination of the final status review report and publication of this proposed rule.

    References

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Classification National Environmental Policy Act

    Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA restricts the information that may be considered when assessing species for listing and sets the basis upon which listing determinations must be made. Based on the requirements in section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA and the opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 (6th Cir. 1981), we have concluded that ESA listing actions are not subject to the environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Paperwork Reduction Act

    As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process.

    In addition, this proposed rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    In accordance with E.O. 13132, we determined that this proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects and that a Federalism assessment is not required. Given that this subspecies occurs entirely outside of U.S. waters, there will be no federalism impacts because listing the subspecies will not affect any state programs.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 224

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Transportation.

    Dated: June 20, 2017. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 224 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 1. The authority citation for part 224 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C 1361 et seq.

    2. In § 224.101, amend the table in paragraph (h), by adding an entry, by common name, “Dolphin, Taiwanese humpback” under “Marine Mammals” in alphabetical order, to read as follows:
    § 224.101 Enumeration of endangered marine and anadromous species.

    (h) * * *

    Species 1 Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity Citation(s) for listing
  • determination(s)
  • Critical
  • habitat
  • ESA rules
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Marine Mammals *         *         *         *         *         *         * Dolphin, Taiwanese humpback Sousa chinensis taiwanensis Entire subspecies [Insert Federal Register page where the document begins], [date of publication when published as a final rule] NA NA *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1 Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991).
    [FR Doc. 2017-13250 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 121 Monday, June 26, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License AGENCY:

    Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Oregon State University of Corvallis, Oregon, an exclusive license to the variety of blueberry described in U.S. Plant Patent Application Serial No. 15/530,947, “BLUEBERRY CULTIVAR NAMED `ECHO',” filed on March 28, 2017.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian T. Nakanishi of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Government's patent rights in this plant variety are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

    Mojdeh Bahar, Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13256 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License AGENCY:

    Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Oregon State University of Corvallis, Oregon, an exclusive license to the variety of blackberry described in U.S. Plant Patent Application Serial No. 15/530,950, “BLACKBERRY NAMED `HALL'S BEAUTY',” filed on March 28, 2017.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian T. Nakanishi of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Government's patent rights in this plant variety are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

    Mojdeh Bahar, Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13255 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request June 21, 2017.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by July 26, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    National Agricultural Statistics Service

    Title: Current Agricultural Industrial Reports (CAIR).

    OMB Control Number: 0535-0254.

    Summary of Collection: The Current Agricultural Industrial Reports (CAIR) surveys have become an integral part of the Census of Agriculture and numerous other surveys conducted by NASS. Under the authority of the Census of Agriculture Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-113) and defined under Title 7, Sec. 2204(g), these surveys will be mandatory. The data from the CAIR surveys will supply data users with important information on the utilization of many of the crops, livestock, and poultry produced in the U.S.

    Need and Use of the Information: Data from these surveys is essential to measuring the consumption of agricultural products in the production of numerous consumer goods. Agricultural products such as grain, oilseeds, fibers, and animal co-products is used in the creation of cooking oils, flour, lubricants, fuel, fabrics, soap, paint, methyl esters, resins, and numerous other products. The data are needed to provide a more complete picture of the importance of agriculture to the American population. Data from the instruments are published and publications are available to everyone at the same time on the NASS Web site.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 1,420.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: One time.

    Total Burden Hours: 2,490.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13264 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Agricultural Statistics Service Notice of Intent To Request Revision and Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY:

    National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intent of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection, the Livestock Slaughter Survey. Revision to burden hours may be needed due to changes in the size of the target population, sampling design, and/or questionnaire length.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by August 25, 2017 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0005, by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected]. Include docket number above in the subject line of the message.

    Efax: (855) 838-6382.

    Mail: Mail any paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions to: David Hancock NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5336A, Mail Stop 2024, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-2024.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Hand deliver to: NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5336A, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-2024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    R. Renee Picanso, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-4333. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS—OMB Clearance Officer, at (202) 690-2388 or at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Livestock Slaughter Survey.

    OMB Control Number: 0535-0005.

    Expiration Date of Approval: November 30, 2017.

    Type of Request: To revise and extend a currently approved information collection for a period of three years.

    Abstract: The primary objective of the National Agricultural Statistics Service is to prepare and issue State and national estimates of crop and livestock production, prices, and disposition as well as economic statistics, farm numbers, land values, on-farm pesticide usage, pest crop management practices, as well as the Census of Agriculture. Livestock slaughter data are used to estimate U.S. red meat production and reconcile inventory estimates which provide producers and the rest of the industry with current and future information on market supplies. This data is also used in preparing production, disposition, and income statistics which facilitate more orderly production, marketing, and processing of livestock and livestock products. NASS compiles data from both Federally Inspected and Non-Federally Inspected Slaughter Plants.

    Authority: These data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. This Notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Pub. L. 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) and Office of Management and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),” Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 115, June 15, 2007, p. 33362.

    Estimate of Burden: The Livestock Slaughter Survey includes a weekly survey of approximately 900 Federally Inspected (FI) slaughter plants and a monthly survey of approximately 900 State Inspected (SI) slaughter plants. Slaughter data is compiled by the Federal and State inspectors, therefore NASS does not contact these operations. NASS collects data only from the smaller independent plants and combines this data with the FI and SI data to create a national report. The smaller, independent operations (approximately 1,300 operations) are contacted either monthly, quarterly, or annually. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response for an estimated annual burden of 2,500 hours. (The USDA and State inspectors are not included in the calculation of total burden, since they are performing this task as a part of their job functions.)

    Respondents: Farmers and custom/state inspected slaughter plants.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,300.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 2,500 hours.

    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 will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, technological or other forms of information technology collection methods.

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

    Signed at Washington, DC, June 13, 2017. R. Renee Picanso, Associate Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13260 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Louisiana Advisory Committee To Discuss Civil Rights Topics in the State AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Louisiana Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Thursday, July 6, 2017, at 3:00 p.m. Central for the purpose of a discussion on civil rights topics affecting the state.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday, July 6, 2017, at 3:00 p.m. CDT

    PUBLIC CALL INFORMATION:

    Dial: 877-718-5108, Conference ID: 1009990

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Barreras, DFO, at [email protected] or 312-353-8311

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 877-718-5108, conference ID: 1009990. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Louisiana Advisory Committee link (https://database.faca.gov/committee/committee.aspx?cid=251&aid=17). Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Roll Call Civil Rights Topics in Louisiana Next Steps Public Comment Adjournment

    Exceptional Circumstance: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, the notice for this meeting is given less than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting because of the exceptional circumstance of management difficulties that prevent an earlier filing.

    Dated: June 21, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13283 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE U.S. Census Bureau Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Title: Generic Clearance for Internet Nonprobability Panel Pretesting.

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0978.

    Form Number(s): TBD.

    Type of Request: Extension of a Currently Approved Collection.

    Number of Respondents: 60,000.

    Average Hours per Response: 0.167.

    Burden Hours: 10,000.

    Needs and Uses: The information collected in this program of developing and testing questionnaires will be used by staff from the Census Bureau and sponsoring agencies to evaluate and improve the quality of the data in the surveys and censuses that are ultimately conducted. Because the questionnaires being tested under this clearance are still in the process of development, the data that result from these collections are not considered official statistics of the Census Bureau or other Federal agencies. Data will be included in research reports prepared for sponsors inside and outside of the Census Bureau. The results may also be prepared for presentations related to survey methodology at professional meetings or publications in professional journals. Since the submission of the 60 day notice, we have changed both the title and burden estimate for this collection. At the 60-day notice, the collection was entitled “Generic Clearance for Internet Nonprobability Panel Pretesting and Qualitative Survey Methods Testing.” To more accurately reflect the intended collection, we are renaming this collection “Generic Clearance for Medium-Scale Pretesting.” We are requesting an increase in hours from 8,334 to 16,900 annually because we incorporated the pretesting needs for the 2020 Census communications campaign into this request.

    Affected Public: Individuals and households.

    Frequency: Once.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Legal Authority: Data collection for this project is authorized under the authorizing legislation for the questionnaire being tested. This may be Title 13, Sections 131, 141, 161, 181, 182, 193, and 301 for Census Bureau-sponsored surveys, or other corresponding collection authorities for surveys sponsored by other Federal agencies. We do not now know what other titles will be referenced, since we do not know what survey questionnaires will be pretested during the course of the clearance.

    This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13280 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE U.S. Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 2018 National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses AGENCY:

    U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the proposed 2018 National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before August 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Daniel Doyle, U.S. Census Bureau, ADDP, HQ-7H051, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233-0001, (301) 763-5304 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS') Health Resources Services Administration's (HRSA) National Center for Health Workforce Analysis (NCHWA), the National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses (NSSRN) is conducted to assist in fulfilling the Congressional mandates of the Public Health Service Act 42 U.S.C. Section 294n(b)(2)(A), foster the development of information describing and analyzing the health care workforce and workforce related issues and provide necessary information for decision-making regarding future directions in health professions and nursing programs in response to societal and professional needs. In addition, Public Health Service Act 42 U.S.C. Section 295k(a)-(b), the Secretary shall establish a program, including a uniform health professions data reporting system, to collect, compile, and analyze data on health professions personnel. The Secretary is authorized to expand the program to include, whenever he determines it necessary, the collection, compilation, and analysis of data, health care administration personnel, nurses, allied health personnel in States designated by the Secretary to be included in the program. The NSSRN is designed to obtain the necessary data to determine the characteristics and distribution of Registered Nurses (RNs) throughout the United States, as well as emerging patterns in their employment characteristics. These data will provide the means for the evaluation and assessment of the evolving demographics, educational qualifications, and career employment patterns of RNs, consistent with the goals of congressional mandates of the Public Health Service Act 42 U.S.C. Section 294n(b)(2)(A) and Section 295k(a)-(b). Such data have become particularly important for the need to better understand workforce issues given the recent dynamic change in the RN population and, the transformation of the healthcare system.

    The proposed survey design for the 2018 NSSRN will include a probability sample (100,000 RNs) selected from a sampling frame compiled from files provided by the State Boards of Nursing and the National Council of the State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN). These files constitute a sampling frame of all RNs licensed in the 50 States and the District of Columbia. Sampling rates are set for each state based on considerations of statistical precision of the estimates and the costs involved in obtaining reliable national and state-level estimates. The survey will be multi-mode offering respondents the opportunity to participate via a web instrument and a paper questionnaire.

    The 2018 NSSRN project includes plans to experimentally test the efficacy of a non-monetary incentive (that is, whether offering a pen and lanyard as a token of appreciation increases response, thus reducing non-response bias and reducing costs associated with follow-up). Additionally, the project will test contact materials, and test modifications to data collection strategies based on response from prior contact strategies.

    In addition to testing non-monetary incentives, the 2018 NSSRN will evaluate different non-response follow-up mailing strategies by testing for response improvements using different envelopes to deliver the survey materials. One of these strategies utilizes testing a pressure-sealed reminder postcard scheduled to be mailed approximately one week after the initial survey invite mailing. This strategy is being implemented to decrease the time gap during mailings and is more cost-effective than sending an additional paper questionnaire packet. The ability to send reminders enclosed with the pressure-seal system allows for the secure delivery of login information for the NSSRN web instrument as well as specific information about the survey.

    Third, we plan to experimentally evaluate the impact of adding a supplemental fact sheet with important statistics from prior NSSRN administrations. During the initial mailing, inserts with important NSSRN facts will be tested.

    Finally, for respondents who experience technical problems with the web instrument, have questions about the survey, or need other forms of assistance, the 2018 NSSRN will have a Telephone Questionnaire Assistance (TQA) line available. TQA staff will not only be able to answer respondent questions and concerns, but also they will have the ability to collect survey responses over the phone, using an administrative access to the web instrument, if the respondent calls in and would like to have interviewer assistance in completing the interview.

    II. Methods of Collection Web-Push

    The production 2018 NSSRN plan for the web-push data collection design includes 80% of the 100,000 RNs receiving an initial invite with instructions on how to complete the questionnaire via the web. The web-push production sample of 80,000 is broken out into two non-monetary incentive groups: The majority, 70,000 RNs, will receive a lanyard and pen; a small group, 10,000 RNs, will receive no incentive so that the effectiveness of the non-monetary incentive can be evaluated. No additional incentives are planned for subsequent follow-up reminders or paper questionnaire mailings.

    Mixed-Mode

    The remaining 20% of the sampled RNs will be mailed an initial invite with instructions on how to complete the questionnaire via the web, in addition to a paper questionnaire in the packet. This group of 20,000 RNs is broken out so that 10,000 receive a lanyard and pen, and a smaller group, 10,000 RNs, receive no incentive so that the effectiveness of the non-monetary incentive can be evaluated.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0607-####.

    Form Number: NSSRN.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: Nurses, researchers, and policymakers.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 65,000.

    Estimated Time per Response: 25 minutes per response.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 27,083 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Legal Authority: Census Authority: 13 U.S.C. Section 8(b).

    HRSA Authority: Public Service Act 42 U.S.C. Section 294n(b)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. Section 295k(a)-(b).

    Confidentiality: The data collected under this agreement are confidential under 13 U.S.C. Section 9. All access to Title 13 data from this survey is restricted to those holding Census Bureau Special Sworn Status pursuant to 13 U.S.C. Section 23(c).

    IV. Request for 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 (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13293 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Economic Analysis RIN 0691-XC068 Request for Comment; Notice of Development of Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account (To Define and Measure the Economic Impact of Outdoor Recreation) AGENCY:

    Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of development of satellite account to define and measure the outdoor recreation economy; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and Federal Recreation Council (FRC) are soliciting comments from the public on the development of a new set of national statistics that would provide information on the economic activity generated by outdoor recreation in the United States as authorized by the Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Impact Act of 2016, Public Law 114-249.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received no later than 30 days after publication of this notice.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments via email to [email protected] Comments sent by any other method or after the comment period may not be considered. All comments are a part of the public record.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Howells, Chief, Industry Analysis Division (BE-53), Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233; phone: (301) 278-9586 or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In September 2016, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) entered an interagency agreement with agencies of the Federal Recreation Council (FRC). The FRC is composed of the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The interagency agreement seeks to develop an Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account (ORSA). The seven agencies that make up the FRC are prominent stewards of federal public lands and waters for outdoor recreation, and BEA is one of the U.S. government's premier producers of official economic statistics.

    The ORSA will provide a first-of-its-kind look at the outdoor recreation economy. While BEA's current gross domestic product (GDP) statistics already embed economic activity associated with outdoor recreation, the new satellite account will allow these activities to be separately identified and highlighted in a way not possible with current statistics. Ultimately, creation of the ORSA will provide detailed data that will deepen the public's understanding of the economic impact of outdoor recreation. This will inform decision making and improve governance and long-term management of public lands and waters. The first major step in this effort is to define the range of activities encompassed by the outdoor recreation economy. In evaluating potential definitions, BEA and FRC will consider public comment as well as input from subject matter experts in the field of outdoor economics. The ORSA research team will then develop two or three potential definitions ranging in scope from narrow to broad. The range of activities in each definition will determine which industries and detailed goods and services measured by BEA will be classified as in scope, out of scope, or partially in scope for the outdoor recreation economy.

    Once these initial definitions have been established, the second major step will be to review the list of partially-in-scope goods and services, and identify data sources and methodologies by which the in-scope share of these “partial” items can be estimated. Finally, using the information collected in the first two steps, prototype national-level estimates of economic activity will be developed that could include measures of output, value added, compensation of employees, and employment in the outdoor recreation economy. BEA invites email comments from the general public, private industry, state and local governments, non-profit organizations, and other interested parties. In particular, we are interested in feedback regarding the following:

    1. What recreation-related activities should be considered as in scope for the ORSA;

    2. What types of statistics that potential users of the ORSA would like to see presented in the account in addition to output, value added, employment, and compensation;

    3. What datasets could supplement BEA's core statistics in estimating shares for partially in-scope goods and services; and,

    4. What datasets could be used for possible future regionalization of the account.

    Dated: June 20, 2017. Sarahelen Thompson, Deputy Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13289 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 2034] Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 229 Under Alternative Site Framework; Charleston, West Virginia

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Board adopted the alternative site framework (ASF) (15 CFR Sec. 400.2(c)) as an option for the establishment or reorganization of zones;

    Whereas, the West Virginia Economic Development Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 229, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ Docket B-23-2016, docketed on April 22, 2016 and amended on September 27, 2016 and January 18, 2017) for authority to reorganize under the ASF with a service area of the Counties of Boone, Cabell, Calhoun, Clay, Fayette, Jackson, Kanawha, Lincoln, Logan, Mason, Mingo, Putnam, Raleigh, Roane, Wayne, Wirt, Wood and Wyoming, within and adjacent to the Charleston Customs and Border Protection port of entry, and FTZ 229's existing Site 1 would be categorized as a magnet site;

    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register (81 FR 25374, April 28, 2016) and the application, as amended, has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,

    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied (except with regard to the request to exempt Site 1 from sunset limits);

    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:

    The application, as amended, to reorganize FTZ 229 under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone, and to an ASF sunset provision for magnet sites that would terminate authority for Site 1 if not activated within five years from the month of approval.

    Dated: June 14, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13302 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-017] Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People's Republic of China: Final Rescission of 2014-2016 Countervailing Duty New Shipper Review AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) determines to rescind this new shipper review (NSR) of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires (passenger tires) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC). The period of review (POR) is December 1, 2014, through January 31, 2016. The NSR covers one exporter/producer of subject merchandise, Shandong Xinghongyuan Tire Co., Ltd. (SXT).

    DATES:

    Effective June 26, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kaitlin Wojnar, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3857.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On January 31, 2017, the Department published notice of its preliminary rescission of this NSR pertaining to SXT for the period December 1, 2014, through January 31, 2016.1 On April 12, 2017, 2016, the Department extended the deadline for the final results to June 22, 2017.2 For a complete description of the events that followed publication of the Preliminary Rescission, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice.3 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is available electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version are identical in content.

    1See Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Rescission of 2014-2016 Countervailing Duty New Shipper Review, 82 FR 8825 (January 31, 2017) (Preliminary Rescission), and accompanying Department Memorandum, “Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People's Republic of China: Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Rescission of the 2014-2016 Countervailing Duty New Shipper Review,” January 23, 2017 (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    2See Department Memorandum, “Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for Final Results in Countervailing Duty New Shipper Review,” April 12, 2017.

    3See Department Memorandum, “Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Rescission of the 2014-2016 Countervailing Duty New Shipper Review,” June 22, 2017 (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Order

    The scope of this order covers passenger tires from the PRC. For a complete description of the scope, see “Scope of the Order” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.4

    4Id., at 2-4.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    The Department received case and rebuttal briefs following publication of the Preliminary Rescission. All issues raised in the briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.5 A list of topics included in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is provided at the Appendix to this notice.

    5Id., at 4-8.

    Final Rescission of New Shipper Review

    In the Preliminary Rescission, the Department announced its preliminary intent to rescind this review, because SXT's request for an NSR included an inaccurately certified statement that SXT is not affiliated with any PRC exporter or producer that exported subject merchandise (i.e., passenger tires from the PRC) to the United States during the period of time examined in the original CVD investigation (i.e., January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013) and, as such, SXT had not satisfied the statutory and regulatory requirements to request an NSR.6 Based on the Department's complete analysis of all information and comments on the record of this review, we make no changes to our findings in the Preliminary Rescission. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the Preliminary Rescission and the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we have determined to rescind this NSR with respect to SXT.7

    6See Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 5-8; see also Letter from SXT, “Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from the People's Republic of China: New Shipper Review Request,” February 25, 2016, at Exhibit 2 (certifying that “since the investigation was initiated, {SXT} has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer who exported the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation including those not individually examined during the investigation”).

    7See Preliminary Rescission, 82 FR at 8825; see also Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 3-8; Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Assessment

    Because the Department is rescinding this NSR, we have not calculated a company-specific countervailing subsidy rate for SXT. SXT's entries during the POR will be assessed at the cash deposit rate required at the time of entry, which is the “all-others” rate (i.e., 30.61 percent).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    Effective upon publication of this notice of the final rescission of this NSR, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to require a cash deposit for entries of subject merchandise from SXT. The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this rescission for all shipments of subject merchandise from SXT entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act): (1) For subject merchandise produced and exported by SXT, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the all-others rate (i.e., 30.61 percent); (2) for subject merchandise exported by SXT but not manufactured by SXT, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the all-others rate (i.e., 30.61 percent); and (3) for subject merchandise manufactured by SXT but exported by any other party, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the exporter. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double countervailing duties.

    Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This Department is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 771(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

    Dated: June 20, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Discussion of the Issues Issue 1: Acceptance of Unverified Submissions as “Complete and Accurate” Issue 2: Evidence of Xingyuan Group's Exports During the POI V. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2017-13286 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [Docket No.: 170413395-7395-01] RIN 0625-XC034 2017 Fee Schedule for National Travel and Tourism Office for the Advance Passenger Information System (APIS)/I-92 Program, I-94 International Arrivals Program, and Survey of International Air Travelers Program AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of revised fee schedule with request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    Consistent with the guidelines in OMB Circular A-25, federal agencies are responsible for conducting a biennial review of all programs to determine the types of activities subject to user fees and the basis upon which user fees are to be set. The U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA), National Travel and Tourism Office (NTTO) is raising the fees for 2017 data for the monthly, quarterly or annual data from the APIS/I-92 Program, the I-94 International Arrivals Program, and the annual custom reports, data tables or files from the Survey of International Air Travelers Program.

    As part of the fee review process, the NTTO is providing industry with the opportunity to comment on the fee schedule and to provide any suggestions for reducing the costs of NTTO programs. NTTO may reassess the fees as appropriate.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by July 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.Regulations.gov. The identification number is ITA-2017-0005.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Docket No. ITA-2017-0005 International Trade Administration, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 1003, Washington, DC 20230.

    Instructions: You must submit comments by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received and considered. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. ITA will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only. Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=ITA-2017-0005.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Champley at (202) 482-4753 or [email protected]; or Claudia Wolfe at (202) 482-4555 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: Consistent with the guidelines in OMB Circular A-25,1 federal agencies are responsible for conducting a biennial review of all programs to determine the types of activities subject to user fees and the basis upon which user fees are to be set.

    1https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a025.

    In addition to OMB Circular A-25, the NTTO also follows OMB Circular A-130, which mandates federal agencies to develop and to maintain a comprehensive set of information management policies for use across the government, and to promote the application of information technology to improve the use and dissemination of information in the operation of Federal programs. The role of NTTO is to enhance the international competitiveness of the U.S. travel and tourism industry and to increase its exports, thereby creating U.S. employment and economic growth. The primary functions of the NTTO are: (1) Management of the travel and tourism statistical system for assessing the economic contribution of the industry and providing the sole source for characteristic statistics on international travel to and from the United States; (2) design and administration of export expansion activities; (3) development and management of tourism policy, strategy and advocacy; and (4) technical assistance for expanding this key export (international tourism) and assisting in domestic economic development.

    The NTTO has provided this data for many years and has developed a subscriber base for each of these programs. The fees collected for these reports go to pay for ITA costs to develop the reports as well as to support research for the continuation and expansion of improvements to the data provided by NTTO. In 2016, the NTTO issued a request for proposal for the 2017-2019 SIAT and I-94 data. The contractor prices for the SIAT base program are six percent greater than the 2016 contract prices and 27 percent greater for the I-94 program. This increase is due in part to increased quality management checks associated with this program. Additionally, there is a nearly 30 percent increase in the cost for custom reports for both programs. This was due to the additional work required by the contractor due to the additional sample and additional time the contractor took to finalize report formats and then issue them. Thus, the Department must increase fees to fulfill its Congressional mandate to continue and expand its market research under the Travel Promotion Act of 2009 [P.L. 111-145].

    Additionally, for 2017, to help ameliorate the increased costs while keeping the program fees as low as possible, the SIAT sample for 2017 will be cut from 96,000 surveys in 2016 to 77,000 surveys in 2017. It is anticipated that the 2018 sample level will be similar depending upon the FY2018 budget. The increased fees for 2017 are necessary to avoid additional cuts. However, the NTTO would also be interested in the industry's preference on a cut in sample as a method to keep the fee increases lower versus higher fees.

    There are three main research programs in which the public may obtain additional data on international travelers to and from the United States in addition to the free information already posted to the NTTO Web site. The proposed 2017 fees are for the monthly, quarterly or annual data from the APIS/I-92 Program, the I-94 International Arrivals Program, and the annual custom reports, data tables or files from the Survey of International Air Travelers Program.

    The APIS/I-92 program is a joint effort between the Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the NTTO to provide international air traffic statistics data to the government and the travel industry. The system is a source of data on all international flights to and from the United States, including flights with fewer than 10 passengers. It reports the total volume of air traffic and various subsets of traffic. A differentiating feature of the I-92, compared to the T-100 (international nonstop segment and on-flight market data), is that the I-92 reports the number of U.S. citizens vs. “all other citizens.”

    The information collected from this program has been based upon the Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) since July 2010. All carriers serving the United States must transmit APIS data (from their automated flight manifests) to CBP for each flight coming to or departing from the United States, including Canada. The information collected provides non-stop point-to-point air traffic totals between the United States and all other countries and between U.S. and foreign airports. Subsets of this information regarding the number of passengers on U.S. flag or foreign flag carriers are also made available. In addition, there is a breakout of scheduled or charter flight passengers.

    In the monthly, quarterly and annual I-92 reports, there are four sets of tables. The first three sets have an arrivals portion (Ia, IIa, and IIIa), as well as a departures section (Id, IId, and IIId). The fourth table is a summary of traffic by flag of carrier. To learn more about this program, go to: http://travel.trade.gov/research/programs/i92/index.asp. The current 2016 and historical fees (1990-2015) for this program can be found at: http://travel.trade.gov/research/reports/i92/index.asp. Each fee service will be provided at a 15 percent fee increase from 2016 to 2017. Fee increases for the APIS/I-92 program are being increased to help offset an ITA budget cut and the much larger increases in costs to the I-94 and SIAT program, because all three programs are interdependent upon one another and used to provide the SIAT data.

    The I-94 International Arrivals Program is a core part of the U.S. travel and tourism statistical system. This program provides the U.S. government and the public with the official U.S. monthly and annual overseas visitor arrivals to the United States along with select Mexican and Canadian visitor statistics. The NTTO manages the program in cooperation with the CBP. The program collects and reports overseas non-U.S. resident visitor arrivals to the United States. U.S. government data consists of the DHS I-94 data, which non-U.S. citizens from overseas and Mexico (Canada is excluded) must complete to enter the United States. All visitation data is processed by residency (world region and country), for total arrivals, type of visa, mode of transportation, age of traveler, address (state level only) while in the United States port of entry, and select percentage change comparisons year-over-year. The information is presented in a report entitled the Summary of International Travel to the United States with 35 tables including the categories above. NTTO publishes arrivals data to its Web site on a monthly basis, and reports and custom reports or tables are available on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis. More information about this program is available at http://travel.trade.gov/research/programs/i94/index.asp. The current 2016 and historical fees (1992-2015) for this program can be found at: http://travel.trade.gov/research/reports/i94/index.html.

    As stated above, each fee service will be provided at a 15 percent fee increase from 2016 to 2017.

    The Survey of International Air Travelers Program is a primary research program which gathers statistical data about air passenger travelers in U.S.—overseas and Mexican air markets (Canada is excluded). The program also serves as the cornerstone for NTTO's efforts to assist U.S. businesses to improve their competitiveness and effectiveness in the international travel market.

    The Survey is conducted on selected flights which have departed, or are about to depart, from the major U.S. international gateway airports. The Survey is administered either aboard flights or in the airport gate area, of the over 100 participating airlines (foreign and U.S.) departing 27 U.S. international gateways. The Survey data is “weighted” to census data. For example, non-resident inbound survey responses are weighted to the “100%” population of DHS I-94 arrival records to adjust for over and under sampling. Resident outbound data is weighted based on DHS I-92 U.S. departure data. Data are available on a quarterly and annual basis for either non-resident inbound or resident outbound. It can be delivered in a standard national report format or as a custom report, data table, or excel. Data files are also available. To learn more about this program, go to: http://travel.trade.gov/research/programs/ifs/index.asp. The current 2016 and historical fees (1983-2015) for this program can be found at: http://travel.trade.gov/research/reports/ifs/index.asp. When viewing the current fee structure for the SIAT reports, the tables will show there is no fee increase for the vast majority of the standard published reports and their corresponding Excel tables for which the fees have remained constant for the last five years. The only reports or data for which the NTTO is revising the fees are shown below.

    Fee Schedule increases for the APIS/I-92 program, the I-94 International Arrivals Program and the Survey of International Air Travelers (SIAT) Program are shown in the tables below. All fees shown are 15 percent greater in 2017 than in 2016, except for certain SIAT reports as explained above. For the I-94 program, the NTTO is eliminating the print files and will only provide a PDF and Excel file to save costs. The custom reports, data tables and files will also see a 15 percent fee increase in 2017.

    APIS/I-92 Program 2017 Fee 2016 Fee Monthly Reports printed $2,295 $1,995 Monthly Reports (PDF and Excel) 3,435 2,985 Quarterly Reports printed 2,070 1,800 Quarterly Reports (PDF and Excel) 3,095 2,690 Annual Report printed 1,610 1,400 Annual Report (PDF and Excel) 2,405 2,090 Data Files, for internal use only 27,310 23,745 I-94 International Arrivals program 2017 Fee 2016 Fee Monthly Subscription (PDF and Excel) $2,450 $2,130 Quarterly Subscription (PDF and Excel) 2,155 1,870 Annual Issue (PDF and Excel) 1,485 1,290 Annual, data file (CD-ROM) 16,770 14,580 Quarterly, data file (CD-ROM) 18,820 16,365 Combined 2015 and 2016 International I-94 Arrivals Data 2017 Fee 2016 Fee Monthly Subscription (PDF and Excel) $3,730 $3,240 Quarterly Subscription (PDF and Excel) 3,170 2,755 Annual Issue (PDF and Excel) 2,000 1,740 Survey of International Air Travelers program 2017 Fee 2016 Fee CUSTOM TABLE—1st table, in Excel $2,720 $2,365 CUSTOM TABLE—all other tables in Excel 1,645 1,430 Custom Reports with Excel and PDF (First banner) 10,210 8,875 Custom Reports with Excel and PDF (Second banner) 9,185 7,985 Custom Reports with Excel and PDF (Third + banners) 8,220 7,145

    Method for Determining Fees: ITA collects, retains, and expends user fees pursuant to delegated authority under the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act as authorized in its annual appropriations acts.

    Last year as part of a fee review in compliance with Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-25, the International Trade Administration assessed the costs of its programs and the fees it collects. In 2016, NTTO increased fees by five percent, explaining the increased fees were necessary for NTTO to be in compliance with Circular A-25 (81 FR 39895, June 20, 2016). In 2016, and the NTTO sold a few more reports in 2016 than it did in previous years.

    For each program, NTTO has a set of subscribers who have been using this data, some for decades. Since 2000, fees have increased by 10 percent or more six times. Most rely upon this data as the only federal source to define the international travel market to this country. Additionally, the power of the SIAT program is that it can provide estimates by world region and country of the number of overseas travelers who visit U.S. census regions, states, territories, or cities. But the program provides far more than an estimated number. The responses to questions asked of the overseas visitors also help explain why the visitation numbers have increased or declined over the previous years due to the shifts in the traveler characteristics of the visitors between the two years. It may be a shift in visitors' ports of entry or purpose of trip; changes in the mix of first time or repeat visitors, or package or independent travelers; shifts in modes of transport used by visitors to travel within the country; or a shift to more or fewer destinations visited, compared to previous trips.

    Fees are set considering the cost of providing this data. Most of the NTTO research is implemented from fixed price contacts. Within the contracts are built-in cost adjustments. The NTTO considers the current demand for each program by comparing changes from one year to the next before setting fees. We also consider if there have been decreases in timeliness or quality of service delivery or improvements made to the programs like new report formats, more travelers surveyed, or other enhancements to the research data provided. The NTTO staff considered the purchasing constraints experienced by current or potential subscribers (such as limits to purchase by credit card, or sole source/open bid requirements) and factored in the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (used to determine rate of inflation).

    In the analysis of these fees, it was determined that the services provided from this report offer special benefits to an identifiable recipient beyond those that accrue to the public.

    ITA completed an analysis that calculated the actual cost of providing its data services to develop a basis for setting the fee. Full cost incorporates direct and indirect costs (including operations and maintenance), overhead, and charges for the use of capital facilities. ITA also considered additional factors when pricing goods and services, including adequacy of cost recovery, affordability, available efficiencies, inflation, pricing history, fee elasticity, and service delivery alternatives.

    Finally, the NTTO staff members watch what is happening in the industry. If our clients' budgets are being cut or increased, this too is considered. We watch what is happening in terms of international travel to the country as well. If there are large increases in travel to the United States, there tends to be corresponding increases in the international market. In contrast, in years international travel slows or declines, we factor this in when determining fees. Based upon all this input, we develop several options for cost increases or decreases and determine fees.

    Conclusion

    Based on the information provided above, the NTTO believes its revised fees are consistent with the objective of OMB Circular A-25 to “promote efficient allocation of the nation's resources by establishing charges for special benefits provided to the recipient that are at least as great as the cost to the U.S. Government of providing the special benefits . . . ” OMB Circular A-25(5)(b). However, as stated above, we are providing the public with the opportunity to comment and will reassess the revised fees as appropriate.

    Dated: June 8, 2017. Isabel Hill, Director, National Travel & Tourism Office, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13427 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-016] Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People's Republic of China: Final Rescission of 2015-2016 Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) determines to rescind this new shipper review (NSR) of the antidumping duty (AD) order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires (passenger tires) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC). The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016. The NSR covers one exporter/producer of subject merchandise, Shandong Xinghongyuan Tire Co., Ltd. (SXT).

    DATES:

    Effective June 26, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kaitlin Wojnar, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3857.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On January 31, 2017, the Department published notice of its preliminary rescission of this NSR pertaining to SXT for the period August 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016.1 On April 12, 2017, 2016, the Department extended the deadline for the final results to June 22, 2017.2 For a complete description of the events that followed publication of the Preliminary Rescission, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice.3 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is available electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version are identical in content.

    1See Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Rescission of 2015-2016 Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 82 FR 8824 (January 31, 2017) (Preliminary Rescission), and accompanying Department Memorandum, “Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People's Republic of China: Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Rescission of the 2015-2016 Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review,” January 23, 2017 (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    2See Department Memorandum, “Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for Final Results in Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review,” April 12, 2017.

    3See Department Memorandum, “Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Rescission of the 2015-2016 Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review,” June 22, 2017 (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Order

    The scope of this order covers passenger tires from the PRC. For a complete description of the scope, see the “Scope of the Order” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.4

    4Id. at 2-4.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    The Department received case and rebuttal briefs following publication of the Preliminary Rescission. All issues raised in the briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.5 A list of topics included in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is provided at the Appendix to this notice.

    5Id. at 4-8.

    Final Rescission of New Shipper Review

    In the Preliminary Rescission, the Department announced its preliminary intent to rescind this review because SXT's request for an NSR included an inaccurately certified statement that SXT is not affiliated with any PRC exporter or producer that exported subject merchandise (i.e., passenger tires from the PRC) to the United States during the period of time examined in the original AD investigation (i.e., October 1, 2013, through March 31, 2014) and, as such, SXT had not satisfied the statutory and regulatory requirements to request an NSR.6 Based on the Department's complete analysis of all information and comments on the record of this review, we make no changes to our findings in the Preliminary Rescission. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the Preliminary Rescission and the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we have determined to rescind this NSR with respect to SXT.7

    6See Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 5-8; see also Letter from SXT, “Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from the People's Republic of China: New Shipper Review Request,” February 25, 2016, at Exhibit 2 (certifying that “since the investigation was initiated, {SXT} has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer who exported the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation including those not individually examined during the investigation”).

    7See Preliminary Rescission, 82 FR at 8824; see also Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 3-8; Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Assessment

    Because the Department is rescinding this NSR, we have not calculated a company-specific dumping margin for SXT. SXT's entries during the POR will be assessed at the cash deposit rate required at the time of entry, which is the “PRC-wide” rate (i.e., 76.46 percent).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    Effective upon publication of this notice of the final rescission of this NSR, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to require a cash deposit for entries of subject merchandise from SXT. The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this rescission for all shipments of subject merchandise from SXT entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act): (1) For subject merchandise produced and exported by SXT, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the all-others rate (i.e., 76.46 percent); (2) for subject merchandise exported by SXT but not manufactured by SXT, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the all-others rate (i.e., 76.46 percent); and (3) for subject merchandise manufactured by SXT but exported by any other party, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the exporter. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This Department is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 771(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

    Dated: June 20, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Discussion of the Issues Issue 1: Acceptance of Unverified Submissions as “Complete and Accurate” Issue 2: Evidence of Xingyuan Group's Exports During the POI V. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2017-13287 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-889] Dioctyl Terephthalate From the Republic of Korea: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that dioctyl terephthalate (DOTP) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2015, through March 31, 2016. For information on the estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV, see the “Final Determination” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective June 26, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Laurel LaCivita or Shanah Lee, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4243 or (202) 482-6386, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On February 3, 2017, the Department published the Preliminary Determination of sales at LTFV of DOTP from Korea.1 The petitioner in this investigation is Eastman Chemical Company. The mandatory respondents in this investigation are Aekyung Petrochemical Co., Ltd. (AKP) and LG Chem Ltd. (LG Chem). Both AKP and LG Chem participated in this investigation. A complete summary of the events that occurred since publication of the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice.2

    1See Dioctyl Terephthalate from the Republic of Korea: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination, 82 FR 9195 (February 3, 2017) (Preliminary Determination) and accompanying memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Dioctyl Terephthalate from the Republic of Korea” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    2See the Department's memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Dioctyl Terephthalate From the Republic of Korea,” dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is available electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). Access is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B-8024 of the Department's main building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and electronic version are identical in content.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is DOTP from Korea. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs and rebuttal briefs submitted by interested parties in this proceeding are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised by parties and responded to by the Department in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached at Appendix II.

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department verified the sales and cost data reported by AKP and LG Chem for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondents.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for AKP and LG Chem since the Preliminary Determination. These changes are discussed in the “Margin Calculations” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances

    On November 15, 2016, the petitioner timely filed a critical circumstances allegation, pursuant to section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of DOTP from Korea.3 We find that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to AKP and LG Chem.4 For a complete discussion of this issue, see the “Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    3See letter from Petitioner, “Re: Dioctyl Terephthalate (“DOTP”) From Korea; Critical Circumstances Allegation,” dated November 15, 2016 (Critical Circumstances Allegation).

    4See Preliminary Determination, 82 FR at 9195.

    All-Others Rate

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, the Department calculated a dumping margin for the individually investigated exporters/producers of the subject merchandise. Consistent with sections 735(c)(1)(B)(i)(II) and 735(c)(5) of the Act, the Department also calculated an estimated “all-others” rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the “all-others” rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for individually investigated exporters and producers, excluding any margins that are zero or de minimis or any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. We calculated the all-others rate using a weighted average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents using each company's publicly-ranged values for the merchandise under consideration, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, as referenced in the “Final Determination” section below.5

    5See memorandum to the file, “Dioctyl Terephthalate From the Republic of Korea: Calculation of All-Others' Rate in the Final Determination,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Final Determination

    The Department determines that the weighted-average dumping margins to be:

    Exporter/producer Weighted-
  • average
  • margins
  • (percent)
  • Aekyung Petrochemical Co., Ltd 4.08 LG Chem, Ltd 2.71 All-Others 3.69
    Disclosure

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), we intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of any public announcement of this notice.

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue the suspension of liquidation of all appropriate entries of DOTP from Korea, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 3, 2017, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination of this investigation in the Federal Register. Further, the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as shown above.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of DOTP from Korea no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders (APO)

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

    This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 20, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is dioctyl terephthalate (DOTP), regardless of form. DOTP that has been blended with other products is included within this scope when such blends include constituent parts that have not been chemically reacted with each other to produce a different product. For such blends, only the DOTP component of the mixture is covered by the scope of this investigation.

    DOTP that is otherwise subject to this investigation is not excluded when commingled with DOTP from sources not subject to this investigation. Commingled refers to the mixing of subject and non-subject DOTP. Only the subject component of such commingled products is covered by the scope of the investigation.

    DOTP has the general chemical formulation C6H4(C8H17COO)2 and a chemical name of “bis (2-ethylhexyl) terephthalate” and has a Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) registry number of 6422-86-2. Regardless of the label, all DOTP is covered by this investigation.

    Subject merchandise is currently classified under subheading 2917.39.2000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Subject merchandise may also enter under subheadings 2917.39.7000 or 3812.20.1000 of the HTSUS. While the CAS registry number and HTSUS classification are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Investigation IV. Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances V. Margin Calculations VI. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Whether the Department's Quarterly Cost Methodology Justifies Comparing Sales on a Quarterly Basis Comment 2: Whether AKP's Reporting Supports the Department's Decision To Rely on Quarterly Costs for the Final Determination Comment 3: Whether To Adjust the Reported Cost of Purchases of Raw Material 2-Ethyl Hexanol (2-EH) Comment 4: The Structure of AKP's Paper Transactions and the Basis for U.S. Price for AKP's Channel 3 and 4 Sales Comment 5: AKP's Affiliate's Financial Statements and Indirect Selling Expenses Calculation Comment 6: Duty Drawback for AKP's U.S. Sales Comment 7: LG Chem's Duty Drawback Adjustment Comment 8: LG Chem's Constructed Export Price (CEP) Offset Comment 9: Reported Currency for LG Chem's Bank Charges Comment 10: LG Chem's General and Administrative Expense (G&A) Ratio Comment 11: LG Chem's Raw Material and Variable Overhead Costs VII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2017-13285 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [Application No. 99-11A05] Export Trade Certificate of Review ACTION:

    Notice of Issuance of an Amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to California Almond Export Association, LLC (CAEA), Application No. 99-11A05.

    SUMMARY:

    The Secretary of Commerce, through the Office of Trade and Economic Analysis (OTEA), issued an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to CAEA on June 12, 2017. A previous amended Export Trade Certificate of Review was issued to CAEA on November 24, 2015, and a notice of its issuance was published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2015 (80 FR 76663).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joseph Flynn, Director, Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, (202) 482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001-21) (the Act) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from State and Federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325 (2015). OTEA is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the Secretary of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the Federal Register. Under Section 305(a) of the Act and 15 CFR 325.11(a), any person aggrieved by the Secretary's determination may, within 30 days of the date of this notice, bring an action in any appropriate district court of the United States to set aside the determination on the ground that the determination is erroneous.

    Description of Certified Conduct

    CAEA's Export Trade Certificate of Review has been amended to:

    • Remove California Gold Almonds, LLC as a Member • Change the name of Member Paramount Farms, Inc. to Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds, LLC

    CAEA's Export Trade Certificate of Review Membership, as amended, is listed below:

    Almonds California Pride, Inc., Caruthers, CA Baldwin-Minkler Farms, Orland, CA Blue Diamond Growers, Sacramento, CA Campos Brothers, Caruthers, CA Chico Nut Company, Chico, CA Del Rio Nut Company, Livingston, CA Fair Trade Corner, Inc., Chico, CA Fisher Nut Company, Modesto, CA Hilltop Ranch, Inc., Ballico, CA Hughson Nut, Inc., Hughson, CA Mariani Nut Company, Winters, CA Nutco, LLC d.b.a. Spycher Brothers, Turlock, CA P-R Farms, Inc., Clovis, CA Roche Brothers International Family Nut Co., Escalon, CA RPAC, LLC, Los Banos, CA South Valley Almond Company, LLC, Wasco, CA SunnyGem, LLC, Wasco, CA Western Nut Company, Chico, CA Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds, LLC, Los Angeles, CA

    The effective date of the amended certificate is March 13, 2017, the date on which CAEA's application to amend was deemed submitted.

    Dated: June 21, 2017. Joseph E. Flynn, Director, Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13262 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program Application Cover Sheet AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, 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.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before August 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Mary Clague, NIST SBIR Program Office, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 2200, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, 301-975-4188, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    The SBIR program was originally established in 1982 by the Small Business Innovation Development Act (Pub. L. 97-219), codified at 15 U.S.C. 638. It was then expanded and extended by the Small Business Research and Development (R&D) Enhancement Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-564), and received subsequent reauthorization and extensions that include Public Law 112-81, extending SBIR through September 30, 2022. The US Small Business Administration (SBA) serves as the coordinating agency for the SBIR program. It directs the agency implementation of SBIR, reviews progress, and reports annually to Congress on its operation.

    The NIST SBIR Cover Sheet is the first page of each application that responds to the annual NIST SBIR Federal Funding Opportunity (FFO). The information collected in the Cover Sheet provides identifying information and demographic data for use in NIST's annual report to the SBA on the program.

    II. Method of Collection

    The information will be collected as part of the application process and will be submitted either through grants.gov or by paper.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: #0693-0072.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Extension of a current information collection.

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 150 per year.

    Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 75 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

    IV. Request for 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 (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13276 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Review of National Marine Sanctuaries and Marine National Monuments Designated or Expanded Since April 28, 2007; Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment AGENCY:

    Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for public comments.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to Executive Order 13795—Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy, signed on April 28, 2017, the Department of Commerce is conducting a review of all designations and expansions of National Marine Sanctuaries and Marine National Monuments since April 28, 2007. The Secretary of Commerce will use the review to inform the preparation of a report under Executive Order 13795, Sec. 4(b)(ii). This Notice identifies 11 National Marine Sanctuaries and Marine National Monuments subject to the review and invites comments to inform the review.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted no later than July 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket ID NOAA-NOS-2017-0066 by one of the following methods:

    Electronic submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NOS-2017-0066, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: E.O. 13795 Review, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring Metro Campus Building 4 (SSMC4), Eleventh Floor, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NOAA. All comments received are a part of the public record and will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NOAA will accept anonymous comments (for electronic comments submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Douros, 831-647-1920, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring Metro Campus Building 4 (SSMC4), Eleventh Floor, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Executive Order 13795 of April 28, 2017 directs the Secretary of Commerce to review National Marine Sanctuaries and Marine National Monuments designated or expanded since April 28, 2007. Specifically, section 4(b)(i) of Executive Order 13795 directs the Secretary to conduct, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Interior, and Secretary of Homeland Security, a review to include:

    (A) An analysis of the acreage affected and an analysis of the budgetary impacts of the costs of managing each National Marine Sanctuary or Marine National Monument designation or expansion;

    (B) An analysis of the adequacy of any required Federal, State and tribal consultations conducted before the designations or expansions; and

    (C) The opportunity costs associated with potential energy and mineral exploration and production from the Outer Continental Shelf, in addition to any impacts on production in the adjacent region.

    The Secretary shall complete this review and, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Interior, prepare and submit a report on the results of the review to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy within 180 days (by October 25, 2017).

    Pursuant to Executive Order 13795, Sec. 4(b), the Department of Commerce's review of National Marine Sanctuary and Marine National Monument designations and expansions is limited to those designations or expansions listed in the table below.

    National Marine Sanctuaries and Marine National Monuments Under Review Pursuant to EO 13795, Sec. 4(b) Name Location Action Date Size in acres Federal Register citation Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary California Expansion May 24, 2007 9,600 72 FR 29,208 (May 24, 2007). Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary California Expansion March 12, 2015 484,480 80 FR 13,078 (March 12, 2015). Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary California Expansion March 12, 2015 1,288,320 80 FR 13,078 (March 12, 2015). Marianas Trench Marine National Monument Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands/Pacific Ocean Designation January 6, 2009 60,938,240 74 FR 1,557 (January 12, 2009). Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary California Expansion November 20, 2008 496,000 73 FR 70,488 (November 20, 2008). National Marine Sanctuary of American Samoa American Samoa Expansion July 26, 2012 8,691,840 77 FR 43,942 (July 26, 2012). Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument Atlantic Ocean Designation September 15, 2016 3,114,320 81 FR 65,161 (September 21, 2016). Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument Pacific Ocean Designation; Expansion January 6, 2009; September 25, 2014 55,608,320 74 FR 1,565 (January 12, 2009); 79 FR 58,645 (September 29, 2014). Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument Hawaii Expansion August 26, 2016 283,379,840 81 FR 60,227 (August 31, 2016). Rose Atoll Marine National Monument 1 American Samoa Designation January 6, 2009 8,608,640 74 FR 1,577 (January 12, 2009). Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary Michigan Expansion September 5, 2014 2,465,280 79 FR 52,960 (September 5, 2014).

    The area of the original designations for the five listed National Marine Sanctuaries and Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument are not subject to this review, rather only their respective expansion areas completed in the past 10 years.

    1 All of Rose Atoll Marine National Monument is contained within National Marine Sanctuary of American Samoa.

    The Department of Commerce seeks public comments related to the application of factors in Sec. 4(b)(i)(A), (B) and (C), as stated in Executive Order 13795, to the National Marine Sanctuary expansions and designation and expansions of the Marine National Monuments indicated above.

    Under Executive Order 13792—Review of Designations Under the Antiquities Act (signed April 26, 2017), the Department of the Interior is conducting a review of National Monuments pursuant to a separate set of factors (See the Department of the Interior's Federal Register Notice—Review of Certain National Monuments Established Since 1996; Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment; 82 FR 22016, May 11, 2017). The Department of Commerce is collaborating with the Department of the Interior on this review for Marine National Monuments, in conjunction with Department of Commerce's review under Executive Order 13795. The Department of Commerce will receive a copy of and consider all public comments submitted during the Department of the Interior's public comment period for Executive Order 13792 for Marine National Monuments that are affected by Executive Orders 13792 and 13795.

    Accordingly, identical or substantively similar comments submitted as a part of the Department of the Interior's public comment period should not be re-submitted to the Department of Commerce in response to this Federal Register notice regarding public comment on the factors under Executive Order 13795, Sec. 4(b).

    Authority:

    Executive Order 13795.

    Dated: June 20, 2017. Nicole Le Boeuf, Deputy Assistant Administrator For Ocean Services and Coastal Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13308 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [Docket No. CPSC-2010-0112] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Contests, Challenges, and Awards AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) requests comments on a proposed extension of approval of a generic collection of information for CPSC-sponsored contests, challenges, and awards approved previously under OMB Control No. 3041-0151. The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting an extension of this collection of information from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    DATES:

    Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by August 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2010-0112, by any of the following methods:

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

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

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

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to: http://www.regulations.gov, and insert the docket number, CPSC-2010-0112, into the “Search” box, and follow the prompts.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Charu Krishnan, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7221, or by email to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CPSC seeks to renew the following currently approved generic collection of information:

    Title: Contests, Challenges, and Awards.

    OMB Number: 3041-0151.

    Type of Review: Renewal of generic collection.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Affected Public: Contestants, award nominees, award nominators.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 500 participants annually. In addition, 20 participants may be required to provide additional information upon selection.

    Estimated Time per Response: 5 hours/participant. 20 participants may require 2 additional hours each to provide additional information upon selection.

    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 2,540 hours (500 participants × 5 hours/participant) + (20 participants × 2 hours/participant).

    General Description of Collection: The Commission establishes contests, challenges, and awards to increase the public's knowledge and awareness of safety hazards, such as carbon monoxide poisoning. The Commission also recognizes those individuals, firms, and organizations that work to address issues related to consumer product safety through awards.

    Request for Comments

    The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:

    • Whether the collection of information described above is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information would have practical utility;

    • Whether the estimated burden of the proposed collection of information is accurate;

    • Whether the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected could be enhanced; and

    • Whether the burden imposed by the collection of information could be minimized by use of automated, electronic or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology.

    Dated: June 21, 2017. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13300 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Corporation for National and Community Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), 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 requirement on respondents can be properly assessed.

    Currently, CNCS is soliciting comments concerning its proposed renewal of the Award Transfer forms: Request to Transfer a Segal Education Award Amount, Accept/Decline Award Transfer Form, Request to Revoke Transfer of Education Award Form, and Rescind Acceptance of Award Transfer Form. These forms enable AmeriCorps members and recipients to meet the legal requirements of the award transfer process.

    Copies of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the Addresses section of this Notice.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the ADDRESSES section by August 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:

    (1) By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service, National Service Trust, Attention: Nahid Jarrett, 250 E St. SW., Washington, DC 20525.

    (2) By hand delivery or by courier to the CNCS mailroom at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    (3) Electronically through www.regulations.gov.

    Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nahid Jarrett, 202-606-6753, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;

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

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are expected to respond, including 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).

    Background

    AmeriCorps members may offer to transfer all or part of their qualified education awards to certain family members. Provision is made to accept the transfer or not, to rescind acceptance or revoke the transfer. These processes are implemented electronically where possible but paper forms are available if necessary.

    Current Action

    CNCS seeks to renew the current information. Except to add the categories of stepchild and step grandchild to the list of qualified recipients of the award transfer, only slight formatting and editing changes have been made.

    The information collection will otherwise be used in the same manner as the existing application. CNCS also seeks to continue using the current application until the revised application is approved by OMB. The current application is due to expire on September 30, 2017.

    Type of Review: Renewal.

    Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

    Title: Request to Transfer a Segal Education Award Amount, Accept/Decline Award.

    OMB Number: 3045-0136.

    Agency Number: None.

    Affected Public: AmeriCorps members with eligible education awards and qualified recipients.

    Total Respondents: 1420.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Average Time per Response: Averages 5 minutes.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 118.33.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

    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 will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: June 20, 2017. Jerry Prentice, Deputy Director of Trust Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13261 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
    CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Corporation for National and Community Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), 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 requirement on respondents can be properly assessed.

    Currently, CNCS is soliciting comments concerning its proposed renewal of the following proposed Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR): “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery” for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This collection was developed as part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process for seeking feedback from the public on service delivery. This notice announces our intent to submit this collection to OMB for approval and solicits comments on specific aspects for the proposed information collection.

    Copies of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the Addresses section of this Notice or on www.regulations.gov.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the ADDRESSES section by August 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:

    (1) By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service; Attention Amy Borgstrom; 250 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20525.

    (2) By hand delivery or by courier to the CNCS mailroom at the address above between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

    (3) Electronically through www.regulations.gov.

    Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    Comments submitted in response to this Notice may be made available to the public through www.regulations.gov. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you send an email comment, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy Borgstrom, 202-606-6930, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;

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

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are expected to respond, including 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).

    Background

    CNCS seeks to continue to use this information collection to seek feedback on the agency's service delivery from grantees and other stakeholders.

    Current Action

    The proposed information collection activity provides a means to elicit qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

    The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the Agency's services will be unavailable.

    CNCS will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:

    • The collections are voluntary;

    • The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;

    • The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;

    • Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;

    • Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;

    • Information gathered will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency;

    • Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and

    • Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.

    Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.

    As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.

    The information collection will be used in the same manner as the current information collection.

    Type of Review: Renewal.

    Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

    Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.

    OMB Number: 3045-0137.

    Agency Number: None.

    Affected Public: Individuals and Households; Businesses and Organizations; State, Local or Tribal Governments.

    Total Respondents: 10,000.

    Frequency: Once.

    Average Time per Response: Averages 10 minutes.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,667 hours.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

    Request for Comments

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the 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 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.

    Dated: June 19, 2017. Mary Hyde, Deputy Director, Research and Evaluation.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13237 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [Certification Notice—248] Notice of Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act AGENCY:

    Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of filing.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 24, 2017, PSEG Fossil, LLC, as owner and operator of a new baseload electric generating powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to § 201(d) of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended, and DOE regulations. The FUA and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of coal capability self-certification filings are available for public inspection, upon request, in the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code OE-20, Room 8G-024, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher Lawrence at (202) 586-5260.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On April 24, 2017, PSEG Fossil, LLC, as owner and operator of a new baseload electric generating powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to § 201(d) of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended, and DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61. The FUA and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the Federal Register. 42 U.S.C. 8311(d) and 10 CFR 501.61(c). Title II of FUA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), provides that no new base load electric powerplant may be constructed or operated without the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel as a primary energy source. Pursuant to the FUA, in order to meet the requirement of coal capability, the owner or operator of such a facility proposing to use natural gas or petroleum as its primary energy source shall certify to the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) prior to construction, or prior to operation as a base load electric powerplant, that such powerplant has the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel. Such certification establishes compliance with FUA section 201(a) as of the date it is filed with the Secretary. 42 U.S.C. 8311.

    The following owner of a proposed new baseload electric generating powerplant has filed a self-certification of coal-capability with DOE pursuant to FUA section 201(d) and in accordance with DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61:

    Owner: PSEG Fossil, LLC Capacity: 485 megawatts (MW) Plant Location: Bridgeport, CT 06604 In-Service Date: June 1, 2019 Issued in Washington, DC, on May 12, 2017. Christopher Lawrence, Electricity Policy Analyst, Office of Electricity Delivery Energy Reliability.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13294 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Certification Notice—249; Notice of Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act AGENCY:

    Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of filing.

    SUMMARY:

    On May 5, 2017, St. Joseph Energy Center, LLC, as owner and operator of a new baseload electric generating powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended, and DOE regulations. The FUA and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of coal capability self-certification filings are available for public inspection, upon request, in the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code OE-20, Room 8G-024, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher Lawrence at (202) 586-5260.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On May 5, 2017, St. Joseph Energy Center, LLC, as owner and operator of a new baseload electric generating powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to § 201(d) of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended, and DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61. The FUA and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the Federal Register. 42 U.S.C. 8311(d) and 10 CFR 501.61(c). Title II of FUA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), provides that no new base load electric powerplant may be constructed or operated without the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel as a primary energy source. Pursuant to the FUA, in order to meet the requirement of coal capability, the owner or operator of such a facility proposing to use natural gas or petroleum as its primary energy source shall certify to the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) prior to construction, or prior to operation as a base load electric powerplant, that such powerplant has the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel. Such certification establishes compliance with FUA section 201(a) as of the date it is filed with the Secretary. 42 U.S.C. 8311.

    The following owner of a proposed new baseload electric generating powerplant has filed a self-certification of coal-capability with DOE pursuant to FUA section 201(d) and in accordance with DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61:

    Owner: St. Joseph Energy Center, LLC.

    Capacity: 750 megawatts (MW).

    Plant Location: New Carlisle, IN 46552.

    In-Service Date: Approximately March 24, 2018.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 13, 2017. Christopher Lawrence, Electricity Policy Analyst, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13290 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [OE Docket No. EA-436] Application to Export Electric Energy; MAG Energy Solutions, Inc. AGENCY:

    Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    SUMMARY:

    MAG Energy Solutions, Inc. (Applicant or MAG) has applied for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act.

    DATES:

    Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before July 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed to: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to [email protected], or by facsimile to 202-586-8008.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

    On April 25, 2017, DOE received an application from MAG for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities.

    In its application, MAG states that it does not own or control any electric generation or transmission facilities, and it does not have a franchised service area. The electric energy that MAG proposes to export to Mexico would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have previously been authorized by Presidential Permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.

    Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five copies of such comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be sent to the address provided above on or before the date listed above.

    Comments and other filings concerning MAG's application to export electric energy to Mexico should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-436. An additional copy is to be provided to both Ruta Kalvaitis Skučas, Pierce Atwood LLC, 1875 K St., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20006 and Simon Pelletier, CEO, MAG Energy Solutions Inc., 999 de Maisonneuve Boulevard West, Suite 875, Montreal, Quebec H3A 3L4.

    A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

    Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at http://energy.gov/node/11845, or by emailing Angela Troy at [email protected]

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 10, 2017. Christopher Lawrence, Electricity Policy Analyst, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13284 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [OE Docket No. EA-210-E] Application To Export Electric Energy; Talen Energy Marketing, LLC AGENCY:

    Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Talen Energy Marketing, LLC (Applicant or Talen Energy) has applied to renew its authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to the Federal Power Act.

    DATES:

    Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before July 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed to: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to [email protected], or by facsimile to 202-586-8008.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

    On August 18, 2012, DOE issued Order No. EA-210-C to PPL Energy Plus, LLC, which authorized the Applicant to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities. On October 16, 2015, PPL Energy Plus, LLC changed its name to Talen Energy Marketing, LLC in Order No. EA-210-D. That authority expires on August 18, 2017. On May 5, 2017, Talen Energy filed an application with DOE for renewal of the export authority contained in Order No. EA-210 for an additional five-year term.

    In its application, Talen Energy states that it does not own or operate any electric generation or transmission facilities, and it does not have a franchised service area. The electric energy that Talen Energy proposes to export to Canada would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by Talen Energy have previously been authorized by Presidential Permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.

    Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five copies of such comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be sent to the address provided above on or before the date listed above.

    Comments and other filings concerning Talen Energy's application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-210-E. An additional copy is to be provided directly to both Sandra Rizzo, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, 601 Massachusetts Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20001 and Debra L. Raggio, Talen Energy Corporation, 117 Oronoco Street, Alexandria, VA 22302.

    A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

    Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at http://energy.gov/node/11845, or by emailing Angela Troy at [email protected]

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 31, 2017. Christopher Lawrence, Electricity Policy Analyst, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13291 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [OE Docket No. EA-296-C] Application to Export Electric Energy; Rainbow Energy Marketing Corporation AGENCY:

    Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Rainbow Energy Marketing Corporation (Applicant or Rainbow) has applied to renew its authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to the Federal Power Act.

    DATES:

    Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before July 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed to: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to [email protected], or by facsimile to 202-586-8008.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

    On September 20, 2012, DOE issued Order No. EA-296-B to Rainbow, which authorized the Applicant to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities. That authority expires on September 18, 2017. On May 25, 2017, Rainbow filed an application with DOE for renewal of the export authority contained in Order No. EA-296 for an additional five-year term.

    In its application, Rainbow states that it does not own or operate any electric generation or transmission facilities, and it does not have a franchised service area. The electric energy that Rainbow proposes to export to Canada would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by Rainbow have previously been authorized by Presidential Permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.

    Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five copies of such comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be sent to the address provided above on or before the date listed above.

    Comments and other filings concerning Rainbow's application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-296-C. An additional copy is to be provided directly to Joseph A. Wolfe, Rainbow Energy Marketing Corporation, Kirkwood Office Tower, 919 South 7th Street, Suite 405, Bismarck, ND 58504.

    A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

    Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at http://energy.gov/node/11845, or by emailing Angela Troy at [email protected]

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 8, 2017. Christopher Lawrence, Electricity Analyst, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13295 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Orders Granting Authority To Import and Export Natural Gas, To Import and Export Liquefied Natural Gas, and Vacating Prior Authorization During April 2017 FE Docket Nos. DOWNEAST LNG, INC 14-172-LNG
  • 14-173-LNG
  • GOLDEN PASS PRODUCTS LLC 12-156-LNG NOBLE AMERICAS GAS & POWER CORP 17-36-NG MIECO INC 17-33-NG STATOIL NATURAL GAS LLC 17-34-LNG TRANS-PECOS PIPELINE, LLC 17-40-NG ENCANA MARKETING (USA) INC 17-41-NG WORLD FUEL SERVICES, INC 17-46-NG EL PASO MARKETING COMPANY, L.L.C 17-44-NG OKRA ENERGY, LLC 16-188-LNG COMANCHE TRAIL PIPELINE, LLC 17-39-NG BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC 17-42-NG GAZ METRO SOLUTIONS TRANSPORT LP 17-35-LNG PACIFICORP 17-32-NG GIGO TRANSPORT, INC 17-37-NG
  • 15-105-NG
  • OMIMEX CANADA, LTD 17-45-NG ENGIE ENERGY MARKETING NA, INC 17-38-NG
  • 16-161-NG
  • AGENCY:

    Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of orders.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy gives notice that during April 2017, it issued orders granting authority to import and export natural gas, to import and export liquefied natural gas (LNG), and vacating authority. These orders are summarized in the attached appendix and may be found on the FE Web site at http://energy.gov/fe/listing-doefe-authorizationsorders-issued-2017.

    They are also available for inspection and copying in the U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Division of Natural Gas Regulation, Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Fossil Energy, Docket Room 3E-033, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9478. The Docket Room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 20, 2017. John A. Anderson, Director, Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Oil and Natural Gas. APPENDIX

    DOE/FE Orders Granting Import/Export Authorizations 3600-A 04/21/17 14-172-LNG

  • 14-173-LNG
  • Downeast LNG, Inc Order 3600-A granting request to vacate Long-term, Multi-contract authority to export LNG by vessel to Free trade Agreement Nations and to withdraw Application to export LNG by vessel to Non-free Trade Agreement Nations. 3978 04/25/17 12-156-LNG Golden Pass Products LLC Opinion and Order 3978 granting Long-term, Multi-contract authority to export LNG by vessel from the Golden Pass LNG Terminal located in Jefferson County, Texas, to Non-free Trade Agreement Nations. 4012 04/17/17 17-36-NG Noble Americas Gas & Power Corp Order 4012 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada/Mexico. 4013 04/17/17 17-33-NG Mieco Inc Order 4013 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada. 4014 04/17/17 17-34-LNG Statoil Natural Gas LLC Order 4014 granting blanket authority to import LNG from international sources by vessel. 4015 04/17/17 17-40-NG Trans-Pecos Pipeline, LLC Order 4015 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Mexico. 4016 04/17/17 17-41-NG Encana Marketing (USA) Inc Order 4016 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada/Mexico. 4017 04/17/17 17-46-NG World Fuel Services, Inc Order 4017 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada/Mexico. 4018 04/17/17 17-44-NG El Paso Marketing Company, L.L.C Order 4018 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada/Mexico. 4019 04/18/17 16-188-LNG Okra Energy, LLC Order 4019 granting blanket authority to export LNG in ISO Containers loaded at a Proposed LNG Plant In Southern Alabama and exported by barge or vessel to Free Trade Agreement Countries in the Caribbean and Latin America. 4020 04/17/17 17-39-NG Comanche Trail Pipeline, LLC Order 4020 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Mexico. 4021 04/17/17 17-42-NG BP West Coast Products LLC Order 4021 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada. 4022 04/18/17 17-35-LNG Gaz Metro Solutions Transport LP Order 4022 granting blanket authority to import LNG from Canada by Truck. 4023 04/18/17 17-32-NG PacifiCorp Order 4023 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada. 4024 04/18/17 17-37-NG
  • 15-105-NG
  • GIGO Transport, Inc Order 4024 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada/Mexico and to export natural gas to Mexico, and vacating prior authorization.
    4025 04/20/17 17-45-NG Omimex Canada, Ltd Order 4025 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada/Mexico, and to import LNG from various international sources by vessel. 4026 04/20/17 17-38-NG
  • 16-161-NG
  • ENGIE Energy Marketing NA, Inc Order 4026 granting blanket authority to export natural gas to Mexico, vacating prior authorization, and name change.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13233 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-1778-000] HD Project One 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 HD Project One 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 10, 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 20, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13268 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings June 21, 2017.

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP17-832-000.

    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC submits tariff filing per 154.204: Neg Rate 2017-06-20 Ascent to be effective 6/20/2017.

    Filed Date: 06/16/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170616-5092.

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

    Docket Numbers: RP17-833-000.

    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per 154.204: Volume No 2. Neg Rate Agmt—Alta Energy Marketing LLC; MMGS name to Mitsui to be effective 7/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 06/16/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170616-5166.

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

    Docket Numbers: RP17-779-001.

    Applicants: Florida Southeast Connection, LLC.

    Description: Florida Southeast Connection, LLC submits tariff filing per 154.205(b): Filed Agreements to be effective 7/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 06/19/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170619-5151.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 26, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-834-000.

    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per 154.601: Negotiated Rate Agreement Update (Pioneer July-Sept 2017) to be effective 7/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 06/20/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170620-5140.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 3, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-835-000.

    Applicants: Constellation Energy Services, Inc., Constellation Energy Services—Natural,CNE Gas Supply, LLC.

    Description: Petition for Temporary Waivers of Capacity Release Regulations and Policies of Constellation Energy Services, Inc., et al.

    Filed Date: 06/20/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170620-5145.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 27, 2017.

    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.

    Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13299 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. PF17-4-000] Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P.; Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, L.P.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and Pacific Connector Pipeline Projects, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Sessions; Correction

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that will discuss the impacts of the planned Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and Pacific Connector Pipeline Projects (collectively referred to as the Project). The FERC is the lead federal agency for the preparation of the EIS. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service), and the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) are Cooperating Agencies and can adopt the EIS for their respective purposes and permitting actions.

    Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. (JCEP) plans to construct and operate a liquefied natural gas (LNG) production, storage, and export facility in Coos County, Oregon. Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, L.P. (PCGP) plans to construct and operate an interstate natural gas transmission pipeline and associated facilities in Coos, Douglas, Jackson, and Klamath Counties, Oregon. The Commission will use this EIS in its decision-making process to determine whether the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal is in the public interest and the Pacific Connector Pipeline is in the public convenience and necessity. Other federal agencies may adopt the EIS when making their respective determinations or decisions.

    This notice announces the opening of the public comment period, commonly referred to as scoping. You can make a difference by providing your comments. Your comments should focus on potential environmental impacts, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. This scoping opportunity is for the entire Project, including actions and proposed plan amendments of the Cooperating Agencies listed above. The Forest Service also seeks comments specific to the 2012 planning rule requirements at §§ 219.8 through 219.11 that are likely to be directly related to the proposed amendments. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before July 10, 2017.

    If you submitted comments on this project before February 10, 2017, you will need to refile those comments in FERC Docket No. PF17-4-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding. If you sent comments on a previous iteration of this project, you will also need to refile those comments in FERC Docket No. PF17-4-000.

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for the Project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a PCGP company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned pipeline. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.

    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know? is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

    Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you by phone at (202) 502-8258 or via email at [email protected] Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded. If you include personal information along with your comments, please be aware that this information (address, phone number, and/or email address) would become publicly available in the Commission's eLibrary.

    You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing” as the filing type; or

    You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to include docket number PF17-4-000 with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the Commission invites you to attend one the public scoping sessions its staff will conduct in the project area, scheduled as follows:

    Date and time Location Tuesday, June 27, 2017, 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m Sunset Middle School, Library and Commons Rooms, 245 South Cammann Street, Coos Bay, OR 97420. Wednesday, June 28, 2017, 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m Umpqua Community College, Jackson Hall, Rooms 11 & 12, 1140 Umpqua College Road, Roseburg, OR 97470. Thursday, June 29, 2017, 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m Oregon Institute of Technology, College Union Building, Mt. Bailey and Mt. Theilsen Rooms, 3201 Campus Drive, Klamath Falls, OR 97601.

    The primary goal of these scoping sessions is to have you identify the specific environmental issues and concerns that should be considered in the EIS to be prepared for this project. Individual verbal comments will be taken on a one-on-one basis with a court reporter. This format is designed to receive the maximum amount of verbal comments in a convenient way during the timeframe allotted.

    Each scoping session is scheduled from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time. There will be no formal presentation by Commission staff when the session opens. If you wish to provide comments, the Commission staff will issue numbers in the order of your arrival. Please see Appendix 2 1 for additional information on the session format and conduct expectations.

    1 The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov using the link called “eLibrary” or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.

    Your comments will be recorded by the court reporter (with FERC staff or representative present) and become part of the public record for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly available through the FERC's eLibrary system (see below for instructions on using eLibrary). If a significant number of people are interested in providing verbal comments, a time limit of 5 minutes may be implemented for each commenter.

    Verbal comments hold the same weight as written or electronically submitted comments. Although there will not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be available throughout the comment session to answer your questions about the environmental review process.

    The submission of timely and specific comments, whether submitted in writing or orally at a scoping session, can affect a reviewer's ability to participate in a subsequent administrative or judicial review of BLM and/or Forest Service decisions. Comments concerning BLM and Forest Service actions submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however such anonymous submittals would not provide the commenters with standing to participate in administrative or judicial review of BLM and Forest Service decisions.

    Summary of the Planned Project

    JCEP plans to construct and operate an LNG export terminal on the North Spit of Coos Bay in Coos County, Oregon. The terminal would include gas inlet facilities, a metering station, a gas conditioning plant, five liquefaction trains and associated equipment, two full-containment LNG storage tanks, an LNG transfer line, LNG ship loading facilities, a marine slip, a marine offloading facility, a new access channel between the Coos Bay Navigation Channel and the new marine slip, and enhancements to the existing Coos Bay Navigation Channel at four turns. In addition, the terminal would include emergency and hazard, electrical, security, control, and support systems, administrative buildings, and a temporary workforce housing facility. The LNG terminal would be designed to liquefy about 1.04 billion cubic feet per day of LNG for export to markets across the Pacific Rim.

    PCGP plans to construct and operate an approximately 235-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter interstate natural gas transmission pipeline and associated aboveground facilities. The pipeline would originate near Malin in Klamath County, Oregon, traverse Douglas and Jackson Counties, and terminate (at the LNG Terminal) in Coos County, Oregon. The pipeline would be capable of transporting about 1.2 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. The associated aboveground facilities would include the new Klamath Compressor Station (61,500 horsepower) near Malin, Oregon; 3 new meter stations; 5 new pig launchers and receivers; 17 mainline block valves; and a gas control communication system.

    The general locations of the Project facilities are shown on maps included in Appendix 1. In addition, PCGP provides detailed mapping of its pipeline route on its Web page at http://pacificconnectorgp.com/project-overview/.

    Land Requirements for Construction

    About 530 acres of land would be disturbed by construction of the LNG Terminal. JCEP owns about 300 acres of this land, and the remaining 230 acres would be leased from private landowners. Following construction, about 170 acres would be retained for operation of the LNG terminal facilities.

    About 5,060 acres of land would be disturbed by construction of the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project. Following construction, a 50-foot-wide easement, totaling about 1,415 acres, would be permanently maintained for operation of the pipeline. The majority of the remaining 3,620 acres disturbed by pipeline construction would be restored and returned to previous use, while about 25 acres would be maintained for a new compressor station and other new aboveground facilities. Land ownership of the approximately 235 miles of permanent pipeline operational easement is approximately 162 miles private land, 40 miles BLM, 31 miles Forest Service, and 2 miles Reclamation.

    The EIS Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the authorization of LNG facilities under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act and pipeline facilities under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act. NEPA also requires the Commission to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is commonly referred to as scoping. The main goal of the scoping process is to identify the important environmental issues the Commission's staff should focus on in the EIS. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of issues to be addressed in the EIS. The FERC and the Cooperating Agencies will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EIS.

    The EIS will discuss the impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned Project under these general headings:

    • Geology and soils;

    • water resources and wetlands;

    • vegetation, fisheries, and wildlife;

    • protected species;

    • land use;

    • socioeconomics;

    • cultural resources;

    • air quality and noise;

    • public safety and reliability; and

    • cumulative impacts.

    The FERC and the Cooperating Agencies will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the planned project or portions thereof; and make recommendations on how to avoid or minimize impacts on the various resource areas.

    Although no formal application has been filed with FERC, FERC has already initiated a review of the project under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the FERC receives an application. As part of its pre-filing review, FERC has begun to contact interested federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EIS.

    As stated previously, the FERC will be the lead federal agency for the preparation of the EIS. The USACE, BLM, Reclamation, and Forest Service all have NEPA responsibilities related to their respective permitting actions, and can adopt the EIS for their own agency's purposes. The BLM, Reclamation, and Forest Service intend to adopt this EIS to evaluate the effects of the pipeline portion of the Project on lands and facilities managed by each respective agency, and to support decision-making regarding the issuance of and concurrence with the right-of-way grant and the associated plan amendments.2

    2 BLM land management plans are called “Resource Management Plans” or RMPs. Forest Service land management plans are called “Land and Resource Management Plans” or LRMPs. The term “land management plan” is generic and may apply to either an RMP or LRMP.

    The EIS will present the FERC's and the Cooperating Agencies' independent analysis of the issues. The FERC will publish and distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the comment period, the FERC and the Cooperating Agencies will consider all timely comments and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To ensure the FERC and the Cooperating Agencies have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section.

    With this notice, the FERC is asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EIS.3 Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided in the Public Participation section.

    3 The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1501.6.

    Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, this notice initiates consultation with Oregon's State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and solicits its views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the Project's potential effects on historic properties.4 The project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) will be defined in consultation with the SHPO as the Project develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include LNG terminal site, pipeline construction work area, contractor/equipment storage yards, and access roads). The EIS for this Project will document the findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.

    4 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

    Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    The Commission's environmental staff has already identified several issues that merit attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities, the environmental information provided by the applicants, analysis conducted previously, and early comments filed with FERC. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and further analysis. Preliminary issues include:

    Reliability and safety of LNG carrier traffic in Coos Bay, the LNG terminal, and natural gas pipeline;

    impacts on aquatic resources from dredging the LNG terminal access channel and slip, and from multiple pipeline crossings of surface waters;

    potential impacts on the LNG Terminal resulting from an earthquake or tsunami;

    impacts of pipeline construction on federally listed threatened and endangered species, including salmon, marbled murrelet, and northern spotted owl; and

    impacts of pipeline construction on private landowners, including use of eminent domain to obtain right-of-way.

    Preliminary Planning Criteria Identified by the BLM

    The BLM Preliminary Planning Criteria for its proposed land management plan amendments include:

    Impacts to stand function for listed species, specifically northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet in BLM-managed Late Successional Reserves (LSR); and

    consent by the Federal surface managing agencies, Forest Service and Reclamation.

    Preliminary Issues and Planning Criteria Identified by the Forest Service

    The Forest Service has identified preliminary issues for its proposed land and resource management plan (LRMP) amendments. The issues include:

    Effects of proposed amendments on Survey and Manage species and their habitat;

    effects of the proposed amendments on LSRs; and

    effects of the proposed amendments on Riparian Reserves, detrimental soil conditions, and Visual Quality Objectives.

    Planning Rule Requirements for LRMP Amendments

    The Forest Service seeks public input on issues and planning rule requirements on proposed amendments of their Forest land management plans related to the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project. Additional information regarding the proposed amendments is included at the end of this NOI.

    Proposed Actions of the BLM

    The purpose of and need for the proposed action by the BLM is to respond to a right-of-way grant application originally submitted by Pacific Connector L.P. to construct, operate, maintain, and eventually decommission a natural gas pipeline that crosses lands and facilities administered by the BLM, Reclamation, and Forest Service. In addition, there is a need for the BLM to consider amending affected District land management plans to make provision for the Pacific Connector right-of-way. Additional detail on proposed actions by the BLM is provided at the end of this NOI.

    Proposed Actions of the Forest Service

    The purpose of and need for the proposed action by the Forest Service is to consider amending affected National Forest land management plans to make provision for the Pacific Connector right-of-way. The Responsible Official for amendment of Forest Service LRMPs is the Forest Supervisor of the Umpqua National Forest. If the Forest Service adopts the FERC EIS for the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project (in FERC Docket No. PF17-4-000), the Forest Supervisor of the Umpqua National Forest will make the following decisions and determinations:

    Decide whether to amend the LRMPs of the Umpqua, Rogue River, and Winema National Forests as proposed or as described in an alternative.

    Additional detail on proposed actions by the Forest Service is provided at the end of this NOI.

    Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes Federal, State, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations), whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the Project. The FERC will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that the information related to this environmental review is sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned project.

    Copies of the draft EIS will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of a compact disc or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (Appendix 2).

    Becoming an Intervenor

    Once JCEP and PCGP file applications with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor,” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Motions to intervene are more fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the “Document-less Intervention Guide” under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives a formal application for the project.

    BLM Administrative Remedy Process

    Under the provisions of 43 CFR 1610.5-2, proposed decision(s) of the BLM to amend land management plans are subject to protest with the Director of the BLM following publication of the Final EIS. In accordance with 43 CFR, part 4, the BLM's decision on the application for a right-of-way grant will be subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals.

    Administrative Review of Forest Service Decisions To Amend Land Management Plans

    The proposed Forest Service plan amendments are being developed in accordance with the planning regulations at 36 CFR 219 (2012). Decisions by the Forest Service to approve “plan level” amendments to Land Management Plans (proposed amendments UNF-4 and RRNF-7 in this Notice) are subject to the Pre-Decisional Administrative Review Process Regulations at 36 CFR 219 subpart B. The term “plan level” refers to plan amendments that would apply to future management actions.

    Decisions by the Forest Service to approve “project-specific” plan amendments (proposed amendments UNF-1 thru 3, RRNF-2 thru 6, and WNF-1 thru 5 in this Notice) are subject to the Administrative Review Process of 36 CFR 218 Subpart A and B, in accordance with 36 CFR 219.59 (b). The term “project specific” refers to amendments that would only apply to the proposed project and would not apply to any future management actions.

    The Forest Service concurrence to BLM to issue a right-of-way grant would not be a decision subject to the NEPA and, therefore, would not be subject to the Forest Service administrative review procedures.

    Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF17-4). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

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

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: June 9, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. BLM Proposed Actions and Forest Service Planning Rule Requirements Forest Service Planning Rule Requirements for LRMP Amendments

    The Forest Service seeks public input on issues and planning rule requirements on proposed amendments of their Forest land management plans related to the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project. On December 15, 2016 the Department of Agriculture Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment issued a final rule that amended the 36 CFR 219 regulations pertaining to National Forest System Land Management Planning (the planning rule) (81 FR 90723, 90737). The amendment to the 219 planning rule clarified the Department's direction for amending LRMPs. The Department also added a requirement for amending a plan for the responsible official to provide in the initial notice “which substantive requirements of §§ 219.8 through 219.11 are likely to be directly related to the amendment” (36 CFR 219.13(b)(2), 81 FR at 90738). Whether a rule provision is directly related to an amendment is determined by any one of the following: The purpose for the amendment, a beneficial effect of the amendment, a substantial adverse effect of the amendment, or a lessening of plan protections by the amendment. The proposed Forest Service plan amendments described below (under Amendments of Forest Service Land Management Plans), include a description of the “substantive requirements of §§ 219.8 through 219.11” that are likely to be directly related to each amendment.

    Proposed Actions of the BLM

    The purpose of and need for the proposed action by the BLM is to respond to a right-of-way grant application originally submitted by Pacific Connector L.P. to construct, operate, maintain, and eventually decommission a natural gas pipeline that crosses lands and facilities administered by the BLM, Reclamation, and Forest Service. In addition, there is a need for the BLM to consider amending affected District land management plans to make provision for the Pacific Connector right-of-way.

    The proposed action of the BLM has two components. First, the BLM would amend the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP and the Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP. The BLM would consider one or more amendments to:

    Make changes to land use allocations along the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline route;

    Make changes to the management direction for Late Successional Reserves (LSR) specifically where the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline route crosses LSR, for this project only;

    Consider designating a utility corridor coinciding with the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline route;

    Make changes to the right-of-way Avoidance Areas specifically where the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline route would cross these areas.

    Second, in accordance with 43 CFR 2882.3(i), the BLM would consider a right-of-way grant in response to Pacific Connector's application for the project to occupy federal lands, with the written concurrence of the Forest Service and Reclamation. Each agency may submit specific stipulations, including mitigation measures, for inclusion in the right-of-way grant related to lands, facilities, and easements within their respective jurisdictions.

    The Secretary of the Interior has delegated to the BLM the authority, under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, to grant a right-of-way in response to Pacific Connector's application for a natural gas transmission pipeline across federal lands, with consent of affected surface managing agencies. The Responsible Official for amendments of BLM RMPs and issuance of the right-of-way grant, should one be issued, is the BLM Oregon/Washington State Director. Reclamation's Responsible Official for concurrence of the right-of-way grant, if issued by BLM, is the Area Manager of the Mid-Pacific Region's Klamath Basin Area Office.

    If the BLM adopts the FERC EIS for the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project (in FERC Docket No. PF17-4-000), the Oregon/Washington State Director of the BLM would use this EIS in the decision-making process to:

    Grant, grant with conditions, or deny the right-of-way application, and;

    Consider associated amendments to the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP and the Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP where the Project does not conform to these plans.

    Proposed Actions of the Forest Service

    The purpose of and need for the proposed action by the Forest Service is to consider amending affected National Forest land management plans to make provision for the Pacific Connector right-of-way. The Responsible Official for amendment of Forest Service LRMPs is the Forest Supervisor of the Umpqua National Forest. If the Forest Service adopts the FERC EIS for the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project (in FERC Docket No. PF17-4-000), the Forest Supervisor of the Umpqua National Forest will make the following decisions and determinations:

    Decide whether to amend the LRMPs of the Umpqua, Rogue River, and Winema National Forests as proposed or as described in an alternative.

    Amendment of Forest Service Land Management Plans FS-1—Project-Specific Amendment To Exempt Management Recommendations for Survey and Manage Species on the Umpqua National Forest, Rogue River National Forest, and Winema National Forest LRMPs

    Applicable National Forest LRMPs would be amended to exempt certain known sites within the area of the proposed Pacific Connector right-of-way grant from the Management Recommendations required by the 2001 “Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. For known sites within the proposed right-of-way that cannot be avoided, the 2001 Management Recommendations for protection of known sites of Survey and Manage species would not apply. For known sites located outside the proposed right-of-way but with an overlapping protection buffer only that portion of the buffer within the right-of-way would be exempt from the protection requirements of the Management Recommendations. Those Management Recommendations would remain in effect for that portion of the protection buffer that is outside of the right of way. The proposed amendment would not exempt the Forest Service from the requirements of the 2001 Survey and Manage Record of Decision, as modified, to maintain species persistence for affected Survey and Manage species within the range of the northern spotted owl. This is a project-specific plan amendment applicable only to the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project and would not change future management direction for any other project. The amendment would provide an exception from these standards for the Pacific Connector Project and include specific mitigation measures and project design requirements for the project.

    The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirements that are likely to be directly related to this amendment include:

    § 219.9(a)(2)(ii)—[the plan must include plan components to maintain or restore] “Rare aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal communities.”

    § 219.9(b)(1)—The responsible official shall determine whether or not the plan components required by paragraph (a) provide ecological conditions necessary to: . . . maintain viable populations of each species of conservation concern within the plan area.

    If this proposed amendment is determined to be directly related to the substantive rule requirements, the Responsible Official must apply those requirements within the scope and scale of the amendment and, if necessary, make adjustments to the amendment to meet these rule requirements (36 CFR 219.13 (b)(5) and (6)).

    Amendment of the Umpqua National Forest LRMP UNF-1—Project-Specific Amendment To Allow Removal of Effective Shade on Perennial Streams:

    The Umpqua National Forest LRMP would be amended to exempt the Standards and Guidelines for Fisheries (Umpqua National Forest LRMP, page IV-33, Forest-Wide) to allow the removal of effective shading vegetation where perennial streams are crossed by the Pacific Connector right-of-way. This change would potentially affect an estimated total of three acres of effective shading vegetation at approximately five perennial stream crossings in the East Fork of Cow Creek subwatershed from pipeline mileposts (MP) 109 to 110 in Sections 16 and 21, T.32S., R.2W., W.M., OR. The amendment would provide an exception from these standards for the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project and include specific mitigation measures and project design requirements for the project. This is a project-specific plan amendment applicable only to the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project and would not change future management direction for any other project.

    The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirements that are likely to be directly related to this amendment include: § 219.8(a)(3)(i)—The plan must include plan components “to maintain or restore the ecological integrity of riparian areas in the plan area, including plan components to maintain or restore structure, function, composition, and connectivity.”

    UNF-2—Project-Specific Amendment To Allow the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project in Riparian Areas:

    The Umpqua National Forest LRMP would be amended to change prescriptions C2-II (LRMP IV-173) and C2-IV (LRMP IV-177) to allow the Pacific Connector pipeline route to run parallel to the East Fork of Cow Creek for approximately 0.1 mile between about pipeline MPs 109.5 and 109.6 in Section 21, T.32S., R.2W., W.M., OR. This change would potentially affect approximately one acre of riparian vegetation along the East Fork of Cow Creek. The amendment would provide an exception from these standards for the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project and include specific mitigation measures and project design requirements for the project. This is a project-specific plan amendment applicable only to the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project and would not change future management direction for any other project.

    The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirements that are likely to be directly related to this amendment include: § 219.8(a)(3)(i)—The plan must include plan components to ``maintain or restore the ecological integrity of riparian areas in the plan area, including plan components to maintain or restore structure, function, composition, and connectivity.''

    UNF-3—Project-Specific Amendment To Exempt Limitations on Detrimental Soil Conditions Within the Pacific Connector Right-of-Way in All Management Areas

    The Umpqua National Forest LRMP would be amended to exempt limitations on the area affected by detrimental soil conditions from displacement and compaction within the Pacific Connector right-of-way. Standards and Guidelines for Soils (LRMP page IV-67) requires that not more than 20 percent of the project area have detrimental compaction, displacement, or puddling after completion of a project. The amendment would provide an exception from these standards for the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project and include specific mitigation measures and project design requirements for the project. This is a project-specific plan amendment applicable only to the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project and would not change future management direction for any other project.

    The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirements that are likely to be directly related to this amendment include: § 219.8(a)(2)(ii)—[The plan must include plan components to maintain or restore] soils and soil productivity, including guidance to reduce soil erosion and sedimentation.

    UNF-4—Reallocation of Matrix Lands to LSR

    The Umpqua National Forest LRMP would be amended to change the designation of approximately 588 acres from Matrix land allocations to the LSR land allocation in Sections 7, 18, and 19, T.32S., R.2W.; and Sections 13 and 24, T.32S., R.3W., W.M., OR. This change in land allocation is proposed to partially mitigate the potential adverse impact of the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project on LSR 223 on the Umpqua National Forest. This is a plan level amendment that would change future management direction for the lands reallocated from Matrix to LSR.

    The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirements that are likely to be directly related to this amendment include:

    § 219.8(a)(1)(i)—[the plan must include plan components to maintain or restore] Interdependence of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in the plan area.

    § 219.8(b)(1)—[the plan must include plan components to guide the plan area's contribution to social and economic sustainability] social, cultural and economic conditions relevant to the area influenced by the plan.

    § 219.9(b)(1) “The responsible official shall determine whether or not the plan components required by paragraph (a) of this section provide the ecological conditions necessary to: contribute to the recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species, conserve proposed and candidate species, and maintain a viable population of each species of conservation concern within the plan area,” and

    § 219.9(a)(2)(ii)—[the plan must include plan components to maintain or restore] “Rare aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal communities.”

    If any of the proposed amendments to the Umpqua NF LRMP described above are determined to be “directly related” to a substantive rule requirement, the Responsible Official must apply that requirement within the scope and scale of the proposed amendment and, if necessary, make adjustments to the proposed amendment to meet the rule requirement (36 CFR 219.13 (b)(5) and (6)).

    Amendment of the Rogue River National Forest LRMP RRNF-2—Project Specific Amendment of Visual Quality Objectives (VQO) on the Big Elk Road

    The Rogue River National Forest LRMP would be amended to change the VQO where the Pacific Connector pipeline route crosses the Big Elk Road at about pipeline MP 161.4 in Section 16, T.37S., R.4E., W.M., OR, from Foreground Retention (Management Strategy 6, LRMP page 4-72) to Foreground Partial Retention (Management Strategy 7, LRMP page 4-86) and allow 10-15 years for amended VQO to be attained. The existing Standards and Guidelines for VQO in Foreground Retention where the Pacific Connector pipeline route crosses the Big Elk Road require that VQOs be met within one year of completion of the project and that management activities not be visually evident. The amendment would provide an exception from these standards for the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project and include specific mitigation measures and project design requirements for the project. This is a project-specific plan amendment that would apply only to the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project in the vicinity of Big Elk Road and would not change future management direction for any other project.

    The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirements that are likely to be directly related to this amendment include:

    § 219.10(a)(1)—[. . .the responsible official shall consider: . . .] (1) Aesthetic values,. . . scenery,. . . viewsheds. . . .

    § 219.10(b)(i)—[the responsible official shall consider] Sustainable recreation; including recreation settings, opportunities, . . . and scenic character. . . .

    RRNF-3—Project—Specific Amendment of VQO on the Pacific Crest Trail

    The Rogue River National Forest LRMP would be amended to change the VQO where the Pacific Connector pipeline route crosses the Pacific Crest Trail at about pipeline MP 168 in Section 32, T.37S., R.5E., W.M., OR, from Foreground Partial Retention (Management Strategy 7, LRMP page 4-86) to Modification (USDA Forest Service Agricultural Handbook 478) and to allow 15-20 years for amended VQOs to be attained. The existing Standards and Guidelines for VQOs in Foreground Partial Retention in the area where the Pacific Connector pipeline route crosses the Pacific Crest Trail require that visual mitigation measures meet the stated VQO within three years of the completion of the project and that management activities be visually subordinate to the landscape. The amendment would provide an exception from these standards for the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project and include specific mitigation measures and project design requirements for the project. This is a project-specific plan amendment that would apply only to the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project in the vicinity of the Pacific Crest Trail and would not change future management direction for any other project.

    The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirements that are likely to be directly related to this amendment include:

    § 219.10(a)(1)—[. . .the responsible official shall consider: . . .] (1) Aesthetic values,. . . scenery,. . . viewsheds. . . .

    § 219.10(b)(i)—[the responsible official shall consider] Sustainable recreation; including recreation settings, opportunities, . . . and scenic character. . . .

    RRNF-4—Project-Specific Amendment of Visual Quality Objectives Adjacent to Highway 140

    The Rogue River National Forest LRMP would be amended to allow 10-15 years to meet the VQO of Middleground Partial Retention between Pacific Connector pipeline MPs 156.3 to 156.8 and 157.2 to 157.5 in Sections 11 and 12, T.37S., R.3E., W.M., OR. Standards and Guidelines for Middleground Partial Retention (Management Strategy 9, LRMP Page 4-112) require that VQOs for a given location be achieved within three years of completion of the project. Approximately 0.8 miles or 9 acres of the Pacific Connector right-of-way in the Middleground Partial Retention VQO visible at distances of 0.75 to 5 miles from State Highway 140 would be affected by this amendment. The amendment would provide an exception from these standards for the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project and include specific mitigation measures and project design requirements for the project. This is a project-specific plan amendment that would apply only to the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project in Sections 11 and 12, T.37S., R.3E., W.M., OR, and would not change future management direction for any other project.

    The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirements that are likely to be directly related to this amendment include:

    § 219.10(a)(1)—[. . .the responsible official shall consider: . . .] (1) Aesthetic values,. . . scenery,. . . viewsheds. . . .

    § 219.10(b)(i)—[the responsible official shall consider] Sustainable recreation; including recreation settings, opportunities, . . . and scenic character. . . .

    RRNF-5—Project-Specific Amendment To Allow the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project in Management Strategy 26, Restricted Riparian Areas

    The Rogue River National Forest LRMP would be amended to allow the Pacific Connector right-of-way to cross the Restricted Riparian land allocation. This would potentially affect approximately 2.5 acres of the Restricted Riparian Management Strategy at one perennial stream crossing on the South Fork of Little Butte Creek at about pipeline MP 162.45 in Section 15, T.37S., R.4E., W.M., OR. Standards and Guidelines for the Restricted Riparian land allocation prescribe locating transmission corridors outside of this land allocation (Management Strategy 26, LRMP page 4-308,). The amendment would provide an exception from these standards for the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project and include specific mitigation measures and project design requirements for the project. This is a site-specific amendment applicable only to the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project and would not change future management direction for any other project.

    The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirements that are likely to be directly related to this amendment include:

    § 219.8(a)(3)(i)—The plan must include plan components to maintain or restore the ecological integrity of riparian areas in the plan area, including plan components to maintain or restore structure, function, composition, and connectivity

    RRNF-6—Site-Specific Amendment To Exempt Limitations on Detrimental Soil Conditions Within the Pacific Connector Right-of-Way in All Management Areas

    The Rogue River National Forest LRMP would be amended to exempt limitations on areas affected by detrimental soil conditions from displacement and compaction within the Pacific Connector right-of-way in all affected Management Strategies. Standards and Guidelines for detrimental soil impacts in affected Management Strategies require that no more than 10 percent of an activity area should be compacted, puddled or displaced upon completion of project (not including permanent roads or landings). No more than 20 percent of the area should be displaced or compacted under circumstances resulting from previous management practices including roads and landings. Permanent recreation facilities or other permanent facilities are exempt (RRNF LRMP 4-41, 4-83, 4-97, 4-123, 4-177, 4-307). The amendment would provide an exception from these standards for the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project and include specific mitigation measures and project design requirements for the project. This is a project-specific plan amendment applicable only to the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project and would not change future management direction for any other project.

    The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirements that are likely to be directly related to this amendment include:

    219.8(a)(2)(ii)—[The plan must include plan components to maintain or restore] soils and soil productivity, including guidance to reduce soil erosion and sedimentation.

    RRNF-7—Reallocation of Matrix Lands to LSR

    The Rogue River National Forest LRMP would be amended to change the designation of approximately 512 acres from Matrix land allocations to the LSR land allocation in Section 32, T.36S., R.4E. W.M., OR. This change in land allocation is proposed to partially mitigate the potential adverse impact of the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project on LSR 227 on the Rogue River National Forest. This is a plan level amendment that would change future management direction for the lands reallocated from Matrix to LSR.

    The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirements that are likely to be directly related to this amendment include:

    § 219.8(a)(1)(i)—[the plan must include plan components to maintain or restore] Interdependence of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in the plan area.

    § 219.8(b)(1)—[the plan must include plan components to guide the plan area's contribution to social and economic sustainability] Social, cultural and economic conditions relevant to the area influenced by the plan.

    § 219.9(b)(1) The responsible official shall determine whether or not the plan components required by paragraph (a) of this section provide the ecological conditions necessary to: Contribute to the recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species, conserve proposed and candidate species, and maintain a viable population of each species of conservation concern within the plan area, and

    § 219.9(a)(2)(ii)- [the plan must include plan components to maintain or restore: . . .] (ii) Rare aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal communities.

    If any of the proposed amendments to the Rogue River NF LRMP described above are determined to be “directly related” to a substantive rule requirement, the Responsible Official must apply that requirement within the scope and scale of the proposed amendment and, if necessary, make adjustments to the proposed amendment to meet the rule requirement (36 CFR 219.13 (b)(5) and (6)).

    Amendment of the Winema National Forest LRMP WNF-1—Project -Specific Amendment To Allow Pacific Connector Pipeline Project in Management Area 3

    The Winema National Forest LRMP would be amended to change the Standards and Guidelines for Management Area 3 (MA-3) (LRMP page 4-103-4, Lands) to allow the 95-foot-wide Pacific Connector pipeline project in MA-3 from the Forest Boundary in Section 32, T.37S., R.5E., W.M., OR, to the Clover Creek Road corridor in Section 4, T.38S, R.5. E., W.M., OR. Standards and Guidelines for MA-3 state that the area is currently an avoidance area for new utility corridors. This proposed Pacific Connector Pipeline Project is approximately 1.5 miles long and occupies approximately 17 acres within MA-3. The amendment would provide an exception from these standards for the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project and include specific mitigation measures and project design requirements. This is a project-specific plan amendment applicable only to the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project and would not change future management direction for any other project.

    The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirements that are likely to be directly related to this amendment include:

    § 219.10(a)(1)—[the responsible official shall consider] Aesthetic values,. . . scenery,. . . viewsheds. . ..

    § 219.10(b)(i)—[the responsible official shall consider] Sustainable recreation; including recreation settings, opportunities, . . . and scenic character . . . .

    WNF-2—Project-Specific Amendment of VQO on the Dead Indian Memorial Highway

    The Winema National Forest LRMP would be amended to allow 10-15 years to achieve the VQO of Foreground Retention where the Pacific Connector right-of-way crosses the Dead Indian Memorial Highway at approximately pipeline MP 168.8 in Section 33, T.37S., R.5E., W. M., OR. Standards and Guidelines for Scenic Management, Foreground Retention (LRMP 4-103, MA 3A, Foreground Retention) requires VQOs for a given location be achieved within one year of completion of the project. The Forest Service proposes to allow 10-15 years to meet the specified VQO at this location. The amendment would provide an exception from these standards for the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project and include specific mitigation measures and project design requirements for the project. This is a project-specific plan amendment that would apply only to the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project in the vicinity of the Dead Indian Memorial Highway and would not change future management direction for any other project.

    The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirements that are likely to be directly related to this amendment include:

    § 219.10(a)(1)—[. . .the responsible official shall consider: . . .] (1) Aesthetic values,. . . scenery,. . . viewsheds . . . .

    § 219.10(b)(i)—[the responsible official shall consider] Sustainable recreation; including recreation settings, opportunities, . . . and scenic character . . . .

    WNF-3—Project—Specific Amendment of VQO Adjacent to the Clover Creek Road

    The Winema National Forest LRMP would be amended to allow 10-15 years to meet the VQO for Scenic Management, Foreground Partial Retention, where the Pacific Connector right-of-way is adjacent to the Clover Creek Road from approximately pipeline MP 170 to 175 in Sections 2, 3, 4, 11, and 12, T.38S., R.5E., and Sections 7 and 18, T.38S., R.6E., W.M., OR. This change would potentially affect approximately 50 acres. Standards and Guidelines for Foreground Partial Retention (LRMP, page 4-107, MA 3B) require that VQOs be met within three years of completion of a project. The amendment would provide an exception from these standards for the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project and include specific mitigation measures and project design requirements for the project. This is a project-specific plan amendment that would apply only to the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project in the vicinity of Clover Creek Road and would not change future management direction for any other project.

    The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirements that are likely to be directly related to this amendment include:

    § 219.10(a)(1)—[. . .the responsible official shall consider: . . .] (1) Aesthetic values,. . . scenery,. . . viewsheds . . . .

    § 219.10(b)(i)—[the responsible official shall consider] Sustainable recreation; including recreation settings, opportunities, . . . and scenic character. . . .

    WNF-4—Project—Specific Amendment To Exempt Limitations on Detrimental Soil Conditions Within the Pacific Connector Right-of-Way in All Management Areas

    The Winema National Forest LRMP would be amended to exempt restrictions on detrimental soil conditions from displacement and compaction within the Pacific Connector right-of-way in all affected management areas. Standards and Guidelines for detrimental soil impacts in all affected management areas require that no more than 20 percent of the activity area be detrimentally compacted, puddled, or displaced upon completion of a project (LRMP page 4-73, 12-5). The amendment would provide an exception from these standards for the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project and include specific mitigation measures and project design requirements for the project. This is a project-specific plan amendment applicable only to the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project and would not change future management direction for any other project.

    The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirements that are likely to be directly related to this amendment include:

    § 219.8(a)(2)(ii)—[The plan must include plan components to maintain or restore . . .] Soils and soil productivity, including guidance to reduce soil erosion and sedimentation

    WNF-5—Project-Specific Amendment To Exempt Limitations on Detrimental Soil Conditions Within the Pacific Connector Right-of-Way in Management Area 8

    The Winema National Forest LRMP would be amended to exempt restrictions on detrimental soil conditions from displacement and compaction within the Pacific Connector right-of-way within the Management Area 8, Riparian Area (MA-8). This change would potentially affect approximately 0.5 mile or an estimated 9.6 acres of MA-8. Standards and Guidelines for Soil and Water, MA-8 require that not more than 10 percent of the total riparian zone in an activity area be in a detrimental soil condition upon the completion of a project (LRMP page 4-137, 2). The amendment would provide an exception from these standards for the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project and include specific mitigation measures and project design requirements for the project. This is a project-specific plan amendment applicable only to the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project and would not change future management direction for any other project.

    The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirements that are likely to be directly related to this amendment include:

    § 219.8(a)(2)(ii)—[The plan must include plan components to maintain or restore . . .] “Soils and soil productivity, including guidance to reduce soil erosion and sedimentation”

    If any of the proposed amendments to the Winema NF LRMP described above are determined to be directly related to a substantive rule requirement, the Responsible Official must apply that requirement within the scope and scale of the proposed amendment and, if necessary, make adjustments to the proposed amendment to meet the rule requirement (36 CFR 219.13 (b)(5) and (6)).

    [FR Doc. 2017-13271 Filed 6-23-17; 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: EG17-116-000.

    Applicants: Horse Hollow Wind IV, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Horse Hollow Wind IV, LLC.

    Filed Date: 6/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170619-5179.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-117-000.

    Applicants: Horse Hollow Wind II, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Horse Hollow Wind II, LLC.

    Filed Date: 6/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170619-5183.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-118-000.

    Applicants: CA Flats Solar 130, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of CA Flats Solar 130, LLC.

    Filed Date: 6/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170620-5034.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4450-001; ER11-4449-001.

    Applicants: Starion Energy NY, Inc., Starion Energy Inc.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Changes in Status of Starion Energy NY, Inc., et al.

    Filed Date: 6/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170619-5173.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1867-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: BPA General Transfer Agreement (West) Rev 9 to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170619-5157.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1868-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 1977R9 Nemaha-Marshall Electric Cooperative NITSA and NOA to be effective 9/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170620-5018.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF17-1116-000.

    Applicants: Ultramar Inc.

    Description: Form 556 of Ultramar Inc.

    Filed Date: 6/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170619-5172.

    Comments Due: None Applicable.

    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 20, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13266 Filed 6-23-17; 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: ER10-3124-005; ER10-3129-005; ER10-3130-005; ER10-3132-005; ER10-3134-005; ER10-3137-005

    Applicants: Noble Altona Windpark, LLC, Noble Bliss Windpark, LLC, Noble Chateaugay Windpark, LLC, Noble Clinton Windpark I, LLC, Noble Ellenburg Windpark, LLC, Noble Wethersfield Windpark, LLC.

    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for the Northeast Region of the Noble Sellers.

    Filed Date: 6/14/17.

    Accession Number: 20170614-5213.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/14/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1820-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement No. 4732, Queue Position #AC1-202 to be effective 5/16/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/14/17.

    Accession Number: 20170614-5186.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1821-000.

    Applicants: Panda Stonewall LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation to be effective 6/15/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/14/17.

    Accession Number: 20170614-5207.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1822-000.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Notice of Termination of Special Facilities Service Agreement No. 36 of Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Filed Date: 6/14/17.

    Accession Number: 20170614-5216.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1823-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 1895R6 Westar Energy, Inc. NITSA and NOA to be effective 9/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20170615-5006.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1824-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 1897R6 Westar Energy, Inc. NITSA and NOA to be effective 9/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20170615-5028.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1825-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2045R6 Westar Energy, Inc. NITSA and NOA to be effective 9/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20170615-5030.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1826-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: OATT Attachment C-1 and C-3 Amendment Filing to be effective 9/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20170615-5032.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1827-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2066R6 Westar Energy, Inc. NITSA and NOA to be effective 9/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20170615-5034.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1828-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2390R5 Westar Energy, Inc. NITSA and NOA to be effective 9/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20170615-5036.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1829-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2491R5 Westar Energy, Inc. NITSA and NOA to be effective 9/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20170615-5039.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1830-000.

    Applicants: CXA Sundevil Holdco, Inc.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application of Market Based Rate to be effective 7/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20170615-5040.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1831-000.

    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: AEP TX-Patriot Wind Farm Interconnection Agreement 3rd Amd to be effective 5/24/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20170615-5057.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1832-000.

    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: AEP TX-Bruenning's Breeze Wind Interconnection Agreement 1st Amd to be effective 5/24/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20170615-5060.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1833-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-06-15_SA 2929 Huron Wind-ITC Amended GIA (J308) to be effective 6/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20170615-5061.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1834-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Clean-up to Historical Correct OATT Sch. 12- Appdx A Dominion, ATSI, Penelec to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20170615-5064.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/17.

    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 15, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13265 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 1510-018] Kaukauna Utilities; Notice Soliciting Scoping Comments

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

    a. Type of Application: New Major License.

    b. Project No.: P-1510-018.

    c. Date filed: March 24, 2017.

    d. Applicant: Kaukauna Utilities.

    e. Name of Project: Kaukauna City Plant Hydropower Project.

    f. Location: On the Fox River in Outagamie County, Wisconsin. There are no federal or tribal lands within the project boundary.

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

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Mike Pedersen, Kaukauna Utilities, 777 Island Street, P.O. Box 1777, Kaukauna, WI 54130; (920) 766-5721.

    i. FERC Contact: Erin Kimsey, (202) 502-8621 or [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: August 21, 2017.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file scoping comments 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-1510-018.

    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 is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.

    l. The existing Kaukauna City Plant Hydroelectric Project consists of: (1) A 3,527-foot-long, 14-foot-high dam that includes: (a) A 930-foot-long, 14-foot-high rubble masonry retaining wall section (left forebay dam) with a remnant concrete headwall structure and a trash sluice; (b) a 92-foot-long, 47.5-foot-high concrete intake and powerhouse section; (c) a 365-foot-long, 20-foot-high rubble masonry retaining wall section (right forebay dam) with a masonry abutment section and a concrete gravity section with a trash sluice; (d) a 66-foot-long gated spillway section with two 30-foot-wide, 8.8-foot-high spillway gates; and (e) a 2,074-foot-long, 10-foot-high overflow spillway section that includes a 1,305-foot-long concrete ogee section, a 75-foot-long natural rock section, a 125-foot-long concrete gravity section, and a 569-foot-long concrete gravity section; (2) a 19-acre 1.5-mile-long impoundment with a normal maximum elevation of 629.0 above mean seal level; (3) an intake structure with two head gates and two 25-foot-high, 88-foot-long trashracks with 5 inch clear-bar spacing; (4) a 92-foot-long, 47.5-foot-high concrete and brick powerhouse containing two 2.4-megawatt (MW) turbine-generator units for a total capacity of 4.8 MW; (5) a 440-foot-wide, 49-foot-deep, 1,200-foot-long excavated tailrace; (6) two 68-foot-long, 2.4-kilovolt generator leads that connect the turbine-generator units to the regional distribution line; and (7) appurtenant facilities.

    Kaukauna Utilities operates the project in a run-of-river mode with an annual average generation of approximately 29,704 megawatt-hours. Kaukauna Utilities is not proposing any new project facilities or changes in project operation.

    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 address the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. A copy is available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.

    n. 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, contact FERC Online Support.

    o. Scoping Process

    The Commission staff intends to prepare a single Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Kaukauna City Plant Hydroelectric Project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA will consider both site-specific and cumulative environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action.

    Commission staff does not propose to conduct any on-site scoping meetings at this time. Instead, we are soliciting comments, recommendations, and information, on Scoping Document 1 (SD1) issued on June 20, 2017.

    Copies of SD1 outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the EA were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list and the applicant's distribution list. Copies of SD1 may 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, call 1-866-208-3676 or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 20, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13270 Filed 6-23-17; 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: ER10-2290-005.

    Applicants: Avista Corporation.

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

    Filed Date: 6/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170620-5097.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2507-013.

    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Westar Energy, Inc.

    Filed Date: 6/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170620-5091.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-225-004.

    Applicants: New Brunswick Energy Marketing Corporation.

    Description: Second Supplement to December 22, 2016 Triennial Market Power Update for the Northeast Region of New Brunswick Energy Marketing Corporation.

    Filed Date: 6/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170620-5102.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1869-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 607R31 Westar Energy, Inc. NITSA NOA to be effective 6/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170620-5028.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1870-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2562R5 Kansas Municipal Energy Agency NITSA and NOA to be effective 9/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170620-5076.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1871-000.

    Applicants: Bayshore Solar B, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Bayshore Solar B, LLC MBR Tariff to be effective 8/20/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170620-5077.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1872-000.

    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 205 Bethlehem LGIA SA 2341 among NYISO, NMPC, PSEG to be effective 6/7/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170620-5083.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1873-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: PSCo-WAPA-Brlngtn Bndry Mtr-402-0.1.0 to be effective 6/21/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170620-5107.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/17.

    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 20, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13267 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-1864-000] Bayshore Solar A, 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 Bayshore Solar A, 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 10, 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 20, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13269 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY BOARD Notice of Request for Comment on the Exposure Draft of a Proposed Federal Financial Accounting Technical Release Entitled Implementation Guidance for Establishing Opening Balances AGENCY:

    Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director, 441 G Street NW., Mailstop 6H19, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Board Action: Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules Of Procedure, as amended in October 2010, notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has issued an exposure draft of a proposed Federal Financial Accounting Technical Release entitled Implementation Guidance for Establishing Opening Balances.

    The exposure draft is available on the FASAB Web site at http://www.fasab.gov/documents-for-comment/. Copies can be obtained by contacting FASAB at (202) 512-7350.

    Respondents are encouraged to comment on any part of the exposure draft. Written comments are requested by July 21, 2017, and should be sent to [email protected] or Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director, Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, 441 G Street NW., Suite 6814, Mailstop 6H19, Washington, DC 20548.

    Authority:

    Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463.

    Dated: June 21, 2017. Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13292 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1610-02-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewals; Comment Request (3064-0083 & 0194) AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of existing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the FDIC is soliciting comment on renewal of the information collections described below.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before August 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:

    http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/federal/notices.html.

    Email: [email protected] Include the name and number of the collection in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Jennifer Jones (202-898-6768), Counsel, MB-3105, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.

    Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 17th Street Building (located on F Street), on business days between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

    All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Jones, at the FDIC address above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Proposal to renew the following currently approved collections of information:

    1. Title: Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements in Connection with Regulation M (Consumer Leasing).

    OMB Number: 3064-0083.

    Form Number: None.

    Affected Public: State nonmember banks and state savings associations engaging in consumer leasing.

    Burden Estimate:

    Type of burden Estimated
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Estimated
  • number of
  • responses
  • Estimated
  • time per
  • response
  • Frequency of
  • response
  • Total annual
  • estimated
  • burden
  • Recordkeeping Requirements in Connection with Regulation M (Consumer Leasing) Recordkeeping 52 100 0.375 On Occasion 1,950 Third-Party Disclosure Requirements in Connection with Regulation M (Consumer Leasing) Third-Party Disclosure 52 100 0.375 On Occasion 1,950 Total hourly burden 3,900

    General Description of Collection: Regulation M (12 CFR 1013), issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, implements the consumer leasing provisions of the Truth in Lending Act. Regulation M requires lessors of personal property to provide consumers with meaningful disclosures about the costs and terms of the leases for personal property. Lessors are required to retain evidence of compliance with Regulation M for twenty-four months.

    There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The overall reduction in burden hours is a result of (1) economic fluctuation and (2) an updated estimate (based on historical information) of state nonmember banks and state savings associations engaged in consumer leasing. In particular, the number of respondents has decreased while the hours per response remain the same.

    2. Title: Covered Financial Company Asset Purchaser Eligibility Certification.

    OMB Number: 3064-0194.

    Form Number: Covered Financial Company Asset Sales Purchaser Eligibility Certification—7300/10.

    Affected Public: Any individual or entity that is a potential purchaser of assets from (1) the FDIC as receiver for a Covered Financial Company (“CFC”); or (2) a bridge financial company (“BFC”) which requires the approval of the FDIC, as receiver for the predecessor CFC and as the sole shareholder of the BFC (e.g., the BFC's sale of a significant business line).

    Burden Estimate:

    Type of burden Estimated
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Estimated
  • number of
  • responses
  • Estimated
  • time per
  • response
  • Frequency of
  • response
  • Total annual
  • estimated
  • burden
  • Covered Financial Company Asset Sales Purchaser Eligibility Certification Reporting 10 1 .5 Annual 5 Total hourly burden 5

    General Description of Collection: Assets held by the FDIC in the course of liquidating any covered financial company must not be sold to persons who contributed to the demise of a covered financial company in specified ways (e.g., individuals who profited or engaged in wrongdoing at the expense of the failed institution, or seriously mismanaged the failed institution). 12 CFR part 380 requires prospective purchasers to complete and submit a Purchaser Eligibility Certification (“PEC”) to the FDIC. The PEC is a self-certification by a prospective purchaser that it does not fall into any of the categories of individuals or entities that are prohibited by statute or regulation from purchasing the assets of covered financial companies. The PEC will be required in connection with the sale of assets by the FDIC, as receiver for a CFC, or the sale of assets by a BFC which requires the approval of the FDIC, as receiver for the predecessor CFC and as the sole shareholder of the BFC.

    There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The number of respondents and the hours per response remain the same.

    Request for Comment

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collections, 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 collections of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated at Washington, DC, this 21st day of June, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13311 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-17-17ACY; Docket No. CDC-2017-0041] 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. As part of a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) issued for the competitive selection of research proposals, this notice invites comment on the proposed information collection project titled “Applied Research to Address Emerging Public Health Priorities.”

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before August 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0041 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

    Applied Research to Address Emerging Public Health Priorities—New—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    On March 27, 2017, CDC issued a Broad Agency Announcement (FY2017-OADS-01) available at https://www.fbo.gov/spg/HHS/CDCP/PGOA/FY2017-OADS-01/listing.html. There is potential for standardized information collection attached to a limited number of awarded projects. For those projects, a 30-day notice will be published in the Federal Register and information collection requests will be submitted to OMB for approval. This Federal Register notice is intended to broadly inform the public of CDC's intent to contract with researchers to carry out a variety of different research projects awarded through this announcement.

    For this announcement, CDC has identified the following research areas of interest. Interested parties are invited to consider innovative approaches to support advanced research and development strategies in the following research areas of interest:

    1. New diagnostic, sequencing and metagenomic tools for antibiotic detection and improved antibiotic use

    2. International Transmission, colonization, and prevention of antibiotic resistance (AR) pathogens

    3. Domestic transmission, colonization, and prevention of antibiotic resistance pathogens and Clostridium difficile infections (CDI)

    4. Microbiome disruption

    5. Antibiotic resistance pathogens and genes in water systems and the environment and their contribution to human infections

    6. Medication safety and antibiotic stewardship

    7. Improving the timeliness, accuracy, and usability of public health emergency management, surveillance and survey information data

    Contracts that are awarded based on responses to this BAA are as a result of full and open competition and therefore in full compliance with the provisions of PL 98-369, “The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984.” CDC contracts with educational institutions, nonprofit organizations, state and local government, and private industry for research and development (R&D) in those areas covered in this BAA.

    The public is invited to look at the BAA online for greater detail and more specific research areas falling under the seven topics listed above.

    Authorizing legislation comes from Section 301 of the Public Health Service Act. Responses will be voluntary and it is not expected that there will be any cost to respondents other than the time to participate in information collection.

    The total estimated burden for all of the information collections is not expected to exceed 1,500 hours (100 hours of burden for a maximum of 15 potentially PRA-applicable contracts).

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hrs.)
  • Total burden
  • (in hrs.)
  • Public Information Collection 150 1 1 1,500 Total 1,500
    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. 2017-13320 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS-1561/1561A, CMS-370 and CMS-377] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, and to allow a second opportunity for public comment on the notice. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, the accuracy of the estimated burden, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by July 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806 OR, Email: [email protected].

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at Web site address at https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/PaperworkReductionActof1995/PRA-Listing.html.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Parham at (410) 786-4669.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension, revision or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Health Insurance Benefit Agreement; Use: Applicants to the Medicare program are required to agree to provide services in accordance with federal requirements. The CMS-1561/1561A is essential in that is allows us to ensure that applicants are in compliance with the requirements. Applicants will be required to sign the completed form and provide operational information to us to assure that they continue to meet the requirements after approval. Form Number: CMS-1561/1561A (OMB control number: 0938-0832); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: Private sector—(Business or other for-profits and Not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 2,400; Total Annual Responses: 2,400; Total Annual Hours: 400. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Shonte Carter at 410-786-3532).

    2. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Titles of Information Collection: ASC Forms for Medicare Program Certification; Use: The CMS-370 is used to establish eligibility for payment. This agreement, upon submission by the ambulatory surgical center (ASC) and acceptance for filing by the Secretary of Health & Human Services, shall be binding on both the ASC and the Secretary. The agreement may be terminated by either party in accordance with regulations. In the event of termination, payment will not be available for ASC services furnished on or after the effective date of termination.

    The Request for Certification or Update of Certification Information in the Medicare Program Form (CMS-377) is used by State agencies who conduct certification surveys on CMS' behalf to maintain information on the facility's characteristics that facilitate conducting surveys, e.g., determining the size and the composition of the survey team on the basis of the number of ORs/procedure rooms and the types of surgical procedures performed in the ASC. Form Numbers: CMS-370 and CMS-377 (OMB control number: 0938-0266); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Private Sector—Business or other for-profit and Not-for-profit institutions; Number of Respondents: 5,694; Total Annual Responses: 1,898; Total Annual Hours: 627. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Erin McCoy at 410-786-2337.)

    Dated: June 21, 2017. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13321 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS-10292, CMS-10332 and CMS-10239] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information (including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information) and to allow 60 days for public comment on the proposed action. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, the accuracy of the estimated burden, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by August 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:

    1. Electronically. You may send your comments electronically to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for “Comment or Submission” or “More Search Options” to find the information collection document(s) that are accepting comments.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address: CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attention: Document Identifier/OMB Control Number _________, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/PaperworkReductionActof1995/PRA-Listing.html.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected].

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Parham at (410) 786-4669.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Contents

    This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES).

    CMS-10292 State Medicaid HIT Plan, Planning Advance Planning Document, and Implementation Advance Planning Document for Section 4201 of the Recovery Act CMS-10332 Disclosure Requirement for the In-Office Ancillary Services Exception CMS-10239 Conditions of Participation for Critical Access Hospitals (CAH) and Supporting Regulations

    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. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice.

    Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: State Medicaid HIT Plan, Planning Advance Planning Document, and Implementation Advance Planning Document for Section 4201 of the Recovery Act; Use: To assess the appropriateness of state requests for the administrative Federal financial participation for expenditures under their Medicaid Electronic Health Record Incentive Program related to health information exchange, our staff will review the submitted information and documentation to make an approval determination of the state advance planning document. Form Number: CMS-10292 (OMB control number: 0938-1088); Frequency: Once and occasionally; Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 56; Total Annual Responses: 56; Total Annual Hours: 896. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Marty Rice at 410-786-2417.)

    2. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Disclosure Requirement for the In-Office Ancillary Services Exception; Use: Section 6003 of the ACA established a disclosure requirement for the in-office ancillary services exception to the prohibition of physician self-referral for certain imaging services. This section of the ACA amended section 1877(b)(2) of the Social Security Act by adding a requirement that the referring physician informs the patient, at the time of the referral and in writing, that the patient may receive the imaging service from another supplier. The implementing regulations are at 42 CFR 411.355(b)(7).

    Physicians who provide certain imaging services (MRI, CT, and PET) under the in-office ancillary services exception to the physician self-referral prohibition are required to provide the disclosure notice as well as the list of other imaging suppliers to the patient. The patient will then be able to use the disclosure notice and list of suppliers in making an informed decision about his or her course of care for the imaging service. CMS would use the collected information for enforcement purposes. Specifically, if we were investigating the referrals of a physician providing advanced imaging services under the in-office ancillary services exception, we would review the written disclosure in order to determine if it satisfied the requirement. Form Number: CMS-10332 (OMB control number: 0938-1133); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 7,100; Total Annual Responses: 759,700; Total Annual Hours: 19,638. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Laura Dash at 410-786-8623.)

    3. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Conditions of Participation for Critical Access Hospitals (CAH) and Supporting Regulations; Use: At the outset of the critical access hospital (CAH) program, the information collection requirements for all CAHs were addressed together under the following information collection request: CMS-R-48 (OCN: 0938-0328). As the CAH program has grown in both scope of services and the number of providers, the burden associated with CAHs with distinct part units (DPUs) was separated from the CAHs without DPUs. Section 1820(c)(2)(E)(i) of the Social Security Act provides that a CAH may establish and operate a psychiatric or rehabilitation DPU. Each DPU may maintain up to10 beds and must comply with the hospital requirements specified in 42 CFR subparts A, B, C, and D of part 482. Presently, 105 CAHs have rehabilitation or psychiatric DPUs. The burden associated with CAHs that have DPUs continues to be reported under CMS-R-48, along with the burden for all 4,890 accredited and non-accredited hospitals.

    The CAH conditions of participation and accompanying information collection requirements specified in the regulations are used by surveyors as a basis for determining whether a CAH meets the requirements to participate in the Medicare program. We, along with the healthcare industry, believe that the availability to the facility of the type of records and general content of records, which this regulation specifies, is standard medical practice and is necessary in order to ensure the well-being and safety of patients and professional treatment accountability. Form Number: CMS-10239 (OMB Control number: 0938-1043); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: Private sector—Business or other for-profit; Number of Respondents: 1,215; Total Annual Responses: 144,585; Total Annual Hours: 24,183. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Mary Collins at 410-786-3189.)

    Dated: June 20, 2017. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13198 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS-3338-FN] Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Approval of an Application From the Center for Improvement in Healthcare Quality for Continued CMS Approval of Its Hospital Accreditation Program AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This final notice announces our decision to approve the Center for Improvement in Healthcare Quality (CIHQ) for continued recognition as a national accrediting organization for hospitals that wish to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs.

    DATES:

    This final notice is effective July 26, 2017 through July 26, 2023.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lillian Williams (410) 786-8638, Monda Shaver, (410) 786-3410, or Patricia Chmielewski, (410) 786-6899.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    A healthcare provider may enter into an agreement with Medicare to participate in the program as a hospital provided certain requirements are met. Section 1861(e) of the Social Security Act (the Act) establishes criteria for providers seeking participation in Medicare as a hospital. Regulations concerning Medicare provider agreements in general are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to the survey and certification for Medicare participation of providers and certain types of suppliers are at 42 CFR part 488. The regulations at 42 CFR part 482 specify the specific conditions that a provider must meet to participate in the Medicare program as a hospital. Hospitals that wish to be paid under the Medicaid program must be approved to participate in Medicare, in accordance with 42 CFR 440.10(a)(3)(iii).

    Generally, to enter into a Medicare hospital provider agreement, a facility must first be certified as complying with the conditions set forth in part 482 and recommended to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for participation by a State survey agency. Thereafter, the hospital is subject to periodic surveys by a State survey agency to determine whether it continues to meet these conditions. However, there is an alternative to certification surveys by State agencies. Accreditation by a nationally recognized Medicare accreditation program approved by CMS may substitute for both initial and ongoing state review.

    Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act provides that, if the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) finds that accreditation of a provider entity by an approved national accrediting organization meets or exceeds all applicable Medicare conditions, we may treat the provider entity as having met those conditions, that is, we may “deem” the provider entity to be in compliance. Accreditation by an accrediting organization is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.

    Part 488 subpart A implements the provisions of section 1865 of the Act and requires that a national accrediting organization applying for approval of its Medicare accreditation program must provide CMS with reasonable assurance that the accrediting organization requires its accredited provider entities to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare conditions. Our regulations concerning the approval of accrediting organizations are set forth at § 488.5. The regulations at § 488.5(e)(2)(i) require an accrediting organization to reapply for continued approval of its Medicare accreditation program every 6 years or sooner as determined by CMS. The Center for Improvement in Healthcare Quality's (CIHQ's) term of approval as a recognized Medicare accreditation program for hospitals expires July 26, 2017.

    II. Application Approval Process

    Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act provides a statutory timetable to ensure that our review of applications for CMS approval of an accreditation program is conducted in a timely manner. The Act provides us 210 days after the date of receipt of a complete application, with any documentation necessary to make the determination, to complete our survey activities and application process. Within 60 days after receiving a complete application, we must publish a notice in the Federal Register that identifies the national accrediting body making the request, describes the request, and provides no less than a 30-day public comment period. At the end of the 210-day period, we must publish a notice in the Federal Register approving or denying the application.

    III. Provisions of the Proposed Notice

    On February 24, 2017, we published a proposed notice in the Federal Register (82 FR 11579) announcing CIHQ's request for continued approval of its Medicare hospital accreditation program. In the proposed notice, we detailed our evaluation criteria. Under section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and in our regulations at § 488.5, we conducted a review of CIHQ's Medicare hospital accreditation application in accordance with the criteria specified by our regulations, which include, but are not limited to the following:

    • An onsite administrative review of CIHQ's: (1) Corporate policies; (2) financial and human resources available to accomplish the proposed surveys; (3) procedures for training, monitoring, and evaluation of its hospital surveyors; (4) ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited hospitals; and, (5) survey review and decision-making process for accreditation.

    • A comparison of CIHQ's Medicare accreditation program standards to our current Medicare hospital Conditions of Participation (CoPs).

    • A documentation review of CIHQ's survey process to do the following:

    ++ Determine the composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and CIHQ's ability to provide continuing surveyor training.

    ++ Compare CIHQ's processes to those we require of State survey agencies, including periodic resurvey and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited hospitals.

    ++ Evaluate CIHQ's procedures for monitoring hospitals it has found to be out of compliance with CIHQ's program requirements. (This pertains only to monitoring procedures when CIHQ identifies non-compliance. If non-compliance is identified by a State survey agency through a validation survey, the State survey agency monitors corrections as specified at § 488.9(c)).

    ++ Assess CIHQ's ability to report deficiencies to the surveyed hospitals and respond to the hospital's plan of correction in a timely manner.

    ++ Establish CIHQ's ability to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.

    ++ Determine the adequacy of CIHQ's staff and other resources.

    ++ Confirm CIHQ's ability to provide adequate funding for performing required surveys.

    ++ Confirm CIHQ's policies with respect to surveys being unannounced.

    ++ Obtain CIHQ's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as we may require, including corrective action plans.

    In accordance with section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the February 24, 2017 proposed notice also solicited public comments regarding whether CIHQ's requirements met or exceeded the Medicare CoP for hospitals. There were no comments submitted.

    IV. Provisions of the Final Notice A. Differences Between CIHQ's Standards and Requirements for Accreditation and Medicare Conditions and Survey Requirements

    We compared CIHQ's hospital accreditation requirements and survey process with the Medicare CoPs at part 482, and the survey and certification process requirements of parts 488 and 489. CIHQ's standards crosswalk, which maps CIHQ's standards with the corresponding requirements under the Medicare CoPs, was also examined to ensure that the appropriate CMS regulation was included in citations as appropriate. We reviewed and evaluated CIHQ's hospital application, conducted as described earlier. As a result, CIHQ has revised its materials, standards, and certification processes to reflect the following Medicare requirements:

    • § 482.12: Updated the summary description of this provision in the crosswalk to be consistent with its accreditation standards.

    • § 482.12(a)(1) through (10): Updated the summary description of this provision in the crosswalk to be consistent with its accreditation standards.

    • § 482.12(a)(10): Revised its standards to address the hospital's responsibility to consult directly with the medical staff.

    • § 482.12(c): Updated the summary description of this provision in the crosswalk to be consistent with its accreditation standards.

    • § 482.12(c)(1)(ii): Updated the CFR citation to properly reference the regulatory requirement on its standards crosswalk.

    • § 482.12(c)(2): Updated the CFR citation to properly reference the regulatory requirement on its standards crosswalk.

    • § 482.12(c)(4)(i): Clarified the use of the word “develops” to indicate if the condition was present on admission or developed during the hospitalization on its standards crosswalk.

    • § 482.12(f)(2): Revised its standards to ensure the medical staff have written policies and procedures for appraisals of emergencies, initial treatment and referral.

    • § 482.13(a)(1) and § 482.13(a)(2): Updated the summary description of these provisions in the crosswalk to be consistent with its accreditation standards.

    • § 482.13(a)(2)(i): Revised its standards to ensure the patient's right to submit “written or verbal” grievances.

    • § 482.13(a)(2)(ii), § 482.13(b)(3), § 482.13(b)(4) and § 482.13(c)(2): Updated the summary description of these provisions in the crosswalk to be consistent with its accreditation standards.

    • § 482.13(e)(5): Updated the CFR citation to properly reference the regulatory requirement.

    • § 482.13(e)(6), § 482.13(f)(1)(ii), § 482.13(g), § 482.13(g)(2), § 482.13(h), § 482.21(b)(1), § 482.21(d)(2) and § 482.21(d)(4): Updated the summary description of these provisions in the crosswalk to be consistent with its accreditation standards.

    • § 482.22(a)(2): Updated its standards to reflect that temporary practice privileges are granted by the governing body.

    • § 482.22(b)(1): Updated the summary description of this provision in the crosswalk to be consistent with its accreditation standards.

    • § 482.22(b)(3): Revised its standards to reflect CMS requirements for medical staff organization and accountability.

    • § 482. 22(b)(4): Updated the summary description of this provision in the crosswalk to be consistent with its accreditation standards.

    • § 482.23(c)(4): Updated its standards to fully address requirements for blood transfusions.

    • § 482.24(b): Updated its standards to fully address requirements for the form and retention of medical records.

    • § 482.24(c)(2) through (c)(4)(viii): Updated the Medicare regulatory language on its standards crosswalk to ensure that its accreditation standards are consistent with Medicare standards.

    • § 482.25(b)(2)(ii): Updated the crosswalk and standard to add references to the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.

    • § 482.26: Updated the summary description of this provision in the crosswalk to be consistent with its accreditation standards.

    • § 482.41: Revised its standards to reflect the requirements of the “Physical Environment”.

    • § 482.43: Revised its standards to ensure that the hospital discharge planning process applies to all patients.

    • § 482.51(b)(6) and § 482.56(a)(2): Updated the summary description of these provisions in the crosswalk to be consistent with its accreditation standards.

    • § 482.56(b)(2): Revised its standards to address the requirements at § 409.17 related to physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech language pathology services.

    • § 482.57(b)(3): Updated the CFR citation to properly reference the regulatory requirement on its crosswalk.

    • § 482.57(b)(4): Updated the CFR citation to properly reference the regulatory requirement on its crosswalk and in its accreditation standards.

    • § 488.4(a)(6): Revised its standards to include a process to track and trend complaints received.

    • § 488.5(a)(4)(ii): Revised its standards to ensure that an appropriate number of open, inpatient medical records are fully reviewed during the survey process.

    • § 488.5(a)(4)(iv): Revised its standards to assure that findings of non-compliance are documented under all appropriate CMS standards where non-compliance is found; and that adverse findings for each CoP are reviewed for manner and degree of non-compliance and subsequently cited at the appropriate level (that is, condition versus standard level).

    • § 488.5(a)(7) through (9): Revised its standards to ensure that newly hired surveyors receive orientation so as to ensure AO compliance with these provisions.

    • § 488.26(b): Revised its standards to improve surveyor documentation to include the appropriately detailed deficiency statements that clearly support the determination of noncompliance and level of deficiency.

    • § 489.13: Revised its standards to reflect CMS policy regarding effective dates of participation in the Medicare program and develop a plan for monitoring for sustained compliance.

    • CIHQ revised its complaint policy and procedure to clearly identify the individual(s) that are responsible for triaging complaints submitted to the accrediting organization.

    • CIHQ revised its policy to clarify that an “Immediate Jeopardy” finding remains cited at the Conditional level, even if abated while onsite.

    B. Term of Approval

    Based on our review and observations described in section III of this final notice, we have determined that CIHQ's hospital program requirements meet or exceed our requirements. Therefore, we approve CIHQ as a national accreditation organization for hospitals that request participation in the Medicare program, effective July 26, 2017 through July 26, 2023.

    V. Collection of Information Requirements

    This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Dated: June 20, 2017. Seema Verma, Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13207 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Proposed Projects

    Title: Multistate Financial Institution Data Match and Federally Assisted State Transmitted Levy (MSFIDM/FAST Levy).

    OMB No.: 0970-0196.

    Description: Section 466(a)(17) of the Social Security Act (the Act) requires states to establish procedures for their child support agencies to enter into agreements with financial institutions doing business in their state for the purpose of securing information leading to the enforcement of child support orders. Under 452(m) and 466(a)(17)(A)(i) of the Act, the Secretary may aid state agencies conducting data matches with financial institutions doing business in two or more states by establishing a centralized and standardized matching program through the Federal Parent Locator Service.

    To further assist states collect child support, the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) worked with child support agencies and financial institutions to develop the Federally Assisted State Transmitted (FAST) Levy system.

    FAST Levy is a central, standardized, and secure electronic process for child support agencies and financial institutions to exchange information about levying financial accounts to collect past-due support. OCSE picks up files created by child support agencies that contain FAST Levy requests and distributes them to financial institutions that use the FAST Levy system. Those financial institutions create response files that OCSE picks up and distributes to the child support agencies.

    The MSFIDM/FAST-Levy information collection activities are authorized by: 42 U.S.C. 652(m), which authorizes OCSE, through the Federal Parent Locator Service, to aid state child support agencies and financial institutions doing business in two or more states reach agreements regarding the receipt from financial institutions, and the transfer to the state child support agencies, of information pertaining to the location of accounts held by obligors who owe past-due support; 42 U.S.C. 666(a)(2) and (c)(1)(G)(ii), which require state child support agencies in cases in which there is an arrearage to establish procedures to secure assets to satisfy any current support obligation and the arrearage by attaching and seizing assets of the obligor held in financial institutions; 42 U.S.C. 666(a)(17)(A), which requires state child support agencies to establish procedures under which the state child support agencies shall enter into agreements with financial institutions doing business in the State to develop and operate, in coordination with financial institutions, and the Federal Parent Locator Service (in the case of financial institutions doing business in two or more States), a data match system, using automated data exchanges to the maximum extent feasible, in which a financial institution is required to quarterly provide information pertaining to a noncustodial parent owing past-due support who maintains an account at the institution and, in response to a notice of lien or levy, encumber or surrender, assets held; 42 U.S.C. 652(a)(7), which requires OCSE to provide technical assistance to state child support enforcement agencies to help them establish effective systems for collecting child and spousal support; and, 45 CFR 303.7(a)(5), which requires state child support agencies to transmit requests for information and provide requested information electronically to the greatest extent possible. To facilitate this requirement for states, OCSE developed the FAST Levy system that supports the electronic exchange of lien and levy information between child support agencies and financial institutions.

    Respondents: Multistate Financial Institutions and State Child Support Agencies.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total
  • burden hours
  • Financial Data Match Result File-Portal 192 4 5 minutes 1 64 Election Form 30 1 0.5 15 FAST-Levy Record Specifications: Current Financial Institutions Users to Program New Codes 1 1 65 2 65 FAST-Levy Record Specifications: Current State Child Support Agencies to Program New Codes 3 1 65 195 FAST-Levy Response Withhold Record Specifications: Financial Institutions 1 1 1,716 1,716 FAST-Levy Request Withhold Record Specifications: State Child Support Agencies 2 1 1,610 3,220 1 Estimate is approximately 5 minutes per response. For calculation, use 5/60. 2 Estimate is an average based on input from OCSE's matching partners.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,275.

    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201, Attention Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Bob Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13252 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-41-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request

    Title: Evaluation of Employment Coaching for TANF and Other Low-Income Populations.

    OMB No.: New Collection.

    Description: The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is proposing a data collection activity as part of the Evaluation of Employment Coaching for TANF and Other Low-Income Populations. This study will provide an opportunity to learn more about the potential of coaching to help clients achieve self-sufficiency and other desired employment-related outcomes. It will take place over five years in up to three employment programs. These programs may be Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) agencies or other public or private employment programs that serve low-income individuals. Selected sites will include a robust coaching component and have the capacity to conduct a rigorous impact evaluation, among other criteria. This study will provide information on whether coaching helps people obtain and retain jobs, advance in their careers, move toward self-sufficiency, and improve their overall well-being. To meet these objectives, this study will include an impact and implementation study.

    The impact study will involve participants being randomly assigned to either a “program group,” who will be paired with a coach, or to a “control group,” who will not be paired with a coach. The effectiveness of the coaching will be determined by differences between members of the program and control groups in outcomes such as obtaining and retaining employment, earnings, measures of self-sufficiency, and measures of self-regulation.

    The implementation study will document coaching practices, describe lessons learned from implementing coaching, and enhance interpretation of the impact study findings.

    The proposed information collection activities are: (1) Baseline data collection: Collection of characteristics data on all study participants as they enroll in the study. Data will be entered into the Random Assignment, Participant Tracking Enrollment, and Reporting (RAPTER) system; (2) First follow-up survey: Collection of outcome data for a subset of study participants about 9 months after random assignment; (3) Semi-structured staff interviews: Collection of qualitative data on the design and implementation of the program; (4) Staff survey: Collection of information on staff members' professional backgrounds, training, coaching practices, and attitudes; (5) In-depth participant interviews: Collection of detailed information about the participants' backgrounds and experiences with coaching; (6) Staff reports of program service receipt: Collection of data on coaching and other program services received by study participants and entered into RAPTER; and (7) Video recordings of coaching sessions: Collection of data on the interaction between the coaches and participants.

    A second follow-up survey will be administered approximately 21 months after random assignment. This data collection activity will be included under a separate OMB submission.

    Respondents: Program staff and individuals enrolled in the Evaluation of Employment Coaching for TANF and Other Low-Income Populations. Program staff may include coaches, case managers, workshop instructors, job developers, supervisors, and managers. All participants will be able to opt out of participating in the data collection activities.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Total
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Annual
  • burden hours
  • Baseline data collection—study participants 6,000 2,000 1 0.33 660 Baseline data collection—staff 60 20 100 0.33 660 First follow-up survey 2,400 800 1 1 800 Semi-structured staff interviews 66 22 1 1.5 33 Staff survey 48 16 1 0.75 12 In-depth participant interviews 24 8 1 2.5 20 Staff reports of program service receipt 30 10 5,200 0.03 1,560 Video recordings of coaching sessions 27 9 10 0.10 9

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,754.

    In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(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 SW., Washington, DC 20201, Attn: OPRE 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) 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) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

    Mary Jones, ACF/OPRE Certifying Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13288 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-4620] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Medical Devices; Reports of Corrections and Removals 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 26, 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 0910-0359. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    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, 301-796-8867, [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.

    Medical Devices; Reports of Corrections and Removals—21 CFR Part 806 OMB Control Number 0910-0359—Extension

    FDA is requesting approval for the collection of information regarding reports of corrections and removals required under part 806 (21 CFR part 806), which implements section 519(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360i(g)), as amended by the Food and Drug Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) (Pub. L. 105-115). A description of the information collection requirements are provided as follows:

    Under § 806.10 (21 CFR 806.10), within 10 working days of initiating any action to correct or remove a device to reduce a risk to health posed by the device or to remedy a violation of the FD&C Act caused by the device that may present a risk to health, device manufacturers or importers must submit a written report to FDA of the correction or removal.

    Under § 806.20(a), device manufacturers or importers that initiate a correction or removal that is not required to be reported to FDA must keep a record of the correction or removal.

    The information collected in the reports of corrections and removals will be used by FDA to identify marketed devices that have serious problems and to ensure that defective devices are removed from the market. This will assure that FDA has current and complete information regarding these corrections and removals to determine whether recall action is adequate. Failure to collect this information would prevent FDA from receiving timely information about devices that may have a serious effect on the health of users of the devices.

    Reports of corrections and removals may be submitted to FDA via mail or using FDA's Electronic Submission Gateway (ESG). We estimate that approximately 99 percent of submitters will use the ESG. Our estimate of the reporting and recordkeeping burden is based on Agency records and our experience with this program, as well as similar programs that utilize FDA's ESG.

    For respondents who submit corrections and removals using the electronic process, the operating and maintenance costs associated with this information collection are approximately $30 per year to purchase a digital verification certificate (certificate must be valid for 1 to 3 years). This burden may be minimized if the respondent has already purchased a verification certificate for other electronic submissions to FDA. However, FDA is assuming that all respondents who submit corrections and removals using the electronic process will be establishing a new WebTrader account and purchasing a digital verification certificate. We therefore estimate the total operating and maintenance costs to be $30,660 annually (1,022 respondents × $30).

    In the Federal Register of March 20, 2017 (82 FR 14367), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Activity
  • (21 CFR part)
  • Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total annual responses Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours 2 Total operating and maintenance costs
    Electronic process setup 3 1,022 1 1,022 3.08 3,148 $30,660 Submission of corrections and removals (part 806) 1,033 1 1,033 10 10,330 1 There are no capital costs associated with this collection of information. 2 Totals may not sum due to rounding. 3 We estimate that approximately 99 percent of respondents will submit corrections and removals using the electronic process. The actual burden hours for setup of the electronic process listed in the reporting burden table are divided by 3 to avoid double counting in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Consolidated Information System. However, the one-time Average Burden per Response is 9.25 hours, resulting in a total one-time burden of 9,454 hours for the setup of the electronic process.
    Table 2—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden 1 Activity
  • (21 CFR part)
  • Number of recordkeepers Number of records per recordkeeper Total annual records Average
  • burden per recordkeeping
  • Total hours
    Records of corrections and removals (part 806) 93 1 93 10 930 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Dated: June 20, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13248 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0312] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extralabel Drug Use in Animals 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 the reporting requirements associated with extralabel drug use in animals.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by August 25, 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 25, 2017. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of August 25, 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-2008-N-0312 for “Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extralabel Drug Use in Animals.” 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:

    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:

    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.

    Extralabel Drug Use in Animals—21 CFR Part 530 OMB Control Number 0910-0325—Extension

    The Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act of 1994 allows a veterinarian to prescribe the extralabel use of approved new animal drugs. Also, it permits FDA, if it finds that there is a reasonable probability that the extralabel use of an animal drug may present a risk to the public health, to establish a safe level for a residue from the extralabel use of the drug, and to require the development of an analytical method for the detection of residues above that established safe level (21 CFR 530.22(b)). Although to date, we have not established a safe level for a residue from the extralabel use of any new animal drug and, therefore, have not required the development of analytical methodology, we believe that there may be instances when analytical methodology will be required. We are, therefore, estimating the reporting burden based on two methods being required annually. The requirement to establish an analytical method may be fulfilled by any interested person. We believe that the sponsor of the drug will be willing to develop the method in most cases. Alternatively, FDA, the sponsor, and perhaps a third party may cooperatively arrange for method development. The respondents may be sponsors of new animal drugs, State, or Federal and/or State Agencies, academia, or individuals.

    FDA estimates the burden of this 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
  • Total hours
    530.22(b), Submission(s) of Analytical Method 2 1 2 4,160 8,320 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    The burden for this information collection has not changed since the last OMB approval.

    Dated: June 20, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13296 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-0809] Issuance of Priority Review Voucher; Rare Pediatric Disease Product AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare pediatric disease product application. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), authorizes FDA to award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA is required to publish notice of the award of the priority review voucher. FDA has determined that Brineura (cerliponase alfa) manufactured by Biomarin Pharmaceuticals Inc., meets the criteria for a priority review voucher.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Althea Cuff, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6484, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-4061, FAX: 301-796-9858, email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    FDA is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of an approved rare pediatric disease product application. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff), which was added by FDASIA, FDA will award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA has determined that Brineura (cerliponase alfa) manufactured by Biomarin Pharmaceuticals Inc., meets the criteria for a priority review voucher. Brineura (cerliponase alfa) is indicated to slow the progression of loss of ambulation in symptomatic pediatric patients 3 years of age and older with late infantile neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis type 2 (CLN2), also known as tripeptidyl peptidase 1 (TPP1) deficiency.

    For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529 of the FD&C Act, go to https://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/DevelopingProductsforRareDiseasesConditions/RarePediatricDiseasePriorityVoucherProgram/default.htm. For further information about Brineura (cerliponase alfa) go to the “[email protected]” Web site at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/.

    Dated: June 20, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13236 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-1066] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Annual Reporting for Custom Device Exemption 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 26, 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 0910-0767. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    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, 301-796-8867, [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.

    Annual Reporting for Custom Device Exemption OMB Control Number 0910-0767—Extension

    The custom device exemption is set forth at section 520(b)(2)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(b)(2)(B)). A custom device is in a narrow category of device that, by virtue of the rarity of the patient's medical condition or physician's special need the device is designed to treat, it would be impractical for the device to comply with premarket review regulations and performance standards.

    The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) implemented changes to the custom device exemption contained in section 520(b) of the FD&C Act. The new provision amended the existing custom device exemption and introduced new concepts and procedures for custom devices, such as:

    • Devices created or modified in order to comply with the order of an individual physician or dentist;

    • The potential for multiple units of a device type (limited to no more than five units per year) qualifying for the custom device exemption; and

    • Annual reporting requirements by the manufacturer to FDA about devices manufactured and distributed under section 520(b) of the FD&C Act.

    Under FDASIA, “devices” that qualify for the custom device exemption contained in section 520(b) of the FD&C Act were clarified to include no more than “five units per year of a particular device type” that otherwise meet all the requirements necessary to qualify for the custom device exemption.

    In the Federal Register of September 24, 2014 (79 FR 57112), FDA announced the availability of the guidance entitled “Custom Device Exemption.” FDA has developed this document to provide guidance to industry and FDA staff about implementation of the custom device exemption contained in the FD&C Act. The intent of the guidance is to define terms used in the custom device exemption, explain how to interpret the “five units per year of a particular device type” language contained in the FD&C Act, describe information that FDA proposes manufacturers should submit in the custom device annual report, and provide recommendations on how to submit an annual report for devices distributed under the custom device exemption.

    In the Federal Register of March 21, 2017 (82 FR 14518), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received.

    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
    Annual reporting for custom devices 33 1 33 40 1,320 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Dated: June 20, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13245 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-3331] Arthritis Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Arthritis Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on August 2, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.

    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2017-N-3331. The docket will close on August 1, 2017. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by August 1, 2017. Late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before August 1, 2017. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of August 1, 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.

    Comments received on or before July 19, 2017, will be provided to the committee.

    Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by the Agency.

    You may submit comments as follows:

    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-3331 for “Arthritis Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments.” 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:

    Philip Bautista, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, Fax: 301-847-8533, email: [email protected], or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's Web site at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda: The committee will discuss biologics license application (BLA) 761057, for sirukumab injection (proposed trade name PLIVENSIA), submitted by Janssen Biotech, Inc., for the treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response or are intolerant to one or more disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. The discussion will include dose selection, efficacy, radiographic progression study, and safety.

    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. All electronic and written submissions must be submitted on or before August 1, 2017. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before July 11, 2017. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by July 12, 2017.

    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Philip Bautista at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at ­https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: June 20, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13203 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Low-Income Levels Used for Various Health Professions and Nursing Programs Authorized in Titles III, VII, and VIII of the Public Health Service Act AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HRSA is updating income levels used to identify a “low-income family” for the purpose of determining eligibility for programs that provide health professions and nursing training to individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. These various programs are authorized in Titles III, VII, and VIII of the Public Health Service Act.

    HHS periodically publishes in the Federal Register low-income levels to be used by institutions receiving federal grants and cooperative agreements to determine eligibility for programs providing training for (1) disadvantaged individuals, (2) individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, or (3) individuals from low-income families.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Many health professions and nursing grant and cooperative agreement awardees use these low-income levels to determine whether potential program participants are from an economically-disadvantaged background and would be eligible to participate in the program, as well as to determine the amount of funding the individual receives. Awards are generally made to accredited schools of medicine, osteopathic medicine, public health, dentistry, veterinary medicine, optometry, pharmacy, allied health, podiatric medicine, nursing, and chiropractic; public or private nonprofit schools which offer graduate programs in behavioral health and mental health practice; and other public or private nonprofit health or education entities to assist the disadvantaged to enter and graduate from health professions and nursing schools. Some programs provide for the repayment of health professions or nursing education loans for disadvantaged students.

    A “low-income family/household” for programs included in Titles III, VII, and VIII of the Public Health Service Act is defined as having an annual income that does not exceed 200 percent of the Department's poverty guidelines. A family is a group of two or more individuals related by birth, marriage, or adoption who live together.

    Most HRSA programs use the income of a student's parent(s) to compute low-income status. However, a “household” may potentially be only one person. Other HRSA programs, depending upon the legislative intent of the program, the programmatic purpose related to income level, as well as the age and circumstances of the participant, will apply these low-income standards to the individual student to determine eligibility, as long as he or she is not listed as a dependent on the tax form of his or her parent(s). Each program announces the rationale and choice of methodology for determining low-income levels in program guidance.

    Low-income levels are adjusted annually based on HHS's poverty guidelines. HHS's poverty guidelines are based on poverty thresholds published by the U.S. Census Bureau, adjusted annually for changes in the Consumer Price Index. The income figures below have been updated to reflect HHS's 2017 poverty guidelines as published in 82 FR 8831 (January 31, 2017).

    Low-Income Levels Based on the 2017 Poverty Guidelines for the 48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia Persons in family/household * Income level ** 1 $24,120 2 32,480 3 40,840 4 49,200 5 57,560 6 65,920 7 74,280 8 82,640 For families with more than 8 persons, add $8,360 for each additional person. Low-Income Levels Based on the 2017 Poverty Guidelines for Alaska Persons in family/household * Income level ** 1 $30,120 2 40,580 3 51,040 4 61,500 5 71,960 6 82,420 7 92,880 8 103,340 For families with more than 8 persons, add $10,460 for each additional person. Low-Income Levels Based on the 2017 Poverty Guidelines for Hawaii Persons in family/household * Income level ** 1 $27,720 2 37,340 3 46,960 4 56,580 5 66,200 6 75,820 7 85,440 8 95,060 For families with more than 8 persons, add $9,620 for each additional person. * Includes only dependents listed on federal income tax forms. ** Adjusted gross income for calendar year 2016.

    Separate poverty guidelines figures for Alaska and Hawaii reflect Office of Economic Opportunity administrative practice beginning in the 1966-1970 period since the U.S. Census Bureau poverty thresholds do not have separate figures for Alaska and Hawaii. The poverty guidelines are not defined for Puerto Rico and other outlying jurisdictions. Puerto Rico and other outlying jurisdictions must use the low-income levels table for the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia.

    Dated: June 16, 2017. George Sigounas, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13312 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Lists of Designated Primary Medical Care, Mental Health, and Dental Health Professional Shortage Areas AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice informs the public of the availability of the complete lists of all geographic areas, population groups, and facilities designated as primary medical care, mental health, and dental health professional shortage areas (HPSAs) as of May 1, 2017. The lists are available on HRSA's HPSAFind Web site.

    ADDRESSES:

    The complete lists of HPSAs designated as of May 1, 2017, are available on the HPSAFind Web site at https://datawarehouse.hrsa.gov/tools/analyzers/hpsafind.aspx. Frequently updated information on HPSAs is available at http://datawarehouse.hrsa.gov. Information on shortage designations is available at https://bhw.hrsa.gov/shortage-designation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information on the HPSA designations listed on the HPSAFind Web site or to request an additional designation, withdrawal, or reapplication for designation, please contact Melissa Ryan, Operations Director, Division of Policy and Shortage Designation, Bureau of Health Workforce, HRSA, 11SWH03, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, (301) 594-5168 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Section 332 of the Public Health Services (PHS) Act, 42 U.S.C. 254e, provides that the Secretary shall designate HPSAs based on criteria established by regulation. HPSAs are defined in section 332 to include (1) urban and rural geographic areas with shortages of health professionals, (2) population groups with such shortages, and (3) facilities with such shortages. Section 332 further requires that the Secretary annually publish lists of the designated geographic areas, population groups, and facilities. The lists of HPSAs are to be reviewed at least annually and revised as necessary.

    Final regulations (42 CFR part 5) were published in 1980 that include the criteria for designating HPSAs. Criteria were defined for seven health professional types: Primary medical care, dental, psychiatric, vision care, podiatric, pharmacy, and veterinary care. The criteria for correctional facility HPSAs were revised and published on March 2, 1989 (54 FR 8735). The criteria for psychiatric HPSAs were expanded to mental health HPSAs on January 22, 1992 (57 FR 2473). Currently-funded PHS Act programs use only the primary medical care, mental health, or dental HPSA designations.

    HPSA designation offers access to potential federal assistance. Public or private nonprofit entities are eligible to apply for assignment of National Health Service Corps (NHSC) personnel to provide primary medical care, mental health, or dental health services in or to these HPSAs. NHSC health professionals enter into service agreements to serve in federally-designated HPSAs. Entities with clinical training sites located in HPSAs are eligible to receive priority for certain residency training program grants administered by HRSA's Bureau of Health Workforce (BHW). Other federal programs also utilize HPSA designations. For example, under authorities administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, certain qualified providers in geographic area HPSAs are eligible for increased levels of Medicare reimbursement.

    Content and Format of Lists

    The three lists of designated HPSAs are available on the HPSAFind Web site and include a snapshot of all geographic areas, population groups, and facilities that were designated HPSAs as of May 1, 2017. This notice incorporates the most recent annual reviews of designated HPSAs and supersedes the HPSA lists published in the Federal Register on July 1, 2016 (81 FR 43214).

    In addition, all Indian Tribes that meet the definition of such Tribes in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976, 25 U.S.C. 1603(d), are automatically designated as population groups with primary medical care and dental health professional shortages. Further, the Health Care Safety Net Amendments of 2002 provides eligibility for automatic facility HPSA designations for all federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and rural health clinics that offer services regardless of ability to pay. Specifically, these entities include FQHCs funded under section 330 of the PHS Act, FQHC Look-Alikes, and Tribal and urban Indian clinics operating under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450) or the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. Many, but not all, of these entities are included on this listing. Absence from this list does not exclude them from HPSA designation; facilities eligible for automatic designation are included in the database when they are identified.

    Each list of designated HPSAs is arranged by state. Within each state, a list is presented by county. If only a portion (or portions) of a county is (are) designated, a county is part of a larger designated service area, or a population group residing in a county or a facility located in a county has been designated, the name of the service area, population group, or facility involved is listed under the county name. A county that has a whole county geographic HPSA is indicated by the phrase “Entire county HPSA” following the county name.

    Development of the Designation and Withdrawal Lists

    Requests for designation or withdrawal of a particular geographic area, population group, or a facility as a HPSA are received continuously by BHW. Under a Cooperative Agreement between HRSA and the 54 state and territorial Primary Care Offices (PCOs), PCOs conduct needs assessments and submit the majority of the applications to HRSA to designate areas as HPSAs. Requests that come from other sources are referred by BHW to PCOs for review. In addition, interested parties, including Governors, state Primary Care Associations, and state professional associations, are notified of requests so that they may submit comments and recommendations.

    BHW reviews each recommendation for possible addition, continuation, revision, or withdrawal. Following review, BHW notifies the appropriate agency, individuals, and interested organizations of each designation of a HPSA, rejection of recommendation for HPSA designation, revision of a HPSA designation, and/or advance notice of pending withdrawal from the HPSA list. Designations (or revisions of designations) are effective as of the date on the notification from BHW and are updated daily on the HPSAFind Web site. The effective date of a withdrawal will be the next publication of a notice regarding the lists in the Federal Register.

    Dated: June 16, 2017. George Sigounas, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13313 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions Received AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HRSA is publishing this notice of petitions received under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the program), as required by the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended. While the Secretary of HHS is named as the respondent in all proceedings brought by the filing of petitions for compensation under the program, the United States Court of Federal Claims is charged by statute with responsibility for considering and acting upon the petitions.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information about requirements for filing petitions, and the program in general, contact Lisa L. Reyes, Acting Clerk, United States Court of Federal Claims, 717 Madison Place NW., Washington, DC 20005, (202) 357-6400. For information on HRSA's role in the program, contact the Director, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 08N146B, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-6593, or visit our Web site at: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The program provides a system of no-fault compensation for certain individuals who have been injured by specified childhood vaccines. Subtitle 2 of Title XXI of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10 et seq., provides that those seeking compensation are to file a petition with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and to serve a copy of the petition on the Secretary of HHS, who is named as the respondent in each proceeding. The Secretary has delegated this responsibility under the program to HRSA. The Court is directed by statute to appoint special masters who take evidence, conduct hearings as appropriate, and make initial decisions as to eligibility for, and amount of, compensation.

    A petition may be filed with respect to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from vaccines described in the Vaccine Injury Table (the Table) set forth at 42 CFR 100.3. This Table lists for each covered childhood vaccine the conditions that may lead to compensation and, for each condition, the time period for occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration. Compensation may also be awarded for conditions not listed in the Table and for conditions that are manifested outside the time periods specified in the Table, but only if the petitioner shows that the condition was caused by one of the listed vaccines.

    Section 2112(b)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-12(b)(2), requires that “[w]ithin 30 days after the Secretary receives service of any petition filed under section 2111 the Secretary shall publish notice of such petition in the Federal Register.” Set forth below is a list of petitions received by HRSA on May 1, 2017, through May 31, 2017. This list provides the name of petitioner, city and state of vaccination (if unknown then city and state of person or attorney filing claim), and case number. In cases where the Court has redacted the name of a petitioner and/or the case number, the list reflects such redaction.

    Section 2112(b)(2) also provides that the special master “shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to submit relevant, written information” relating to the following:

    1. The existence of evidence “that there is not a preponderance of the evidence that the illness, disability, injury, condition, or death described in the petition is due to factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine described in the petition,” and

    2. Any allegation in a petition that the petitioner either:

    a. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition not set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table but which was caused by” one of the vaccines referred to in the Table, or

    b. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or significant aggravation of which did not occur within the time period set forth in the Table but which was caused by a vaccine” referred to in the Table.

    In accordance with Section 2112(b)(2), all interested persons may submit written information relevant to the issues described above in the case of the petitions listed below. Any person choosing to do so should file an original and three (3) copies of the information with the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims at the address listed above (under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), with a copy to HRSA addressed to Director, Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Healthcare Systems Bureau, 5600 Fishers Lane, 08N146B, Rockville, MD 20857. The Court's caption (Petitioner's Name v. Secretary of HHS) and the docket number assigned to the petition should be used as the caption for the written submission. Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, related to paperwork reduction, does not apply to information required for purposes of carrying out the program.

    Dated: June 16, 2017. George Sigounas, Administrator. List of Petitions Filed 1. Carlo Smith, Phoenix, Arizona, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0580V 2. Deeki Sinha, Robertsdale, Alabama, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0582V 3. Carolyn Wall and Stephen Wall on behalf of G.W., Aiken, South Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0583V 4. John Price, Epping, New Hampshire, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0586V 5. Julie A. Galpin, Asheville, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0588V 6. Joseph Orlando, Erie, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0589V 7. Eric Raymer, Lake Jackson, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0590V 8. Aimee Nichols, Charlestown, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0591V 9. Janelle Peacock, Washington, District of Columbia, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0592V 10. Mary Grammer, Arlington, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0593V 11. Brian Kelly, Canton, Ohio, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0594V 12. Olivia Jeffers on behalf of X.J., Augusta, Georgia, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0596V 13. Shawnta Gillespie, Baltimore, Maryland, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0597V 14. Ross Vinocur, Avon, Connecticut, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0598V 15. Kathleen Colbath on behalf of M.C., Phoenix, Arizona, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0599V 16. Lacey Hauck, Johnstown, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0602V 17. Hanane M. Seid, Oakland, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0604V 18. Yvonne Salmon, Wellington, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0605V 19. David Robin Curtis, West Des Moines, Iowa, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0607V 20. Amy Shahbaz and Philip Shahbaz on behalf of J.S., Glendora, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0608V 21. Evangelina Salinas, Greensboro, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0609V 22. Joy Pleasant, Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0610V 23. Cynthia Pittman, Alexandria, Louisiana, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0611V 24. Alethea Agee, Dublin, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0615V 25. Kesha M. Story, Chalmette, Louisiana, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0616V 26. Crystal Martin, Midland, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0619V 27. Judith Dunn, Calera, Alabama, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0620V 28. Russell Kilde on behalf of K.K., Ortonville, Minnesota, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0621V 29. Donald R. Izard, Tonawanda, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0623V 30. Janine King, Dublin, Ohio, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0625V 31. Mary Havener, Columbus, Ohio, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0626V 32. Cameron Sharp, Vienna, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0628V 33. Elizabeth Hiebert, Dallas, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0630V 34. Harold D. O'Dell, Alloy, West Virginia, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0631V 35. Mark Prazoff, Washington, District of Columbia, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0634V 36. Robert William Van Keuren, Maryville, Tennessee, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0636V 37. Danielle Dotson on behalf of B.M., New Albany, Indiana, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0637V 38. Diana Bell, Meridian, Idaho, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0638V 39. Fay Munoz, Austell, Georgia, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0640V 40. Sheila English, Chicago, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0641V 41. Elizabeth Doles, Trenton, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0642V 42. Muna Allaham, Ypsilanti, Michigan, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0644V 43. Emily McIntosh, Fremont, Nebraska, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0645V 44. Susan Chatriand, Butte, Montana, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0646V 45. Richard Pastella, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0647V 46. Elena Trujillo, Phoenix, Arizona, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0648V 47. Donna T. Hyatt, Greenville, South Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0650V 48. Gina Kidwell, New Port Richey, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0651V 49. Rebecca Tell, New Milford, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0652V 50. Ardena White, Chicago, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0655V 51. Misty Titus, Flagstaff, Arizona, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0656V 52. John Berchielli, Washington, District of Columbia, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0658V 53. Beth Bieranowski, McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0659V 54. Amy Lynn Smith, Brookfield, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0660V 55. Ethel Lynn Munn, Norfolk, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0662V 56. Robert Meli, Ocean City, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0666V 57. John Sheridan, Phoenix, Arizona, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0669V 58. Christine Pearson, Warrenton, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0670V 59. Shannon Finch, Riverside, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0675V 60. Elizabeth Turner, Sacramento, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0678V 61. Cynthia A. Marcinik, Latrobe, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0680V 62. Kimberly R. Koebler, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0681V 63. Tanitha Jackson on behalf of D.E., Albany, Georgia, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0682V 64. Kimberly Roberts, Torrance, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0683V 65. Billy Dean Peel, Martinez, Georgia, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0684V 66. Kristie McClure, Murphy, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0687V 67. Anita Burgess, Denton, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0688V 68. Victor Walker, Juneau, Alaska, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0689V 69. Mona Ibrahim, Fargo, North Dakota, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0690V 70. Darlene Dinkel, Salina, Kansas, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0691V 71. Todd Rosenthal, Ft. Mill, South Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0693V 72. Victor Morales, Pembroke Pines, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0694V 73. Valerie Mulholland, Florence, Oregon, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0696V 74. Joseph L. Wheatley, Louisville, Kentucky, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0697V 75. Julius Vine, Glendale, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0698V 76. Nico Herron and Patience Turner on behalf of Xavier Herron, Deceased, Palo Alto, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0700V 77. Jeffery Graves, Dresher, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0701V 78. Christy Lynn Day on behalf of Reid Thomas Englehart, Deceased, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0702V 79. Jamie L. Pinelli, San Clemente, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0704V 80. Samuel Schrecengost, Clarion, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0705V 81. Linda McDonald, Voorhees, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0706V 82. Willie Griffin, Dallas, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0707V 83. Carolyn Curtis, Waldorf, Maryland, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0708V 84. Jannie Owens, Knoxville, Tennessee, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0709V 85. Marc Dudash, Greensboro, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0710V 86. Jennifer Butterworth Lyons, Chicago, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0713V 87. Lynn Farag on behalf of Z.F., Roseland, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0714V 88. Catherine W. Viega, Rochester, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0715V 89. Iola Sykes, Sarasota, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0716V 90. Dennis Smalley, Washington, District of Columbia, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0717V 91. Lauren Jankowski on behalf of L.J., Englewood, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0718V 92. Marci Talley Banks, Greensboro, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0719V 93. Paula Burcham, Mankato, Minnesota, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0720V 94. Darlene Headding, Rancho Santa Margarita, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0721V 95. Linda Chen on behalf of K.N., Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0722V 96. Tina Reynolds, Beverly Hills, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0723V
    [FR Doc. 2017-13314 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-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; Pancreas-Related Applications.

    Date: July 14, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.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: Paul A. Rushing, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7345, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-8895, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Digestive Disease Research Core Centers.

    Date: July 19, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 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: Paul A. Rushing, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7345, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-8895, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Bladder Function P01.

    Date: July 21, 2017.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 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: 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; RFA DK17-501 Limited Competition: Revision Application for the Human Islet Research Network Coordinating Center (U01).

    Date: July 24, 2017.

    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Ann A. Jerkins, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7119, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, 301-594-2242, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; RFA DK16-005 Identification of Mechanisms Mediating the Effects of Sleep on Diabetes-Related Metabolism in Humans (R01).

    Date: July 25, 2017.

    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 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: Ann A. Jerkins, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7119, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, 301-594-2242, [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 20, 2017. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13220 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-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; Member Conflict: Hepatology.

    Date: July 11, 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: Jonathan K. Ivins, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4040A, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-1245, [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: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Drug Development and Xenobiotic Disposition.

    Date: July 13, 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: Jonathan K. Ivins, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4040A, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-1245, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR-16-117: iKnow HIV Applications.

    Date: July 18, 2017.

    Time: 9:00 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; Member Conflict: HIV and Related Research.

    Date: July 18, 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 Panel: Multidisciplinary Studies of HIV and Viral Hepatitis Co-Infection.

    Date: July 19, 2017.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Kenneth A. Roebuck, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5106, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1166, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Host Defense and Vaccines.

    Date: July 19, 2017.

    Time: 12:30 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: Alok Mulky, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review (CSR), National Institutes of Health (NIH), 6701 Rockledge Dr, Room 4203, Bethesda, MD 20817, (301) 435-3566, [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 20, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13213 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health Notice of Closed Meeting

    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 meeting.

    The meeting 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 Center for Complementary and Integrative Health Special Emphasis Panel; NCCIH Training and Education Review Panel.

    Date: July 19, 2017.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Ashlee Tipton, PhD., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 401, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-3849, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.213, Research and Training in Complementary and Integrative Health, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 20, 2017. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13215 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Eye Institute; 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 Eye Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NEI Translational Research Program to Develop Novel Therapies and Devices for the Treatment of Visual System Disorders (R24).

    Date: July 25, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Brian Hoshaw, PhD., Scientific Review Officer, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Division of Extramural Research, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, Rockville, MD 20892, 301-451-2020, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Eye Institute, Special Emphasis Panel; NEI Secondary Data Analysis Grant Applications.

    Date: July 26, 2017.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health 5635 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Jeanette M. Hosseini, PhD., Scientific Review Officer 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-2020, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 20, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13216 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    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 meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 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 Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; International Strategic Timing of Antiretroviral Therapy Trial.

    Date: July 18, 2017.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7188, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Chang Sook Kim, Phd., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7188, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-827-7940, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 20, 2017. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13218 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-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; PAR 16-121: Early-Stage Preclinical Validation of Therapeutic Leads for Diseases of Interest to the NIDDK.

    Date: July 18, 2017.

    Time: 12:00 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 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Antonello Pileggi, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6166, Bethesda, MD 20892-7892, (301) 402-6297, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Eukaryotic Parasites and Vectors.

    Date: July 24-25, 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: Fouad A. El-Zaatari, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3186, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1149, [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 20, 2017. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13212 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting

    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 meeting.

    The meeting 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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel NIDA Blending Initiative (2248).

    Date: June 27, 2017.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Lyle Furr, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, Room 4227, MSC 9550, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-9550, (301) 827-5702, lf33c.nih.gov.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No.: 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 20, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13219 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    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 meeting.

    The meeting 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 Inherited Disease Research Access Committee.

    Date: July 21, 2017.

    Time: 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 3046, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Barbara J. Thomas, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Ste. 4076, MSC 9306, Bethesda, MD 20892-9306, 301-402-0838, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 20, 2017. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13217 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting

    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 meeting.

    The meeting 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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Special Emphasis Panel Platform Delivery—N.A.

    Date: July 19, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, Room 1066, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Barbara J. Nelson, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer Office of Scientific Review, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Democracy 1, Room 1080, Bethesda, MD 20892-4874, 301-435-0806, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, B—Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 20, 2017. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13214 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA's) Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) National Advisory Council will meet on August 11, 2017, 11:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. (EDT) in a closed teleconference meeting.

    The meeting will include discussions and evaluations of grant applications reviewed by SAMHSA's Initial Review Groups, and involve an examination of confidential financial and business information as well as personal information concerning the applicants. Therefore, the meeting will be closed to the public as determined by the SAMHSA Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use in accordance with Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (6) and Title 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(d).

    Meeting information and a roster of Council members may be obtained by accessing the SAMHSA Committee Web site at http://www.samhsa.gov/about-us/advisory-councils/csat-national-advisory-council or by contacting the CSAT National Advisory Council Designated Federal Officer; Tracy Goss (see contact information below).

    Council Name: SAMHSA's Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, National Advisory Council.

    Date/Time/Type: August 11, 2017, 11:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. EDT, Closed.

    Place: SAMHSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857.

    Contact: Tracy Goss, Designated Federal Officer, CSAT National Advisory Council, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857 (mail), Telephone: (240) 276-0759, Fax: (240) 276-2252, Email: [email protected].

    Carlos Castillo, Committee Management Officer, SAMHSA.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13221 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request

    In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are 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; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Proposed Project: Evaluation of the Projects for Assistance in Transition From Homelessness (PATH) Program—New

    SAMHSA is conducting the federally mandated Evaluation of the PATH program. The PATH grant program, created as part of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Amendments Act of 1990, is administered by SAMHSA's CMHS' Homeless Programs Branch. The PATH program is authorized under Section 521 et seq. of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended. The SAMHSA PATH program funds each Fiscal Year the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and four U.S. Territories (the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands). The PATH grantees make grants to local, public and non-profit organizations to provide the PATH allowable services.

    The SAMHSA Administrator is required under Section 528 of the PHS Act to evaluate the expenditures of PATH grantees at least once every three years to ensure they are consistent with legislative requirements and to recommend changes to the program design or operations. The primary task of the PATH evaluation is to meet the mandates of Section 528 of the PHS Act. The second task of the PATH evaluation is to conduct additional data collection and analysis to further investigate the sources of variation in key program output and outcome measures that are important for program management and policy development. The PATH evaluation builds on the previous evaluation which was finalized in 2016 and was conducted as part of the National Evaluation of SAMHSA Homeless Programs. The PATH evaluation will use web surveys, telephone interviews and site visits to facilitate the collection of information regarding the structures and processes in place at the grantee and provider level. Data regarding the outputs and outcomes of the PATH program will be obtained from grantee applications, providers' intended use plans (IUPs) and from PATH annual report data, which is also required by Section 528 of the PHS Act and is approved under OMB No. 0930-0205.

    Web Surveys will be conducted with all State PATH Contacts (SPCs) and staff from intermediary and PATH provider organizations. The Web Surveys will capture detailed and structured information in the following topics: Selection, monitoring and oversight of PATH providers; populations served; the PATH allowable or eligible services provided; sources for match funds; provision of training and technical assistance; implementation of Evidence Based Practices (EBPs) and innovative practices including SOAR; data reporting, use of data and the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS); and collaboration, coordination and involvement with Continuums of Care (CoCs) and other organizations. The SPCs for all grantees (n=56), the Project Directors from the PATH provider organizations (n=500) and staff from the intermediary organizations (n=28) will be contacted to complete the web surveys. The Web Surveys will be administered once.

    Site Visits will be conducted with a purposive sample of PATH grantees and providers to collect more nuanced information than will be possible with the web survey. Semi-structured discussions will take place with the SPCs, grantee staff, PATH provider staff including the Project Director and other key management staffs, outreach workers, case managers and other clinical treatment staff, key stakeholders at the grantee and provider level and consumers. Five grantees will be selected for Site Visits and visited within each grantee will be one to two PATH providers. The Site Visits will be utilized to collect information regarding: Provider and state characteristics; practices and priorities; context within which the grantees and providers operate; and services available within the areas the providers operate. Also, discussed will be the successes, barriers, and strategies faced by PATH grantees and providers. Focus groups will be held with current or former consumers of the PATH program to obtain consumer perspectives regarding the impact of the programs. The Site Visits will be conducted once.

    Telephone Interviews will be conducted with a sample of SPCs (n=28) and intermediary (n=14) and provider staff (n=60) to explore through open-ended questions in greater detail, explanations for variations among providers in measures that are important for program management and policy development. The outputs of the PATH program include: the number of persons receiving PATH-funded services, outreached/contacted and enrolled; the number of services provided; and the number of referrals provided. The outcome evaluation will be limited, given limitations in available data and will include the number of persons referred to and attaining substance use treatment, primary health services, job training, educational services, housing services, housing placement assistance, income assistance, employment assistance and medical assistance. The Telephone interviews will be conducted once.

    The estimated burden for the reporting requirements for the PATH evaluation is summarized in the table below.

    Annual Burden Table Instrument/activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total hour
  • burden
  • Web Surveys SPC Web Survey 1 56 1 56 1 56 PATH Intermediary Web Survey 2 28 1 28 1 28 PATH Provider Web Survey 3 500 1 500 1 500 Telephone Interviews SPC Telephone Interviews 4 28 1 28 1 28 PATH Intermediary Telephone Interviews 5 14 1 14 1 14 PATH Provider Telephone Interviews 6 60 1 60 1 60 Site Visit Interviews Opening Session with State Staff 7 25 1 25 2 50 SPC Session 8 5 1 5 2 10 State Stakeholder Session 9 25 1 25 1.5 37.5 Opening Session with PATH Provider Leadership Staff 10 50 1 50 2 100 PATH Provider PD Session 11 10 1 10 2 20 PATH Provider Direct Care Staff Session 12 50 1 50 2 100 Provider Stakeholder Session 13 50 1 50 1.5 75 Consumer Focus Groups 14 100 1 100 1.5 150 Total 1,001 1,001 1,228.5 1 1 respondent × 56 SPCs = 56 respondents. 2 1 respondent × 28 Intermediaries = 28 respondents. 3 1 respondent × 500 PATH providers = 500 respondents. 4 1 respondent × 28 SPCs = 28 respondents. 5 1 respondent × 14 Intermediaries = 14 respondents. 6 1 respondent × 60 PATH providers = 60 respondents. 7 5 respondents × 5 site visits = 25 respondents. 8 1 respondent × 5 site visits = 5 respondents. 9 5 respondents × 5 site visits = 25 respondents. 10 5 respondents × 10 site visits (2 providers per state) = 50 respondents. 11 1 respondent × 10 site visits (2 providers per state) =10 respondents. 12 5 respondents × 10 site visits (2 providers per state) = 50 respondents. 13 5 respondents × 10 site visits (2 providers per state) = 50 respondents. 14 10 respondents × 10 site visits (10 Consumers per provider (2 providers per state) = 100 respondents.

    Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 15E57-B, Rockville, Maryland 20857, OR email a copy to [email protected] Written comments should be received by August 25, 2017.

    Summer King, Statistician.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13240 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2017-0496] Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Teleconference meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee working group will meet via teleconference to work on Task Statement 98, review of the progress made by the military services towards meeting the goals on the use of Military Education, Training, and Assessment for STCW and National Mariner Endorsements as identified in the Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014 and subsequent legislation, and to complete the discussions from its March 22-23 and May 16, 2017 meetings. The teleconference will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee working group is scheduled to meet via teleconference on Wednesday, August 2, 2017, from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. and on Thursday, August 3, 2017, from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Please note that this teleconference may adjourn early if the working group has completed its business.

    ADDRESSES:

    To join the teleconference, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to obtain the needed information no later than 5 p.m. on July 24, 2017. The number of teleconference lines is limited and will be available on a first-come, first served basis. To physically join those participating from U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, it will be held in Room 5J16-15, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509 (http://www.dcms.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Director-of-Operational-Logistics-DOL/Bases/Base-National-Capital-Region/Visitor/).

    Pre-registration Information: Foreign nationals participating physically at the U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters will be required to pre-register no later than 4 p.m. on July 01, 2017. U.S. citizens participating physically at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters will be required to pre-register no later than 4 p.m. on July 24, 2017, to be admitted to the meeting. To pre-register, contact Lieutenant Junior Grade James Fortin at 202-372-1128 or [email protected] with MERPAC in the subject line and provide your name, company, and telephone number; if a foreign national, also provide your country of citizenship, and passport number and expiration date. All attendees will be required to provide a government-issued picture identification card in order to gain admittance to the building.

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the Alternate Designated Federal Officer as soon as possible using the contact information provided in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

    Instructions: You are free to submit comments at any time, including orally at the teleconference, but if you want working group committee members to review your comment before the meetings, please submit your comments no later than July 24, 2017. We are particularly interested in comments on the issues in the “Agenda” section below. You must include “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number USCG-2017-0496 in your comment submission. Written comments may also be submitted using Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If you encounter technical difficulties with comments submission, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You may review the Privacy Act Notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Docket Search: For access to the docket to read documents or comments related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0496 in the “Search” box, press Enter, and then click on the item you wish to view.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lieutenant Junior Grade James Fortin, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, telephone 202-372-1128, fax 202-372-8385 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee was established under authority of section 310 of the Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014, Title 46, United States Code, section 8108, and chartered under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix). The Committee acts solely in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security through the Commandant of the Coast Guard on matters relating to personnel in the United States merchant marine, including training, qualifications, certification, documentation, and fitness standards and other matters as assigned by the Commandant; shall review and comment on proposed Coast Guard regulations and policies relating to personnel in the United States merchant marine, including training, qualifications, certification, documentation, and fitness standards; may be given special assignments by the Secretary and may conduct studies, inquiries, workshops, and fact finding in consultation with individuals and groups in the private sector and with State or local governments; shall advise, consult with, and make recommendations reflecting its independent judgment to the Secretary.

    Agenda DAY 1

    The agenda for the August 2, 2017, working group teleconference is as follows:

    (1) The working group will meet briefly to discuss Task Statement 98 (All task statements can be found at https://homeport.uscg.mil/merpac/);

    (2) Reports of working sub-groups. At the end of the day, the working sub-groups will report to the full working group on what was accomplished in their meetings. The full working group will not take action as a result of this working group meeting; action will be taken on day 2 of the meeting.

    (3) Public comment period.

    (4) Adjournment of meeting.

    DAY 2

    The agenda for the August 3, 2017, working group teleconference is as follows:

    (1) The working group will meet briefly to discuss Task Statement 98 (All task statements can be found at https://homeport.uscg.mil/merpac/);

    (2) Reports of working sub-groups. The working sub-groups will report to the full working group on what was accomplished in their meetings. The full working group will not take action on these reports at this time. Any action taken as a result of this working group meeting will be taken after the public comment period.

    (3) Public comment period.

    (4) Preparation of the meeting report to the full Committee.

    (5) Adjournment of meeting.

    A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at https://homeport.uscg.mil/merpac/. Alternatively, you may contact Lieutenant Junior Grade James Fortin as noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    A public comment period will be held during each day concerning matters being discussed. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please note that the public comment periods will end following the last call for comments. Please contact Lieutenant Junior Grade James Fortin, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, to register as a speaker.

    Please note that the teleconference may adjourn early if the work is completed.

    Dated: June 20, 2017. J.G. Lantz, Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13257 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2017-0495] Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Department of Homeland Security, Coast Guard.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Teleconference meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee working group will meet via teleconference to work on Task Statement 96, review and comment on course and program approval requirements and NVIC 03-14 guidelines for approval of training courses and programs, to complete the discussions from its March 22-23 and May 16, 2017 meetings. The teleconference will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee working group is scheduled to meet via teleconference on Tuesday, July 25, 2017, from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. and on Wednesday, July 26, 2017, from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Please note that this teleconference may adjourn early if the working group has completed its business.

    ADDRESSES:

    To join the teleconference, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to obtain the needed information no later than 5 p.m. on July 17, 2017. The number of teleconference lines is limited and will be available on a first-come, first served basis. To physically join those participating from the U.S. Coast Guard National Maritime Center, it will be held at 100 Forbes Drive, Martinsburg, WV 25404-0001 (https://www.uscg.mil/nmc/).

    Pre-registration Information: Foreign nationals participating physically at the U.S. Coast Guard National Maritime Center will be required to pre-register no later than 4 p.m. on July 01, 2017. U.S. citizens participating physically at the U.S. Coast Guard National Maritime Center will be required to pre-register no later than 4 p.m. on July 17, 2017, to be admitted to the meeting. To pre-register, contact Lieutenant Junior Grade James Fortin at 202-372-1128 or [email protected] with MERPAC in the subject line and provide your name, company, and telephone number; if a foreign national, also provide your country of citizenship, and passport number and expiration date. All attendees will be required to provide a government-issued picture identification card in order to gain admittance to the building.

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the Alternate Designated Federal Officer as soon as possible using the contact information provided in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

    Instructions: You are free to submit comments at any time, including orally at the teleconference, but if you want working group committee members to review your comment before the meetings, please submit your comments no later than July 17, 2017. We are particularly interested in comments on the issues in the “Agenda” section below. You must include “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number USCG-2017-0495 in your comment submission. Written comments may also be submitted using Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If you encounter technical difficulties with comments submission, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You may review the Privacy Act Notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Docket Search: For access to the docket to read documents or comments related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0495 in the “Search” box, press Enter, and then click on the item you wish to view.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lieutenant Junior Grade James Fortin, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, telephone 202-372-1128, fax 202-372-8385 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee was established under authority of section 310 of the Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014, Title 46, United States Code, section 8108, and chartered under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix). The Committee acts solely in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security through the Commandant of the Coast Guard on matters relating to personnel in the United States merchant marine, including training, qualifications, certification, documentation, and fitness standards and other matters as assigned by the Commandant. The Committee shall also review and comment on proposed Coast Guard regulations and policies relating to personnel in the United States merchant marine, including training, qualifications, certification, documentation, and fitness standards; may be given special assignments by the Secretary and may conduct studies, inquiries, workshops, and fact finding in consultation with individuals and groups in the private sector and with State or local governments; and shall advise, consult with, and make recommendations reflecting its independent judgment to the Secretary.

    Agenda DAY 1

    The agenda for the July 25, 2017, working group teleconference is as follows:

    (1) The working group will meet briefly to discuss Task Statement 96 (All task statements can be found at https://homeport.uscg.mil/merpac);

    (2) Reports of working sub-groups. At the end of the day, the working sub-groups will report to the full working group on what was accomplished in their meetings. The full working group will not take action as a result of this working group meeting; action will be taken on day 2 of the meeting.

    (3) Public comment period.

    (4) Adjournment of meeting.

    DAY 2

    The agenda for the July 26, 2017, working group teleconference is as follows:

    (1) The working group will meet briefly to discuss Task Statement 96 (All task statements can be found at https://homeport.uscg.mil/merpac);

    (2) Reports of working sub-groups. The working sub-groups will report to the full working group on what was accomplished in their meetings. The full working group will not take action on these reports at this time. Any action taken as a result of this working group meeting will be taken after the public comment period.

    (3) Public comment period.

    (4) Preparation of the meeting report to the full Committee.

    (5) Adjournment of meeting.

    A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at https://homeport.uscg.mil/merpac/. Alternatively, you may contact Lieutenant Junior Grade James Fortin as noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    A public comment period will be held during each day during the working group teleconference concerning matters being discussed. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please note that the public comment periods will end following the last call for comments. Please contact Lieutenant Junior Grade James Fortin, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, to register as a speaker.

    Please note that the teleconference may adjourn early if the work is completed.

    Dated: June 20, 2017. J.G. Lantz, Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13258 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2017-0422] Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the TUG INDEPENDENCE AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard announces that a Certificate of Alternative Compliance (COAC) was issued for the TUG INDEPENDENCE. We are issuing this notice because its publication is required by statute.

    DATES:

    The Certificate of Alternative Compliance was issued on May 9th, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information or questions about this notice call or email Mr. Kevin Miller, First District Towing Vessel/Barge Safety Specialist, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (617) 223-8272, email <[email protected]>.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States is signatory to the International Maritime Organization's International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), as amended. The special construction or purpose of some vessels makes them unable to comply with the light, shape, and sound signal provisions of the 72 COLREGS. Under statutory law 1 and Coast Guard regulation,2 a vessel may instead meet alternative requirements and the vessel's owner, builder, operator, or agent may apply for a COAC. For vessels of special construction, the cognizant Coast Guard District Office determines whether the vessel for which the COAC is sought complies as closely as possible with the 72 COLREGS, and decides whether to issue the COAC. Once issued, a COAC remains valid until information supplied in the COAC application or the COAC terms become inapplicable to the vessel. Under the governing statute 3 and regulation,4 the Coast Guard must publish notice of this action.

    1 33 U.S.C. 1605(c).

    2 33 CFR 81.3.

    3 33 U.S.C. 1605(c).

    4 33 CFR 81.18.

    The Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, certifies that the TUG INDEPENDENCE is a vessel of special construction or purpose, and that, with respect to the position of the navigation and towing lights, it is not possible to comply fully with the requirements of the provisions enumerated in the 72 COLREGS, without interfering with the normal operation of the vessel. The Commandant further finds and certifies that the sidelights (13′ 2.75″; from the vessel's side mounted on the pilot house) and stern/towing lights (5′ 6.5″ aft of frame 18 mounted on top of the pilot house) are in the closet possible compliance with the applicable provisions of the 72 COLREGS and that full compliance with the 72 COLREGS would not significantly enhance the safety of the vessel's operation.

    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.

    Dated: June 13, 2017. B.L. Black, Capt., Chief, Prevention Department, First District, U.S. Coast Guard.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13329 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension, Without Change, of an Existing Information Collection; Comment Request; OMB Control No. 1653-0022 AGENCY:

    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-Day Notice of Information collection for review; Form No. I-352, Immigration Bond; OMB Control No. 1653-0022.

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (USICE) will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until August 25, 2017.

    Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the PRA Clearance Officer for USICE and sent via electronic mail to [email protected]

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information 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 agencies 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: Extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Immigration Bond.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection: ICE Form I-352; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individual or Households; Business or other for-profit. The data collected on this collection instrument is used by ICE to ensure that the person or company posting the bond is aware of the duties and responsibilities associated with the bond. The collection instrument serves the purpose of instruction in the completion of the form, together with an explanation of the terms and conditions of the bond. Sureties have the capability of accessing, completing and submitting a bond electronically through ICE's eBonds system which encompasses the I-352, while individuals are still required to complete the bond form manually.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: 25,000 responses at 30 minutes (.50 hours) per response.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: 12,500 annual burden hours.

    Dated: June 21, 2017. Scott Elmore, PRA Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13282 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-IA-2016-N174; FXIA16710900000-177-FF09A10000] Threatened Species; Exemption From Threatened Species Permits for a Qualifying Beluga Sturgeon Aquaculture Facility AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), provide notice of an exemption to threatened species permit requirements granted under our Endangered Species Act (Act) regulations for beluga sturgeon (Huso huso). The exemption is for beluga sturgeon reared in an aquaculture facility in Florida that the Service found meets the criteria under our regulations. The exemption authorizes the facility to take beluga sturgeon from its aquacultured stock for the purpose of harvesting aquacultured beluga sturgeon meat and also authorizes the facility to engage in interstate commerce and export of beluga sturgeon meat, which it harvests from its aquacultured stock without a threatened species permit.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents and other information submitted with the application are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Scientific Authority, MS: IA, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041; fax (703) 358-2276.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Rosemarie Gnam, (703) 358-1708 (telephone); (703) 358-2276 (fax); [email protected] (email).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Under section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the Service has discretion to issue regulations that we find necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened wildlife. We may also prohibit by regulation, with respect to threatened wildlife, any act that is prohibited by section 9(a)(1) of the Act for endangered wildlife. In exercising this discretion, the Service enforces general prohibitions that are appropriate for most threatened species. These prohibitions are codified in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.31; threatened species permit requirements are at 50 CFR 17.32. In 2005, the Service promulgated regulations under section 4(d) of the Act for the beluga sturgeon, a threatened species (70 FR 10493, March 4, 2005); these regulations are codified at 50 CFR 17.44(y).

    In accordance with 50 CFR 17.44(y)(5), we consider applications for exemptions from threatened species permits for beluga sturgeon caviar and meat obtained from aquaculture facilities located outside the littoral States of Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia and Montenegro, Turkey, Turkmenistan, and Ukraine. These exemptions are for individual facilities. Through an exemption, the Service may authorize aquacultured beluga sturgeon caviar and meat originating from the facility to be imported, exported, re-exported, or traded in interstate and foreign commerce without threatened species permits issued under 50 CFR 17.32. Additionally, the Service may authorize an exemption for aquaculture facilities within the United States from prohibitions against take for purposes of harvesting caviar or meat or for conducting activities involving research to enhance the survival or propagation of the species.

    Under the 4(d) rule, the Service may issue such exemptions only after a facility has satisfactorily demonstrated to us that criteria in § 17.44(y)(5)(i) through (iii) have been met, including: (1) The relevant regulatory authority has certified that the facility implements sufficient controls to prevent the escape of live animals and disease pathogens into local ecosystems; (2) the facility does not rely on wild beluga sturgeon for broodstock; and (3) the facility has entered into a formal agreement with one or more littoral states to study, protect, or otherwise enhance the survival of wild populations of beluga sturgeon. Exemptions granted under § 17.44(y)(5) shall not apply to trade (import, export, re-export, or interstate and foreign commerce) in live beluga sturgeon. Exemptions may be revoked at any time if the Service determines that any of the criteria shown in paragraphs (y)(5)(i) through (iii) are not met by the facility, and applicants are required to submit biennial reports on their compliance. In addition to meeting all requirements of the 4(d) rule, all applicable provisions in 50 CFR parts 13, 14, and 23 remain in effect and must also be met.

    On March 6, 2013, we received an application from Sturgeon AquaFarms that requested an exemption from threatened species permits in accordance with 50 CFR 17.44(y)(5) for Sturgeon AquaFarms' aquaculture facility in Bascom, Florida. In evaluating the application, the Service sought additional information from the applicant, the State of Florida, and the littoral states with which the applicant has entered into formal agreements (the Russian Federation and the Republic of Azerbaijan). We also conducted a site visit at the Sturgeon AquaFarms' aquaculture facility in Bascom, Florida. On June 15, 2016, the Service approved, under certain conditions, the requested exemption from threatened species permitting requirements to allow the take of beluga sturgeon from Sturgeon AquaFarms' aquacultured stock, located at its facility in Bascom, Florida, for the purpose of harvesting beluga meat and to allow for the interstate commerce and export of beluga meat the facility harvests from its aquacultured stock. This exemption applies to aquacultured beluga meat only; it does not apply to trade in beluga caviar or live beluga sturgeon.

    Authority:

    We issue this notice under the authority of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and in accordance with 50 CFR 17.44(y)(5)(iv).

    Brenda Tapia, Program Analyst, Division of Management Authority.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13232 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R2-ES-2016-N203; FXES11130200000-167-FF02ENEH00] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Pima Pineapple Cactus (Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina) Draft Recovery Plan AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce that of our Pima pineapple cactus (Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina) draft recovery plan is available. The cactus is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This plant species is currently found in southern Arizona and in northern Sonora, Mexico. The draft recovery plan includes specific recovery objectives and criteria to be met in order to enable us to remove this species from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. We request that local, State, and Federal agencies; Tribes; and the public review and comment. We will also accept any new species status information throughout its range to assist with recovery plan finalization.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, we must receive written comments on or before August 25, 2017. However, we will accept information about any species at any time.

    ADDRESSES:

    Obtaining Documents: If you wish to review the draft recovery plan, you may obtain a copy by any one of the following methods:

    Internet: Download the file at www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Documents/R2ES/CoryphanthaScheeriRobustispina_DraftRecoveryPlan_Final_February2015.pdf;

    U.S. mail: Request a copy by writing to the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, Fish and Wildlife Service, 9828 N 31st Ave. #C3, Phoenix, AZ 85051-2517; or

    Telephone: Request a copy by calling (602) 242-0210.

    Submitting Comments: If you wish to comment on the draft recovery plan, you may submit your comments in writing by any one of the following methods:

    U.S. mail: Field Supervisor, at the above address;

    Hand-delivery: Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, at the above address;

    Fax: (602) 242-2513; or

    Email: [email protected]

    For additional information about submitting comments, see Request for Public Comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, at the above address and phone number, or by email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    A primary goal of our endangered species program and the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is endangered or threatened animals and plants recovery to the point that they are again secure, self-sustaining ecosystem members. Recovery means improving the listed species' status to the point that listing is no longer appropriate under the Act's section 4(a)(1) criteria. The Act requires recovery plans for listed species, unless such a plan would not promote conserving a particular species.

    Species History

    Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina (Pima pineapple cactus) is found in lower Sonoran desert-scrubland, desert-grassland, or the ecotone between desert-scrubland and desert-grassland in southeastern Arizona and northern Sonora, Mexico. It was federally listed as endangered on September 23, 1993; critical habitat was not designated. The taxon has been found historically in Pima and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, and northern Sonora, Mexico, where it occupies a small area proximal to the U.S. border. Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina is not listed under Mexican protected species regulations by the Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. The recovery priority number for Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina is 3C, meaning that the listed entity is a subspecies, the level of threat is high, the potential for recovery is high, and there is a conflict with some form of economic activity (urbanization). The first 5-year status review for Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina was signed on February 8, 2007. Based on the static or declining status of the species across its range and continued threats, it was recommended in the 5-year review that the taxon remain listed as endangered.

    Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina is a small, hemispheric-to-cylindrical stem succulent perennial of the Cactaceae (cactus family). Its stems reach 5 to 46 centimeters (cm) (1.9 to 18.1 inches (in)) in height and 5 to 21 cm (1.9 to 8.3 in) in diameter, are comprised primarily of tough, fleshy pulp, and are protected by a leathery outer skin. Stems may be singular or form clumps. The surface of the stems are covered in 2 to 3 cm (0.8 to 1.2 in) long rounded projections called tubercles, each of which is grooved along the upper surface and contains one to several extra floral nectaries (places that secrete nectar to attract pollinators) along each groove. The flowers of C. scheeri var. robustispina average 6.5 cm (2.6 in) long with pale yellow tepals (petals and sepals) that are variously tinged with red pigments. Flowers generally open early to mid-July following summer rains.

    Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina occurs within two subbasins of the Santa Cruz Watershed: Brawley Wash and the Upper Santa Cruz. These subbasins face largely differing threats and stressors and are managed in differing ways. The major threats within Brawley Wash, which is managed primarily for livestock grazing, include the spread of invasive, non-native grasses and the resultant altered fire regimes and increased competition. A major threat within Upper Santa Cruz, which includes Tucson, Nogales, and the urban areas between, is urbanization. Throughout the entire range, C. scheeri var. robustispina is stressed by drought and climate change impacts, as well as predation by mammals and insects.

    Plants are found on lands owned or managed by the Federal government (approximately 12 percent), State government (approximately 46 percent), Tribal government (approximately 2 percent), and private entities (approximately 40 percent). Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina is typically found widely spaced in the landscape. A total of 6,712 individuals have been documented in our files from surveys of 43,072 hectares (106,433 acres) of suitable habitat. Similarly, as of the summer of 2015, the Arizona Natural Heritage Program database of locations for this taxon consisted of 7,558 records, of which 1,837 were known to no longer exist, primarily due to development and not natural causes.

    The principal C. scheeri var. robustispina recovery strategy is to preserve and restore quality habitat to protect individuals and their seedbanks within two recovery units representing the range of the taxon. Providing conservation and restoration of the taxon and its habitat will allow a stable, self-sustaining population to persist with some level of connectivity and opportunities for ex