Federal Register Vol. 82, No.122,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 122 (June 27, 2017)

Page Range28983-29224
FR Document

82_FR_122
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 29081 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 29057 - Sunshine Act NoticePDF
82 FR 29130 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 29141 - Notice of Intent To Release Certain Properties From All Terms, Conditions, Reservations and Restrictions of a Quitclaim Deed Agreement Between the City of Williston and the Federal Aviation Administration for the Williston Municipal Airport, Williston, FLPDF
82 FR 29022 - Notice of Meeting of the National Advisory Council on Maternal, Infant and Fetal NutritionPDF
82 FR 29145 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Flexible Sleeper Berth Pilot ProgramPDF
82 FR 29037 - Meeting of the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 29119 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Northwest Medical Isotopes; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 29091 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Transfer and Consolidation of Public Housing Programs and Public Housing AgenciesPDF
82 FR 29122 - Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 29142 - RTCA PMC Program Management Committee MeetingPDF
82 FR 29081 - Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, Territory of U.S. Virgin IslandsPDF
82 FR 29079 - Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of NevadaPDF
82 FR 29076 - Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of New MexicoPDF
82 FR 29075 - Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of HawaiiPDF
82 FR 29147 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 29179 - Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board; Notice of MeetingsPDF
82 FR 29142 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition ReceivedPDF
82 FR 29121 - New Postal ProductsPDF
82 FR 29058 - 2017-2018 Award Year Deadline Dates for Reports and Other Records Associated With the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant Program, the Federal Work-Study Programs, the Federal Perkins Loan Program, the Federal Pell Grant Program, the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program, and the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant ProgramPDF
82 FR 29038 - Marine Mammals; File No. 21280PDF
82 FR 29053 - Marine Mammals and Endangered Species; File Nos. 15240-01, 15453-01, 15569-01, 16160-02, 16163-03, 16479-04, 16609, 17086-01, 18016-01, 18537-02, 18890-01, 19508, 19621-01, 19697, 20294, 20339, 20430, 20455, 20465, 20527, 20646, 20993, 21026, 21043, 21155, and 21199PDF
82 FR 29062 - Annual Notice of Interest Rates of Federal Student Loans Made Under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program On or After July 1, 2013PDF
82 FR 29002 - Safety Zone; Southern California Annual Fireworks for the San Diego Captain of the Port ZonePDF
82 FR 28999 - Safety Zone: City of Benicia Independence Day Fireworks Display, Benicia, CAPDF
82 FR 29002 - Safety Zone; Southern California Annual Firework Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port ZonePDF
82 FR 28997 - Safety Zone; Verdigris River, Catoosa, OKPDF
82 FR 29033 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2014-2015PDF
82 FR 29022 - Certain Steel Nails From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Rescind, in PartPDF
82 FR 29125 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 28994 - Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership-Amendments to the Terms and Schedule of Financial AssistancePDF
82 FR 29140 - The Indiana Rail Road Company-Discontinuance of Trackage Rights Exemption-in Lawrence, Orange, Washington, Clark and Floyd Counties, Ind.PDF
82 FR 29093 - Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1018-0123; International Conservation Grant ProgramsPDF
82 FR 29082 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
82 FR 29063 - Informational Notice Regarding Public Notification Procedures for the Northern Pass Transmission Line ProjectPDF
82 FR 29021 - Reducing Regulatory Burdens Imposed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act & Improving Healthcare Choices To EmpowerPDF
82 FR 29104 - Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
82 FR 29097 - Investigations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
82 FR 29087 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
82 FR 29146 - Waiver Request for Aquaculture Support Operations for the 2017 Calendar Year: SADIE JANEPDF
82 FR 29143 - Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption; New Prime, Inc. (Prime)PDF
82 FR 29091 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Discretionary Options for Designated Spouses, Parents, and Sons and Daughters of Certain Military Personnel, Veterans, and EnlisteesPDF
82 FR 29057 - Intent To Grant an Exclusive License of U.S. Government-Owned PatentsPDF
82 FR 29092 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Availability of Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan; Lakes at St. Sebastian Preserve, Brevard County, FLPDF
82 FR 29095 - Office of the Assistant Secretary-Water and Science; Notice of Termination of a Lease of Power Privilege Process for the Spanish Fork Flow Control Structure of the Central Utah ProjectPDF
82 FR 29057 - U.S. Air Force Partially Exclusive Patent LicensePDF
82 FR 29052 - Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 29141 - Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of WaterPDF
82 FR 28997 - Safety Zone; Three Rivers Regatta Fireworks/EQT 4th of July Celebration, Pittsburgh, PAPDF
82 FR 29002 - Safety Zone; Oakmont Yacht Club/Oakmont Yacht Club Fireworks, Allegheny River, Miles 12.0 to 12.5, Oakmont, PAPDF
82 FR 29037 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 29082 - National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality: Request for Nominations for Public MembersPDF
82 FR 29083 - Supplemental Evidence and Data Request on Drug Therapy for Early Rheumatoid Arthritis in Adults-An UpdatePDF
82 FR 29085 - Supplemental Evidence and Data Request on Psychological and Pharmacological Treatments for Adults With Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): A Systematic Review UpdatePDF
82 FR 29083 - Meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and QualityPDF
82 FR 29072 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 29065 - Supplemental Notice of Technical ConferencePDF
82 FR 29072 - Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing ApplicationsPDF
82 FR 29071 - Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing ApplicationsPDF
82 FR 29070 - Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing ApplicationsPDF
82 FR 29073 - Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing ApplicationsPDF
82 FR 29073 - Notice of Application for Transfer of Licenses and Soliciting Comments and Motions To IntervenePDF
82 FR 29064 - Bayshore Solar B, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 29068 - Northwest Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed North Seattle Lateral Upgrade Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping SessionPDF
82 FR 29065 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
82 FR 29029 - Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From India and the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty InvestigationsPDF
82 FR 29023 - Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value InvestigationsPDF
82 FR 28995 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Cerritos Channel, Long Beach, CAPDF
82 FR 29081 - FDIC Advisory Committee on Community Banking; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 29074 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; The Consolidated Air Rule (CAR) for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) (Renewal)PDF
82 FR 29080 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries (Renewal)PDF
82 FR 29075 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products (Renewal)PDF
82 FR 29132 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Initial and Continued Listing Standards for the Listing of Equity Investment Tracking StocksPDF
82 FR 29123 - Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 29039 - Marine Mammal Stock Assessment ReportsPDF
82 FR 29095 - Certain Bar Code Readers, Scan Engines, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof; Institution of InvestigationPDF
82 FR 29135 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of TexasPDF
82 FR 29136 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of TexasPDF
82 FR 29016 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 29014 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., AirplanesPDF
82 FR 29089 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 29089 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 29088 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 29088 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 29089 - National Cancer Institute Amended; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 29088 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 29019 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) AirplanesPDF
82 FR 29004 - International Mail Manual; Incorporation by ReferencePDF
82 FR 29122 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 29122 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 29122 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 29096 - Meeting of the Advisory Committee; MeetingPDF
82 FR 29177 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulations Associated With Miscellaneous ElectionsPDF
82 FR 29126 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee SchedulePDF
82 FR 29130 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Commentary .02 to Rule 960NY in Order To Extend the Penny Pilot in Options Classes in Certain IssuesPDF
82 FR 29128 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Commentary .02 To Rule 6.72 in Order To Extend the Penny Pilot in Options Classes in Certain Issues Through December 31, 2017PDF
82 FR 29003 - Library of Congress License AgreementsPDF
82 FR 29178 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
82 FR 29090 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Exemption of State-Owned Properties Under Self-Insurance PlanPDF
82 FR 29088 - Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-State, Tribal, Local and Territorial (STLT) SubcommitteePDF
82 FR 29010 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; North Atlantic Swordfish FisheryPDF
82 FR 29038 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 29038 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Alaska Prohibited Species Donation (PSD) ProgramPDF
82 FR 29119 - Information Collection: Collection of Operator Simulator Training DataPDF
82 FR 29118 - Information Collection: NRC Form 354, Data Report on SpousePDF
82 FR 29097 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Joint Stipulation, Settlement Agreement, Order, and Final Judgment Under the Oil Pollution Act and the Clean Water ActPDF
82 FR 29077 - Request for Nominations of Candidates to the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB)PDF
82 FR 29136 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 29009 - Civil PenaltiesPDF
82 FR 29010 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fireworks Displays at Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 28983 - Common Crop Insurance Policy Basic Provisions (7 CFR 457.8)PDF
82 FR 29120 - Dedication of Commercial-Grade Items for Use in Nuclear Power PlantsPDF
82 FR 29005 - Air Plan Approval; VT; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan RequirementsPDF
82 FR 28994 - Special Conditions: SNECMA, Silvercrest-2 SC-2D; Rated 10-Minute One Engine Inoperative Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature; WithdrawalPDF
82 FR 28993 - Special Conditions: SNECMA, Silvercrest-2 SC-2D; Rated 10-Minute One Engine Inoperative Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature; WithdrawalPDF
82 FR 29182 - Occupational Exposure to Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds in Construction and Shipyard SectorsPDF

Issue

82 122 Tuesday, June 27, 2017 Contents Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality, 29083 2017-13393 Requests for Nominations: National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality, 29082-29083 2017-13396 Requests for Supplemental Evidence and Data Submissions: Drug Therapy for Early Rheumatoid Arthritis in Adults—Update, 29083-29085 2017-13395 Psychological and Pharmacological Treatments for Adults With Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Systematic Review Update, 29085-29087 2017-13394 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

See

Food and Nutrition Service

AIRFORCE Air Force Department NOTICES Exclusive Patent Licenses; Approvals: Mentis Technologies, 29057 2017-13402 Army Army Department NOTICES Exclusive Patent Licenses: Amivas, LLC, Silver Spring, MD, 29057 2017-13408 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29087-29088 2017-13414 Meetings: Advisory Committee to the Director—State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Subcommittee, 29088 2017-13339 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Reducing Regulatory Burdens and Improving Health Care Choices to Empower Patients; Correction, 29021 2017-13417 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Cerritos Channel, Long Beach, CA, 28995-28997 2017-13379 Safety Zones: City of Benicia Independence Day Fireworks Display, Benicia, CA, 28999-29001 2017-13430 Oakmont Yacht Club/Oakmont Yacht Club Fireworks, Allegheny River, Miles 12.0 to 12.5, Oakmont, PA, 29002 2017-13398 Southern California Annual Firework Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone, 29002 2017-13429 Southern California Annual Fireworks for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone, 29002-29003 2017-13431 Three Rivers Regatta Fireworks/EQT 4th of July Celebration, Pittsburgh, PA, 28997 2017-13399 Verdigris River, Catoosa, OK, 28997-28999 2017-13428 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29147-29177 2017-13442 Defense Department Defense Department See

Air Force Department

See

Army Department

Defense Nuclear Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 29057-29058 2017-13526 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Deadline Dates for Reports and Other Records Associated With the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant Program, Federal Work-Study Programs, etc., 2017-2018 Award Year, 29058-29062 2017-13436 Interest Rates: Federal Student Loans Made Under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program on or After July 1, 2013, 29062-29063 2017-13432 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Trade Adjustment Assistance; Determinations, 29104-29118 2017-13416 Worker Adjustment Assistance; Investigations, 29097-29104 2017-13415 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Meetings: Public Notification Procedures for the Northern Pass Transmission Line Project, 29063-29064 2017-13418
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Vermont; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements, 29005-29009 2017-13055 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Consolidated Air Rule for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry; Renewal, 29074 2017-13375 NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries, 29080 2017-13374 Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products; Renewal, 29075-29076 2017-13373 Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, Hawaii, 29075 2017-13443 Authorized Program Revision Approval, Nevada, 29079-29080 2017-13445 Authorized Program Revision Approval, New Mexico, 29076-29077 2017-13444 Authorized Program Revision Approval, Virgin Islands, 29081 2017-13446 Requests for Nominations: Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and Science Advisory Board, 29077-29079 2017-13332 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Special Conditions: SNECMA, Silvercrest-2 SC-2D; Rated 10-Minute One Engine Inoperative Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature; Withdrawal, 28993-28994 2017-12937 2017-12939 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 29016-29019 2017-13365 Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes, 29019-29021 2017-13357 Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes, 29014-29016 2017-13364 NOTICES Airport Property Releases: Williston Municipal Airport, Williston, FL, 29141-29142 2017-13457 Meetings: RTCA Program Management Committee, 29142-29143 2017-13447 Petitions for Exemption; Summaries, 29142 2017-13440 Federal Crop Federal Crop Insurance Corporation RULES Common Crop Insurance Policy Basic Provisions, 28983-28993 2017-13242 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29147-29177 2017-13442 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Community Banking, 29081 2017-13378 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 29081-29082 2017-13545 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Exemption of State-Owned Properties Under Self-Insurance Plan, 29090 2017-13340 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 29065, 29072 2017-13382 2017-13392 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Northwest Pipeline, LLC; North Seattle Lateral Upgrade Project, 29068-29070 2017-13383 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Bayshore Solar B, LLC, 29064-29065 2017-13384 License Transfer Applications: STS Hydropower Ltd.; STS Hydropower, LLC, 29073-29074 2017-13385 Meetings: Technical Conference, 29065-29068 2017-13391 Permit Applications: Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, 29072-29073 2017-13386 2017-13389 Preliminary Permit Applications: Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, 29070-29071 2017-13387 2017-13388 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Flexible Sleeper Berth Pilot Program, 29145-29146 2017-13453 Commercial Driver's License Standards: Exemption Applications: New Prime, Inc. (Prime), 29143-29144 2017-13412 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29147-29177 2017-13442 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 29082 2017-13419 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: International Conservation Grant Programs, 29093-29095 2017-13420 Endangered and Threatened Species: Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan; Lakes at St. Sebastian Preserve, Brevard County, FL, 29092-29093 2017-13404 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Council on Maternal, Infant and Fetal Nutrition, 29022 2017-13455 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Transfer and Consolidation of Public Housing Programs and Public Housing Agencies, 29091-29092 2017-13450 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

NOTICES Termination of Power Privilege Process Leases: Spanish Fork Flow Control Structure of the Central Utah Project, 29095 2017-13403
Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Regulation Project, 29178 2017-13341 Regulations Associated with Miscellaneous Elections, 29177-29178 2017-13346 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Steel Nails From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 29022-29023 2017-13425 Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China, 29033-29037 2017-13426 Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From India and the People's Republic of China, 29029-29033 2017-13381 Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations: Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 29023-29029 2017-13380 Meetings: Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee, 29037 2017-13452 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Bar Code Readers, Scan Engines, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof, 29095-29096 2017-13368 Joint Joint Board for Enrollment of Actuaries NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee, 29096-29097 2017-13347 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Proposed Stipulations, Settlement Agreements, Orders, and Judgments: Oil Pollution Act and Clean Air Act, 29097 2017-13333 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Library Library of Congress RULES License Agreements, 29003-29004 2017-13342 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Waiver Requests for Aquaculture Support Operations for 2017 Calendar Year: SADIE JANE, 29146-29147 2017-13413 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RULES Civil Penalties; Delay of Effective Date, 29009-29010 2017-13315 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology RULES Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership—Amendments to the Terms and Schedule of Financial Assistance, 28994-28995 2017-13423 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Cancer Institute, 29088 2017-13358 National Cancer Institute; Amendment, 29089 2017-13359 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 29088-29089 2017-13361 National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 29089 2017-13362 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 29089-29090 2017-13363 National Institute on Aging, 29088 2017-13360 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: North Atlantic Swordfish Fishery, 29010-29013 2017-13338 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals: Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fireworks Displays at Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary; Correction, 29010 2017-13249 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29038 2017-13337 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Alaska Prohibited Species Donation Program, 29038-29039 2017-13336 Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports, 29039-29052 2017-13369 Meetings: Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 29052-29053 2017-13401 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 29037-29038 2017-13397 Permits: Marine Mammals and Endangered Species; File Nos. 15240-01, 15453-01, 15569-01, 16160-02, 16163-03, etc., 29053-29057 2017-13434 Marine Mammals; File No. 21280, 29038 2017-13435 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Collection of Operator Simulator Training Data, 29119-29120 2017-13335 Data Report on Spouse, 29118-29119 2017-13334 Guidance: Dedication of Commercial-Grade Items for Use in Nuclear Power Plants, 29120-29121 2017-13161 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Northwest Medical Isotopes, 29119 2017-13451 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration PROPOSED RULES Occupational Exposure: Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds in Construction and Shipyard Sectors, 29182-29224 2017-12871 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 29121-29122 2017-13439 Postal Service Postal Service RULES International Mail Manual, 29004-29005 2017-13356 NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement, 29122 2017-13348 Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service Agreement, 29122 2017-13349 Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 29122 2017-13352 2017-13354 Railroad Retirement Railroad Retirement Board NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29122-29125 2017-13370 2017-13448 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29125-29126 2017-13424 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 29130 2017-13492 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: NYSE Arca, Inc., 29126-29130 2017-13343 2017-13345 NYSE MKT LLC, 29130-29132 2017-13344 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 29132-29135 2017-13371 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Texas, 29135-29136 2017-13366 2017-13367 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29136-29140 2017-13331 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Discontinuance of Trackage Rights Exemptions: The Indiana Rail Road Co. in Lawrence, Orange, Washington, Clark and Floyd Counties, IN, 29140 2017-13422 Susquehanna Susquehanna River Basin Commission NOTICES Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of Water, 29141 2017-13400 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Internal Revenue Service

U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Discretionary Options for Designated Spouses, Parents, and Sons and Daughters of Certain Military Personnel, Veterans, and Enlistees, 29091 2017-13410 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board, 29179 2017-13441 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Labor Department, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 29182-29224 2017-12871 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.

82 122 Tuesday, June 27, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Federal Crop Insurance Corporation 7 CFR Part 457 [Docket No. FCIC-16-0002] RIN 0563-AC53 Common Crop Insurance Policy Basic Provisions (7 CFR 457.8) AGENCY:

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) finalizes the Common Crop Insurance Policy Basic Provisions (Basic Provisions) and makes amendments to the final rule, with request for comment, published in the Federal Register on June 22, 2016, that clarified and revised the policy definition of “practical to replant” and “replanted crop,” and policy provisions regarding double cropping. The changes to the policy made in this rule are applicable for the 2018 and succeeding crop years for all crops with a contract change date on or after the effective date of the rule, and for the 2019 and succeeding crop years for all crops with a contract change date prior to the effective date of the rule.

DATES:

This rule is effective June 27, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tim Hoffmann, Director, Product Administration and Standards Division, Product Management, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, Beacon Facility, Stop 0812, Room 421, PO Box 419205, Kansas City, MO 64141-6205, telephone (816) 926-7730.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

This final rule makes changes to the Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Basic Provisions that were published by FCIC on June 22, 2016, as a notice of final rule with request for comment rulemaking in the Federal Register at 81 FR 40477-40480. The public was afforded 60 days to submit written comments and opinions.

Comments were received from 59 commenters. The commenters included persons or entities from the following categories: Insurance company, insurance agent, farmer, financial, producer group, academic, trade association, and other.

The public comments received regarding the final rule with request for comment and FCIC's responses to the comments are as follows:

Practical To Replant

Comment: A commenter stated the practical to replant provision should be adopted as written. The dates are reasonable and producers who desire to plant a crop will often plant at these dates or beyond. Claiming a replant unnecessarily has negative impacts on other producer's premiums and on supporting industry operations. Ultimately, the local economy is the loser.

Response: FCIC thanks the commenter and appreciates their input.

Comment: Several commenters supported the clarity intended by the revisions to the definition of “practical to replant.” Consistency between all insurance providers was always a challenge with the ambiguous language with the previous definition. The commenters always supported clear and concise definitions. A commenter stated it generally supports any effort to take subjectivity and ambiguity out of the crop insurance program and efforts to prevent fraud from occurring.

Response: FCIC appreciates the commenter's support for the clarity and consistency intended by the revised definition of “practical to replant.”

Comment: A commenter stated there certainly is a need to provide a clear deadline for that period (or date) when replanting of a crop is considered to be practical and that if not replanted, insurance coverage should not be provided for the initial crop. This information is important to standardize practices at the farm and state insurance agency levels to ensure that the highest standards of fairness and consistency are practiced. The crop insurance program in Louisiana is an essential risk management tool that must be sustained into the future. The food security of this country could be at risk without a viable Federal crop insurance program that is compatible with the needs of U.S. agriculture. If changes in the definition of “practical to replant” are accepted and become mandatory without exception, then stakeholders, scientists, and policy makers should be given the opportunity to develop workable solutions based upon the best available information. This process does not appear to have been followed regarding these proposed late planting dates. The commenter has concerns, because the rule states that for “Impacts and Effects” (None) and for “Priority” (Substantive, Nonsignificant), information is lacking for a full understanding of unintended consequences.

Response: Consistency is necessary in any program and FCIC is striving to attain that in this final rule. Further, FCIC values the input from stakeholders and other knowledgeable persons. FCIC has revised this final rule in response to the comments received with a goal of maintaining consistency but also allowing flexibility when circumstances warrant.

Comment: A commenter was concerned about the definition change in that it creates internal inconsistencies in the program that will not make sense to the producers this program is meant to serve. For example, a producer can be declared prevented from planting as of the final plant date. But, now, under the change, if the producer did get a particular field planted before the flood occurred, the producer would be held to replant rules on that field through a late plant period which might be 10, 15, 20, or 25 days later, depending on which county the producer is in. This could create confusing and inconsistent results that only restrict the most prudent options and the deference paid toward a producer in attaining the best outcome.

Response: As stated previously, the revisions to the practical to replant provisions were intended to provide clarity and consistency. Given the differences in the programs and purposes, there should be no confusion between prevented planting and practical to replant. Prevented planting only provides payments for the pre-planting costs lost due to the inability to plant the crop and does not provide a payment for any loss in production. However, once the crop has been planted and fails, the producer may be entitled to an indemnity. While the deadlines may be different, so are the purposes of the provisions. Replant payments are intended to mitigate losses that impact both the producer and taxpayer, as well as minimize disruptions to local agricultural economies.

For producers, the replant payment provides the opportunity and financial support to replant the crop. Since the initial planting generally takes place at an optimal time period available to the producer, replanting the crop likely takes place at a less optimal time in the future. While the odds of producing an above average or high yielding crop are potentially lower, the producer still has a reasonable chance to produce a crop that is worth more than the indemnity payment from the insurance policy. In addition, to potentially avoiding an indemnity, the producer's actual production history yield for that crop year is likely to be higher, having less impact on future crop guarantees. At worst, if the replanted crop fails, the producer still receives the same indemnity payment he or she would have had without replanting—but at least had the chance to earn a larger gain from the marketplace and preserve future crop guarantees.

From a taxpayer's perspective, the replant payment is a way to reduce the cost of the crop insurance program. This is because the replanted crop may produce an average or even above average yield, which results in a reduced (or even no) indemnity payment to the producer. The reduction in indemnity payments reduces the cost of the crop insurance program for taxpayers and mitigates impacts to future premium rates producers would otherwise experience.

Finally, the replant payment provides stability to the local agricultural economy. Encouraging producers to replant their crops helps ensure a more consistent supply of the agricultural commodities that others depend on for their livelihoods—such as livestock producers and grain or food processors thus helping maintain a more consistent supply of agricultural goods for consumers.

Comment: A commenter stated instead of revising the replant dates, FCIC should be asking why there are replant dates associated with crop insurance. The commenter questioned if a person wrecks a car does that person only get paid if they buy a new one. The commenter questioned why if a crop fails to make a stand there is a requirement to replant associated with the claim being paid. Several commenters stated the definition of “practical to replant” should not be made a part of the policy. The planting period and the replant requirements should remain the same as they are now. A commenter stated the revisions to the definition of “practical to replant” are ill-advised and will result in reduction of important benefits to producers who will possibly be in a precarious financial position due to the circumstances that brought this particular situation.

A commenter stated they are in total opposition to the proposed change that would require a producer to have to continue replanting his crop all the way through the end of the late planting period. This type of change would only benefit the insurance companies and not the producer, who is the one the policy is intending to protect. A commenter stated that this change could cause a tremendous financial burden on our producers. With the low commodity prices, the yield expected with corn planted that late will not allow a producer to stay in business. A commenter stated the new definition would guarantee producers take a loss in an impossible situation to succeed.

Response: The Federal Crop Insurance Act does not authorize coverage for losses if the producer is able to replant to the same crop in such areas and under such circumstances as is customary to replant, but fails to do so. If an initially planted crop is damaged, and in that area and under such circumstances it is customary to replant, the producer must replant for insurance coverage to continue on that crop, and a replant payment is provided to compensate the producer for the costs of replanting. Past experience has shown that some producers were paid a full loss on the initially planted and insured crop and were allowed to plant an alternative crop, even when replanting the initial crop was practical. The practical to replant provisions were intended to balance the needs of the producer with the requirements of the Act and the best interests of the Federal crop insurance program and taxpayers. This balance has not changed in the final rule.

If it is practical for the producer to replant, it is in the best interest of the program and for the producer to replant the crop and potentially make a full crop rather than paying the producer an indemnity, which only covers part of the loss. Further, since the guarantee is not reduced even if the crop is planted during the late planting period, if there is a future yield loss due to an insurable cause of loss, the producer will be indemnified to the same extent as the originally planted lost crop. The final rule was simply intended to add more consistency to determinations of practical to replant so that all producers are treated fairly and equitably. However, as stated more fully below, FCIC is revising the current provisions to lessen the time in which it will generally be considered practical to replant, and provide the general circumstances to be considered by insurance providers in making such a determination to find a proper balance.

Comment: A few commenters stated that agricultural lending officers rely heavily on the value of crop insurance when underwriting agricultural loans. The extension of the late planting dates would be detrimental to producers' overall farming operation. The commenters were opposed to the extension of the late planting periods. Several commenters were concerned with the final planting dates, earliest planting dates, and late planting period for crops in their area being incorrect.

Another commenter stated southeast Nebraska and northwest Nebraska producers have to manage their acres completely different. The commenter questioned why these producers should be constrained by one set of dates limiting yield potential and the most key element of farming, flexibility to work around the curve balls that Mother Nature throws producers each year. The commenter stated the same could be said for the state of Missouri and Iowa. Producers in southeast Nebraska, southwest Iowa, northeast Kansas and northwest Missouri all experience similar climates and plant many of the same corn hybrids and soybean varieties and maturities. The commenter stated they could easily be treated the same, but having varying earliest, final, and late period plant dates within this region truly makes no sense to the commenter or the producers the commenter works with in each of these states. Freeze, wind, rain, heat, drought events typically affect all these areas similarly. The commenter states that as farm operations become much larger and they expand their acres, many large producers the commenter works with are farming in three or four of the corners of these states but confused by different dates, when all should be treated the same. They all start planting at the same time and manage their acres in these states the same. The commenter stated it was frustrating that if it's dry in southeast Nebraska, producers have to wait until April 10 to plant but could have started April 5 in Missouri where for sake of argument, say it rained. The commenter asked that the date be changed.

The commenter stated planting in proper soil conditions has the largest impact on final yield in the commenter's opinion. Planting in wet conditions and fighting sidewall compaction limiting plant root ability to get to water and nutrients, uneven emergence forcing plants to compete with each other and runts failing to make an ear. The commenter stated that within this geographic region, an April 1 initial plant date makes sense. Producers in the corners of these four states have started planting April 1 for the last four to five years and for good reasons. It is typically dry and planting conditions are perfect the first half of April. About mid-April each year the “rainy season” will begin on and off through June 1. Producers will try to “mud it in” in desperation, and will fight compaction, achieve uneven stands, or be delayed to a May dry spell and lose yield by date of planting even with a perfect stand. These May plantings will also force the hybrid to directly deal with the heat and dryness of July. Two weeks before and two weeks after pollination is when the corn plant is most successful to yield loss from stress. The commenter stated that planting early allows hybrids to beat this hot period and pollinate in late June or first week of July. These April 1 plantings, nine out of ten years will yield higher or at a minimum the same as these later plantings even if the hybrid corn has to lie in the ground for three weeks waiting to accumulate enough Growth Degree Units (GDU's) to emerge. The commenter stated that today's hybrids are specifically bred for earlier planting dates and better cold stress emergence and they are typically planted in the best soil conditions of the year limiting sidewall compaction, rooting, and uneven emergence. Finally, the commenter stated that as farming operations get larger, and this trend will continue without a doubt, they have to start planting sooner to give them the best opportunity to successfully get the desired crop planted around rain events.

Several commenters stated the proposed change to the planting date will be detrimental to profitability of crops. The commenters stated that there is a potential for dramatic reduction in yield as proven by University research from multiple states. The commenters stated the economic impact to the producers is enhanced because of the fact it is a replant. Most all of the input costs are already spent. This change will require producers to spend more with no choice of making a profit. The commenters asked that FCIC not change the planting dates.

A commenter stated there is resistance to the requirement of replanting the initial crop until the end of the late planting period. A commenter stated they were frustrated by the late planting period. Every producer wants to be as profitable as possible, and have the ability to plant corn and soybeans in the best soil conditions possible. The commenter stated that pushing this date out 20 or 25 days (need aligned as mentioned above) just seems like the producer is being penalized. The producer can go back with soybeans and still have a chance to attain the highest yield before at least June 10. A soybean has an amazing ability to compensate with more branches and pods after weather events, but are day-length sensitive and only have a certain amount of time to build the factory that will feed the pods that will be set. Planting a soybean June 25 will limit plant height, node, and most importantly pod and seed set ability of that plant.

The commenter stated the program should provide flexibility. The commenter has seen this happen. A producer is in a river bottom area. The area hit an extended wet period in late April and May. The producer is not able to plant corn, or if he did, it would drown out. The producer wants to plant soybeans. Another extended wet period is expected (typically mid-June is wet) and the producer cannot plant in early June while it's dry but tries to mud in the soybeans on June 26. Now the soybean stand will also be heavily affected and poor rooting from compaction will allow drought later to “burn them up.” The commenter believed that there should be a period where a conversation between the adjuster and the producer should be had that discusses all these variables and allows a producer to plant ahead of the current date or any date to give the producer the best chance at success and profitability. It seems senseless for the planter to set when it could be planting in ideal soil conditions because of the date in a program. Mother Nature forces the producer to be extremely flexible, especially in a region where the Missouri River or similar geographies, causes a lot of intense weather events through the spring and early summer. The commenter asked FCIC to give the producer flexibility.

Response: The final rule with request for comment did not change planting dates or the late planting period. The final rule with request for comment was intended to provide a clear, known deadline for when replanting of the crop is considered practical, ensuring that the provisions are consistently and equitably implemented across all insurance providers and producers. If the commenter or any interested party is concerned about the dates for specific crops or counties, they should advise the RMA Regional Office. Any interested person may find contact information for the applicable regional office on RMA's Web site at http://www.rma.usda.gov/aboutrma/fields/rsos.html.

Comment: A commenter stated that the university studies and agricultural experts agree that April 20 is initially too late to plant the crop so requiring producers to replant through the late planting period is ridiculous.

Response: FCIC has not proposed revising any of the final planting dates or late planting periods so it cannot make any such changes in this rule. If the commenter or any interested party is concerned about the dates for specific crops or counties, they should advise the RMA Regional Office. Any interested person may find contact information for the applicable regional office on RMA's Web site at http://www.rma.usda.gov/aboutrma/fields/rsos.html.

Comment: A commenter stated the proposed rule taking the practicality to replant all the way to the end of the late planting period seems too severe and does limit producer's ability to be flexible in the event of a lost crop. Many, if not the majority of crops that this would impact, have a 25-day late planting period. The commenter stated that this will give an initially planted crop a 25 percent reduction in coverage. In this example, the producer would be reducing a 75 percent buy-up cover to essentially a catastrophic level cover if this was the initial planting. This certainly indicates the policy does not think it is practical to produce a normal crop. The commenter suggested FCIC define “practical to replant” similarly to the prevented planting provisions as it pertains to the final plant date. This is a fair and equitable solution to a difficult circumstance for both the producer and FCIC.

Response: When a crop is deemed practical to replant there is no reduction in the coverage that attaches to the initially planted crop. Therefore, while the yield of a crop planted during the late planting period may or may not be reduced, depending on many factors, the coverage provided by the crop insurance policy is not reduced like it otherwise would be if the crop was initially planted during the late planting period. FCIC agrees with the commenter that taking the practicality to replant all the way to the end of the late planting period may not be appropriate and can limit the producer's ability to be flexible in the event of a lost crop. Therefore, FCIC revised the definition of “practical to replant” to state it will be considered practical to replant through: (1) The final planting date if no late planting period is applicable; (2) the end of the late planting period if the late planting period is less than 10 days; or (3) the 10th day after the final planting date if the crop has a late planting period of 10 days or more. Changing the provisions to encompass these three scenarios and including 10 days after the final planting date will help bring more uniformity to the amount of time producers are required to replant since the number of days in the late planting period can vary by crop. Based on the commenter's feedback, the fact that some crops and regions have varying late planting periods and for some crops up to a 25-day late planting period, uniform and equitable treatment to similarly situated producers may not always occur, so FCIC is reducing the presumptive date to no more than 10 days. FCIC also added provisions for determining whether it is practical to replant so that approved insurance providers may consider circumstances as to whether: (1) It is physically possible to replant the acreage; (2) seed germination, emergence, and formation of a healthy plant is likely; (3) field, soil, and growing conditions allow for proper planting and growth of the replanted crop to reach maturity; or (4) other conditions exist, as provided by the Crop Provisions or Special Provisions. This will allow a proper balance between the interests of producers and the interests of the program.

Comment: A commenter stated with the requirement to have crop insurance, premiums are paid every year. The final planting dates are already liberal with the ability of the crop to produce an economically viable yield, depending on any given year's weather, etc. With these proposed changes FCIC is requiring a producer to choose between two options: (1) To spend money (the claim amount plus more) replanting a crop 25 days later than it could be expected to produce an acceptable yield; or (2) call the premium a government mandated donation to the insurance company and instead of replanting (and/or collecting the claim), plant a crop that has potential to produce a yield. The commenter stated, in short, the final planting date should be just that, the final date that the crop should be planted (or replanted). There has been a lot of time and research put into developing the final planting dates by the extension services, etc., and FCIC should be listening to the people whose job it is to determine these dates.

Response: Requiring a producer to replant under such circumstances as is customary for the area has been statutorily mandated and a requirement of the policy for years. Producers have been required to replant the crop after the final planting date if the agronomics allowed in order to receive a replanting payment and continue insurance coverage for the initially planted crop. This final rule does not change this. However, there has been inconsistency in the application of the practical to replant provisions between insurance providers such that if two producers were in similar agronomic conditions one could be required to replant the crop and the other may not. This final rule is intended to address that inequity. However, FCIC agrees that the 25-day period may be too long because of the potential effect on the replanted crop so it is reducing the presumptive date to no more than 10 days. This earlier date for it to be practical to replant is a presumptive date and FCIC has added circumstances to the provisions that insurance providers may consider whether: (1) It is physically possible to replant the acreage; (2) seed germination, emergence, and formation of a healthy plant is likely; (3) field, soil, and growing conditions allow for proper planting and growth of the replanted crop to reach maturity; or (4) other conditions exist, as provided by the Crop Provisions or Special Provisions. This will allow a better balance between the interests of the producers and the interests of the program.

FCIC disagrees with the commenter that if a crop deemed practical to replant is not replanted, the premium becomes a government-mandated donation to the insurance company. If it is determined practical to replant the insured crop and the producer elects not to replant the crop, no coverage for the initially planted crop will be provided and no premium will be due. If the producer decides not to replant, the crop would be considered as if it never existed, and the acreage is removed from the acreage report. No indemnity is due, no replant payment is made, and no premium is earned nor payable by the producer.

Comment: Several commenters generally support any effort to take subjectivity and ambiguity out of the crop insurance program and efforts to prevent fraud from occurring, but the commenters cannot support this change because it is not supported by research or by Extension recommendations.

A commenter stated that no county agent, no agricultural expert, no university study will agree that planting corn as late as May 5 in the Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi region would be considered a good farming practice. In addition, the commenter believed no ag-lender would provide financing for planting this late.

A commenter stated that if it was practical to replant the crop, the crop should be able to achieve the actual production history yield in most years. Replanting at the end of the late planting period would have a marginal chance at achieving that level of production. The commenter suggested that perhaps part of the solution would be to shorten the late planting period.

Response: FCIC agrees that it should not be presumed practical to replant the crop until the end of the late planting period and, as stated above, has revised the provisions accordingly. This should mitigate any unintended reductions in yield as a result of planting during the late planting period, and producers will not be penalized because they will still receive the full guarantee. This means that if there is a reduction in yield, it can still be indemnified, but these changes allow a balance between the interests of producers and the interests of taxpayers.

Comment: Several commenters had issues with FCIC's wording under the definition of “practical to replant” which states that replanting should continue as long as the seed has the chance to germinate, emerge, and form a healthy plant. A commenter stated that this could be achieved planting much further past May 5 and the crop would mature prior to the end of the insurance period, but the problem would remain the same even if it is planted by the end of April. The producer would not be able to produce a yield that it would take to stay in farming. Their goal is not to make their guarantee; their goal is to make a profit. A commenter stated that producers have other cropping options that may be more economically viable once the original crop is lost. In these situations, producers need all options at their disposal so the best economic and agronomic choices can be made.

A commenter encouraged FCIC to further clarify that the revised definition is not intended to be interpreted in such a way that could potentially force a producer to replant a lost or damaged crop after the end of the late planting period or after the final planting date if there is no late planting period for the crop. The commenter believed it would be prudent for FCIC to reiterate to both insurance providers and insurance agents that the changes made to the definition of “practical to replant” is not intended to be interpreted in such a way that a producer could be forced to replant after the end of the applicable late planting period, and further, that even when a crop is lost prior to the end of a late planting period, all applicable circumstances will be considered before a decision on the practicality of replanting the lost acreage is made. The commenter understood that this revised definition is set to become effective for the 2017 reinsurance year, but urged FCIC to consider further revisions to improve the understanding and limit the potential for it to be misinterpreted.

Response: FCIC agrees that the definition of “practical to replant” requires replanting during the late planting period as long as the seed has the chance to germinate, emerge, and form a healthy plant and may result in the ability to plant the crop even after the late planting period, which could cause confusion. The provisions have been revised so that insurance providers may consider circumstances as to whether: (1) It is physically possible to replant the acreage; (2) seed germination, emergence, and formation of a healthy plant is likely; (3) field, soil, and growing conditions allow for proper planting and growth of the replanted crop to reach maturity; or (4) other conditions exist, as provided by the Crop Provisions or Special Provisions.

Further, while FCIC does not want to hinder producers from maximizing their profits, it must balance this with the taxpayer interest in not paying indemnities when there is a possibility for the crop to reach maturity. FCIC balances the interests of producers with the interests of taxpayers by making a replant payment to offset the costs of replanting and providing for a full guarantee so that if the yield is later reduced, such costs will be indemnified.

Comment: A commenter stated that a producer should be required to replant until the crop's final plant date. At that point, if conditions are good and producers are actively planting and replanting, then a producer should go along with what is common in the producer's area. If not, there should be a maximum of a ten-day period from the final plant date before acres can be released and allow the producer to go to another crop. The late planting period should be an option, not a requirement.

A commenter stated that if a specific date needs to be established for “practical to replant,” the commenter requested FCIC consider the following revision, “An insured should be required to plant and replant through the crop's final plant date.” At that point, the acres should not be released for an additional ten days. If after ten days an adequate stand has not emerged, the acres should be released and the producer should be able to go to another crop.

Response: Defaulting to the final planting date ignores the possible agronomic circumstances that may allow the crop to be planted and reach maturity after this date. However, FCIC is revising the provisions to require replanting no later than 10 days into the late planting period. It is presumed that replanting is practical during this period and the producer will be required to replant, in order to receive a replant payment and continue full insurance coverage for the initially planted crop, unless the insurance provider determines it is not practical to replant. Replant payments are intended to mitigate losses, as stated above, by requiring replanting when agronomic conditions and circumstances exist to produce a crop that can reach maturity. Allowing producers to pick and choose whether to replant may result in unnecessary indemnities and premium rate increases.

Comment: A commenter stated that producers need an appropriate degree of situational flexibility when adverse conditions arise particularly during the planting season. The commenter believed FCIC will never achieve complete consistency, as even within a small area two cases can be very different. The commenter believed the current practical to replant standard and processes better accommodate the needs of the producers.

Another commenter stated that to restrict a producer's options at planting time where every minute is critical strikes the commenter as an overly broad fix to a very narrow problem. The commenter suggested that a better solution would be to require that when a producer chooses to plant back to the original crop at any time during the late plant period that this definitively be considered a replant until the late plant period has expired.

Response: The problem with the definition of “practical to replant” prior to 2017 is that the provisions were inconsistently applied such that with neighboring farms, one producer could be required to replant and the other not, even when agronomic conditions were the same. The final rule with request for comment and this final rule are intended to make the application of the provisions more consistent, while still allowing some flexibility. This is done by creating a presumed practical to replant date, while still allowing insurance providers to consider certain agronomic factors and circumstances to overcome this presumption. Allowing producers to pick and choose whether to replant may result in unnecessary indemnities and premium rate increases.

Comment: Several commenters felt that requiring producers to replant through the end of the late planting period was not sound policy. A commenter stated the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Rice Verification Program has demonstrated this fact over the past 30 years on 430 fields across the state. The planting date of rice has a direct impact on yield. The commenter stated that this policy would result in requiring producers to replant even though data suggests their projected yield could be cut by approximately 40 percent, making it very difficult to make a profit on the crop. The Arkansas Rice Production Handbook, published by the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, contains recommendations for optimum planting dates as well as recommended absolute cut-offs for rice based upon regions of the state. The commenter stated that optimum cut-off recommendations are May 10 for northern Arkansas, May 15 for central Arkansas, and May 20 for southern Arkansas and the recommended absolute cutoff recommendations are June 5 for northern Arkansas, June 10 for central Arkansas, and June 15 for southern Arkansas. While the recommended absolute cutoff does not mean a successful rice crop cannot be grown outside of that time-frame, success will depend on a myriad of factors unique to each individual farm.

A commenter stated that this proposal would force the planting of crops well beyond the recommended dates supported by research conducted by the LSU AgCenter. Yields are reduced by 38 to 52 percent for five of the major crops produced in Louisiana. The economic consequences of which would be devastating to producers which had already suffered losses from the original crop loss.

Several commenters stated that the changes being proposed are considered extreme by LSU AgCenter scientists that work to develop Best Management Practices for the targeted crops. Based upon the best long-term information generated by LSU AgCenter research and extension scientists, the commenters stated they cannot support recommending that producers re-plant at the latest “practical to replant” dates being supported by FCIC. A commenter questioned the origin of these proposed dates and request that FCIC provide science-based information to show Louisiana producers can produce a profitable and sustainable yield if they are required to replant the crops on these late dates. A commenter also stated unfortunately, some of the “practical replant” dates detailed in the FCIC notice are even later than the LSU AgCenter have tested in field trials. The commenter stated that in reality, the actual date that a producer is officially released (by program adjuster) to plant alternative crops may not be until ten days after the final planting date of the insured crop which makes these changes even more unreasonable. The LSU AgCenter's optimum and latest planting dates are based upon Best Management Practices, as well as risk aversion for Louisiana's crop production systems. The commenter stated that potential increases in production costs, unfavorable weather conditions for crop development, and harvest risk associated with adverse weather events during the late fall are real factors that must be factored into this decision-making process.

A commenter stated the end of the late planting period for corn in Illinois is June 30. Most agronomic experts would not recommend planting corn this late in Illinois but the change in language would, with some exceptions, require it.

Another commenter stated the proposed replant dates are well past the recommended final planting dates as put forth by LSU, the various seed companies, private consultants and anyone else with practical knowledge of best agronomic practices in the state of Louisiana. With the high production costs of these crops today there is less margin for error than ever before and forcing producers to replant as much as three weeks after recommended final planting date is guaranteeing a potentially crippling financial loss on corn and grain sorghum. On rice and cotton it may not be a guaranteed loss but is almost a certainty not just in reduced yield but in increased costs fighting late season disease, insects, irrigation expense and field work due to a late harvest. While soybeans have the best chance of making a profit with the new proposed replant dates of all the crops it would still be an iffy proposition at best. These proposed changes would make buying higher levels of coverage a risky decision for the producer and expose them to even greater levels of uncertainty, which will lead to more difficulty in securing financing which will ultimately lead to further consolidation with only the largest producers benefitting.

Another commenter stated in the mid-south there is a definite cut off period for corn that is much earlier than the final planting date for late planting (May 5) if a producer wants to make a profitable corn yield in an average weather year. Forcing a producer to plant corn late dooms the producer to a loss and the insurance company to writing a check. If producers need to change crops, allow them to continue to make the switch after the final planting date. The commenter asks that FCIC not make them wait until the final LATE planting date. Producers need to have flexibility to farm the crop that is most likely to produce a full yield in the time period given. Failure to allow that flexibility will cost everyone money. A commenter stated that in light of the unique and unusual conditions that can arise following the failure of the initial crop, the revised definition, in effect, will result in cases where the agronomic realities of planting simply do not align with an assumption the crop will reach physiological maturity. As an example, corn in most of southern Illinois has a final plant date of June 5 followed by a 25-day late planting period. To limit a producer in this situation to the replanting of corn in the last two weeks of June rather than allowing a switch to another crop is not a sound agronomic practice given the low probability of corn reaching maturity before the normal frost date.

A commenter believed that most agronomic experts would not recommend replanting the crop that late, so the producer will be in a position of having to replant a crop at a time that agronomic experts would not recommend. The commenter stated, for instance, the end of the late planting period for corn in Illinois is June 30. Most agronomic experts would not recommend planting corn this late in Illinois. The change in language would, with some exceptions, require it. While this would limit the level of insurance for crops being initially planted later, the crop would still be insurable at the prevented planting level of coverage. On the positive side of the change to the practical to replant language—it would force more consistency in the industry as to when acreage is allowed to be planted to another crop, instead of replanted to the original crop. The producer receives a replant payment and still has the original coverage on the acreage, so there is still coverage on the replanted crop, even if replanted near the end of the late planting period.

Response: The final rule with request for comment did not change planting dates or the late planting period. The final rule with request for comment was intended to provide a clear, known deadline for when replanting of the crop is considered practical, ensuring that the provisions are consistently and equitably implemented across all insurance providers and producers. If the commenter or any interested party is concerned about the dates for specific crops or counties, they should advise the RMA Regional Office. Any interested person may find contact information for the applicable regional office on RMA's Web site at http://www.rma.usda.gov/aboutrma/fields/rsos.html. After considering all the comments, FCIC agrees that requiring replanting throughout the late planting period may not be practical. Therefore, as stated above, FCIC revised the definition of “practical to replant” to state it will be considered practical to replant through: (1) The final planting date if no late planting period is applicable; (2) the end of the late planting period if the late planting period is less than 10 days; or (3) the 10th day after the final planting date if the crop has a late planting period of 10 days or more. FCIC believes it is necessary to provide a clear, known deadline for when replanting of the crop is considered to be practical, and while this deadline is presumptive, FCIC is also revising the provisions to allow other agronomic factors and circumstances to be considered when determining whether it is practical to replant to provide needed flexibility as necessary.

Comment: A commenter stated they are very much against the new proposal to make a producer continue to replant all the way through the end of the late planting period. The commenter stated that the LSU Ag Department has documented evidence that this would mean an average of a 50 percent yield loss on those acres planted that late. The commenter understood that a producer may still be insured at the full guarantee but that does not really help either the producer or the crop insurance companies. For instance: a producer has a 75 percent coverage policy and a 175 bushel Actual Production History. That means the producer is guaranteed 131 bushels. According to LSU the potential of corn planted that late would be 80 bushels an acre. So that means that the producer would cut their 80 bushels, sell it and then crop insurance would pay the producer for the other 51 bushels. The going market on those bushels right now is $3.30 and crop insurance is paying $3.81 per bushel. 80 × $3.30 = $264 51 × $3.81 = $194 that comes to $458 per acre. The cost of production on that acre of corn is $650 including rent, seed, fertilizer, etc., excluding any profit needed to pay any living expenses or maintenance on equipment. This is where the producer makes a living. This is not just a hobby for the producer but the producer's livelihood. That means the producer is in the hole $200 per acre plus what it took for the producer to feed their family, pay equipment notes, pay interest at the bank for the money the producer still owes (1,000 acre average producer × $200 = $200,000) at 6 percent average interest, and many other costs. So the bottom line is the producer has lost money that the producer may never be able to recover from. The insurance company lost by having to pay the producer a $194 an acre claim. Not to mention the $30 acre replant claim they paid the producer (which is only about 1/3 of the cost to actually replant). The commenter questioned why the insurance provider could not release those acres for the producer to plant another crop such as soybeans or cotton to at least be able to survive. Note that the longer you wait to release those acres the more the yield on the second crop yield is being hurt also. Lastly, the average producer is not looking to collect on an insurance claim. The producer would rather produce a good yielding crop, sell it for a decent price and survive to farm another year.

Response: As stated above, FCIC realized that requiring replanting up to the end of the late planting period may place too much of a burden on producers and reduced needed flexibility. Therefore, FCIC is revising the period in which to replant a crop to no more than 10 days and revising the provisions to allow additional agronomic factors and circumstances to be considered by the insurance providers. However, while FCIC understands the commenter's concerns about the economics of producing a crop, when production costs exceed the potential value of the planted crop the Federal crop insurance program is not in a position to consider those costs when determining indemnities. It indemnifies lost production at an established price, in part, using taxpayer dollars. FCIC has a responsibility to those taxpayers to ensure that their dollars are properly spent. Replanting a crop when it is possible for that crop to grow and reach maturity is one way of protecting taxpayer dollars, and helps achieve the balance between the interests of producers and the interests of taxpayers.

With respect to the scenario stated above, the claimed losses are outside of the control of FCIC or the scope of this rule. In the example provided, regardless of whether the producer's original crop failed or produced a full crop, the producer would have lost money. If the producer produced the guarantee of 131 bushels and sold it for $3.30, which equals $432, this is still far below the claimed expenses of $650. Even if the producer had produced the 175 bushels actual production history yield, the producer would only have received $577.50.

Comment: Several commenters believed that a practical to replant determination is best made by the producer and the adjuster on the farm, and that a one size fits all approach could seriously jeopardize a producer's chances of profitability as margins are already tight in a replant situation. A commenter stated that even though the interim rule's revised definition allows for an exception to the standard date if “there is no chance of seed germination, emergence, and formation of a healthy plant,” this language raises the question of how such an important and time-sensitive determination will account for different conditions, including soil types and the varying impact of rainfall on farms just miles apart. Because of the significant differences between crops, final plant dates and late planting periods, a thorough assessment by the adjuster for the insurance provider along with the producer's input and experience are a more sensible match for the replant decision than an across-the-board application of a standard date.

A commenter stated that when the final plant date has been reached and during the late planting period, allow and encourage the producer and adjuster in consultation to make a determination and decision; based upon the conditions in the field and area as to when each field is no longer “practical to replant.” By doing so this would enable the producer to fail the first crop and plant to a second different crop, while practical to expect a second crop can reach yield potential and maturity. If the producer should choose to plant back to the original crop, it would be considered a replanted crop.

A commenter stated that the producer and the adjuster have been looked to as the best judge of whether it was practical to replant that crop. Under this definitional change, however, the practical experience and judgment of the producer and the adjuster, which is specifically focused upon that farm, that area, and the unique conditions, would be replaced with a uniform date. Thus, the change effectively declares that it is always practical to replant, not just through the final plant date for the crop but through the late planting period as well. This is not a practical standard given the various adverse situations that trigger replant provisions. Even if the final plant dates and late planting periods were all perfect and consistent across all regions, which they are not, the commenter still strongly believed the producer and adjuster are best suited to make this judgment.

A commenter stated that removing the human and weather elements from the decision-making within this definition and rule would prove detrimental. The decisions should definitively combine both factors. They are not independent of what is decided; only after planting potential has been examined can an accurate determination be made. The word “practical” is at the heart of this issue, even included in the definition; therefore practicality and flexibility become the points of action.

A few commenters stated they have serious concerns about proposed changes to the “practical to replant” definition contained in the interim rule. Beyond the proposed changes, producers were given an inadequate window of time to respond to the changes overlapping the state's harvest period and currently managing disastrous flooding conditions. The commenter stated that in the Southern U.S., where rice is grown, planting windows and options tend to be longer and more diverse. Important replant provisions of the various crop insurance policies only come into play when a first attempt at planting is ruined in whole or in part. In such an adverse situation, the commenters would maintain the producer needs all options at their disposal. The planting dates and windows of Federal crop insurance, while necessary, cannot reflect the best and most practical options for each farm. The commenters believed this determination is best made by the producer and the adjuster on the farm.

A commenter stated that in many cases, if a first crop is washed or flooded out, but the water recedes and the producer has the ability to plant again, planting the same first crop would not be the ideal financial or agronomic decision even if it is still an insurable possibility by the USDA Risk Management Agency dates. To handcuff the producer in these situations where they can only go back to the original crop through the late planting period seems unreasonable. Again, the commenter thinks the current rules, which show deference to the producer and the adjuster to make the best determination for that farm in that situation in that adverse year, is the better model.

The commenters are very concerned about advancing integrity of Federal crop insurance, and the commenters know that clear rules need to be made and enforced. But every farm is unique and the situation on each farm is unique each year, so the rules have to be balanced against an adequate flexibility that allows the producers to do their work the best they know how. The commenters noted their support for other rules like the first crop, second crop limitations that protect the integrity of the program while affording the producer flexibility to make the best productive use of the land in any given year.

Response: One of the fundamental principles of the crop insurance program is that all producers be treated fairly and equitably. FCIC also believes that producers working with their loss adjuster can make or reach the best decisions for addressing crop loss on the farm, but to do so requires clear rules and understanding. FCIC realizes that requiring replanting until the end of the late planting period may be too burdensome and has revised the provisions to reduce the presumptive time to replant to not more than 10 days. In addition, when determining whether it is practical to replant approved insurance providers may consider circumstances as to whether: (1) It is physically possible to replant the acreage; (2) seed germination, emergence, and formation of a healthy plant is likely; (3) field, soil, and growing conditions allow for proper planting and growth of the replanted crop to reach maturity; or (4) other conditions exist, as provided by the Crop Provisions or Special Provisions. This will allow decisions to be more tailored to actual agronomic conditions and circumstances for determining whether it is practical to replant. However, as stated above, the goal of replanting is to mitigate losses in those situations where it is still possible to produce a crop that can reach maturity. To effectuate this goal and balance the interests of producers and taxpayers, FCIC provides for a replant payment and allows a full guarantee on the replanted acres, so that if there is any future reduction in yield the producer will be indemnified.

Comment: A commenter stated if there was a change to be made to the “practical to replant” definition in the policy it should have been to shorten the number of days that a producer has to replant his crops after the final plant date. The definition should not require a producer to replant all the way to the end.

Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter. FCIC is changing the definition of “practical to replant” to state it will be considered practical to replant through: (1) The final planting date if no late planting period is applicable; (2) the end of the late planting period if the late planting period is less than 10 days; or (3) the 10th day after the final planting date if the crop has a late planting period of 10 days or more.

Comment: A commenter stated there are other unintended consequences that the commenter asked FCIC to consider as well. If a producer follows all guidelines of the proposed process and plants an alternative crop after the proposed latest “practical to replant” date for the initial insured crop, they will in most cases be planting the alternative crops after optimum dates and potentially suffer economic losses as well. In addition, the resulting figures for rice, soybeans, corn, cotton, and grain sorghum are considered to be very conservative estimates that do not include the additional production input costs associated with late-planting of these Louisiana crops. The commenter stated that crop insurance should remain a tool to support producers when unforeseen covered events adversely affect their crops. These proposed changes have the potential to drastically affect Louisiana agriculture and create insecurity among the commenter's producers and which the commenter hopes is certainly not the intended outcome.

Response: FCIC is changing the definition of “practical to replant” to reduce the number of days it is presumed to be practical to replant. Further, other agronomic factors and circumstances can be considered when determining whether it is practical to replant. These changes should create more stability, flexibility, and security.

Comment: A commenter stated that consistency and common understanding of the rule from producer to insurance provider needs to be achieved. If enacted as written, this rule becomes inconsistent with declaration of prevent plant by the producer; which can and is allowed to occur after the final plant date. It becomes the producer's declaration and decision per the assessment of agronomic conditions, weather and human assessment, soil conditions, viability to reach a desired result of the planted crop. It is counter intuitive to require the producer to replant following a peril that destroys their first crop based upon the calendar date, rather than taking into consideration the factors on each farm. Only with “boots on the ground” assessing crop maturity, availability of product, plant vigor, weather and field conditions can good farming, and program integrity decisions be made. Because of the variability experienced by each producer's situation, the geographies that they work within and the unknown weather conditions that can arise at any time, there is no one blanket date that would fit all farms. Creating a definition that allows for these variables will enable consistency, understanding and optimum risk management for producers, insurance providers, and taxpayers.

Response: As stated in the final rule with request for comment, the previous provisions, as written, regarding “practical to replant” can lead to different insurance providers reaching differing determinations as to whether it is practical to replant in the same area. Therefore, it is important to provide a clear, known presumptive deadline for when replanting of the crop is considered to be practical. Further, as stated above, prevented planting and practical to replant are two different provisions, with different purposes, that provide different coverage. Prevented planting coverage only covers the expected costs incurred at the time the crop was prevented from planting, which is determined by a percentage of the guarantee. It does not indemnify for the crop loss. When a crop fails and the issue is whether to replant, the failed crop could receive an indemnity based on the lost production if it is determined not to be practical to replant. However, the requirement to replant is intended to mitigate these losses when agronomic conditions and circumstances are such that the crop could be expected to grow and reach maturity. In prevented planting situations, insurance providers look at whether it was possible to plant before the final planting date. In practical to replant situations, the determination is made by the insurance provider after considering the agronomics and the circumstances for the area as to whether it is customary to replant the crop. However, FCIC agrees that one size does not fit all and has revised the provisions to shorten the period for practical to replant and has added provisions allowing for consideration of additional circumstances in determining the practicality of replanting.

Comment: A commenter stated aflatoxin is a horrible disease in grain crops. This, as well as other diseases and risks such as hurricane and intense heat and drought would be greatly enhanced by requiring a producer to replant through the end of the late planting period.

Another commenter stated getting the product that will produce the highest yield on a specific soil type, disease environment, is extremely important to the final yield outcome. At the end of the season in the last couple years, the most desired products are sold out, due to seed companies limiting piles of unused units that must be written off at a loss. So, the producer is now forced to use a third or fourth choice corn or soybean product that offers less inherent yield potential for this geography and possibly higher risk of disease infestation and yield loss.

Response: FCIC understands the commenter's concern regarding increasing risks by requiring the producer to replant through the end of the late planting period. FCIC has revised the provisions to reduce the presumptive time to replant to no more than 10 days and allowing for consideration of additional agronomic factors and circumstances to be considered in the determination of practical to replant. These changes provide a better balance of the interests of producers with those of the taxpayer, whose interests are in paying losses when it is not possible to replant a crop that would grow and reach maturity. Further, since the guarantee is not reduced as a result of planting during the late planting period, any such losses would be fully indemnified.

With respect to the availability of seed and other inputs, the previous definition of “practical to replant” stated it will be considered to be practical to replant regardless of availability of seed or plants, or the input costs necessary to produce the insured crop such as those that would be incurred for seed or plants, irrigation water, etc. FCIC inadvertently omitted this sentence from the final rule with request for comments. Therefore, FCIC has modified the definition of “practical to replant” to add that it will be considered practical to replant regardless of the availability of seed or plants, or the input costs necessary to produce the insured crop such as seed or plants, irrigation water, etc. Since the Act only authorizes coverage due to drought, flood or other natural disaster, things such as seed availability, plants or input costs cannot be a consideration when determining whether or not it is practical to replant the crop.

Double Cropping

Comment: A commenter had some concerns that the wording in the 2017 Common Crop Insurance Policy Basic Provisions (Basic Provisions) under section 15(h) could lead to misunderstandings and differing interpretations. For example, section 15(h)(5)(i) allows for when a historical double cropping percentage could be used for situations where a producer acquires additional acreage. Section 15(h)(5)(i) implies the double crop percentage would be applied to the total acreage now in the producer's operation. However, the example under section 15(h)(5)(i)(D) says to apply the double crop percentage to both the current year first insured crop acreage and the current year second crop acreage. It is unclear as to which set of determined acreage is ultimately used as the limiting factor when total acreage in the producer's operation as well as first insured crop acres and second crop acres are all multiplied by the determined percentage.

Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter and has changed the language to remove the reference to second crop acreage.

Comment: A commenter questioned if the revised language in section 15(h)(5) of the Basic Provisions only applies to policies with added land or if it includes situations in which there is no added land but the number of double cropping acres have increased through different crop rotations. The commenter assumed based on the language included as a part of the final rule the intent of this new language addresses both added land and other situations where there is no added land but the number of double cropping acres have been increasing. If this is indeed the intent, the commenter recommended that FCIC consider changing or adding to the language in 15(h)(5)(i) that indicates “. . . if you acquired additional acreage, you may apply the percentage of acre . . .” which implies that this computation only applies when additional acreage has been acquired.

Response: The phrase “acquired additional acreage” in section 15(h)(5) of the Basic Provisions is intended to apply to a net acquisition of acreage. For example, if a producer loses 50 acres of land and gains 20 acres, the double cropping multiplier would not apply because the total acreage in the producer's operation is not greater than in previous years. Another example would be if a producer loses 50 acres of land and gains 60 acres, the double cropping multiplier would apply because the total acreage in the farming operation is 10 net acres greater than in previous years. FCIC has revised the language accordingly.

Comment: A commenter questioned whether or not the computations from this new section are meant to apply in the situation where the first insured crop is planted and the second crop is prevented from being planted (also does not specifically address where the first insured crop is planted and the second crop is planted). The commenter did not see any language addressing this situation but assumed that FCIC would calculate double cropping history acres in the same manner. This was addressed in the previous Basic Provisions by the language in section 15(i) as follows (language addresses both planted and prevented planting acreage of both the first and second crop that are double cropped):

(i) The receipt of a full indemnity or prevented planting payment on both crops that are double cropped is limited to the number of acres for which you can demonstrate you have double cropped or that have been historically double cropped as specified in section 15(h).

The commenters assumption is that the computations laid out in section 15(h)(5) of the Basic Provisions is intended to encompass both situations. However, since the language is no longer included as a part of the lead in to the calculation, FCIC may want to consider adding this language back in so that it is clear this calculation is intended to cover both of these situations (section 15(h) does address a full indemnity or a full prevented planting payment for a first insured crop when a second crop is planted). At the very least, the Prevented Planting Loss Adjustment Standards Handbook will need to make sure and include additional instructions for computing double crop acres for these situations.

Response: FCIC thanks the commenter for their comments. Section 15(h)(5)(i) is intended to apply to situations where the first insured crop is planted and incurs an insurable loss or the first insured crop is prevented from planting and a second crop is planted. Section 17(f)(5) is the applicable section when a first insured crop is planted and the second crop is prevented from planting. FCIC has revised the language in section 15 accordingly.

Comment: A commenter stated the change to double crop history seems to be a positive move, using a producer's history of double cropping to aid in calculating the use of newly added land. If a producer has a history of double cropping every year, it is highly likely that a percentage of the added land would be double cropped also. The change to the double crop language will add more complexity to the calculation. Before, it was simple—what you had is what you got.

Response: FCIC thanks the commenter and appreciates their input.

Comment: A commenter suggested revising 15(h)(5)(i)(B) to state “. . . (In the example above, 50 divided by 100 equals 50 percent of the first insured crop acres that were double cropped in 2015, and 70 divided by 100 equals 70 percent that were double cropped in 2016)”.

Response: FCIC agrees and has made changes accordingly.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rule. The rule is not subject to Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.”

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collections of information in this rule have been approved by OMB under control numbers 0563-0053.

E-Government Act Compliance

FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002, 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.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

Executive Order 13132

It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

Executive Order 13175

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects 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.

The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For instance, all producers are required to submit an application and acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees and compute premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of loss and production information to determine the amount of an indemnity payment in the event of an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a producer has 10 acres or 1000 acres, there is no difference in the kind of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act (Act) authorizes FCIC to waive collection of administrative fees from beginning farmers or ranchers and limited resource farmers. FCIC believes this waiver helps to ensure that small entities are given the same opportunities as large entities to manage their risks through the use of Federal crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared since this regulation does not have an impact on small entities, and, therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605).

Federal Assistance Program

This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450.

Executive Order 12372

This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983.

Executive Order 12988

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. With respect to any direct action taken by FCIC or to require the insurance provider to take specific action under the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before any action against FCIC for judicial review may be brought.

Environmental Evaluation

This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the quality of the human environment, health, or safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 457

Crop insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Final Rule.

Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation amends 7 CFR part 457 as follows:

PART 457—COMMON CROP INSURANCE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 457 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 1506(l) and 1506(o).

2. Amend § 457.8, in the Common Crop Insurance Policy, as follows: a. In section 1 by revising the definition of “practical to replant” and “replanted crop;” and b. In section 15 by revising paragraph (h).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 457.8 The application and policy. Common Crop Insurance Policy 1. Definitions

Practical to replant. Our determination, after loss or damage to the insured crop, that you are able to replant to the same crop in such areas and under such circumstances as it is customary to replant and that replanting the insured crop will allow the crop to attain maturity prior to the calendar date for the end of the insurance period. We may consider circumstances as to whether: (1) It is physically possible to replant the acreage; (2) seed germination, emergence, and formation of a healthy plant is likely; (3) field, soil, and growing conditions allow for proper planting and growth of the replanted crop to reach maturity; or (4) other conditions exist, as provided by the Crop Provisions or Special Provisions. Unless we determine it is not practical to replant, based on the circumstances listed above, it will be considered practical to replant through: (1) The final planting date if no late planting period is applicable; (2) the end of the late planting period if the late planting period is less than 10 days; or (3) the 10th day after the final planting date if the crop has a late planting period of 10 days or more. We will consider it practical to replant regardless of the availability of seed or plants, or the input costs necessary to produce the insured crop such as seed or plants, irrigation water, etc.

Replanted crop. The same agricultural commodity replanted on the same acreage as the insured crop for harvest in the same crop year if: (1) The replanting is specifically made optional by the policy and you elect to replant the crop and insure it under the policy covering the insured crop; or (2) Replanting is required by the policy. The crop will be considered a replanted insured crop and no replanting payment will be paid if we have determined it is not practical to replant the insured crop and you choose to plant the acreage to the same insured crop.

15. Production Included in Determining an Indemnity and Payment Reductions

(h) You may receive a full indemnity, or a full prevented planting payment for a first insured crop when a second crop is planted on the same acreage in the same crop year, if each of the following conditions are met, regardless of whether or not the second crop is insured or sustains an insurable loss:

(1) Planting two or more crops for harvest in the same crop year in the area is generally recognized by agricultural experts or organic agricultural experts;

(2) The second or more crops are customarily planted after the first insured crop for harvest on the same acreage in the same crop year in the area;

(3) Additional coverage insurance offered under the authority of the Act is available in the county on the two or more crops that are double cropped;

(4) In the case of prevented planting, the second crop is not planted on or prior to the final planting date or, if applicable, prior to the end of the late planting period for the first insured crop;

(5) You provide records, acceptable to us, of acreage and production specific to the double cropped acreage proving that:

(i) You have double cropped acreage in at least two of the last four crop years in which the first insured crop was planted and incur an insurable loss or the first insured crop is prevented from being planted and a second crop is planted. If you acquired additional land for the current crop year you may apply the percentage of acres that you have previously double cropped to the total cropland acres that you are farming this year (if greater) using the following calculation:

(A) Determine the number of acres of the first insured crop that were double cropped in each of the years for which double cropping records are provided (For example, records are provided showing: 100 acres of wheat planted in 2016 and 50 of those acres were double cropped with soybeans; and 100 acres of wheat planted in 2017 and 70 of those acres were double cropped with soybeans);

(B) Divide each result of section 15(h)(5)(i)(A) by the number of acres of the first insured crop that were planted in each respective year (In the example above, 50 divided by 100 equals 50 percent of the first insured crop acres that were double cropped in 2016 and 70 divided by 100 equals 70 percent of the first insured crop acres that were double cropped in 2017);

(C) Add the results of section 15(h)(5)(i)(B) and divide by the number of years the first insured crop was double cropped (In the example above, 50 plus 70 equals 120 divided by 2 equals 60 percent); and

(D) Multiply the result of 15(h)(5)(i)(C) by the number of insured acres of the first insured crop (In the example above, 60 percent multiplied by the number of wheat acres insured in 2018); or

(ii) The applicable acreage was double cropped (by one or more other producers, and the producer(s) will allow you to use their records) for at least two of the last four crop years in which the first insured crop was grown on it; and

(6) If you do not have records of acreage and production specific to the double cropped acreage, as required in section 15(h)(5), but instead have records that combine production from acreage you double cropped with records of production from acreage you did not double crop, we will allocate the first and second crop production to the specific acreage in proportion to the liability for the acreage that was and was not double cropped.

Dated: June 20, 2017. Robert Ibarra, Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-13242 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-08-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 33 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0376; Notice No. 33-014-01-SC] Special Conditions: SNECMA, Silvercrest-2 SC-2D; Rated 10-Minute One Engine Inoperative Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature; Withdrawal AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; withdrawal.

SUMMARY:

The FAA is withdrawing previously published special conditions for the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model. We are requesting the withdrawal because the “Rated 10-Minute One Engine Inoperative Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature (Rated 10-Minute OEI TOTHAT) is not needed.

DATES:

As of June 27, 2017, the special conditions published on October 31, 2014, at 79 FR 64666, are withdrawn.

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:

Background

On April 19, 2011, SNECMA, now known as Safran Aircraft Engines (SAE) applied for a new type certificate for the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model. At that time, the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model was to have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology described in the airworthiness standards for aircraft engines. The design feature included an additional takeoff rating for the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model, named “Rated 10-Minute One Engine Inoperative Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature” (Rated 10-Minute OEI TOTHAT). It was intended to maintain the takeoff thrust in certain high ambient temperature conditions for a maximum of 10 minutes with one engine inoperative (OEI).

Reason for Withdrawal

The FAA is withdrawing Notice No. 33-014-01-SC because of concerns raised over the sufficiency of the “Rated 10-Minute OEI TOTHAT” special condition to meet the Automatic Takeoff Thrust Control System (ATTCS) design requirement specified in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25, section I25.5(b)(2).

The proposed takeoff rating was for use during OEI events that occur during takeoff in high ambient temperature conditions, up to 5 degrees Celsius hotter than the rated takeoff corner point. The assumptions for this rating are no longer valid and the “Rated 10-Minute OEI TOTHAT” is not needed.

Conclusion

This withdrawal does not preclude the FAA from issuing another notice on the subject matter in the future or committing the agency to any future course of action.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on June 13, 2017. Carlos A. Pestana, Acting Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-12937 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 33 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0376; Notice No. 33-014-01-SC] Special Conditions: SNECMA, Silvercrest-2 SC-2D; Rated 10-Minute One Engine Inoperative Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature; Withdrawal AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions, withdrawal.

SUMMARY:

The FAA is withdrawing previously published special conditions for the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model. We are requesting the withdrawal because the “Rated 10-Minute One Engine Inoperative Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature (Rated 10-Minute OEI TOTHAT) is not needed.

DATES:

As of June 27, 2017, the special conditions published on October 31, 2014 at 79 FR 64666, are withdrawn.

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:

Background

On April 19, 2011, SNECMA, now known as Safran Aircraft Engines (SAE) applied for a new type certificate for the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model. At that time, the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model was to have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology described in the airworthiness standards for aircraft engines. The design feature included an additional takeoff rating for the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model, named “Rated 10-Minute One Engine Inoperative Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature” (Rated 10-Minute OEI TOTHAT). It was intended to maintain the takeoff thrust in certain high ambient temperature conditions for a maximum of 10 minutes with one engine inoperative (OEI).

Reason for Withdrawal

The FAA is withdrawing Notice No. 33-014-01-SC because of concerns raised over the sufficiency of the “Rated 10-Minute OEI TOTHAT” special condition to meet the Automatic Takeoff Thrust Control System (ATTCS) design requirement specified in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25, section I25.5(b)(2).

The proposed takeoff rating was for use during OEI events that occur during takeoff in high ambient temperature conditions, up to 5 degrees Celsius hotter than the rated takeoff corner point. The assumptions for this rating are no longer valid and the “Rated 10-Minute OEI TOTHAT” is not needed.

Conclusion

This withdrawal does not preclude the FAA from issuing another notice on the subject matter in the future or committing the agency to any future course of action.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on June 13, 2017. Carlos A. Pestana, Acting Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-12939 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institutes of Standards and Technology 15 CFR Part 290 [Docket No.: 170526519-7519-01] RIN 0693-AB64 Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership—Amendments to the Terms and Schedule of Financial Assistance AGENCY:

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), United States Department of Commerce.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

NIST is issuing a final rule to amend the regulations governing the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program to reflect the current cost sharing requirements for cooperative agreements for the establishment and operation of MEP Centers, consistent with recent amendments to the MEP authorizing statute. Under the revised statute, NIST may provide up to 50 percent of the capital and annual operating and maintenance funds required to establish and support an MEP Center. The regulations are also being amended to remove other cost sharing rules that are not required by the MEP authorizing statute or current program policies.

DATES:

This rule is effective June 27, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anne-Louise Marquis, at (301) 975-3944 or [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

The Hollings MEP Program (Program) is a unique program, consisting of centers in each state and Puerto Rico with partnerships at the state, federal, and local levels. Prior to being amended by Section 501(b) of the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act (AICA), Public Law 114-329, the Program statute, 15 U.S.C. 278k, required that NIST provide less than 50 percent of the capital and annual operating and maintenance funds of an MEP Center beginning in the fourth year of a cooperative agreement. The revised statute allows NIST to provide up to 50 percent of the capital and annual operating and maintenance funds required to establish and support an MEP Center. NIST is amending the MEP regulations, specifically 15 CFR 290.4, to implement the revised statute and to eliminate certain limitations on the amounts and sources of MEP Center cost share that are not required by 15 U.S.C. 278k and that do not reflect current MEP Program cost sharing policies.

II. Statutory Authority

NIST is revising 15 CFR 290.4 to ensure it is fully consistent with recent statutory changes to 15 U.S.C. 278k(e)(2) made by section 501(b) of AICA, and to ensure that the cost sharing requirements in 15 CFR 290.4 are consistent with the cost sharing requirements for financial assistance awards contained in 2 CFR part 200 and with current MEP Program cost sharing policies.

III. Regulatory Analysis

Because this final rule is a matter relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts, 5 U.S.C. 553 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). Therefore, prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required under 5 U.S.C. 553, and there is no requirement for a 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

Executive Order 12866

This final rule was determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 13132

This final rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule contains no new collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act

This final rule will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental assessment or Environmental Impact Statement is not required to be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 290

Grant programs, Science and technology, Cooperative agreements.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, NIST is amending 15 CFR part 290 as follows:

PART 290—REGIONAL CENTERS FOR THE TRANSFER OF MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 290 continues to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 278k.

2. Revise § 290.4 to read as follows:
§ 290.4 Terms and schedule of financial assistance.

The Secretary may provide up to 50 percent of the capital and annual operating and maintenance funds required to establish and support an MEP Center.

Phillip A. Singerman, Associate Director for Innovations and Industry Services.
[FR Doc. 2017-13423 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0473] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Cerritos Channel, Long Beach, CA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is removing the operating schedule that governs the Commodore Schuyler F. Heim highway bridge, mile 4.9, across the Cerritos Channel, at Long Beach, California. The drawbridge has been removed from the waterway making the operating regulation no longer necessary.

DATES:

This rule is effective June 27, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type [USCG-2017-0473]. In the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email Carl T. Hausner, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516, 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 NPRM  Notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L.  Public Law § Section U.S.C.  United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this 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), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM with respect to this rule because the Commodore Schuyler F. Heim highway bridge, that once required draw operations in 33 CFR 117.147(a), has been removed from the waterway. Therefore, the regulation is no longer necessary or applicable and shall be removed from publication. It is unnecessary to publish an NPRM because this regulatory action does not purport to place any restrictions on mariners but rather removes restrictions that have no further use or value.

We are issuing this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after publication in the FR. This rule merely requires an administrative change to the CFR in order to omit a regulatory requirement that is no longer applicable or necessary. The modifications have already taken place and the removal of the regulation will not affect mariners currently operating on the waterway. Therefore, a delayed effective date is unnecessary.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.

The Commodore Schuyler F. Heim highway bridge, mile 4.9, across the Cerritos Channel, at Long Beach, California, that once required draw operation in 33 CFR 117.147(a) has been removed from the waterway. The elimination of the drawbridge necessitates the removal of the drawbridge operation regulation in 33 CFR 117.147(a) that pertains to this former drawbridge.

The purpose of this rule is to remove 33 CFR 117.147(a), which refers to this bridge, from the CFR since the bridge is no longer crosses the waterway.

IV. Discussion of Final Rule

The Coast Guard is changing the regulation in 33 CFR 117.147 by removing the restriction related to the draw operation for the Commode Schuyler F. Heim highway bridge that is no longer a drawbridge. The change removes paragraph (a) of the regulation governing this bridge. This change does not affect nor does it alter the operating schedule that is currently designated paragraph (b), which governs the Henry Ford Avenue railroad bridge on the Cerritos Channel.

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 protesters.

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. E.O. 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 E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that the Commodore Schuyler F. Heim highway bridge no longer exists. The removal of the operating schedule from 33 CFR part 117, subpart B, will have no effect on the movement of waterway or land traffic.

B. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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.

For reasons stated in section V.A. above this final 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, above.

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 calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 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 E.O. 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 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.

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.l (series), which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) and Memorandum for the Record (MFR) are not required for 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 117

Bridges.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority:

33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

§ 117.147 [Amended]
2. In § 117.147, remove paragraph (a) and redesignate paragraph (b) as an undesignated paragraph. Dated: June 21, 2017. T.A. Sokalzuk, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-13379 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0537] Safety Zone; Three Rivers Regatta Fireworks/EQT 4th of July Celebration, Pittsburgh, PA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the “Three Rivers Regatta Fireworks/EQT 4th of July Celebration” on the Allegheny River, Monongahela River, and Ohio River. The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of life and to protect vessels from the hazards associated with the “Three Rivers Regatta Fireworks/EQT 4th of July Celebration” barge fireworks displays. During the enforcement period, entry into the safety zone is prohibited for all vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative.

DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, line 47, will be enforced from 9 p.m. until 10:30 p.m., on July 4, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email MST1 Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 412-221-0807, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the annual “Three Rivers Regatta Fireworks/EQT 4th of July Celebration” barge fireworks display, listed in the regulations in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, Sector Ohio Valley, No. 47 from 9 p.m. until 10:30 p.m., on July 4, 2017. Our Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Safety Zones, § 165.801, specifies the location of the regulated area for the Ohio River, Mile 0.0-0.5, Alleghany River, Mile 0.0-0.5, and Monongahela River, Mile 0.0-0.5. Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage through the safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.

This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.801 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of this enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners and updates via Marine Information Broadcasts.

Dated: June 19, 2017. L. McClain, Jr., Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 2017-13399 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0514] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Verdigris River, Catoosa, OK AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain waters of the Verdigris River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Rogers Point Park, Catoosa, OK, during a fireworks display on July 1, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters between mile marker 444.0 and mile marker 444.5 in the Verdigris River This rulemaking will prohibit persons and vessels from entering the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Memphis (COTP) or a designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 9:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 1, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0514 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 rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Todd Manow, Waterways Management, Sector Lower Mississippi River, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 901-521-4813, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port Memphis DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive Order FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

On March 20, 2017, the City of Catoosa notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from 9:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 1, 2017, as part of the shore side event, “Libertyfest.” The fireworks are to be launched from the left descending bank of the Verdigris River at mile marker 444.2, 500 yards downriver of the State Route 66 bridge in Catoosa, OK, located at the approximate geographic coordinates of 36°12.8′ N., 095°43.0′ W. Hazards from firework displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Memphis (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks present a safety concern for anyone within the area on the Verdigris River between mile marker 444.0 and mile marker 444.5.

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. Although the event sponsor originally submitted notice to the Coast Guard on March 20, 2017, final details of the event and safety zone requirements were not finalized until June 2, 2017. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by July 1, 2017, and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule 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 because immediate action is needed to protect the persons and property from the dangers associated with the fireworks display.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with this fireworks event would be a safety concern for anyone on the Verdigris River between mile marker 444.0 and mile marker 444.5. Hazards from fireworks displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. This rule is needed to ensure the safety of life and vessels on the navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 1, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Verdigris River from mile marker 444.0 to mile marker 444.5 in the vicinity of Rogers Point Park in Catoosa, OK. The safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of waterway users on these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text 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 (E.O.) 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. E.O. 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 E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be prohibited from entering this safety zone, which will impact a small designated area of the Lower Mississippi River for 30 minutes during the evening of Saturday, July 1, 2017. This safety zone may end early if conditions allow, as determined by the COTP or a designated representative. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule will allow vessels to seek permission to enter the 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 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 the reasons stated in section V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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 E.O. 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 E.O. 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it will 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 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 rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit entry into the zone unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative lasting 30 minutes on one half mile of the Verdigris River located just downriver of the State Route 66 Bridge in Catoosa, OK. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60 of Appendix A of the Commandant Instruction. 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 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.

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 temporary § 165.T08-0514 to read as follows:
§ 165.T08-0514 Safety Zone; Verdigris River, Catoosa, OK.

(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of the Verdigris River from mile marker 444.0 to mile marker 444.5 in the vicinity of the left descending bank of the Verdigris River at mile marker 444.2, approximately 500 yards downriver of the State Route 66 bridge in Catoosa, OK at approximate position 36°12.8′ N., 095°43.0′ W.

(b) Effective date. The safety zone will be in effect from 9:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 1, 2017.

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Memphis (COTP) or a designated representative.

(2) Any vessel desiring to enter this safety zone must first obtain permission from the COPT or a designated representative, who may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or by telephone at 866-777-2784.

(d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of the enforcement periods for the safety zone.

Dated: June 13, 2017. T.J. Wendt, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Memphis, Tennessee.
[FR Doc. 2017-13428 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0323] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone: City of Benicia Independence Day Fireworks Display, Benicia, CA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of the Carquinez Strait near Benicia, CA, in support of the City of Benicia Independence Day Fireworks Display on July 4, 2017. This safety zone is established to ensure the safety of mariners and spectators from the dangers associated with the pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port or their designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective on July 4, 2017. This rule will be enforced from 8 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2017-0323. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to 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 rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Christina Ramirez, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone (415) 399-2001 or email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations APA Adminstrative Procedure Act COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register COTP Captain of the Port NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PATCOM Patrol Commander RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 TFR Temporary Final Rule II. Background Information and Regulatory History

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.”

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM. Publishing a NPRM would be impractical due to the date of the event.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For these same reasons, the Coast Guard finds good cause for implementing this rule less than thirty days before the effective date.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish safety zone.

The City of Benicia is sponsoring a fireworks display on July 4, 2017, in Benicia, CA, in approximate position 38°02′49″ N. 122°10′02″ W. (NAD 83) as depicted in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart 18652. During the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge and until the start of the fireworks display, the temporary safety zone applies to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet. From 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. on July 4, 2017, the fireworks barge will be loading at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA. The fireworks barge will remain at Pier 50 until the start of its transit to the display location. From 5:30 p.m. until 9 p.m. on July 4, 2017, the loaded fireworks barge will transit from Pier 50 to the launch site near Benicia, CA, in approximate position 38°02′49″ N. 122°10′02″ W. (NAD 83), where it will remain until the commencement of the fireworks display. Upon the commencement of the 20-minute fireworks display, at approximately 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2017, the safety zone will expand to encompass the navigable waters within 420 feet of approximate position 38°02′49″ N. 122°10′02″ W. (NAD 83). This restricted area around the fireworks barge is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated with pyrotechnics.

IV. Discussion of the Final Rule

The proposed safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around the barge near Benicia, CA. During the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge and until the start of the fireworks display, the temporary safety zone applies to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet. From 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. on July 4, 2017, the fireworks barge will be loading at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA. The fireworks barge will remain at Pier 50 until the start of its transit to the display location. From 5:30 p.m. until 9 p.m. on July 4, 2017, the loaded fireworks barge will transit from Pier 50 to the launch site near Benicia, CA, in approximate position 38°02′49″ N. 122°10′02″ W. (NAD 83), where it will remain until the commencement of the fireworks display. Upon the commencement of the 20-minute fireworks display, at approximately 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2017, the safety zone will expand to encompass the navigable waters within a radius of 420 feet of approximate position 38°02′49″ N. 122°10′02″ W. (NAD 83). The safety zone shall terminate at 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2017.

The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the launch site until the conclusion of the scheduled display. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep spectators and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the launch site to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.

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.

We expect the economic impact of this rule will not rise to the level of necessitating a full Regulatory Evaluation. The safety zone is limited in duration, and is limited to a narrowly tailored geographic area. In addition, although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Local Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.

B. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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.

This rule may affect owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for a limited duration. When the safety zone is activated, vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety zone. The maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone via Local Notice to Mariners.

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, above.

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 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 determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

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 (NEPA)(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 a safety zone of limited size and duration. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration for categorically excluded actions 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 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and 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-T11-849 to read as follows:
§ 165-T11-849 Safety Zone; City of Benicia Independence Day Fireworks Display, Benicia, CA.

(a) Location. This safety zone is established in the navigable waters of the Carquinez Strait near Benicia, CA, as depicted in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart 18652. During the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge and until the start of the fireworks display, the temporary safety zone applies to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet. From 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. on July 4, 2017, the fireworks barge will be loading at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA. The fireworks barge will remain at Pier 50 until the start of its transit to the display location. From 5:30 p.m. until 9 p.m. on July 4, 2017, the loaded fireworks barge will transit from Pier 50 to the launch site near Benicia, CA, in approximate position 38°02′49″ N. 122°10′02″ W. (NAD 83), where it will remain until the commencement of the fireworks display. Upon the commencement of the 20-minute fireworks display, at approximately 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2017, the safety zone will expand to encompass the navigable waters within 420 feet of approximate position 38°02′49″ N. 122°10′02″ W. (NAD 83).

(b) Enforcement period. The safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section will be enforced from 8 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2017. The Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) will notify the maritime community of periods during which this zone will be enforced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7.

(c) Definitions. As used in this section, “designated representative” means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer on a Coast Guard vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated to assist in the enforcement of the safety zone.

(d) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in 33 CFR part 165, subpart C, entry into, transiting or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative.

(2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.

(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the safety zone may contact the Patrol Commander (PATCOM) on VHF-23A or through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone (415) 399-3547.

Dated: May 25, 2017. Anthony J. Ceraolo, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2017-13430 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0260] Safety Zone; Oakmont Yacht Club/Oakmont Yacht Club Fireworks, Allegheny River, Miles 12.0 to 12.5, Oakmont, PA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce the subject safety zone for the Oakmont Yacht Club/Oakmont Yacht Club Fireworks on the Allegheny River on July 22, 2017, to provide for the safety of persons and vessels on navigable waters during the fireworks display. Our regulation for Recurring Safety Zones in Captain of the Port Ohio Valley Zone identifies the regulated area for this regatta. During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or anchoring in the safety zone is prohibited to all vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative.

DATES:

The regulations in the first table in 33 CFR 165.801, No. 46 will be enforced from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 22, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email MST1 Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 412-221-0807, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zone for the annual Oakmont Yacht Club/Oakmont Yacht Club Fireworks listed in the regulations in the first table in 33 CFR 165.801, No. 46 from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 22, 2017. Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage through the safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.

This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.801 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of these enforcement periods via Local Notice to Mariners and updates via Marine Information Broadcasts.

Dated: June 19, 2017. L. McClain, Jr., Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 2017-13398 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0397] Safety Zone; Southern California Annual Firework Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones for the Big Bay Boom Fourth of July Fireworks on the waters of San Diego Bay, CA on Tuesday, July 4, 2017. The safety zones are necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, spectators, official vessels of the event, and general users of the waterway. Our regulation for the Southern California Annual Firework Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated areas for this event. During the enforcement period, no spectators shall anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of official patrol vessels in the regulated areas without the approval of the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.

DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1123 will be enforced from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2017, for Item 5 in Table 1 of Section 165.1123.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this publication, call or email Lieutenant Robert Cole, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone 619-278-7656, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the regulations in 33 CFR 165.1123 for safety zones on the waters of San Diego Bay, CA for the Big Bay Boom Fourth of July Fireworks in 33 CFR 165.1123, Table 1, Item 5 of that section, from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2017. This enforcement action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks event. Our regulation for Southern California Annual Firework Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated areas for the this event. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1123, a vessel may not enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission from the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or Local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1123 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and local advertising by the event sponsor.

If the Captain of the Port or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

Dated: June 12, 2017. E.M. Cooper, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Acting Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2017-13429 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0375] Safety Zone; Southern California Annual Fireworks for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Coronado Glorietta Bay Fourth of July Fireworks on the waters of Glorietta Bay, CA on Tuesday, July 4, 2017. The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, spectators, official vessels of the event, and general users of the waterway. Our regulation for the Southern California Annual Firework Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated area for this event. During the enforcement period, no spectators shall anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of official patrol vessels in the regulated area without the approval of the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.

DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1123 will be enforced from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2017, for Item 3 in Table 1 of Section 165.1123.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this publication, call or email Lieutenant Robert Cole, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone 619-278-7656, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the regulations in 33 CFR 165.1123 for a safety zone on the waters of Glorietta Bay, CA for the Coronado Glorietta Bay Fourth of July Fireworks in 33 CFR 165.1123, Table 1, Item 3 of that section, from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2017. This enforcement action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks event. Our regulation for Southern California Annual Firework Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated area for the this event. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1123, a vessel may not enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission from the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or Local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1123 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and local advertising by the event sponsor.

If the Captain of the Port or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

Dated: June 10, 2017. E.M. Cooper, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2017-13431 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 36 CFR Part 701 [Docket No. LOC 2017-1] Library of Congress License Agreements AGENCY:

Library of Congress.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Library of Congress is issuing this final rule regarding license agreements and similar agreements and instruments entered into by it. The rule will prevent the Library from potentially violating the Anti-Deficiency Act and other restrictions under Federal law, preserve the Library's rights under copyright law in regard to electronic resources and software, and streamline the Library's contracting and collections acquisitions processes for these electronic resources and software.

DATES:

Effective June 27, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Pugh, General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Library of Congress, Washington, DC 20540-1050. Telephone No. (202) 707-6316.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Librarian of Congress is authorized to make regulations with respect to the Library of Congress (2 U.S.C. 136). Since neither the Federal Register Act nor the Administrative Procedure Act has binding effect on the legislative branch, the Library of Congress is not required to publish its regulations in the CFR. However, as the purpose of the CFR is to notify industry, general business, and the people (Toledo, P. & W.R.R. v. Stover, 60 F. Supp. 587 (S.D. Ill. 1945)), it is appropriate for the Library to publish those regulations which affect the rights and responsibilities of, and restrictions on, the public. Further, 1 CFR 5.3 allows documents “in the public interest” to be published in the Federal Register even if they are not required to be published under the Federal Register Act and 1 CFR 5.2.

The regulation governs license agreements and similar agreements and instruments entered into by the Library of Congress. The regulation establishes terms for these agreements intended to prevent the Library from incurring obligations that would potentially violate the Anti-Deficiency Act and other restrictions imposed by Federal law, to preserve the Library's rights under U.S., foreign, and international copyright law, and to protect the Library's ability to make use of computer software and other materials it licenses. In addition, this regulation is intended to streamline the contracting and collections acquisitions processes for the Library and for licensors by enabling the Library to avoid the need to negotiate specific terms addressing these matters in each license agreement into which it enters.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 701

Libraries, Government contracts, Government procurement.

Final Regulation

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Library of Congress amends 36 CFR part 701 as follows:

PART 701—PROCEDURES AND SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 701 continues to read: Authority:

2 U.S.C. 136; 18 U.S.C. 1017.

2. Add § 701.7 to read as follows:
§ 701.7 Certain terms in license agreements.

(a) Definitions. (1) Computer software has the meaning provided in 48 CFR 2.101.

(2) License agreement means any license agreement, subscription agreement, end user license agreement (EULA), terms of service (TOS), or similar legal instrument or agreement.

(b) Purpose. The purpose of this part is to accommodate the Library of Congress' legal status as a Federal agency of the United States and assure that the Library of Congress, when entering into license agreements, follows applicable Federal laws and regulations, including those related to fiscal law constraints, governing law, venue, and legal representation; to preserve the Library's rights under U.S., foreign, and international copyright law; and to preserve the Library's ability to make use of computer software and other materials it licenses.

(c) Applicability. (1) The clauses set forth in paragraph (d) of this section are deemed to be inserted into each license agreement to which the Library of Congress is a party with the same force and effect as if set forth therein, notwithstanding any provision thereof to the contrary. In addition, the clauses in paragraph (e) of this section are deemed to be inserted into each license agreement to which the Library of Congress is a party, other than license agreements for the license of computer software to the Library of Congress, with the same force and effect as if set forth therein, notwithstanding any provision thereof to the contrary. If any term of a license agreement (at the time the license agreement is executed or as it may be amended in the future) conflicts with or imposes any additional obligations on the Library of Congress with respect to a matter addressed by any of the clauses that are deemed to have been inserted into the license agreement as described above, the following shall apply:

(i) Such term is unenforceable against the Library of Congress unless otherwise expressly authorized by Federal law and specifically authorized under applicable Library of Congress regulations and procedures;

(ii) Neither the Library of Congress nor its employees shall be deemed to have agreed to such term by virtue of the term appearing in any license agreement;

(iii) Such term is stricken from the license agreement; and

(iv) The terms of the clauses of this section incorporated in the license agreement shall control.

(2) The Library of Congress is not bound by a license agreement unless it is entered into on behalf of the Library of Congress by a person having the authority to contract referred to in § 701.4.

(3) The Library of Congress is bound only by terms that are in writing and included in license agreements (including hard copy and electronic license agreements) entered into on behalf of the Library of Congress by a person having the authority to contract referred to in § 701.4.

(4) If any provisions are invoked through an “I agree” click box or other comparable mechanism (e.g., “click-wrap” or “browse-wrap” agreements), such provisions do not bind the Library of Congress or any Library of Congress authorized end user to such provisions, unless agreed to on behalf of the Library of Congress by a person having the authority to contract referred to in § 701.4.

(d) Provisions applicable to all license agreements. The following clauses are deemed to be inserted into each license agreement to which the Library of Congress is a party:

Unauthorized Obligations

The Library of Congress shall not be bound by any provision that may or will cause the Library of Congress or its employees to make or authorize an expenditure from, or create or authorize an obligation under, any appropriation or fund in excess of the amount available in the appropriation or fund, that would create an Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341) violation. Such provisions include, for example, automatic renewal of the agreement, penalty payments by the Library of Congress, indemnification by the Library of Congress, and payment by the Library of Congress of taxes or surcharges not specifically included in the price for the license.

Liability

The liability of the Library of Congress and its obligations resulting from any breach of this agreement, or any claim arising from this agreement, shall be determined exclusively under 28 U.S.C. 1346, 28 U.S.C. 1491, or other governing Federal authority.

Representation

The conduct of, and representation of the Library of Congress in, any litigation in which the Library of Congress is a party, or is interested, are reserved exclusively to the United States Department of Justice as provided for in 28 U.S.C. 516.

Governing Law

This agreement shall be governed for all purposes by and construed in accordance with the Federal laws of the United States of America.

Venue

Venue for any claim under this agreement shall lie exclusively in the Federal courts of the United States, as provided in 28 U.S.C. 1346 and 28 U.S.C. 1491. Any action commenced in a State court that is against or directed to the Library of Congress may be removed by the United States Government to Federal district court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1442.

Dispute Resolution

The Library of Congress does not agree to submit to any form of binding alternative dispute resolution, including, without limitation, arbitration.

Order of Precedence

Notwithstanding any provision of this agreement (including any addendum, schedule, appendix, exhibit, or other attachment to or order issued under this agreement), in the event of any conflict between the provisions of this agreement and the provisions of the clauses incorporated into this agreement pursuant to 36 CFR 701.7, the provisions of the clauses incorporated pursuant to 36 CFR 701.7 shall control.

Commercial Computer Software

As used in this clause, “commercial computer software” has the meaning provided in 48 CFR 2.101.

The provisions of the clause regarding the license of commercial computer software set forth in 48 CFR 52.227-19 are incorporated into this agreement with the same force and effect as if set forth herein, with all necessary changes deemed to have been made, such as replacing references to the Government with references to the Library of Congress.

(e) Additional provisions applicable to license agreements other than for license of computer software. In addition to the clauses deemed to be incorporated into license agreements pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, the following clauses are deemed to be inserted into each license agreement to which the Library of Congress is a party, other than for the license of computer software to the Library of Congress:

Unauthorized Uses

The Library of Congress shall not be liable for any unauthorized uses of materials licensed by the Library of Congress under this agreement by Library of Congress patrons or by unauthorized users of such materials, and any such unauthorized use shall not be deemed a material breach of this agreement.

Rights Under Copyright Law

The Library of Congress does not agree to any limitations on its rights (e.g., fair use, reproduction, interlibrary loan, and archiving) under the copyright laws of the United States (17 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), and related intellectual property rights under foreign law, international law, treaties, conventions, and other international agreements.

Dated: June 20, 2017.

Approved by:

Carla D. Hayden, Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 2017-13342 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-10-P
POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 20 International Mail Manual; Incorporation by Reference AGENCY:

Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Postal Service announces the issuance of the Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, International Mail Manual (IMM®) dated January 22, 2017, and its incorporation by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on June 27, 2017. The incorporation by reference of the IMM is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 27, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lizbeth Dobbins, (202) 268-3789.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The International Mail Manual was issued on January 22, 2017, and was updated with Postal Bulletin revisions through January 5, 2017. It replaced all previous editions. The IMM continues to enable the Postal Service to fulfill its long-standing mission of providing affordable, universal mail service. It continues to: (1) Increase the user's ability to find information; (2) increase the user's confidence that they have found the information they need; and (3) reduce the need to consult multiple sources to locate necessary information. The provisions throughout this issue support the standards and mail preparation changes implemented since the version of July 11, 2016. The International Mail Manual is available to the public on the Postal Explorer® Internet site at http://pe.usps.com.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 20

Foreign relations; Incorporation by reference.

In view of the considerations discussed above, the Postal Service hereby amends 39 CFR part 20 as follows:

PART 20—INTERNATIONAL POSTAL SERVICE 1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 407, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.

2. Amend § 20.1 by revising paragraph (a), adding a heading to the table in paragraph (b), and adding an entry at the end of the table to read as follows:
§ 20.1 International Mail Manual; incorporation by reference.

(a) Section 552(a) of title 5, U.S.C., relating to the public information requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, provides in pertinent part that matter reasonably available to the class of persons affected thereby is deemed published in the Federal Register when incorporated by reference therein with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register. In conformity with that provision and 39 U.S.C. 410(b)(1), and as provided in this part, the Postal Service hereby incorporates by reference its International Mail Manual (IMM), issued January 22, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(b) * * *

Table 1 to Paragraph (b) International mail manual Date of issuance *     *     *     * IMM January 22, 2017.
3. Revise § 20.2 to read as follows:
§ 20.2 Effective date of the International Mail Manual.

The provisions of the International Mail Manual issued January 22, 2017, are applicable with respect to the international mail services of the Postal Service.

Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-13356 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0604; FRL-9963-88-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; VT; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from Vermont regarding the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 1997 fine particle matter (PM2.5), 1997 ozone, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 lead (Pb), 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). We also are approving two statutes and one Executive Order submitted by Vermont in support of its demonstration that the infrastructure requirements of the CAA have been met. In addition, we are conditionally approving certain elements of Vermont's submittals relating to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements. Last, we are updating the priority classification for two of Vermont's air quality control regions for SO2 based on recent air quality monitoring data collected by the state, which means that a contingency plan for SO2 is not required. The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA. This action is being taken in accordance with the CAA.

DATES:

This rule is effective on July 27, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0604. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3912; (617) 918-1684; [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose II. Final Action III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background and Purpose

On March 30, 2017 (82 FR 15671), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Vermont. The NPR proposed approval of infrastructure SIP submissions from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC) for the 1997 PM2.5,1 1997 ozone, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The state submitted these infrastructure SIPs on the following dates: 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS—February 18, 2009; 1997 ozone NAAQS—February 18, 2009; 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS—May 21, 2010; 2008 Pb NAAQS—July 29, 2014; 2008 ozone NAAQS—November 2, 2015; 2010 NO2 NAAQS—November 2, 2015; and 2010 SO2 NAAQS—November 2, 2015.

1 PM2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less in diameter, often referred to as “fine” particles.

EPA's NPR also proposed approval of two statutes and one Executive Order submitted by Vermont in support of its demonstration that the infrastructure requirements of the CAA have been met. In addition, the NPR proposed conditional approval of certain elements of Vermont's submittals relating to PSD requirements. Finally, EPA's NPR proposed to update the classification for two of Vermont's air quality control regions for SO2 to Priority III, based on recent air quality monitoring data collected by the state.

Other specific requirements of infrastructure SIPs and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. One public comment was received on the NPR. However, the commenter did not mention anything specific in the NPR that we should change or provide a clear explanation based on the CAA why we should proceed any differently than as proposed. For this reason, EPA need not provide any further response. The comment is provided in the docket for this final rulemaking action.

II. Final Action

EPA is approving SIP submissions from Vermont certifying that the state's current SIP is sufficient to meet the required infrastructure elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 PM2.5, 1997 ozone, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, with the exception of certain aspects relating to the state's PSD program which we are conditionally approving. A summary of EPA's actions regarding these infrastructure SIP requirements is contained in Table 1 below.

Table 1—Action Taken on VT Infrastructure SIP Submittals for Listed NAAQS Element 1997 PM2.5 and
  • 1997 Ozone
  • 2006 PM2.5 2008 Pb 2008 Ozone 2010 NO2 2010 SO2
    (A): Emission limits and other control measures A A A A A A (B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system A A A A A A (C)1: Enforcement of SIP measures A A A A A A (C)2: PSD program for major sources and major modifications * A * A * A * A * A * A (C)3: PSD program for minor sources and minor modifications A A A A A A (D)1: Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with maintenance of NAAQS PA1 PA1 A PA2 A NT (D)2: PSD * A * A * A * A * A * A (D)3: Visibility Protection A A A A A A (D)4: Interstate Pollution Abatement A A A A A A (D)5: International Pollution Abatement A A A A A A (E)1: Adequate resources A A A A A A (E)2: State boards A A A A A A (E)3: Necessary assurances with respect to local agencies NA NA NA NA NA NA (F): Stationary source monitoring system A A A A A A (G): Emergency power A A A A A A (H): Future SIP revisions A A A A A A (I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under part D + + + + + + (J)1: Consultation with government officials A A A A A A (J)2: Public notification A A A A A A (J)3: PSD * A * A * A * A * A * A (J)4: Visibility protection + + + + + + (K): Air quality modeling and data A A A A A A (L): Permitting fees A A A A A A (M): Consultation and participation by affected local entities A A A A A A

    In the above table, the key is as follows:

    A Approve A * Conditionally approve + Not germane to infrastructure SIPs NA Not applicable NT Not taking action at this time PA1 Previously approved (04/10/2017; 82 FR 17124) PA2 Previously approved (10/13/2016; 81 FR 70631)

    As noted in Table 1, we are conditionally approving portions of Vermont's infrastructure SIP submittals pertaining to PSD-related elements (C)(2), (D)(2), and (J)(3). In addition, EPA is removing the following provisions from Title 40 of the CFR: §§ 52.2373, 52.2374(a), and 52.2382(a)(1), (2), (4), and (5), for reasons discussed in the NPR. Although the NPR also proposed removal of 40 CFR 52.2374(b), we are not taking final action with respect to that paragraph today.

    EPA is also approving and incorporating into the Vermont SIP one statute, 10 V.S.A. section 554, “Powers,” that was included in Vermont's November 2015 infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. We are also approving and incorporating in the Vermont SIP one statute, 10 V.S.A. section 563, “Confidential records; penalty,” and an Executive Order, 09-11 “Executive Code of Ethics,” which were included in a November 21, 2016 supplemental letter to the Vermont infrastructure SIP submissions; this letter is included in the docket for this action.

    Last, we are updating the classification at 40 CFR 52.2371 for the Champlain Valley Interstate and Vermont Intrastate air quality control regions for sulfur dioxide to Priority III, based on recent air quality monitoring data collected by the state, which, by operation of 40 CFR 51.152(c), relieves Vermont of the requirement to have a contingency plan for sulfur dioxide.

    As noted above, EPA is conditionally approving aspects of Vermont's SIP revision submittals pertaining to the state's PSD program. The outstanding issues with the PSD program concern the lack of SIP-approved requirements (1) to include NOX and VOC as precursor pollutants to ozone in defining a “significant” increase in actual emissions from a source of air contaminants, and (2) that define a method for determining the amount of PSD increments available to a new or modified major source.

    On May 23, 2017, Vermont submitted to EPA a SIP submittal intended to address the above mentioned deficiency in the state's PSD program. EPA will evaluate this submittal in a separate action, and the conditionally approved submission will remain a part of the SIP until EPA takes final action approving or disapproving it. If EPA disapproves the submittal, the conditionally approved aspect or aspects of Vermont's PSD program will also be disapproved at that time. If EPA approves the revised PSD program submittal, then the portions of Vermont's infrastructure SIP submittals that were conditionally approved will be fully approved in their entirety and replace the conditional approval in the SIP. In addition, final disapproval of an infrastructure SIP submittal triggers the Federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c).

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of two Vermont statutes and one Vermont Executive Order as 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 through http://www.regulations.gov.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, the SIP 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 and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

    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 28, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 31, 2017. Deborah A. Szaro, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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.

    Subpart UU—Vermont 2. In § 52.2370: a. The table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding the heading entitled “Statutes and Executive Orders” and the entries “10 V.S.A. section 554 of the Vermont Statutes”, “10 V.S.A. section 563 of the Vermont Statutes”, and “Vermont Executive Order 09-11” at the end of the table. b. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entries “Infrastructure SIP for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS”, “Infrastructure SIP for 1997 ozone NAAQS”, “Infrastructure SIP for 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS”, “Infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Lead NAAQS”, “Infrastructure SIP for 2008 ozone NAAQS “, “Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS”, and “Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS” at the end of the table.

    The additions read as follows:

    § 52.2370 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Vermont Regulations State citation Title/subject State
  • effective date
  • EPA approval date Explanations
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Statutes and Executive Orders 10 V.S.A. section 554 of the Vermont Statutes Powers 11/02/2015 6/27/2017, [insert Federal Register citation] Provides the Secretary of ANR with power to adopt, amend and repeal rules, implementing provisions of 10 VSA Chapter 23, Air Pollution Control. 10 V.S.A. section 563 of the Vermont Statutes Confidential records; penalty 11/21/2016 6/27/2017, [insert Federal Register citation] Confidential records furnished to or obtained by the secretary concerning air contaminant sources are for confidential use of the secretary, with penalties for violation. Vermont Executive Order 09-11 Executive Code of Ethics 11/21/2016 6/27/2017, [insert Federal Register citation] Prohibits VT Executive Branch appointees from taking any action in any particular matter in which he or she has either a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest, until such time as the conflict is resolved.

    (e) * * *

    Vermont Non-Regulatory Name of non-regulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal date/effective date EPA approval date Explanations *         *         *         *         *         *         * Infrastructure SIP for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS Statewide 02/18/2009 6/27/2017, [insert Federal Register citation] Approved submittal, except for certain aspects relating to PSD which were conditionally approved. Infrastructure SIP for 1997 ozone NAAQS Statewide 02/18/2009 6/27/2017, [insert Federal Register citation] Approved submittal, except for certain aspects relating to PSD which were conditionally approved. Infrastructure SIP for 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Statewide 05/21/2010 6/27/2017, [insert Federal Register citation] Approved submittal, except for certain aspects relating to PSD which were conditionally approved. Infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Lead NAAQS Statewide 07/29/2014 6/27/2017, [insert Federal Register citation] Approved submittal, except for certain aspects relating to PSD which were conditionally approved. Infrastructure SIP for 2008 ozone NAAQS Statewide 11/02/2015 6/27/2017, [insert Federal Register citation] Approved submittal, except for certain aspects relating to PSD which were conditionally approved. Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS Statewide 11/02/2015 6/27/2017, [insert Federal Register citation] Approved submittal, except for certain aspects relating to PSD which were conditionally approved. Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS Statewide 11/02/2015 6/27/2017, [insert Federal Register citation] Approved submittal, except for certain aspects relating to PSD which were conditionally approved.
    3. In § 52.2371, revise the table to read as follows:
    § 52.2371 Classification of regions. Air quality control region Pollutant Particulate
  • matter
  • Sulfur
  • oxides
  • Nitrogen
  • dioxide
  • Carbon
  • monoxide
  • Ozone
    Champlain Valley Interstate II III III III III Vermont Intrastate II III III III III
    § 52.2373 [Removed and Reserved]
    4. Section 52.2373 is removed and reserved.
    § 52.2374 [Amended]
    5. Section 52.2374 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (a). 6. Section 52.2376 is added to read as follows:
    § 52.2376 Identification of plan-conditional approvals.

    (a) Conditional approvals. (1) 1997 fine particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on February 18, 2009, is conditionally approved for Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) only as it relates to the aspect of the PSD program pertaining to adding NOX and VOC as precursor pollutants to ozone in defining a “significant” increase in actual emissions from a source of air contaminants, and defining a method for determining the amount of PSD increments available to a new or modified major source. On November 21, 2016, the State of Vermont supplemented this submittal with a commitment to address these requirements for PSD.

    (2) 1997 Ozone (NAAQS): The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on February 18, 2009, is conditionally approved for Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) only as it relates to the aspect of the PSD program pertaining to adding NOX and VOC as precursor pollutants to ozone in defining a “significant” increase in actual emissions from a source of air contaminants, and defining a method for determining the amount of PSD increments available to a new or modified major source. On November 21, 2016, the State of Vermont supplemented this submittal with a commitment to address these requirements for PSD.

    (3) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on May 21, 2010, is conditionally approved for Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) only as it relates to the aspect of the PSD program pertaining to adding NOX and VOC as precursor pollutants to ozone in defining a “significant” increase in actual emissions from a source of air contaminants, and defining a method for determining the amount of PSD increments available to a new or modified major source. On November 21, 2016, the State of Vermont supplemented this submittal with a commitment to address these requirements for PSD.

    (4) 2008 Lead NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on July 29, 2014, is conditionally approved for Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) only as it relates to the aspect of the PSD program pertaining to adding NOX and VOC as precursor pollutants to ozone in defining a “significant” increase in actual emissions from a source of air contaminants, and defining a method for determining the amount of PSD increments available to a new or modified major source. On November 21, 2016, the State of Vermont supplemented this submittal with a commitment to address these requirements for PSD.

    (5) 2008 Ozone NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on November 2, 2015, is conditionally approved for Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) only as it relates to the aspect of the PSD program pertaining to adding NOX and VOC as precursor pollutants to ozone in defining a “significant” increase in actual emissions from a source of air contaminants, and defining a method for determining the amount of PSD increments available to a new or modified major source. On November 21, 2016, the State of Vermont supplemented this submittal with a commitment to address these requirements for PSD.

    (6) 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on November 2, 2015, is conditionally approved for Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) only as it relates to the aspect of the PSD program pertaining to adding NOX and VOC as precursor pollutants to ozone in defining a “significant” increase in actual emissions from a source of air contaminants, and defining a method for determining the amount of PSD increments available to a new or modified major source. On November 21, 2016, the State of Vermont supplemented this submittal with a commitment to address these requirements for PSD.

    (7) 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on November 2, 2015, is conditionally approved for Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) only as it relates to the aspect of the PSD program pertaining to adding NOX and VOC as precursor pollutants to ozone in defining a “significant” increase in actual emissions from a source of air contaminants, and defining a method for determining the amount of PSD increments available to a new or modified major source. On November 21, 2016, the State of Vermont supplemented this submittal with a commitment to address these requirements for PSD.

    (b) [Reserved]

    § 52.2382 [Amended]
    7. In § 52.2382: a. Remove paragraphs (a)(1), (2), (4), and (5). b. Redesignate paragraph (a)(3) as paragraph (a)(1). c. Add reserved paragraph (a)(2).
    [FR Doc. 2017-13055 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 578 [Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0136] RIN 2127-AL82 Civil Penalties AGENCY:

    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final rule; delay of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to notices published on January 30, 2017 and March 28, 2017, the effective date of the rule entitled “Civil Penalties,” published in the Federal Register on December 28, 2016, at 81 FR 95489, was temporarily delayed until June 26, 2017 (82 FR 8694; 82 FR 15302). This action temporarily delays the effective date of that rule for 14 additional days.

    DATES:

    As of June 23, 2017, the effective date of the rule amending 49 CFR part 578 published at 81 FR 95489, December 28, 2016, delayed at 82 FR 8694, January 30, 2017, further delayed at 82 FR 15302, March 28, 2017, is further delayed until July 10, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Kuppersmith, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-5263.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to notices published on January 30, 2017 and March 28, 2017, the effective date of the rule entitled “Civil Penalties,” published in the Federal Register on December 28, 2016, at 81 FR 95489, was temporarily delayed until June 26, 2017 (82 FR 8694; 82 FR 15302). The present action temporarily delays the effective date of that rule for 14 additional days. That rule responded to a petition for reconsideration from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of Global Automakers by delaying, until model year 2019, the implementation of inflationary adjustments to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) civil penalty rate made pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. The additional 14-day delay in effective date is necessary to temporarily preserve the status quo while Department officials continue to review and consider the final rule and related laws. To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 is applicable, this action is exempt from notice and comment because it constitutes a rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A).

    Authority:

    Pub. L. 101-410, Pub. L. 104-134, Pub. L. 109-59, Pub. L. 114-74, Pub L. 114-94, 49 U.S.C. 32902 and 32912; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.81, 1.95.

    Jack Danielson, Acting Deputy Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13315 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 217 RIN 0648-BG50 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fireworks Displays at Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary; Correction AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains corrections to the DATES section and the preamble to the final regulations published on June 15, 2017, that establish a framework for authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to the commercial fireworks displays in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary for a five-year period, 2017-2022. This action is necessary to correct an error in the effective dates of the final regulations.

    DATES:

    Effective from June 29, 2017, through June 28, 2022.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Laura McCue, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    NMFS published a final rule on June 15, 2017 (82 FR 27434) to establish a framework for authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to the commercial fireworks displays at the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (Sanctuary) for a five-year period, 2017-2022. NMFS refers the reader to the June 15, 2017, Federal Register notice (82 FR 27434) for background information concerning the final regulations. The information in the notice of final rulemaking is not repeated here.

    Need for Correction

    As published, the DATES section, the preamble to the final regulations, and the regulatory text incorrectly specified the dates of validity for the regulations. We hereby correct those errors; the only changes are to the dates of validity for the regulations.

    1. On page 27434, in the third column, the DATES section is corrected to read as follows:

    DATES: Effective from June 29, 2017, through June 28, 2022.

    2. On page 27434, in the third column, under the heading, “Purpose and Need for this Regulatory Action,” the last sentence is corrected to read as follows:

    “The regulations implemented by this final rule are valid from June 29, 2017, through June 28, 2022.”

    3. On page 27435, in the third column, under the heading, “Summary of Request,” the last sentence is corrected to read as follows:

    “The instant regulations are valid for five years from June 29, 2017, through June 28, 2022.”

    4. On page 27436, in the first column, under the heading, “”Dates and Duration,” the first sentence is corrected to read as follows:

    “The specified activity may occur from July 1 through February 28, annually, for the effective period of the regulations (June 29, 2017 through June 28, 2022).”

    5. On page 27442, in the first column, the next to the last sentence is corrected and the last sentence is removed. The corrected sentence reads as follows:

    “Finally, the MBNMS has informed NMFS that it does not require 30 days to prepare for implementation of the regulations and requests that this final rule take effect on or before June 29, 2017.”

    6. On page 27442, in the second column, § 217.12 is corrected to read as follows:
    § 217.12 [Corrected]

    Regulations in this subpart are effective from June 29, 2017, through June 28, 2022.

    Dated: June 20, 2017. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13249 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 635 [Docket No. 120627194-3657-02] RIN 0648-XF416 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; North Atlantic Swordfish Fishery AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; Swordfish General Commercial permit retention limit inseason adjustment for the Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean regions.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is adjusting the Swordfish (SWO) General Commercial permit retention limits for the Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean regions for July through December of the 2017 fishing year, unless otherwise later noticed. The SWO General Commercial permit retention limit in each of these regions is increased from the regulatory default limits (either two or three fish) to six swordfish per vessel per trip. The SWO General Commercial permit retention limit in the Florida SWO Management Area will remain unchanged at the default limit of zero swordfish per vessel per trip. These adjustments apply to SWO General Commercial permitted vessels and Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Charter/Headboat permitted vessels when on a non-for-hire trip. This action is based upon consideration of the applicable inseason regional retention limit adjustment criteria.

    DATES:

    The adjusted SWO General Commercial permit retention limits in the Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean regions are effective from July 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Pearson or Randy Blankinship, 727-824-5399.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) governing the harvest of North Atlantic swordfish by persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27 subdivides the U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota recommended by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and implemented by the United States into two equal semi-annual directed fishery quotas, an annual incidental catch quota for fishermen targeting other species or catching swordfish recreationally, and a reserve category, according to the allocations established in the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (2006 Consolidated HMS FMP) (71 FR 58058, October 2, 2006), as amended, and in accordance with implementing regulations. NMFS is required under ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide U.S. fishing vessels with a reasonable opportunity to harvest the ICCAT-recommended quota.

    ICCAT Recommendation 13-02 set the North Atlantic swordfish total allowable catch (TAC) at 10,301 metric tons (mt) dressed weight (dw) (13,700 mt whole weight (ww)) through 2016. Of this TAC, the United States' baseline quota is 2,937.6 mt dw (3,907 mt ww) per year. The Recommendation also included an 18.8 mt dw (25 mt ww) annual quota transfer from the United States to Mauritania and limited underharvest carryover to 15 percent of a contracting party's baseline quota. Thus, the United States could carry over a maximum of 440.6 mt dw (586.0 mt ww) of underharvest. A new Recommendation was adopted at the 2016 ICCAT annual meeting, maintaining the provisions related to quota, the transfer to Mauritania, and the carryover limit. Absent adjustments, the codified baseline quota is 2,937 mt dw for the directed fishery in 2017, split equally (1,468.5 mt dw) between two semi-annual periods in 2017 (January through June, and July through December). We anticipate, however, that the 2017 adjusted North Atlantic swordfish quota will be 3,359.4 mt dw (equivalent to the 2016 adjusted quota) when we adjust the quota. At this time, given the extent of underharvest in 2016, we anticipate again carrying over the maximum allowable 15 percent (440.6 mt dw) which, with the Mauritania transfer, would result in a final adjusted North Atlantic swordfish quota for the 2017 fishing year equal to that from last year 3,359.4 mt dw (2,937.6−18.8 + 440.6 = 3,359.4 mt dw). Also as in past years, we anticipate allocating from the adjusted quota, 50 mt dw to the Reserve category for inseason adjustments and research, and 300 mt dw to the incidental category, which includes recreational landings and landings by incidental swordfish permit holders, per § 635.27(c)(1)(i). This would result in an allocation of 3,009.4 mt dw for the directed fishery, which would be split equally (1,504.7 mt dw) between two semi-annual periods in 2017 (January through June, and July through December).

    Adjustment of SWO General Commercial Permit Vessel Retention Limits

    The 2017 North Atlantic swordfish fishing year, which is managed on a calendar-year basis and divided into two equal semi-annual quotas, began on January 1, 2017. Landings attributable to the SWO General Commercial permit are counted against the applicable semi-annual directed fishery quota. Regional default retention limits for this permit have been established and are automatically effective from January 1 through December 31 each year, unless changed based on the inseason regional retention limit adjustment criteria at § 635.24(b)(4)(iv). The default retention limits established for the SWO General Commercial permit are: (1) Northwest Atlantic region—three swordfish per vessel per trip; (2) Gulf of Mexico region—three swordfish per vessel per trip; (3) U.S. Caribbean region—two swordfish per vessel per trip; and, (4) Florida SWO Management Area—zero swordfish per vessel per trip. The default retention limits apply to SWO General Commercial permitted vessels and to HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels when fishing on non for-hire trips. As a condition of these permits, vessels may not possess, retain, or land any more swordfish than is specified for the region in which the vessel is located.

    Under § 635.24(b)(4)(iii), NMFS may increase or decrease the SWO General Commercial permit vessel retention limit in any region within a range from zero to a maximum of six swordfish per vessel per trip. Any adjustments to the retention limits must be based upon a consideration of the relevant criteria provided in § 635.24(b)(4)(iv), which include: The usefulness of information obtained from biological sampling and monitoring of the North Atlantic swordfish stock; the estimated ability of vessels participating in the fishery to land the amount of swordfish quota available before the end of the fishing year; the estimated amounts by which quotas for other categories of the fishery might be exceeded; effects of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of the fishery management plan and its amendments; variations in seasonal distribution, abundance, or migration patterns of swordfish; effects of catch rates in one region precluding vessels in another region from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the overall swordfish quota; and, review of dealer reports, landing trends, and the availability of swordfish on the fishing grounds.

    Based upon these criteria, NMFS determined on December 19, 2016, (81 FR 91876) that the SWO General Commercial permit vessel retention limits in the Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean regions applicable to persons issued a SWO General Commercial permit or HMS Charter/Headboat permit (when on a non for-hire trip) should be increased from the default levels that would have otherwise automatically become effective on January 1, 2017, to six swordfish per vessel per trip for the period January 1-June 30, 2017.

    NMFS has again considered these criteria as discussed below and their applicability to the SWO General Commercial permit retention limit in all regions for July through December of the 2017 North Atlantic swordfish fishing year, and has determined that the SWO General Commercial permit vessel retention limits in the Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean regions applicable to persons issued a SWO General Commercial permit or HMS Charter/Headboat permit (when on a non for-hire trip) should be increased from the default levels that would otherwise automatically become effective on July 1, 2017, to six swordfish per vessel per trip from July 1 through December 31, 2017, unless otherwise later noticed.

    Among the regulatory criteria for inseason adjustments to retention limits, and given the rebuilt status of the stock and availability of quota, is the requirement that NMFS consider the “effects of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of the fishery management plan and its amendments.” One consideration in deciding whether to increase the retention limit, in this case, is the objective of providing opportunities to harvest the full North Atlantic directed swordfish quota without exceeding it based upon the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP goal to, consistent with other objectives of this FMP, “manage Atlantic HMS fisheries for continuing optimum yield so as to provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production, providing recreational opportunities, preserving traditional fisheries, and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems.” Another consideration, consistent with the FMP and its amendments, is to continue to provide protection to important swordfish juvenile areas and migratory corridors.

    The regulatory criteria also require NMFS to consider the estimated ability of vessels participating in the fishery to land the amount of swordfish quota available before the end of the fishing year. In considering these criteria and their application here, NMFS examined electronic dealer reports, which provide accurate and timely monitoring of landings, and considered recent landing trends and information obtained from biological sampling and monitoring of the North Atlantic swordfish stock. A six swordfish per vessel per trip limit for SWO General Commercial permit holders was in effect in the Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean regions for the entire 2016 fishing season as a result of actions adjusting those limits upwards in January and July (80 FR 81770 and 81 FR 38966). Even with these higher retention limits, 2016 total annual directed swordfish landings through December 31, 2016, were approximately 1,079.0 mt dw, or 32.6 percent of the 3,009.4 mt dw annual adjusted directed swordfish quota. Similarly, with higher retention limits during the first semi-annual quota period in 2017, total directed swordfish landings through April 30, 2017, are approximately 271.2 mt dw, or 20.6 percent of the 1,318.8 mt dw semi-annual baseline directed swordfish quota.

    The directed swordfish quota has not been harvested for several years and, based upon current landing trends, is not likely to be harvested or exceeded during 2017. This information indicates that sufficient directed swordfish quota should be available from July 1 through December 31, 2017, at the higher retention levels, within the limits of the scientifically-supported TAC and consistent with the goals of the FMP.

    The regulatory criteria for inseason adjustments also require us to consider the estimated amounts by which quotas for other categories of the fishery might be exceeded. Based upon recent landings rates from dealer reports, an increase in the vessel retention limit for SWO General Commercial permit holders is not likely to cause quotas for other categories of the fishery to be exceeded as the directed category quota has been significantly underharvested in recent years and landings trends do not appear to vary significantly in 2017. Similarly, regarding the criteria that NMFS consider the effects of catch rates in one region precluding vessels in another region from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the overall swordfish quota, NMFS expects there to be sufficient swordfish quota for 2017, and thus increased catch rates in these three regions as a result of this action would not be expected to preclude vessels in the other region (e.g., the buoy gear fishery in the Florida SWO Management Area) from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the overall swordfish quota.

    Finally, in making adjustments to the retention limits NMFS must consider variations in seasonal distribution, abundance, or migration patterns of swordfish, and the availability of swordfish on the fishing grounds. With regard to swordfish abundance, the 2016 report by ICCAT's Standing Committee on Research and Statistics indicated that the North Atlantic swordfish stock is not overfished (B2011/Bmsy = 1.14), and overfishing is not occurring (F2011/Fmsy = 0.82). Increasing the retention limits for this U.S. handgear fishery is not expected to affect the swordfish stock status determination because any additional landings would be within the established overall U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota allocation recommended by ICCAT. Increasing opportunity beginning on July 1, 2017, is also important because of the migratory nature and seasonal distribution of swordfish. In a particular geographic region, or waters accessible from a particular port, the amount of fishing opportunity for swordfish may be constrained by the short amount of time the swordfish are present as they migrate.

    NMFS also has determined that the retention limit for the SWO General Commercial permit will remain at zero swordfish per vessel per trip in the Florida SWO Management Area at this time. As discussed above, NMFS considered consistency with the 2006 HMS FMP and its amendments, and the importance for NMFS to continue to provide protection to important swordfish juvenile areas and migratory corridors. As described in Amendment 8 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (78 FR 52012), the area off the southeastern coast of Florida, particularly the Florida Straits, contains oceanographic features that make the area biologically unique. It provides important juvenile swordfish habitat, and is essentially a narrow migratory corridor containing high concentrations of swordfish located in close proximity to high concentrations of people who may fish for them. Public comment on Amendment 8, including from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, indicated concern about the resultant high potential for the improper rapid growth of a commercial fishery, increased catches of undersized swordfish, the potential for larger numbers of fishermen in the area, and the potential for crowding of fishermen, which could lead to gear and user conflicts. These concerns remain valid. NMFS will continue to collect information to evaluate the appropriateness of the retention limit in the Florida SWO Management Area and other regional retention limits. This action therefore maintains a zero-fish retention limit in the Florida Swordfish Management Area.

    These adjustments are consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP as amended, ATCA, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and are not expected to negatively impact stock health.

    Monitoring and Reporting

    NMFS will continue to monitor the swordfish fishery closely during 2017 through mandatory landings and catch reports. Dealers are required to submit landing reports and negative reports (if no swordfish were purchased) on a weekly basis.

    Depending upon the level of fishing effort and catch rates of swordfish, NMFS may determine that additional retention limit adjustments or closures are necessary to ensure that available quota is not exceeded or to enhance fishing opportunities. Subsequent actions, if any, will be published in the Federal Register. In addition, fishermen may access http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/species/swordfish/landings/index.html for updates on quota monitoring.

    Classification

    The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the following reasons:

    The regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, as amended, provide for inseason retention limit adjustments to respond to changes in swordfish landings, the availability of swordfish on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and regional variations in the fishery. Based on available swordfish quota, stock abundance, fishery performance in recent years, and the availability of swordfish on the fishing grounds, among other considerations, adjustment to the SWO General Commercial permit retention limits from the default levels of two or three fish to six SWO per vessel per trip as discussed above is warranted, while maintaining a zero-fish retention limit in the Florida SWO Management Area. Analysis of available data shows that adjustment to the swordfish daily retention limit from the default levels would result in minimal risk of exceeding the ICCAT-allocated quota. NMFS provides notification of retention limit adjustments by publishing the notice in the Federal Register, emailing individuals who have subscribed to the Atlantic HMS News electronic newsletter, and updating the information posted on the “Atlantic HMS Breaking News” Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/news/breaking_news.html. Delays in temporarily increasing these retention limits caused by the time required to publish a proposed rule and accept public comment would adversely and unnecessarily affect those SWO General Commercial permit holders and HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders that would otherwise have an opportunity to harvest more than the otherwise applicable lower default retention limits of three swordfish per vessel per trip in the Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions, and two swordfish per vessel per trip in the U.S. Caribbean region. Further, any delay beyond July 1, 2017, the start of the second semi-annual directed fishing period, could result in even lower swordfish landings because of the lower default retention limits. Limited opportunities to harvest the directed swordfish quota may have negative social and economic impacts for U.S. fishermen. Adjustment of the retention limits needs to be effective on July 1, 2017, to allow SWO General Commercial permit holders and HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders to benefit from the adjustment during the relevant time period, which could pass by for some fishermen, particularly in the Northwest Atlantic region who have access to the fishery during a short time period because of seasonal fish migration, if the action is delayed for notice and public comment. Therefore, the AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment. For all of the above reasons, there is also good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.

    This action is being taken under 50 CFR 635.24(b)(4) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. and 1801 et seq.

    Dated: June 21, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13338 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 122 Tuesday, June 27, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0626; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-210-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new Airworthiness Directive (AD), for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of in-flight uncommanded rudder movements. This proposed AD would require modification of the wiring for the yaw damper control system. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 11, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    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-2017-0626; 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 this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0626; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-210-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-38, effective December 12, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The [Canadian] AD CF-2013-22 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-16-06, Amendment 39-17930 (79 FR 48972, August 19, 2014)] was issued on 12 August 2013 to mandate the introduction of an emergency procedure to the Aeroplane Flight Manual to address the uncommanded rudder movement.

    Since the original issue of [Canadian] AD CF-2013-22, Bombardier Aerospace has developed a wiring modification for the yaw damper control system to prevent uncommanded movement of the rudder.

    This [Canadian] AD mandates the incorporation of Service Bulletins (SB) 604-22-007 and 605-22-002 * * * *.

    This proposed AD would require modification of the wiring for the yaw damper control system. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0626.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc., issued Service Bulletin 604-22-007, Revision 01, dated July 25, 2016; and Service Bulletin 605-22-002, Revision 01, dated July 25, 2016. The service information describes procedures for modifying the wiring harness for the yaw damper control system. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane configurations. 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.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 120 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Modification 50 work-hours × $85 per hour = $4,250 Up to $478 Up to $4,728 Up to $567,360

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed regulation:

    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.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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 Airworthiness Directive (AD): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2017-0626; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-210-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 10, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/Ns) 5301 through 5665 inclusive, 5701 through 5911 inclusive, 5913, and 5914.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 22, Autopilot System.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of in-flight uncommanded rudder movements. We are issuing this AD to prevent in-flight uncommanded rudder movements, which could lead to structural failure and subsequent loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Modification

    Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify the wiring harness for the yaw damper control system, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.

    (1) For airplanes having S/Ns 5301 through 5665 inclusive: Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-22-007, Revision 01, dated July 25, 2016.

    (2) For airplanes having S/Ns 5701 through 5911 inclusive, 5913, and 5914: Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-22-002, Revision 01, dated July 25, 2016.

    (h) Part Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane a yaw damper actuator having part number 622-9968-002, unless the modification required by paragraph (g) of this AD has been accomplished.

    (i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the modification required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if the modification was performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information identified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-22-007, dated June 23, 2015.

    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-22-002, dated June 23, 2015.

    (j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to ATTN: The Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.,'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-38, dated December 12, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0626.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 19, 2017. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13364 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0625; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-089-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-22-08, for all Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes: and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2014-22-08 requires revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new or revised airworthiness limitation requirements. Since we issued AD 2014-22-08, we have determined that more restrictive maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations are necessary. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new or revised airworthiness limitation requirements. The proposed AD also removes airplanes from the applicability. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 11, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    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-2017-0625; 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 this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0625; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-089-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    On October 28, 2014, we issued AD 2014-22-08, Amendment 39-18013 (79 FR 67042, November 12, 2014) (“AD 2014-22-08”), for all Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2014-22-08 was prompted by a determination that more restrictive airworthiness limitations were necessary. AD 2014-22-08 requires revising the maintenance or inspection program as applicable. We issued AD 2014-22-08 to prevent a safety-significant latent failure (which is not annunciated), which, in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, would result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition. Since we issued AD 2014-22-08, we have determined that more restrictive maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations are necessary.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0092, dated May 13, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations for Airbus A320 family aeroplanes are currently defined and published in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) documents. The airworthiness limitations applicable to the Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), which are approved by EASA, are published in ALS Part 3.

    The instructions contained in the ALS Part 3 have been identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness. Failure to comply with these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.

    Previously, EASA issued AD 2013-0148 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-22-08] to require accomplishment of all maintenance tasks as described in ALS Part 3 at Revision 01. The new ALS Part 3 Revision 03 (hereafter referred to as `the ALS' in this [EASA] AD) includes new and/or more restrictive requirements.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0148, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of all maintenance tasks as described in the ALS.

    The unsafe condition is a safety-significant latent failure (that is not annunciated), which, in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, could result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0625.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3 CMR, Revision 03, dated December 21, 2015. The service information describes maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations, including updated inspections and intervals to be incorporated into the maintenance or inspection program. 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.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

    This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) according to paragraph (k)(1) of this proposed AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

    Difference Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI

    The MCAI specifies that if there are findings from the ALS inspection tasks, then corrective action must be accomplished in accordance with Airbus maintenance documentation. However, this proposed AD does not include that requirement. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes are required by general airworthiness and operational regulations to perform maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We consider those methods to be adequate to address any corrective actions necessitated by the findings of ALS inspections required by this proposed AD.

    Airworthiness Limitations Based on Type Design

    The FAA recently became aware of an issue related to the applicability of ADs that require incorporation of an ALS revision into an operator's maintenance or inspection program.

    Typically, when these types of ADs are issued by civil aviation authorities of other countries, they apply to all airplanes covered under an identified type certificate (TC). The corresponding FAA AD typically retains applicability to all of those airplanes.

    In addition, U.S. operators must operate their airplanes in an airworthy condition, in accordance with 14 CFR 91.7(a). Included in this obligation is the requirement to perform any maintenance or inspections specified in the ALS, and in accordance with the ALS as specified in 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c), unless an alternative has been approved by the FAA.

    When a TC is issued for a type design, the specific ALS, including revisions, is a part of that type design, as specified in 14 CFR 21.31(c).

    The sum effect of these operational and maintenance requirements is an obligation to comply with the ALS defined in the type design referenced in the manufacturer's conformity statement. This obligation may introduce a conflict with an AD that requires a specific ALS revision if new airplanes are delivered with a later revision as part of their type design.

    To address this conflict, the FAA has approved AMOCs that allow operators to incorporate the most recent ALS revision into their maintenance/inspection programs, in lieu of the ALS revision required by the AD. This eliminates the conflict and enables the operator to comply with both the AD and the type design.

    However, compliance with AMOCs is normally optional, and we recently became aware that some operators choose to retain the AD-mandated ALS revision in their fleet-wide maintenance/inspection programs, including those for new airplanes delivered with later ALS revisions, to help standardize the maintenance of the fleet. To ensure that operators comply with the applicable ALS revision for newly delivered airplanes containing a later revision than that specified in an AD, we plan to limit the applicability of ADs that mandate ALS revisions to those airplanes that are subject to an earlier revision of the ALS, either as part of the type design or as mandated by an earlier AD.

    This proposed AD, therefore, would apply to the airplanes identified in paragraph (c) of this AD with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness that was issued on or before the date of approval of the ALS revision identified in this proposed AD. Operators of airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued after that date must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,032 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions required by AD 2014-22-08, and retained in this proposed AD take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2014-22-08 is $85 per product.

    We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $87,720, or $85 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed regulation:

    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.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-22-08, Amendment 39-18013 (79 FR 67042, November 12, 2014), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2017-0625; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-089-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 11, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2014-22-08, Amendment 39-18013 (79 FR 67042, November 12, 2014) (“AD 2014-22-08”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before December 21, 2015.

    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.

    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.

    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.

    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent a safety-significant latent failure (that is not annunciated), which, in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, could result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Retained Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision, With New Terminating Action

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-22-08, with new terminating action. Within 30 days after December 17, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-22-08), revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 1, dated June 15, 2012. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the tasks specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3, CMR, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2012, is at the applicable time specified in the Record of Revisions of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3, CMR, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2012; or within 30 days after December 17, 2014, whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

    (h) Retained Provision Regarding Alternative Actions and Intervals, With a New Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2014-22-08, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, after accomplishing the revisions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.

    (i) New Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3 CMR, Revision 03, dated December 21, 2015 (“ALS Part 3 CMR, R3”). The initial compliance time for accomplishing the tasks specified in ALS Part 3 CMR, R3, is at the applicable time specified in ALS Part 3 CMR, R3, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the actions specified in this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (j) New Provision Regarding No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the action required by paragraph (i) of this AD has been done, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.

    (k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2014-22-08 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0092, dated May 13, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0625.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 20, 2017. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13365 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0623; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-024-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A Model C-212-CB, C-212-CC, C-212-CD, C-212-CE, and C-212-DF airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of failures of the rudder pedal control system support. This proposed AD would require modifying the rudder pedal adjustment system. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 11, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, Airbus Defense and Space Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 31 27; email [email protected] You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    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-2017-0623; 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 this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1112; fax: 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0623; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-024-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0036, dated February 21, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A Model C-212-CB, C-212-CC, C-212-CD, C-212-CE, and C-212-DF airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Failures were reported of the pedal control system support of CASA C-212 aeroplanes. Subsequent investigation revealed that the welding area of the affected support structure had broken.

    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to failure of the rudder control system, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, EADS-CASA issued Service Bulletin (SB) SB-212-27-0057 to provide modification instructions.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires modification of the rudder pedal adjustment system.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0623.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed EADS CASA Service Bulletin SB-212-27-0057, dated May 21, 2014. This service information provides instructions for modifying the rudder pedal adjustment system. 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.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 42 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Modification 9 work-hours × $85 per hour = $765 $5,683 $6,448 $270,816
    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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed regulation:

    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.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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 airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.): Docket No. FAA-2017-0623; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-024-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 11, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus Defense and Space S.A Model C-212-CB, C-212-CC, C-212-CD, C-212-CE, and C-212-DF airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of failures of the rudder pedal control system support and a determination that the welding area of the affected support structure had broken. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the rudder control system, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Modification

    Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify the rudder pedal adjustment system, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EADS CASA Service Bulletin SB-212-27-0057, dated May 21, 2014.

    (h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or EADS CASA's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0036, dated February 21, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0623.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1112; fax: 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Defense and Space Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 31 27; email [email protected] You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 19, 2017. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13357 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Chapter IV Office of the Secretary 45 CFR Subtitle A [CMS-9928-CN] RIN 0938-ZB39 Reducing Regulatory Burdens Imposed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act & Improving Healthcare Choices To Empower AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Request for information; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This document corrects an error that appeared in the request for information notice published in the Federal Register on June 12, 2017 entitled “Reducing Regulatory Burdens Imposed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act & Improving Healthcare Choices to Empower.”

    DATES:

    This correction is effective June 26, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chanda McNeal (301) 492-4132 or Jamaca Mitchell (301) 492-4177.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In FR Doc. 2017-12130 of June 12, 2017 (82 FR 26885), there was an error that is identified and corrected in the Correction of Errors section of this correction notice. The correction in this document is effective as if it had been included in the document published on June 12, 2017. Accordingly, the correction is effective (June 26, 2017).

    II. Summary of Errors

    On page 26886, we inadvertently included the incorrect contact information in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Therefore, we are correcting this error to provide the public with the correct point of contact's name and phone number for issues related to the June 12, 2017 request for information notice.

    III. Correction of Errors

    In FR Doc. 2017-12130 of June 12, 2017 (82 FR 26885), make the following correction.

    On page 26886, in the first column, under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, the contact name and phone number for “Vanessa Jones, (202) 690-700” is deleted and replaced with, “Chanda McNeal, (301) 492-4132, or Jamaca Mitchell, (301) 492-4177.”

    Dated: June 21, 2017. Ann C. Agnew, Executive Secretary to the Department, Department of Health and Human Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13417 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    82 122 Tuesday, June 27, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Notice of Meeting of the National Advisory Council on Maternal, Infant and Fetal Nutrition AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice announces a meeting of the National Advisory Council on Maternal, Infant and Fetal Nutrition.

    Date and Time: July 11-13, 2017, 9:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m.

    Place: The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn Arlington/Shirlington, Environment Room, 4271 Campbell Avenue, Arlington, Virginia, 22206.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The National Advisory Council on Maternal, Infant and Fetal Nutrition will meet to continue its study of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP). The agenda will include updates and a discussion of Breastfeeding Promotion and Support activities, the WIC food packages, WIC funding, Electronic Benefits Transfer, CSFP initiatives, and current research studies.

    Status: Meetings of the National Advisory Council on Maternal, Infant and Fetal Nutrition are open to the public. Members of the public may participate, as time permits. Members of the public may file written statements with the contact person named below before or after the meeting.

    Contact Person for Additional Information: Anne Bartholomew, Supplemental Food Programs Division, Food and Nutrition Service, Department of Agriculture, (703) 305-2746. If members of the public need special accommodations, please notify Anne Bartholomew by June 28, 2017, at (703) 305-2746, or email at [email protected].

    Dated: June 16, 2017. Jessica Shahin, Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13455 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-552-819] Certain Steel Nails From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Rescind, in Part AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain steel nails (steel nails) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam). The period of review (POR) is November 3, 2014, through December 31, 2015. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Effective June 27, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Yasmin Bordas, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3813.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    These preliminary results are made in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on steel nails from Vietnam for the POR on July 5, 2016.111 On August 1, 2017, in response to timely requests, and in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the Order. 2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is provided as an appendix to this notice.

    1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 81 FR 43584 (July 5, 2016).

    2See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 62720 (September 12, 2016). See also Certain Steel Nails from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Countervailing Duty Order, 80 FR 41006 (July 14, 2015) (the Order).

    3See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Steel Nails from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum) dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

    The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file 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 B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Scope of the Order

    The product covered by the Order is steel nails from Vietnam. For a complete description of the scope of this administrative review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this CVD review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we determine that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that confers a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.4 For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, including our reliance, in part, on adverse facts available pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.5

    4See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and, section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    5 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be found as an appendix to this notice.

    Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, and Intent To Rescind, In Part

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. (the petitioner) withdrew its requests for review of Astrotech Steels Private Limited; Blue Moon Logistics Private Ltd.; Bollore Logistics Vietnam Co. Ltd.; Dahnay Logistics Private Ltd; FGS Logistics Co. Ltd.; Honour Lane Shipping Ltd; SDV Vietnam Co. Ltd.; and United Nail Products Co. Ltd. No other party requested a review of these producers/exporters.6 Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department is rescinding this review with respect to these companies.

    6See Letter from the petitioner re: Administrative Review of Certain Steel Nails from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Reviews, dated October 5, 2016.

    As explained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, there is no evidence that Dicha Sombrilla Co., Ltd. had a Type 3 (i.e., reviewable) entry of subject merchandise during the POR. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we preliminarily intend to rescind the review for Dicha Sombrilla Co., Ltd.7

    7 In Alleghany Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 346 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Department's practice of rescinding annual reviews when there are no entries of subject merchandise during the POR.

    Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be:

    Producer/exporter Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • Truong Vinh Ltd 313.97 Rich State Inc 313.97
    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department intends to disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.8 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.9 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the case briefs are filed.10

    8See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).

    9See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).

    10See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.11 Hearing requests should contain the following: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs.

    11See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    Unless extended, the Department intends to issue the final results of this review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised by parties in their comments, within 120 days after the publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

    Assessment Rates and Cash Deposit Requirement

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we preliminarily assigned subsidy rates in the amounts shown above for the producers/exporters shown above. Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, CVDs on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of review.

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated CVDs, in the amounts shown above, for each of the respective companies shown above, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most-recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    For the non-reviewed firms for which we are rescinding this administrative review, the Department intends to instruct CBP 15 days after publication of these preliminary results of review to assess CVDs at rates equal to the rates of cash deposits for estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, during the period November 3, 2014, through December 31, 2015, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(2).

    These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: June 19, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. Appendix I List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Partial Rescission of Review 4. Scope of the Order 5. Application of the Countervailing Duty Law to Imports From Vietnam 6. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences A. Application of AFA: Truong Vinh, Rich State, and the GOV B. Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate C. Corroboration of Secondary Information 7. Disclosure and Public Comment 8. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2017-13425 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-060, A-533-875, A-580-893, A-583-860, A-552-822] Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations AGENCY:

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

    DATES:

    Effective June 20, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Edythe Artman at (202) 482-3931 (the People's Republic of China (the PRC)), Patrick O'Connor at (202) 482-0989 (India), Karine Gziryan at (202) 482-4081 (the Republic of Korea (Korea)), Lilit Astvatsatrian at (202) 482-6412 (Taiwan), and Mike Heaney at (202) 482-4475 (the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam)), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petitions

    On May 31, 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) received antidumping duty (AD) Petitions concerning imports of fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF) from the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam, filed in proper form on behalf of DAK Americas LLC, Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America, and Auriga Polymers Inc. (collectively, the petitioners).1 The AD Petitions were accompanied by countervailing duty (CVD) Petitions concerning imports of fine denier PSF from India and the PRC. The petitioners are domestic producers of fine denier PSF.2

    1See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce re: “Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam—Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties” (May 31, 2017) (the Petitions).

    2See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2.

    On June 5, 2017, the Department requested supplemental information pertaining to certain areas of the Petitions.3 The petitioners filed responses to these requests on June 8, 2017.4 The petitioners filed a correction to a margin calculation for the PRC at the request of the Department on June 12, 2017.5 The petitioners filed revised scope language on June 14, 2017.6

    3See Letter from the Department, “Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Supplemental Questions,” dated June 5, 2017 (General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire); see also Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: Supplemental Questions; and Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from India: Supplemental Questions; and Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea: Supplemental Questions; and Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Supplemental Questions; and Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Supplemental Questions. All of these documents are dated June 5, 2017. See also country-specific memoranda to the file “Telephone Call to Foreign Market Researcher Regarding Antidumping Petition” dated June 20, 2017.

    4See Letter from the petitioners, “Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Petitioners' Amendment to Volume I Relating to General Issues;” (June 8, 2017) (General Issues Supplement), at Exhibit I-S2, see also “Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: Petitioners' Response to Questions Concerning the Antidumping Duty Petition;” and “Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea: Petitioners' Response to Questions Concerning the Antidumping Duty Petition;” and “Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from India: Petitioners' Response to Questions Concerning the Antidumping Duty Petition;” and “Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Petitioners' Response to Questions Concerning the Antidumping Duty Petition;” and “Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Petitioners' Response to Questions Concerning the Antidumping Duty Petition.” Each of these documents is dated June 8, 2017.

    5See Letter from the petitioners, “Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China,” dated June 12, 2017.

    6See Memorandum to the File “Phone Conversation Regarding Scope,” dated June 13, 2017; see also Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam—Petitioners' Second Amendment to Volume I Relating to General Issues, dated June 14, 2017 (Scope Supplement to the Petitions).

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of fine denier PSF from the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing fine denier PSF in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.

    The Department finds that the petitioners filed these Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that the petitioners are requesting.7

    7See the “Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions” section, below.

    Periods of Investigation

    Because the Petitions were filed on May 31, 2017, the period of investigation (POI) for all investigations except the PRC and Vietnam, is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017. Because the PRC and Vietnam are non-market economy (NME) countries, the POI for these investigations is October 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.

    Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is fine denier PSF from the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the Appendix to this notice.

    Comments on Scope of the Investigations

    During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.8

    8See General Issues Supplement, at 1-3 and Exhibit I-S1; and Scope Supplement to the Petitions, at 2.

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).9 The Department will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual information,10 all such factual information should be limited to public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Monday, July 10, 2017, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, July 20, 2017, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comments deadline.11

    9See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    10See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining “factual information”).

    11See 19 CFR 351.303(b).

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

    Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).12 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents exempted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

    12See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details of the Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.

    Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires

    The Department will provide interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of fine denier PSF to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.

    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe fine denier PSF, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.

    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on July 10, 2017. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on July 20, 2017. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of the the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam less-than-fair-value investigations.

    Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,13 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.14

    13See section 771(10) of the Act.

    14See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the Petitions).

    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that fine denier PSF, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.15

    15 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China (PRC AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, (Attachment II); Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from India (India AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea (Korea AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan (Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; and Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II. These checklists are dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.

    In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided their own production of the domestic like product in 2016.16 In addition, the petitioners provided a letter of support from Palmetto Synthetics, LLC, stating that the company supports the Petitions and providing its own production of the domestic like product in 2016.17 The petitioners identify themselves and Palmetto Synthetics, LLC as the companies constituting the U.S. fine denier PSF industry and state that there are no other known producers of fine denier PSF in the United States; therefore, the Petitions are supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.18

    16See Volume I of the Petitions, at 3 and Exhibit I-2.

    17Id.

    18Id., at 2-3 and Exhibit I-1; see also General Issues Supplement, at 3 and Exhibit I-S2.

    Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for the Petitions.19 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).20 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.21 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.22 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

    19See PRC AD Initiation Checklist; India AD Initiation Checklist; Korea AD Initiation Checklist; Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist; and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    20See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also PRC AD Initiation Checklist; India AD Initiation Checklist; Korea AD Initiation Checklist; Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist; and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    21See PRC AD Initiation Checklist; India AD Initiation Checklist; Korea AD Initiation Checklist; Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist; and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    22Id.

    The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that they are requesting that the Department initiate.23

    23Id.

    Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.24

    24See Volume I of the Petitions, at 14-15 and Exhibit I-7.

    The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; lost sales and revenues; decreased production, capacity utilization, and U.S. shipments; and declines in financial performance.25 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.26

    25See Volume I of the Petitions, at 14-31 and Exhibits I-5, I-8, I-9, and I-10.

    26See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Attachment III); India AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III; Korea AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III; Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III; and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III.

    Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate AD investigations of imports of fine denier PSF from the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.

    Export Price

    For the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam, the petitioners based the U.S. price on export price (EP) using average unit values (AUVs) of publicly available import data.27 For the PRC and Taiwan, the petitioners also based the U.S. price on EP using price quotes for sales of fine denier PSF produced in, and exported from, the subject county and offered for sale in the United States.28 Where applicable, the petitioners made deductions from U.S. price for movement and other expenses, consistent with the terms of sale.29

    27See PRC AD Initiation Checklist; India AD Initiation Checklist; Korea AD Initiation Checklist; Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist; and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist.

    28See PRC AD Initiation Checklist and Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist.

    29See PRC AD Initiation Checklist; India AD Initiation Checklist; Korea AD Initiation Checklist; Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist; and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist.

    Normal Value

    For India, Korea, and Taiwan, the petitioners provided home market price information for fine denier PSF produced in, and offered for sale in, each of these countries that was obtained through market research.30 For all three of these countries, the petitioners provided a declaration from a market researcher to support the price information.31 Where applicable, the petitioners made deductions for movement expenses, consistent with the terms of sale.32

    30See India AD Initiation Checklist, Korea AD Initiation Checklist, and Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist. For India, the petitioners also provided constructed value data and calculated margins based on a comparison between EP and constructed value. See India AD Initiation Checklist. Because the petitioners provided appropriate home market prices, we have relied on these prices as the basis for normal value, pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of the Act, for purposes of initiation.

    31See Id.

    32See Id.

    For Korea and Taiwan, the petitioners also provided information that sales of fine denier PSF in the respective home markets were made at prices below the cost of production (COP). With respect to Korea, the petitioners calculated NV based on home market prices and constructed value (CV).33 With respect to Taiwan, the petitioners calculated NV based on CV.34 For further discussion of COP and NV based on CV, see the section “Normal Value Based on Constructed Value” below.35

    33See Korea AD Initiation Checklist.

    34See Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist.

    35 In accordance with section 505(a) of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, amending section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for all of the investigations, the Department will request information necessary to calculate the CV and COP to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product have been made at prices that represent less than the COP of the product. The Department no longer requires a COP allegation to conduct this analysis.

    With respect to the PRC and Vietnam, the petitioners stated that the Department has found these countries to be NME countries in prior administrative proceedings in which they were involved.36 In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME status for the PRC and Vietnam has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of these investigations. Accordingly, NV in both the PRC and Vietnam is appropriately based on factors of production (FOPs) valued in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.37 In the course of these investigations, all parties, and the public, will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to the granting of separate rates to individual exporters.

    36See Volume II of the Petition, at 4-5; see also Volume VI of the Petition, at 4-5.

    37See PRC AD Initiation Checklist and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist.

    The petitioners claim that Mexico is an appropriate surrogate country for the PRC, because it is a market economy country that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC, it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and public information from Mexico is available to value all material input factors.38 Based on the information provided by the petitioners, we determine that it is appropriate to use Mexico as a surrogate country for initiation purposes.

    38See Volume II of the Petition at 5-6 and Exhibit AD-CN-4.

    The petitioners claim that India is an appropriate surrogate country for Vietnam, because it is a market economy country that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of Vietnam, it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and public information from India is available to value all material input factors.39 Based on the information provided by the petitioners, we determine that it is appropriate to use India as a surrogate country for initiation purposes.

    39See Volume VI of the Petition, at 5-6, Exhibit AD-VN-4.

    Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.

    Factors of Production

    Because information regarding the volume of inputs consumed by the PRC and Vietnamese producers/exporters is not available, the petitioners relied on the production experience of a domestic producer of fine denier PSF in the United States as an estimate of Chinese and Vietnamese manufacturers' FOPs.40 The petitioners valued the estimated FOPs using surrogate values from Mexico for the PRC and surrogate values from India for Vietnam and used the average POI exchange rate to convert the data to U.S. dollars.41

    40See Volume II of the Petition at 6 and Exhibit AD-CN-3, and PRC AD Supplement at 1 and Exhibit AD-CN-S3; see also Volume VI of the Petition at 5 and Exhibit AD-VN-3, and Vietnam AD Supplement, at 1 and Exhibit A-VN-S3.

    41See Volume II of the Petition at 6 and Exhibits AD-CN-3 and AD-CN-4; see also Volume VI of the Petition at Exhibit AD-VN-4.

    Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM), selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, financial expenses, and packing expenses. For Korea and Taiwan, the petitioners calculated the COM based on the input factors of production and usage rates from a U.S. producer of fine denier PSF. The input factors of production were valued using publicly available data on costs specific to Korea and Taiwan.42 Specifically, the prices for raw material and packing inputs were based on Korean and Taiwanese publicly available import and, for one Taiwanese input, export data. Labor and energy costs were valued using publicly available sources for Korea and Taiwan. The petitioners calculated factory overhead, SG&A, and financial expenses based on the experience of Korean and Taiwanese producers of comparable merchandise.43

    42See Korea AD Initiation Checklist and Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist.

    43See Id.

    For Korea and Taiwan, because certain home market prices fell below the COP, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, as noted above, the petitioners calculated NVs based on CV.44 Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the COM, SG&A expenses, financial expenses, packing expenses, and profit. The petitioners calculated CV using the same average COM, SG&A expenses, financial expenses, and packing expenses that were used to calculate the COP.45 The petitioners relied on the financial statements of the same producers that they used for calculating factory overhead, SG&A expenses, and financial expenses to calculate the profit rates.46

    44Id.

    45Id.

    46Id.

    Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of fine denier PSF from the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for fine denier PSF for each of the countries covered by this initiation are as follows: (1) PRC—88.07 to 103.06 percent; 47 (2) India—21.43; 48 (3) Korea—37.28 to 45.23 percent; 49 (4) Taiwan—31.07 to 56.72 percent; 50 and (5) Vietnam is 64.73 percent.51

    47See PRC AD Initiation Checklist.

    48See India AD Initiation Checklist.

    49See Korea AD Initiation Checklist.

    50See Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist.

    51See Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist.

    Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of fine denier PSF from the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

    Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous amendments to the AD and CVD law were made.52 The 2015 law does not specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.53 The amendments to sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to these AD investigations.54

    52See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).

    53See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015).

    54Id. at 46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.

    Respondent Selection

    The petitioners named 12 companies in India,55 31 companies in Korea,56 and eight companies in Taiwan,57 as producers/exporters of fine denier PSF. Following standard practice in AD investigations involving market economy countries, in the event the Department determines that the number of companies for any one market economy country identified above is large, the Department intends to review U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of fine denier PSF during the respective POIs under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States subheadings, and if it determines that it cannot individually examine each company based upon the Department's resources, then the Department will select respondents based on that data. We intend to release CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO within five business days of the announcement of the initiation of these investigations. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.

    55See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-4.

    56Id.

    57Id.

    Interested parties may submit comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection by 5:00 p.m. ET seven calendar days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of these investigations. Interested parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five calendar days after the deadline for initial comments.

    Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the date noted above. If respondent selection is necessary, within 20 days of publication of this notice, we intend to make our decisions regarding respondent selection based upon comments received from interested parties and our analysis of the record information.

    With respect to the PRC and Vietnam, the petitioners named, respectively, seven and four producers/exporters as accounting for the majority of exports of fine denier PSF to the United States from the PRC and Vietanm.58 In accordance with our standard practice for respondent selection in AD cases involving NME countries, we intend to issue quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires to producers/exporters of merchandise subject to these NME investigations and, if necessary, base respondent selection on the responses received. For these NME investigations, the Department will request Q&V information from known exporters and producers identified, with complete contact information, in the Petitions. In addition, the Department will post the Q&V questionnaire along with filing instructions on Enforcement and Compliance's Web site at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.

    58 Though the petitioners listed 88 “known producers of fine denier PSF from China” in Volume I of the Petition at Exhibit I-4, they clarified in the PRC-specific Volume II of the Petition that “to the best of Petitioners' knowledge, fine denier PSF is produced in China and exported to the United States” by seven companies that account for most or all U.S. imports during the POI. See Volume II of the Petition at 2. See also Volume I of the Petitions at exhibit I-4.

    Producers/exporters of fine denier PSF from the PRC and Vietnam that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy of the Q&V questionnaire from Enforcement & Compliance's Web site. The Q&V response must be submitted by the relevant PRC exporters/producers no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on July 5, 2017. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS.

    Separate Rates

    In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.59 The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application in the PRC and Vietnam investigations are outlined in detail in the application itself, which is available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. The separate-rate application will be due 30 days after publication of this initiation notice.60 Exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate application and have been selected as mandatory respondents will be eligible for consideration for separate-rate status only if they respond to all parts of the Department's AD questionnaire as mandatory respondents. The Department requires that companies from the PRC and Vietnam submit a response to both the Q&V questionnaire and the separate-rate application by the respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. Companies not filing a timely Q&V response will not receive separate-rate consideration.

    59See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (Policy Bulletin 05.1).

    60 Although in past investigations this deadline was 60 days, consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(a), which states that “the Secretary may request any person to submit factual information at any time during a proceeding,” this deadline is now 30 days.

    Use of Combination Rates

    The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:

    {w}hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of “combination rates” because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.61

    61See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added).

    Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the governments of the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

    ITC Notification

    We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

    Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of fine denier PSF from the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.62 A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country.63 Otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

    62 A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country.

    63Id.

    Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 64 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.65 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

    64See 19 CFR 351.301(b).

    65See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).

    Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

    Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.66 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 67 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

    66See section 782(b) of the Act.

    67See Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed atn 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

    Dated: June 20, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Scope of the Investigations

    The merchandise covered by these investigations is fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF), not carded or combed, measuring less than 3.3 decitex (3 denier) in diameter. The scope covers all fine denier PSF, whether coated or uncoated. The following products are excluded from the scope:

    (1) PSF equal to or greater than 3.3. decitex (more than 3 denier, inclusive) currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065.

    (2) Low-melt PSF defined as a bi-component fiber with a polyester core and an outer, polyester sheath that melts at a significantly lower temperature than its inner polyester core currently classified under HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0015.

    Fine denier PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0025. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigations is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2017-13380 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-533-876; C-570-061] Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From India and the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations AGENCY:

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

    DATES:

    Effective June 20, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Trisha Tran at (202) 482-4852 (India); Yasmin Bordas at (202) 482-3813 and Davina Friedmann at (202) 482-0698 (the People's Republic of China), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petitions

    On May 31, 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) received countervailing duty (CVD) Petitions concerning imports of fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF) from India and the People's Republic of China (the PRC), filed in proper form on behalf of DAK Americas LLC, Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America, and Auriga Polymers, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners). The CVD Petitions were accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) Petitions concerning imports of fine denier PSF from both of the countries listed above, in addition to the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.1 The petitioners are domestic producers of fine denier PSF.2

    1See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner re: “Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of Chna, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam—Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties” (May 31, 2017) (the Petitions).

    2Id., Volume I of the Petitions, at 2; see also, Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioners, “Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam—Petitioners' Amendment to Volume I Relating to General Issues,” (June 8, 2017) (General Issues Supplement), at Exhibit I-S2.

    On June 5, 2017, the Department requested supplemental information pertaining to certain areas of the Petitions.3 The petitioners filed responses to these requests on June 8, 2017.4 The petitioners filed revised scope language on June 14, 2017.5

    3See Letter to the petitioners from the Department, “Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from India” (June 5, 2017) (India CVD Supplemental Questionnaire); see also Letter from the Department, “Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Fine Denier PSF from the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Supplemental Questions” (June 5, 2017) (General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire); see also Letter to the petitioners from the Department “Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: Supplemental Questions,” (June 5, 2017) (PRC CVD Supplemental Questionnaire).

    4See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioners, “Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from India—Petitioners' Response to Supplemental Questionnaire Concerning Countervailing Duty Petition—Petitioners' Amendment to Volume VIII Relating to India—Countervailing Duties,” (June 8, 2017) (India CVD Supplement); see also General Issues Supplement; see also Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioners, “Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam—Petitioners' Amendment to Volume VII Relating to China—Countervailing Duties,” (June 8, 2017) (PRC CVD Supplement).

    5See Memorandum to the File “Phone Conversation Regarding Scope,” dated June 13, 2017; see also Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam—Petitioners' Second Amendment to Volume I Relating to General Issues, dated June 14, 2017 (Scope Supplement to the Petitions).

    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that the Governments of India and the PRC are providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to imports of fine denier PSF from India and the PRC, respectively, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing fine denier PSF in the United States. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, for those alleged programs on which we are initiating a CVD investigation, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.

    The Department finds that the petitioners filed these Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the CVD investigations that the petitioners are requesting.6

    6See “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” section, below.

    Period of Investigation

    Because the Petitions were filed on May 31, 2017, the period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

    Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is fine denier PSF from India and the PRC. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the Appendix to this notice.

    Comments on Scope of the Investigations

    During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.7

    7See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire; see also General Issues Supplement.

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).8 The Department will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with the interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual information,9 all such factual information should be limited to public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Tuesday, July 10, 2017, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, July 20, 2017, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comments deadline.

    8See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    9See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21).

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

    Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).10 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents exempted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

    10See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011), see also Enforcement and Compliance: Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details of the Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx, and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.

    Consultations

    Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, the Department notified representatives of the Governments of India and the PRC of the receipt of the Petitions, and provided them the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD Petitions.11 Consultations with the PRC were held via conference call on June 19, 2017.12 On June 16, 2017, India requested the Department to reschedule consulations for after June 27, 2017.13

    11See Letter to the Embassy of India, “Countervailing Duty Petition on Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from India” (June 2, 2017); see also letter to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China, “Countervailing Duty Petition on Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China” (June 2, 2017).

    12See Memorandum, “Ex-Parte Meeting with Officials from the Government of People's Republic of China on the Countervailing Duty Petition on Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China” (June 19, 2017); see also Memorandum, “Ex-Parte Meeting with Officials from the Government of the India on the Countervailing Duty Petition on Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from India” (June 19, 2017).

    13See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the Embassy of India, “Request to reschedule consultations on CVD petition against Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from India,” (June 16, 2017).

    Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers, as a whole, of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,14 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.15

    14See section 771(10) of the Act.

    15See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the Petitions).

    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that fine denier PSF, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.16

    16 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China (PRC CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, (Attachment II); and Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from India (India CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II. These checklists are dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.

    In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided their own production of the domestic like product in 2016.17 In addition, the petitioners provided a letter of support from Palmetto Synthetics, LLC, stating that the company supports the Petitions and providing its own production of the domestic like product in 2016.18 The petitioners identify themselves and Palmetto Synthetics, LLC as the companies constituting the U.S. fine denier PSF industry and state that there are no other known producers of fine denier PSF in the United States; therefore, the Petitions are supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.19

    17See Volume I of the Petitions, at 3 and Exhibit I-2.

    18Id.

    19Id., at 2-3 and Exhibit I-1; see also General Issues Supplement, at 3 and Exhibit I-S2.

    Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for the Petitions.20 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).21 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.22 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.23 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.

    20See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist and India CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    21See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    22See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist and India CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    23Id.

    The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigations that they are requesting that the Department initiate.24

    24Id.

    Injury Test

    Because the PRC and India are “Subsidies Agreement Countries” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC and India materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

    Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.25 In CVD petitions, section 771(24)(B) of the Act provides that imports of subject merchandise from developing and least developed countries must exceed the negligibility threshold of four percent. The petitioners also demonstrate that subject imports from India, which has been designated as a least developed country under section 771(36)(B) of the Act, exceed the negligibility threshold of four percent.26

    25See Volume I of the Petitions, at 14-15 and Exhibit I-7.

    26Id.

    The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; lost sales and revenues; decreased production, capacity utilization, and U.S. shipments; and declines in financial performance.27 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.28

    27See Volume I of the Petitions, at 14-31 and Exhibits I-5, I-8, I-9, and I-10.

    28See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Attachment III); and India CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III.

    Initiation of CVD Investigations

    Based on the examination of the CVD Petitions, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore we are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether imports of fine denier PSF from India and the PRC benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the governments of these countries. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

    Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous amendments to the AD and CVD laws were made.29 The 2015 law does not specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.30 The amendments to sections 776 and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to these CVD investigations.31

    29See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).

    30See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice). The 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.

    31See Applicability Notice, 80 FR at 46794-95.

    India

    Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 36 of the 38 alleged programs in India. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the India CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS.

    The PRC

    Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all 20 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see the PRC CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS.

    In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

    Respondent Selection

    The petitioners named 12 and 89 companies as producers/exporters of fine denier PSF in India and the PRC, respectively.32 Following standard practice in CVD investigations, in the event the Department determines that the number of companies is large, the Department intends to review U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of fine denier PSF during the POI under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States subheadings, and if it determines that it cannot individually examine each company based upon the Department's resources, then the Department will select respondents based on those data. We intend to release CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO within five business days of the announcement of the initiation of these investigations. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.

    32See Petition, Volume I at Exhibit I-7; see also PRC CVD Supplement, at 1.

    Interested parties may submit comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection by 5:00 p.m. ET seven calendar days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of these investigations. Interested parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five calendar days after the deadline for initial comments.

    Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m.ET on the date noted above. If respondent selection is necessary, within 20 days of publication of this notice, we intend to make our decisions regarding respondent selection based upon comments received from interested parties and our analysis of the record information.

    Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the GOI and GOC via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

    ITC Notification

    We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.

    Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of fine denier PSF from India and the PRC are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.33 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigations being terminated.34 Otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

    33See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.

    34See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.

    Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted35 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.36 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

    35See 19 CFR 351.301(b).

    36See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).

    Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

    Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.37 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 38 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised certification requirements.

    37See section 782(b) of the Act.

    38See Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (“Final Rule”); see also frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: June 20, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Scope of the Investigations

    The merchandise covered by these investigations is fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF), not carded or combed, measuring less than 3.3 decitex (3 denier) in diameter. The scope covers all fine denier PSF, whether coated or uncoated. The following products are excluded from the scope:

    (1) PSF equal to or greater than 3.3. decitex (more than 3 denier, inclusive) currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065.

    (2) Low-melt PSF defined as a bi-component fiber with a polyester core and an outer, polyester sheath that melts at a significantly lower temperature than its inner polyester core currently classified under HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0015.

    Fine denier PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0025. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigations is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2017-13381 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-979] Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    On December 22, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the third administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (solar cells) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is December 1, 2014, through November 30, 2015. The review covers two mandatory respondents: (1) Canadian Solar International Limited, which we have treated as a single entity with five affiliated companies identified below, and (2) the collapsed entity Trina Solar, consisting of Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd., and Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science and Technology Co., Ltd., which we have continued to treat as a single entity with four additional affiliated companies identified below. We received comments from interested parties on our Preliminary Results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made changes to the margin calculations for the Final Results of this administrative review. The final weighted-average dumping margins are listed below in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective June 27, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Krisha Hill and Jeff Pedersen, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4037 or (202) 482-2769, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On December 22, 2016, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the 2014-2015 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from the PRC.1 For events subsequent to the Preliminary Results, see the Department's Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 On March 30, 2017, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department extended the deadline for issuing the final results by 60 days.3 The deadline for the final results is June 20, 2017.

    1See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2014-2015, 81 FR 93888 (December 22, 2016) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (PDM).

    2See Memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2014-2015 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, From the People's Republic of China,” (Issues and Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with this notice.

    3See Memorandum, “Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,” dated March 30, 2017.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels and building integrated materials.4 Merchandise covered by the order is classifiable under subheading 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.80, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030, and 8501.31.8000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

    4 For a complete description of the scope of the order, see Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, follows as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file 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 B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, and for the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we made revisions to our preliminary calculations of the weighted-average dumping margins for mandatory respondents, Canadian Solar 5 and Trina.6 7

    5 In these final results of review, the Department has continued to treat the following six companies as a single entity: Canadian Solar International Limited/Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc./Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc./CSI Cells Co., Ltd./CSI-GCL Solar Manufacturing (YanCheng) Co., Ltd./CSI Solar Power (China) Inc. (collectively, Canadian Solar). See Preliminary Results, 81 FR at 93888, 93889 and PDM at 6 7.

    6 In these final results of review, the Department has continued to treat the following six companies as a single entity: Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co., Ltd./Yancheng Trina Solar Energy Technology Co., Ltd./Changzhou Trina Solar Yabang Energy Co., Ltd./Turpan Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Hubei Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. (collectively, Trina). See Preliminary Results, 81 FR at 93888, 93889 and PDM at 6-7.

    7See Issues and Decision Memorandum at comments 4, 7, 8, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, and 24.

    Final Determination of No Shipments

    In the Preliminary Results, we found that seven companies had no shipments during the POR.8 Consistent with the Department's assessment practice in NME cases, we completed the review with respect to the above-named companies. However, we have reexamined the record and determined that we made an error in the Preliminary Results by not recognizing that Shenzhen Glory Industries Co., Ltd. (Shenzhen Glory) timely filed a no-shipment certification.9 We have reviewed Shenzhen Glory's no shipment certification and have found that Shenzhen Glory had no shipments during this POR. In addition, we found that Hangzhou Sunny Energy Science & Technology Co., Ltd. (Sunny), a company we preliminarily determined had no shipments during the POR, had a reviewable sale/entry of subject merchandise during the POR. Therefore, for these Final Results, we find that a total of seven companies had no shipments during the POR.10 As noted in the “Assessment” section below, the Department will issue appropriate instructions with respect to these companies to CBP based on our Final Results.11 In addition, these companies will maintain their rate from the most recent segment in which they participated.

    8See Preliminary Results, 81 FR at 93888, 93889.

    9See Shenzhen Glory's February 24, 2016 Notice of No Sales Letter.

    10 Those companies are: BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd., Canadian Solar Inc., Dongguan Sunworth Solar Energy Co., Ltd., Jiangsu High Hope Int'l Group, Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd/Luoyang Suntech Power Co., Ltd., Zhongli Talesun Solar Co. Ltd, and Shenzhen Glory. On January 6, 2017, the Department placed on the record certain factual information from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regarding the no shipments claims and provided interested parties with an opportunity to comment on the information. See Department Letter re: Release of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Information Relating to No Shipment Claims Made in the 2014-2015 Administrative Review of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells from the People's Republic of China, dated January 6, 2017. Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd. commented on the information, arguing that none of the new information on the record contradicts the Department's preliminary decision regarding its no shipment claim. No other parties commented on the information. See Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd.'s January 13, 2017 Comments on CBP Information.

    11See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) (Assessment of Antidumping Duties); see also the “Assessment” section of this notice, below.

    Separate Rates

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department determined that Canadian Solar, Trina, and 24 other companies/company groups demonstrated their eligibility for separate rates, but that Jiangsu Sunlink PV Technology Co., Ltd., Ningbo Hisheen Electrical Co., Ltd., and Shenzhen Glory had not demonstrated their entitlement to separate rates status because they did not file either a separate rate application or certification with the Department.12 However, as noted above, for these Final Results, the Department has determined that Shenzhen Glory timely filed a no shipments claim and record information supports its claim. Additionally, as explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, the Department has determined that Sunny is eligible for separate rate status, but that Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. (Ningbo Qixin) did not meet the requirements for obtaining a separate rate. Therefore, for these Final Results, the Department finds that Jiangsu Sunlink PV Technology Co., Ltd., Ningbo Hisheen Electrical Co., Ltd., and Ningbo Qixin are not eligible for separate rate status and thus, are part of the PRC-wide entity. The Department assigned a dumping margin to the separate rate companies that it did not individually examine, but which demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate, based on the mandatory respondents' dumping margins.13

    12Id.

    13See Memorandum, “Calculation of the Final Dumping Margin for Separate Rate Recipients,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR:

    Exporter Weighted-average
  • dumping margins
  • (percent)
  • Canadian Solar International Limited/Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc./Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang)Inc./CSI Cells Co., Ltd./CSI-GCL Solar Manufacturing (YanCheng) Co., Ltd./CSI Solar Power (China) Inc 13.07 Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science and Technology Co., Ltd./Yancheng Trina Solar Energy Technology Co., Ltd./Changzhou Trina Solar Yabang Energy Co., Ltd./Turpan Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Hubei Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd 4.66 Chint Solar (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd 6.98 ERA Solar Co., Ltd 6.98 ET Solar Energy Limited 6.98 Hangzhou Sunny Energy Science & Technology Co., Ltd 6.98 Hengdian Group DMEGC Magnetics Co., Ltd 6.98 JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd 6.98 Jiawei Solarchina (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd 6.98 Jiawei Solarchina Co., Ltd 6.98 JingAo Solar Co., Ltd 6.98 Lightway Green New Energy Co., Ltd 6.98 Ningbo ETDZ Holdings, Ltd 6.98 Risen Energy Co., Ltd 6.98 Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd 6.98 Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd 6.98 Shenzhen Sungold Solar Co., Ltd 6.98 Shenzhen Topray Solar Co., Ltd 6.98 Star Power International Limited 6.98 Systemes Versilis, Inc 6.98 Taizhou BD Trade Co., Ltd 6.98 tenKsolar (Shanghai) Co., Ltd 6.98 Toenergy Technology Hangzhou Co., Ltd 6.98 Wuxi Tianran Photovoltaic Co., Ltd 6.98 Yingli Energy (China) Company Limited/Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd./Tianjin Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd./Hengshui Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd./Lixian Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd./Baoding Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd./Beijing Tianneng Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd./Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd./Shenzhen Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd 6.98 Zhejiang Era Solar Technology Co., Ltd 6.98 Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology Limited Liability Company 6.98

    Because no party requested a review of the PRC-wide entity and the Department no longer considers the PRC-wide entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews,14 we did not conduct a review of the PRC-wide entity. Thus, the weighted-average dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity (i.e., 238.95 percent) is not subject to change as a result of this review.15

    14See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963, 65969-70 (November 4, 2013).

    15See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2013-2014, 81 FR 39905 (June 20, 2016).

    Assessment

    The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of these Final Results of review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we are calculating importer- (or customer-)specific assessment rates for the merchandise subject to this review. For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent), the Department will calculate importer- (or customer)-specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. Where the respondent reported reliable entered values, the Department calculated importer- (or customer)-specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to the importer- (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to the importer- (or customer).16 Where the Department calculated an importer- (or customer)-specific weighted-average dumping margin by dividing the total amount of dumping for reviewed sales to the importer- (or customer) by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions, the Department will direct CBP to assess importer- (or customer)-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit rates.17 Where an importer- (or customer)-specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is greater than de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties at the time of liquidation. Where either the respondent's weighted average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.18

    16See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    17Id.

    18See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101, 8103 (February 14, 2012).

    For merchandise whose sale/entry was not reported in the U.S. sales database submitted by an exporter individually examined during this review, but that entered under the case number of that exporter (i.e., at the individually-examined exporter's cash deposit rate), the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate. Additionally, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.19

    19See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011), for a full discussion of this practice.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the Final Results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice in the Federal Register, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed for each exporter in the table in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice, except if the rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent), then the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously investigated PRC and non-PRC exporters that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate previously established for the PRC-wide entity (i.e., 238.95 percent); and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these Final Results within five days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Notification to Importers Regarding the Reimbursement of Duties

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 has occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders (APO)

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 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 or 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 notice of the Final Results of this antidumping duty administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

    Dated: June 20, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—Issues and Decision Memorandum Summary Background Scope of the Order Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Whether the Department Should Apply Partial AFA to Trina's Unreported Factors of Production for Purchased Solar Cells Comment 2: Application of Partial AFA To Value Trina's Unreported FOPs Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Apply Partial AFA to Canadian Solar's Unreported Factors of Production for Purchased Solar Cells Comment 4: Application of Partial AFA To Value Canadian Solar's Unreported FOPs Comment 5: Surrogate Value for Semi-Finished Polysilicon Ingots and Blocks Comment 6: Data Source Used to Value Polysilicon and Mono & Multi Crystalline Wafers and Solar Cells Comment 7: Surrogate Value for Scrap Cells and Modules Comment 8: Surrogate Value for Silicon Scrap Offsets Comment 9: Surrogate Value for Recycled Silicon Scrap Comment 10: Surrogate Value for Aluminum Frames Comment 11: Surrogate Value for Backsheet Comment 12: Surrogate Value for Module Glass Comment 13: Surrogate Value for Nitrogen Comment 14: Surrogate Value for Canadian Solar's Silver Paste Comment 15: Surrogate Value for Quartz Crucibles Comment 16: Selection of Financial Statements Comment 17: Trina's Ocean Freight Comment 18: Differential Pricing Comment 19: Calculation of Warranty Expenses Comment 20: Insurance Costs Related to Warranties Comment 21: Treatment of Overhead Items Comment 22: Debt Restructuring Income Comment 23: Exclusion of Import Data with Values but Quantities of Zero Comment 24: Clerical Errors Comment 25: Separate Rate Status for Shenzhen Glory Industries Co., Ltd. Comment 26: Separate Rate Status for Hangzhou Sunny Energy Science & Technology Co., Ltd. Comment 27: Separate Rate Status for Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. Comment 28: Toenergy Technology Hangzhou Co., Ltd.'s Liquidation Instructions
    [FR Doc. 2017-13426 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Meeting of the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda for a meeting of the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee (CINTAC).

    DATES:

    The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 13, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 1412, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Jonathan Chesebro, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries, International Trade Administration, Mail Stop 28018, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230. (Phone: 202-482-1297; Fax: 202-482-5665; email: [email protected]).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The CINTAC was established under the discretionary authority of the Secretary of Commerce and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), in response to an identified need for consensus advice from U.S. industry to the U.S. Government regarding the development and administration of programs to expand United States exports of civil nuclear goods and services in accordance with applicable U.S. laws and regulations, including advice on how U.S. civil nuclear goods and services export policies, programs, and activities will affect the U.S. civil nuclear industry's competitiveness and ability to participate in the international market.

    Topics to be considered: The agenda for the Thursday, July 13, 2017 CINTAC meeting is as follows:

    Closed Session (9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.)

    1. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. App. §§ (10)(a)(1) and 10(a)(3) as information will be disclosed that would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of proposed agency actions were it to be disclosed prematurely (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B)) and as trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential information will be disclosed. (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4)).

    Public Session (3:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.)

    1. Public comment period. Public attendance is limited and available on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting must notify Mr. Jonathan Chesebro at the contact information above by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, July 7, 2017 in order to pre-register. Please specify any requests for reasonable accommodation at least five business days in advance of the meeting. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may not be possible to fill.

    A limited amount of time will be available for pertinent brief oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per person, with a total public comment period of 60 minutes. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must contact Mr. Chesebro and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the comments and the name and address of the proposed participant by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, July 7, 2017. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, ITA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers.

    Any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the CINTAC's affairs at any time before and after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, U.S. Department of Commerce, Mail Stop 28018, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230. For consideration during the meeting, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, July 7, 2017. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the meeting.

    Copies of CINTAC meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.

    Dated: June 22, 2017. Adam O'Malley, Director, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13452 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF495 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (MAFMC's) Demersal Committee will hold a public meeting, jointly with a subset of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC) Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Board (Board).

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 11, 2017, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. and on Wednesday, July 12, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Hilton Baltimore BWI Airport Hotel, 1739 W. Nursery Rd., Linthicum, MD 21090; telephone: (410) 694-0808.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331 or on their Web site at www.mafmc.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Demersal Committee and members of the Board will meet to review and discuss draft options for management of the commercial summer flounder fishery under the Comprehensive Summer Flounder Amendment, including options for addressing permit capacity and latent effort, commercial allocation, and landings flexibility. The goal of the meeting is to refine the draft range of alternatives and provide additional guidance to staff on adding specificity to the alternatives and analyzing their impacts, prior to additional consideration by the Council and Board at their August 2017 joint meeting. Meeting materials will be posted to http://www.mafmc.org/ prior to the meeting.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: June 22, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13397 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 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: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Reporting of Sea Turtle Entanglement in Fishing Gear or Marine Debris.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0496.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 111.

    Average Hours per Response: Reports and Sea Turtle Disentanglement Network responses, 1 hour each; interviews of fishermen, 30 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 165.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Sea turtles can become accidentally entangled in active or discarded fishing gear, marine debris, or other line in the marine environment. Entanglement has the potential to cause serious injury or mortality, which would negatively impact the recovery of endangered and threatened sea turtle populations. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) established the Sea Turtle Disentanglement Network (STDN) to respond to these entanglement events, in particular those involving the vertical line of fixed gear fisheries. The STDN's goals are to increase reporting, to reduce serious injury and mortality to sea turtles, and to collect information that can be used for mitigation of these threats. As there is limited observer coverage of fixed gear fisheries, the STDN data are invaluable to NMFS in understanding the threat of entanglement and working towards mitigation.

    Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; business or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households; Federal government and state, local and tribal governments.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at 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.

    Dated: June 21, 2017. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13337 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF331 Marine Mammals; File No. 21280 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; issuance of permit.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a permit has been issued to the Columbus Zoo Park Association, Inc., 9990 Riverside Drive, P.O. Box 400, Powell, OH 43065-0400 [Greg Bell, Responsible Official] to import seven California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) for public display purposes.

    ADDRESSES:

    The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Skidmore or Courtney Smith, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On April 7, 2017, notice was published in the Federal Register (82 FR 16998) that a request for a public display import permit had been submitted by the above-named applicant. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

    The permit authorizes the importation of seven captive-born California sea lions from Changfeng Ocean World in Shanghai City, China to the Columbus Zoo satellite facility in Myakka City, FL for the purpose of public display. The permit expires on June 9, 2022.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), a final determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Dated: June 22, 2017. Catherine Marzin, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13435 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Alaska Prohibited Species Donation (PSD) Program AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 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 28, 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 Megan Mackey, (907) 586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for an extension of an approved information collection.

    The prohibited species donation (PSD) program for salmon and halibut has effectively reduced regulatory discard of salmon and halibut by allowing fish that would otherwise be discarded to be donated to needy individuals through tax-exempt organizations. Vessels and processing plants participating in the PSD program voluntarily retain and process salmon and halibut bycatch. An authorized, tax-exempt distributor, chosen by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is responsible for monitoring retention and processing of fish donated by vessels and processors. The authorized distributor also coordinates processing, storage, transportation, and distribution of salmon and halibut. The PSD program requires an information collection so that NMFS can monitor the authorized distributors' ability to effectively supervise program participants and ensure that donated fish are properly processed, stored, and distributed.

    II. Method of Collection

    Respondents submit their application to become an authorized distributor by email (with attachments) or U.S. mail in the form of a letter.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0316.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a current information collection).

    Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1.

    Estimated Time per Response: Application to be a NMFS Authorized Distributor, 13 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 13 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $2 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    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.

    Dated: June 21, 2017. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13336 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE783 Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; response to comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS has considered public comments for revisions of the 2016 marine mammal stock assessment reports (SARs). This notice announces the availability of the final 2016 SARs for the 86 stocks that were updated.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic copies of SARs are available on the Internet as regional compilations and individual reports at the following address: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/.

    A list of references cited in this notice is available at www.regulations.gov (search for docket NOAA-NMFS-2016-0101) or upon request.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shannon Bettridge, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8402, [email protected]; Marcia Muto, 206-526-4026, [email protected], regarding Alaska regional stock assessments; Elizabeth Josephson, 508-495-2362, [email protected], regarding Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean regional stock assessments; or Jim Carretta, 858-546-7171, [email protected], regarding Pacific regional stock assessments.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Section 117 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) requires NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to prepare stock assessments for each stock of marine mammals occurring in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States, including the Exclusive Economic Zone. These reports must contain information regarding the distribution and abundance of the stock, population growth rates and trends, estimates of annual human-caused mortality and serious injury from all sources, descriptions of the fisheries with which the stock interacts, and the status of the stock. Initial reports were first completed in 1995.

    The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS to review the SARs at least annually for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new information is available, and at least once every three years for non-strategic stocks. The term “strategic stock” means a marine mammal stock: (A) For which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level; (B) which, based on the best available scientific information, is declining and is likely to be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) within the foreseeable future; or (C) which is listed as a threatened species or endangered species under the ESA. NMFS and the FWS are required to revise a SAR if the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately determined. NMFS, in conjunction with the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific independent Scientific Review Groups (SRGs), reviewed the status of marine mammal stocks as required and revised reports in the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific regions to incorporate new information.

    NMFS updated SARs for 2016, and the revised draft reports were made available for public review and comment for 90 days (81 FR 70097, October 11, 2016). Subsequent to soliciting public comment on the draft 2016 SARs, NMFS was made aware that due to technical conversion errors, the Atlantic SARs contained incorrect information in some instances. NMFS corrected these errors and the revised draft Atlantic 2016 SARs were made available for public comment through the end of original 90-day comment period (81 FR 90782, December 15, 2016). NMFS received comments on the draft 2016 SARs and has revised the reports as necessary. This notice announces the availability of the final 2016 reports for the 86 stocks that were updated. These reports are available on NMFS' Web site (see ADDRESSES).

    Comments and Responses

    NMFS received letters containing comments on the draft 2016 SARs from the Marine Mammal Commission; six non-governmental organizations (The Humane Society of the United States, Center for Biological Diversity, Whale and Dolphin Conservation, Maine Lobstermen's Association, the Hawaii Longline Association, and Friends of the Children's Pool); and three individuals. Responses to substantive comments are below; comments on actions not related to the SARs are not included below. Comments suggesting editorial or minor clarifying changes were incorporated in the reports, but they are not included in the summary of comments and responses. In some cases, NMFS' responses state that comments would be considered or incorporated in future revisions of the SARs rather than being incorporated into the final 2016 SARs.

    Comments on National Issues

    Comment 1: The Humane Society of the United States, Humane Society Legislative Fund, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Whale and Dolphin Conservation (Organizations) relayed that the SARs continue to have missing, outdated and/or imprecise information regarding population abundance and trends. The comment states that a recent review by the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) found that, as of the 2013 SARs, only 56 percent of stocks nationwide had estimates of minimum abundance; this includes only 58 percent of stocks in the Atlantic, 53 percent of stocks in Alaska, and, in the Gulf of Mexico (a subset of the Atlantic SARs) only 35 percent of stocks had a timely and realistic minimum estimates of abundance. The Atlantic region also was found to have low precision in many of the estimates that were provided. The Commission report identifies a number of weaknesses in the SARs including low precision surrounding most abundance estimates, inappropriately pooling estimates for stocks that are similar in appearance but that are actually different species or stocks (e.g., beaked whales), survey design that is inappropriate for the stock's likely range, and missing trend data that could result in some stocks experiencing a significant decline without detection. Moreover, with regard to setting a Potential Biological Removal (PBR) level as required by the MMPA, the Commission analysis found that “[o]f the 248 stocks evaluated, 134 (54 percent) had PBR estimates, 51 (21 percent) had outdated PBR estimates, 59 (24 percent) had no estimates . . .” These PBRs are critical for determining how to appropriately manage anthropogenic impacts, and a lack of a valid PBR hampers the agency's ability to comply with MMPA mandates. Recognizing that the Commission analysis was based on SARs that were released several years ago (2013), little improvement in this situation is evident in the current draft SARs. The Organizations recommend that NMFS recognize and fill gaps in population abundance and trends so that the SARs more accurately reflect the current status of populations.

    Response: We acknowledge and appreciate this comment and are actively working to address these gaps to the extent that resources allow. To this end, we are continuing to partner with other Federal agencies to collaborate on our common needs to better understand the distribution, abundance, and stock structure of cetaceans and other protected species. For example, since 2010, we have been working with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the U.S. Navy, and the FWS, to assess the abundance, distribution, ecology, and behavior of marine mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds in the western North Atlantic Ocean. One of the objectives of this joint venture, the Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protective Species (AMAPPS), is to address data gaps that are essential to improving population assessments. In 2015, we launched the joint AMAPPS II, which will continue through 2019. Modeled after the successes of AMAPPS, we are planning to launch two similar joint research programs this year for the Gulf of Mexico (GoMMAPPS) and the Pacific Ocean (PacMAPPS). These multi-year, multiple agency programs will provide data to help us meet our mandates under the MMPA.

    See our responses to comments on Regional Reports below where we address issues related to specific stocks.

    Comment 2: The Organizations note there are discrepancies in the choice of recovery factors used for distinct population segments (DPS) of humpback whales among the various regions. There should be more consistent application of recovery factors across regions for mixed or de-listed DPSs given that these newly defined populations share many of the same certainties and uncertainties in data on abundance, trend and range. The Pacific region re-assessed the California/Oregon/Washington stock of humpback whales, retaining the recovery factor of 0.3 from the prior SAR (when these humpbacks were still ESA-listed), based on NMFS guidelines for setting PBR elements that allow flexibility in use of recovery factors for listed stocks based in confidence in the data. However, the Alaska region has apparently not been consistent in its use of recovery factors in the PBR formula. Humpbacks in the Western North Pacific retained a recovery factor of 0.1 even though some portion of the feeding stock was de-listed. However, the Central North Pacific stock of humpbacks was assigned a recovery factor of 0.3 even though the SAR for the Central North Pacific stock acknowledges that there is a “known overlap in the distribution of the Western and Central North Pacific humpback whale stocks [and] estimates for these feeding areas may include whales from the Western North Pacific stock.” The mixing of both ESA-listed and unlisted stocks in the same feeding area seems likely and in the interest of consistency, conservation, and judicious management of resources, the region should keep the more conservative recovery factor of 0.1 for both Western North Pacific and Central North Pacific stocks that vary in ESA listing status but intermix with other stocks in the Alaskan feeding grounds. The Atlantic region has used a recovery factor of 0.5 in its PBR formula, despite data uncertainties.

    Response: As described in our Federal Register notice requesting comments on the Draft 2016 Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (81 FR 70097, October 11, 2016), we are currently conducting a review of humpback whale stock delineations under the MMPA to determine whether any humpback whale stocks in U.S. waters should be realigned with the ESA DPSs. Until we have completed our review, we will continue to treat the Western North Pacific, Central North Pacific, and California/Oregon/Washington stocks as depleted because they partially or fully coincide with ESA-listed DPSs. As such, we have not changed the recovery factors for these three stocks from the values reported in the 2015 SARs; any changes in stock delineation or MMPA section 117 elements (such as PBR, strategic status, or recovery factors) will be reflected in future stock assessment reports, and the Scientific Review Groups and the public will be provided opportunity to review and comment.

    Comment 3: The Hawaii Longline Association (HLA) asserts that the SAR administrative process be improved; it is confusing, inefficient, and produces final SARs that are not based upon the best available scientific information. Because of the inefficient process used to produce SARs, the draft SARs fail to rely upon the best available data (i.e., the most current data that it is practicable to use), contrary to the MMPA. For example, the draft 2016 SAR only reports data collected through the year 2014, even though 2015 data are readily available; there is no credible justification to continue the present two-year delay in the use of information.

    Response: As noted in previous years, the marine mammal SARs are based upon the best available scientific information, and NMFS strives to update the SARs with as timely data as possible. In order to develop annual mortality and serious injury estimates, we do our best to ensure all records are accurately accounted for in that year. In some cases, this is contingent on such things as bycatch analysis, data entry, and assessment of available data to make determinations of severity of injury, confirmation of species based on morphological and/or molecular samples collected, etc. Additionally, the SARs incorporate injury determinations that have been assessed pursuant to the NMFS 2012 Policy and Procedure for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals (NMFS Policy Directive PD 02-038 and NMFS Instruction 02-038-01), which requires several phases of review by the SRGs. Reporting on incomplete annual mortality and serious injury estimates could result in underestimating actual levels. The MMPA requires us to report mean annual mortality and serious injury estimates, and we try to ensure that we are accounting for all available data before we summarize those data. With respect to abundance, in some cases we provide census rather than abundance estimates, and the accounting process to obtain the minimum number alive requires two years of sightings to get a stable count, after which the data are analyzed and entered into the SAR in the third year. All animals are not seen every year; waiting two years assures that greater than 90 percent of the animals still alive will be included in the count. As a result of the review and revision process, data used for these determinations typically lag two years behind the year of the SAR.

    Comment 4: The Commission recommends that NMFS develop a strategy and plan to collaborate with other nations to improve and/or expand existing surveys and assessments for trans-boundary stocks. Priority should be given to those stocks that are endangered or threatened, hunted, or known to interact significantly with fisheries or other marine activities in international or foreign waters. The goal should be to manage human impacts on trans-boundary stocks using a potential biological removal level calculated for the entire stock, as has been suggested in the proposed revisions to the stock assessment guidelines.

    Response: We acknowledge the Commission's comment and agree that collaboration with other countries for assessments of trans-boundary stocks is a worthy goal. For example, for the Gulf of Mexico, we are investigating whether GoMMAPPS could encompass a Gulf-wide approach to include collaborative international surveys. For the northwestern Atlantic Ocean, we recently convened a joint Ecosystem Based Management Science Workshop with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada in St. Andrews, Canada, to discuss how to develop sustained funding opportunities for collaborative research projects that advance ecosystem based management science in our transboundary waters. Some of the ongoing and potential collaborative research projects discussed include AMAPPS, aerial and ship surveys (e.g., gray seals, right whales), autonomous glider surveys, and long-term passive accoutic monitoring of whale presence.

    In the North Pacific, the SPLASH (Structure of Populations, Levels of Abundance and Status of Humpbacks) surveys conducted during 2004 through 2006, represent one of the largest and most successful international collaborative studies of any whale population to date. SPLASH was designed to determine the abundance, trends, movements, and population structure of humpback whales throughout the North Pacific and to examine human impacts on this population. This study involved over 50 research groups and more than 400 researchers in 10 countries. It was supported by a number of U.S. agencies and organizations, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the Commission for Environmental Cooperation with additional support from a number of other organizations and governments for effort in specific regions.

    The only current international assessment survey in the North Pacific is the International Whaling Commission's (IWC) Pacific Ocean Whales & Ecosystem Research (POWER) cruise, which runs annually and sequentially surveys set areas of the North Pacific. These cruises have been run for several years across much of the North Pacific Ocean and in 2017-19 will be focused on the Bering Sea. The survey always includes at least one U.S. researcher. Reports and data are submitted annually to the IWC Scientific Committee. The survey employs line-transect methods and is designed to calculate abundance of all large whale species. Whether the estimates possess sufficient precision to be used for calculating PBR is likely to vary by species, and the huge areas being surveyed may in some cases mean low precision. The surveys also take time for photo-id and biopsy sampling, and in 2017 they will for the first time include acoustic monitoring via sonobuoys.

    With the exception of the POWER cruise (which is possible largely because of funding and the provision of a vessel by the Government of Japan, together with support from the IWC) the challenge of implementing the Commission's recommendation is the considerable expense involved in conducting trans-boundary surveys. The SPLASH project on North Pacific humpback whales was very successful but involved funding by multiple nations (including the U.S.). Given the current budget environment, it is unlikely that funding would be available for an assessment survey of similar international scope.

    Regarding the management of human impacts on trans-boundary stocks using a PBR level calculated for the entire stock, we note that we included clarifications in the 2016 revised Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks (GAMMS). For transboundary stocks, the best approach is to compare the total (U.S. and non-U.S.) M/SI to the range-wide PBR whenever possible. For non-migratory stocks where estimates of mortality or abundance from outside the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) cannot be determined, PBR calcuations are based on the abundance within the EEZ and compared to mortality within the EEZ. For cases where we are able to estimate the entire population size, such as the transboundary Californa coastal stock of bottlenose dolphins, we prorate the PBR to account for the time that animals spend outside of U.S. waters.

    Comments on Atlantic Regional Reports

    Comment 5: The Organizations point out that the Commission's review of SARs found that only approximately one third of stocks in the Gulf of Mexico have valid information on minimum population and/or have a current estimate of PBR. For the Gulf of Mexico, “of the 36 stocks without a PBR in the 2013 assessments, 33 are due to outdated survey data and 3 are due to no data.” The outdated estimates for stocks in the Gulf of Mexico are generally not just a year or two out of date, many have not been assessed since the 1990s—over two decades ago. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster impacted many of these poorly assessed stocks.

    For example, the Organizations note the lack of population data available for the small stocks of Gulf of Mexico Bay, Sound, and Estuary (BSE) bottlenose dolphins—many of which were adversely impacted by the oil spill from the Deepwater Horizon well. As a result of aging data and lack of survey effort, population estimates are now only available for 3 of the more than 30 bay, sound and estuarine stocks whereas there were estimates for 6 in the last SAR. The Organizations recommend that new population estimates be generated.

    Response: We recognize that many of the Gulf of Mexico stocks do not have abundance estimates. Together with our partners at the National Center for Coastal Ocean Science and the Texas Marine Mammal Stranding Network, we are currently conducting photo-ID mark-recapture surveys to estimate abundance of common bottlenose dolphins in St. Andrew Bay, West Bay, Galveston Bay, Sabine Lake, and Terrebonne and Timbalier bays. We anticipate completing additional estuarine photo-ID mark-recapture surveys in collaboration with partners throughout the Gulf as resources become available. During 2017 and 2018, we have planned vessel and aerial surveys under the proposed GoMMAPPS that will provide updated abundance estimates for coastal, shelf and oceanic stocks.

    Comment 6: The Organizations comment that the Atlantic SARs and their iterative edits are often difficult to follow. In general, the SARs have become confusing, contradictory, and disorganized to an extent that it is often difficult to discern critical information, which was noted by the Atlantic SRG in its 2016 letter to NMFS. They noted no evidence in the current draft SARs for this region that any significant attempt was made to address the sub-standard content or readability of many of the SARs.

    Response: The language contained in the Atlantic SARs was discussed in depth at the 2016 Atlantic SRG meeting. We hightlighted four Atlantic SARs (coastal common bottlenose dolphin SARs and the Northern North Carolina and Southern North Carolina Estuarine System Stock SARs) for major revision. Given the comments and discussion at the 2016 meeting, we decided to retract these SARs from the 2016 cycle as it was not possible to make major revisions given the timeframe necessary for publishing the draft 2016 SARs in the Federal Register for public comment. Thus, these four SARs were not included in the draft 2016 SARs published in the Federal Register for public review. These retracted SARs were the only Atlantic SARs that were identified during the 2016 Atlantic SRG discussion for major revision. For the 2017 SAR cycle, we will restructure seven Atlantic common bottlenose dolphin SARs, including the four retracted SARs.

    Comment 7: The Organizations comment that the Atlantic SRG was asked to review a number of SARs that do not appear in this edited draft of NMFS' SARs. For example, the Atlantic SRG was asked to review and provide comments on SARs for four bottlenose dolphin stocks that do not appear available for public review either online in the draft SARs or as part of the Federal Register notice. NMFS has proposed no changes to these dolphin SARs, nor is the public asked to comment on them. It is not clear why this occurred. NMFS should provide an explanation for discrepancy in the number of stocks reviewed and commented on by the Atlantic SRG as opposed to the abbreviated list of SARs provided in the documents for public review and comment.

    Response: See response to Comment 6.

    Comment 8: The Organizations note the initial sentence under the Gulf of Mexico BSE bottlenose dolphin report of takes in shrimp trawls states, “During 2010-2014, there were no documented mortalities or serious injuries of common bottlenose dolphins from Gulf of Mexico BSE stocks by commercial shrimp trawls; however, observer coverage of this fishery does not include BSE waters.” It is misleading to say “there were no documented mortalities,” as this implies that mortalities that occurred would and could have been documented by independent fishery observers when, in fact, there is no observer coverage to document any mortalities. The Organizations recommend omitting that sentence and simply stating something like: “No data are available on fishery-related mortalities for the period 2010-2014, as there was no observer coverage of the fishery in BSE waters.”

    Response: To provide clarity, we have modified the sentence to read: “During 2010-2014, there were no documented mortalities or serious injuries of common bottlenose dolphins from Gulf of Mexico BSE stocks by commercial shrimp trawls because observer coverage of this fishery does not include BSE waters.”

    Comment 9: The Organizations recommend that much of the information on the Gulf of Mexico BSE bottlenose dolphins in the narrative section on “Other Mortality” can be reduced to a table, particularly the listing of animals that were shot or otherwise injured by humans (i.e., providing the likely stock identity, date, location, weaponry involved). The lengthy narrative discussion that is provided in some, but not all, cases is unnecessarily descriptive.

    Response: We shortened or removed the narrative descriptions for many of the mortalities and moved the descriptions of the at-sea observations and research takes to a table.

    Comment 10: The Organizations note the section on Status of the Gulf of Mexico BSE bottlenose dolphin stock contains this sentence “The relatively high number of bottlenose dolphin deaths that occurred during the mortality events since 1990 suggests that some of these stocks may be stressed.” The Organizations point out that stressed is an ambiguous word that may refer to any number of things and with no information on the severity of impact. “Stress” can mean physiological stress (as in the autonomic nervous system responses and elevated cortisol levels that may be highly detrimental) but could refer to a challenge to the stock's persistence. The Organizations suggest that NMFS consider use of a more appropriate descriptor for the importance of the information on impacts of the “high number” of deaths than is conveyed by the vague word “stressed.”

    Response: We removed the subject sentence in the final SAR.

    Comment 11: The Commission points out that in the North Atlantic right whale SAR, the second paragraph of the “Current and Maximum Productivity Rates” section states that right whale per-capita birth rates have been highly variable but lack a definitive trend. While that is true, the data presented in Figure 2 suggest that the pattern of variability shifted around 2000.

    Between 1990 and 2000, the per capita birth rate was substantially higher than the long-term mean in three (27 percent) of those years, close to the mean in two (18 percent) of the years, and substantially lower in six (55 percent) of the years. In contrast, between 2001 and 2012, the rate was substantially higher in four (33 percent) of those years, close to the mean in 6 (50 percent) of the years, and substantially lower in just one (17 percent) of the years. In other words, the mean rate increased substantially from the first to the second period. In addition, one study has pointed to a substantial decline in the birth rate from 2010 on, which coincides with an apparent decline in the population growth rate (Kraus et al. 2016). Those declines have been coincident with sharp declines in right whale numbers at several major feeding habitats, an increase in the occurrence in severe entanglement injuries (Knowlton et al. 2012, Robbins et al. 2015), and declines in animal health-based assessments of blubber thickness, skin lesions, and other health assessment parameters (Rolland et al. 2016). The Commission recommends that NMFS undertake a thorough statistical/modeling analysis of these data to determine whether any of these apparent/possible trends are significant and what effect they are having on the recovery of the stock.

    Response: The North Atlantic right whale population is very small with few (~100) adult females. Per capita reproduction is expected to be highly variable as a result of many females becoming synchronized in their calving and resting periods. Estimating trends as suggested has questionable statistical validity because individual females' cycles are not independent (Rosenbaum et. al. 2002, McLaughlin et al. 1994). NMFS will further examine the potential to model the volatility of observed calf production and its effects on stock status. However, the multiple consecutive years of fewer births than deaths, as documented in the SAR, suggests a declining population.

    Comment 12: The Commission recommends that NMFS, in consultation with independent experts familiar with assessing right whale health, re-examine information on the deaths and injuries of several North Atlantic right whales (including #3705, #3360, #3946, #2160, #1311, #3692, #2810, [#unidentified], and #4057) to determine whether they should be added to the list of M/SI cases in Table 1.

    Response: The NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center staff reviewed all these cases and their determinations regarding serious injury were later reviewed by experienced staff at another Fisheries Science Center, the Greater Atlantic and Southeast Regional Offices, and the Atlantic SRG, per NMFS Policy and Procedure for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals. NMFS staff looks for evidence of significant health decline post event. We do not currently have a method to address sublethal effects or more subtle/slow health decline. Most of the recommended cases fall into this category. In addition, several of the cases mentioned simply did not have enough information to make a determination of human interaction (see below).

    Regarding whale #1311, this whale was an unrecovered carcass filmed floating off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, by a fisherman in August 2013. Line was caught in the baleen, and it had rostrum and head wounds apparently due to line wraps. Staff reviewing the injuries were unable to determine the extent of human interaction from footage provided. The event did not meet any of the four entanglement mortality criteria as listed in NMFS M/SI documents (Henry et al. 2016), was classified as a mortality due to unknown cause, and was not included in the SAR as a human-caused mortality.

    We have no data on the unidentified whale described as being sighted in September 2014 by an aerial survey team in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts, and none was provided upon request from commenters. Therefore, this event was not included in Table 1. It could be a resight of an animal with an earlier injury date.

    Comment 13: The Maine Lobsterman's Association (MLA) notes the North Atlantic right whale SAR determines the minimum population to be 440 whales, which is a census of those known to be alive. Using a census is not an adequate methodology to assess this population given that much of the population's distribution is unknown during the winter, and recent shifts in habitat use patterns have resulted in fewer right whales being detected in known habitats. Right whale patterns and behaviors will continue to change; thus, this mark-and-recapture approach to determine the minimum population is not adequate. This approach also ignores science such as Frasier (2005), which concluded based on genetic testing matched to known calves that the population of right whale males has been underestimated. The SAR offers little to explain why patterns of habitat use are shifting or adequately determine the population size.

    This problem is further exacerbated by the new methodologies used to count serious injury and mortality: Whales with unknown outcomes are now counted on a pro‐rated basis. Given the critical status of the species, it is imperative that NMFS develop a new method of assessing the right whale population that does not rely solely on sightings and photo‐identification of these whales. The MLA recommends that NMFS convene a workshop of independent scientists to review the best available science and potential modelling approaches to assess this stock. This task should not be delegated to Science Center staff but rather should involve scientists from a variety of marine mammal, modelling, climate change and other fields to objectively recommend the best approach to assessing North American right whales.

    Response: Currently, we use an index of abundance that is more sophisticated than a simple census in that it pools within-year sightings of individual right whales and does not rely on any particular season to represent the count of whales (so, if a whale is not seen in a particular season, it does not affect the count). Further, the method includes not just the individuals seen in the target year, but those seen before and after the target year, plus calves in the target year. Because right whale re-sighting rates have been extremely high for many years (greater than 85 percent), the method is relatively robust and produces an abundance value that is very much like a census. However, the recent decline in sighting rates has led the agency to explore different methodologies for abundance estimation, and we may move toward a mark-recapture statistical approach for future abundance characterizations. This new method will continue to rely on photo-identification data. Assessments based on individual capture histories, when properly constructed, have proven far superior both in regard to precision of abundance estimates and added demographic data than any simple abundance-based assessment procedure developed for other wildlife. This is especially true for marine mammals that range over vast areas and for which estimating density is costly. This new approach will also allow for an estimate of entanglement mortality and avoid issues with undercounting, even after changes to the serious injury categorizations. In regard to the Frasier (2005) work, the thesis put forward a position based on incomplete genetic sampling of the observed adult male population and included only a single hypothetical breeding model. Further, we do not ignore the Frasier hypothesis, but we recognize its uncertain nature that aligns poorly with NMFS precautionary management strategies. Regarding explanations of why patterns of habitat use are shifting, this is not yet well understood, and, for this reason, it would be premature to include information on this factor in the SAR (see response to Comment 14).

    With regard to the suggestions for a workshop, we are working on an approach very much like the one suggested by the commenter. Discussions will likely build on the findings from the North Atlantic right whale panel at the Commission's 2017 annual meeting and the outcomes from the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team meeting. Both meetings were held in April 2017.

    Comment 14: The MLA notes the North Atlantic right whale SAR raises concern about a potential decline in the population beginning in 2012, the most recent year of the assessment but also notes that “productivity in North Atlantic right whales lacks a definitive trend.” The SAR dedicates the majority of its discussion on Current Population Trend to research from the early 1990s through the early 2000s, documenting a decline during that time. In discussing the recent population growth spanning more than 10 years (2000 through 2011), the SAR offers only one sentence, “However, the population continued to grow since that apparent interval of decline [ending in 2000] until the most recent year included in this analysis.” The SAR provides no discussion of conditions during this recent 10‐year period of growth in the population and does little to inform what may have driven either the former decline or recent growth.

    Response: We recognize the lack of balance given to fluctuating period-specific growth patterns in right whale abundance. The causes of fluctuation are poorly understood. NMFS is presently engaged in analysis to examine the relative contributions of fecundity and mortality to fluctuating abundances; the outcome from our analysis will be reflected in future stock assessment reports.

    Comment 15: The MLA notes that the data on the confirmed human‐caused mortality of North Atlantic right whales continue to be difficult to interpret. Of the 24 interactions attributed to entanglement from 2010-2014, only 0.4 were confirmed to be U.S. fishing gear from a pot/trap fishery. Twenty‐two of the entanglement cases have no definitive information on the fishery involved or where the gear was set. Data implicating the fishing industry at large sours fruitful discussion and makes it very difficult for the individual fisheries to find effective solutions to the entanglement problem.

    Response: Known, observed mortalities are a (likely biased) subset of actual mortality. The SAR attempts to report these data with as much information as is available. There may be other, incidental deaths not fully known or attributable to specific areas, fisheries, or gear types. Forensic efforts are made of all recovered gear to identify specific fisheries (target species, region, nation of origin, etc.). However, insufficient data exist to assign specific levels of resolution in most cases, and we are only able to report the cause of death as fishery-related entanglement. The inability to distinguish whether impacts are due to the scale of fishing effort versus one or a few areas that have disproportionate impact and could be strategically targeted by management actions presents significant management challenges. New gear marking requirements developed under the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan are showing promise in improving gear attribution to specific fisheries. We welcome suggestions as to how to reduce entanglement, improve forensic analysis, or to better mark gear for source identification.

    Comment 16: The Organizations point out that the chart showing North Atlantic right whale M/SI omits any mention of M/SI from 2015, though the agency has already acknowledged and accounted for a number of such occurrences in a separate document. Since the agency has incorporated and “coded” this more recent information from 2015 in a separate reference document, these events should be added to the SARs, which should themselves reflect the most recent information available.

    Response: The period covered by the 2016 SAR is 2010-2014. M/SI events from 2015 will be included in the 2017 SAR. Limiting the reports to the 5-year period is not only important for consistency, but also for completeness. M/SI cases are assembled and reviewed by fall of the year following the event in order to be included in the draft SARs by the next January.

    Comment 17: The Organizations comment that the Gulf of Maine stock humpback whale revised SAR inappropriately uses a recovery factor of 0.5 in calculations of the PBR. The NMFS GAMMS state: “The recovery factor of 0.5 for threatened or depleted stocks or stocks of unknown status was determined based on the assumption that the coefficient of variation of the mortality estimate (CV) is equal to or less than 0.3. If the CV is greater than 0.3, the recovery factor should be decreased to: 0.48 for CVs of 0.3 to 0.6; 0.45 for CVs of 0.6 to 0.8; and 0.40 for CVs greater than 0.8.” In its section on fishery-related mortality, the Gulf of Maine humpback whale report acknowledges that entanglements and entanglement-related mortality are likely under-reported. Citing recent literature, just prior to the mortality table, the SAR states in part that “[w]hile these records are not statistically quantifiable in the same way as observer fishery records, they provide some indication of the minimum frequency of entanglements.” There is uncertainty surrounding estimates of anthropogenic mortality with no CV provided, and NMFS itself acknowledges that it is under-reported. This raises the question of the CV surrounding the mortality estimate.

    Response: As a result of the humpback whale ESA listing rule (81 FR 62259, September 8, 2016), the Gulf of Maine stock of humpback whales is no longer considered ESA listed or depleted. Therefore, the recovery factor changed from 0.1 (the default recovery factor for stocks of endangered species) to 0.5, the default value for stocks of unknown status relative to optimum sustainable population (OSP). As a result, the GAMMS' discussion of reducing the recovery factor based on the CV of the mortality estimate is not relevant here; in addition to there being no CVs associated with the abundance or death-by-entanglement metrics reported in the SAR, CVs are a measure of the precision of the estimate, while the likely undercount of humpback whale mortalities is an issue of bias. We are collaborating on ways to improve estimates of entanglement mortality to reduce the bias.

    Comment 18: The Organizations note the minimum population estimate (Nmin) for the Gulf of Maine humpback whale stock that was used for calculating PBR was higher than the actual survey estimate. The survey estimate was said to be 335 animals with a CV of 0.42; however, that estimate of population was increased to 823 based on mark-recapture and an outdated survey estimate from 2008—an estimate that has no CV associated. The GAMMS state clearly that “the Nmin estimate of the stock should be considered unknown if 8 years have transpired since the last abundance survey” and the last survey was 8 years ago. If NMFS does not wish to default to “unknown” for an abundance estimate, then the SAR should use an estimate derived from a recent survey, and NMFS should devote funds to obtaining a more reliable estimate if it considers the 335 to be negatively biased. Given uncertainties in both estimates of abundance and mortality, a recovery factor of 0.5 appears inappropriate for the Gulf of Maine humpback whale stock. Clearly the stock may not require a recovery factor of 0.1 since it was delisted, but The Organizations believe it warrants using a recovery factor lower (more conservative) than 0.5.

    Response: The 2016 SAR references the time frame 2010-2014. Hence, data collected in 2008 are not regarded as being out-dated and are included in the calculation of Nmin. NMFS recognizes that the general line transect surveys conducted in the U.S. Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone have proven problematic in informing abundance of this stock because of poor precision. For this reason, we avoid line-transect estimates for the Gulf of Maine humpback whale stock when possible. See response to Comment 17 regarding recovery factor.

    Comment 19: The Organizations note that if the calculations of Robbins (2011, 2012) cited in the Gulf of Maine humpback whale SAR are reasonable, then, as the SAR acknowledges, “the 3 percent mortality due to entanglement that she calculates equates to a minimum average rate of 25, which is nearly 10 times PBR.” Even if NMFS increases the PBR to 13 (as suggested in the draft), an average of 25 mortalities per year would be almost twice the new PBR. They maintain that this stock was inappropriately changed to non-strategic given that the actual level of anthropogenic mortality is acknowledged in the SAR to be higher than the incidents detailed in the SAR tables and may be well over the PBR.

    Response: See response to Comment 17. We agree that a simple count of the known mortalities is a poor measure and very likely a serious undercount of entanglement mortality. We are collaborating on ways to improve estimates of entanglement mortality.

    Comment 20: The Organizations note that NMFS has compiled more recent data on mortality of Gulf of Maine humpback whales than 2014, as these data are based on individual animals sighted dead or entangled (rather than having to extrapolate from observed take rates as is done for fishery interactions with small cetaceans). Nine additional humpbacks in 2015 were documented as M/SI by NMFS that are greater than zero and should be added to the tally in the table in this SAR.

    Response: See response to Comment 16 regarding the time period of data covered in the 2016 SAR.

    Comment 21: The Organizations recommend that NMFS update the Gulf of Maine humpback SAR with regard to habitat use in the mid-Atlantic region. While the SAR correctly notes sightings off Delaware and Chesapeake Bays, there is no reference to the increasing sightings and reliable anecdotal reports of humpback whales off Northern New Jersey and New York.

    Response: We have updated the Gulf of Maine humpback final SAR to include recent sightings in the New York area.

    Comment 22: Based on NMFS' recent global status review of humpback whales, the MLA supports the use of the default recovery factor used in this draft assessment of 0.5, rather than the former 0.1, because the Gulf of Maine humpback whale stock is no longer considered endangered. The MLA suggests that NMFS broaden the assessment of humpback whales in the draft 2016 SAR to reflect the West Indies DPS, including population, productivity rates, and assessing human‐caused injury and mortality. With regard to human‐caused interactions, the MLA notes that they have long been concerned with the former status quo approach, which attributed all of these interactions to the Gulf of Maine stock simply because these whales could not be confirmed to another stock. The global status review provides the best available science on humpbacks. They assert that by using the West Indies DPS as the assessment unit, it will no longer be necessary to make assumptions about which smaller‐scale feeding or breeding areas were used by the whale when analyzing human‐caused impacts.

    Response: NMFS is in the process of reviewing stock structure for all humpback whales in U.S. waters, following the change in ESA listing for the species. Until then, we are retaining the current stock delineation.

    Comment 23: The Organizations comment that the strike-outs render key portions of the fin whale SAR unreadable. For example, in the section on Annual Human Caused Mortality and Serious Injury, there are a series of strike-outs that are difficult to follow, though it appears that the final tally of mortality is an average of 3.8 (modifying what was 3.55 with what looks like 32.8 but with the “2” apparently struck as well but in the same faint color). They suggest that NMFS simplify its editing and provide an easily readable document. They also note that this mortality rate exceeds the PBR of 2.5, and there is a coded Serious Injury for 2015 in the NMFS draft appendix reviewed by the Atlantic SRG. The most up-to-date information should be used.

    Response: In order to improve readability in future draft SARs, we will reconcile edits from multiple people into a single color. See the response to Comment 16 regarding the time period of data covered in the 2016 SAR.

    Comment 24: The Organizations note that NMFS has compiled more recent data on mortality of minke whales than 2014. These data are based on individual animals sighted dead or entangled. Because the mortality and serious injury data in SARs for large cetaceans are based solely on what might be termed “body counts” (rather than having to extrapolate to the entire fishery from a subset of mortality obtained from federal fisheries observers) there is little justification for a multi-year delay in reporting. Six additional minke whales were accounted as dead from fishery-related injuries in 2015 (and one vessel-related fatality) and should be added to the tally in the table in this SAR in order to provide the most up-to-date information.

    Response: See the response to Comment 16 regarding the time period of data covered in the 2016 SAR.

    Comment 25: The Organizations comment that the current combined estimate of abundance of 11,865 for both long-finned and short-finned pilot whale species is from a 2011 aerial and ship-board survey that only covered a portion of the seasonal range of the species. The SARs state that “[b]ecause long-finned and short-finned pilot whales are difficult to distinguish at sea, sightings data are reported as Globicephala sp.;” however, estimates of abundance for each species were derived from this using a model based on “genetic analyses of biopsy samples” and this model is said to be “in press.” Given the management implications of pilot whales being caught in elevated numbers in both trawl and longline gear, it is vital that there be a valid and reliable species-specific estimate for each/both species. Given that prior SARs have often stated that papers are “in press” for several annual iterations, the Organizations hope that this important model is soon published. They are concerned that the citation is to a science center document that is not peer-reviewed and the citation is tentative and incomplete. The long-finned and short-finned pilot whale SARs contain multiple editors striking and amending in a manner that challenges the readability of the SARs in key sections including the reporting of estimates of longline-related mortality.

    Response: We conducted combined aerial and vessel surveys during summer 2011 that included mid-Atlantic waters where there is expected overlap between short-finned and long-finned pilot whales. The resulting abundance estimate of 11,865 was partitioned between the two species. We combined this estimate with the results from our summer 2011 survey of the southern Atlantic to produce the best species-specific abundance estimate of 21,515 for short-finned pilot whales over their entire range within U.S. waters. For long-finned pilot whales, the best estimate of 5,636 includes results from surveys conducted in all U.S. Atlantic waters. The Science Center document (Garrison and Rosel 2016) providing the details of the methodology for partitioning the species for both abundance estimation and bycatch estimation has gone through Science Center review and is available upon request. Starting with the 2017 SARs, we will reconcile edits from multiple people into a single color to improve readability.

    Comment 26: The Organizations point out that large numbers of harbor seals are seen alive but with notable entanglement injuries. This should be discussed in the SAR. They note that the federally funded and permitted stranding response organizations are required to keep records of their responses and this source should be queried. They were unable to find non-gray (or agency) literature documenting incidence but the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) has documented that between 2000-2010 “412 harbor seals were reported stranded, among them HI [human interaction] was 8 percent (n=35).” Moreover, the authors noted with regard to various seal species to which IFAW responded: “In the instances of fisheries-related HI, 67 percent had gear presently on the animal at the time of stranding. 72 percent of the entanglements were of monofilament of varying mesh size. 15 percent were multifilament netting, 9 percent were pot/trap gear, and 4 percent were random (mooring lines, dock gear). Most entangled animals were juveniles and sub-adults, which might indicate that the entanglements are lethal to animals, preventing them from reaching adult size.”

    Gray seals are also being entangled and data are kept on stranding response, including either documenting or freeing animals entangled in fishing gear. IFAW documented that, between 2000-2010, “305 gray seals were reported stranded, among them 22 percent (n=68) were HI, and 75 percent of those (n=51) were fisheries related.” Moreover, the authors noted that, with regard to the various seal species to which IFAW responded: “In the instances of fisheries-related HI, 67 percent had gear presently on the animal at the time of stranding. 72 percent of the entanglements were of monofilament of varying mesh size. 15 percent were multifilament netting, 9 percent were pot/trap gear, and 4 percent were random (mooring lines, dock gear). Most entangled animals were juveniles and sub-adults, which might indicate that the entanglements are lethal to animals, preventing them from reaching adult size.” It would seem worth adding a section to the SAR to discuss entanglements noted in living or dead-stranded animals.

    Response: We have added the following text to the harbor seal SAR that was included in the gray seal SAR: “Analysis of bycatch rates from fisheries observer program records likely underestimates lethal (Lyle and Willcox 2008), and greatly under-represents sub-lethal fishery interactions.”

    Comment 27: The Organizations comment that the gray seal SAR is almost impossible to read in parts and/or has text that was newly added in this draft and then struck. For example, Table 2 has counts through 2014 that are continued from the prior final SAR—though the years 2008-2014 continued to say that the “surveys took place but have not been counted” and additional text for the years 2014-2015 was added for Muskeget Island. However, all of these estimates (2008-2015), even those newly added to the draft, are in red and were struck. It makes no sense to add a new year of uncounted data that is then itself struck. It would seem more germane simply to state that data from 2008-2015 are not yet available rather than adding new text and then striking without a providing a rationale.

    Response: The 2015 data were added mistakenly by a new author who did not understand that the time period covered by the 2016 SAR was 2010-2014, and so were removed by an editor. In the future, we will better synthesize edits to present in the track-change version.

    Comment 28: The Organizations comment that in the gray seal SAR, the section on mortality in Canada for the years 2011-2015 was struck in its entirety (new edits and all) and moved/replaced later in the SAR under “Other Mortality” with a header reading “Canada.” However, the re-located “new” section does not provide the updated information from the struck section and, in some cases, the information included is actually older. For example, this newer section states that human-caused mortality data in Canada are for 2010-2014 whereas the earlier, struck, section had data through 2015. These 2010-2014 data account for lower levels of mortality (136 deaths for the period 2010-2014) than was accounted in text in the section that was struck for the more current years (i.e., 353 deaths for 2011-2015). The later data, which show a notable increase in mortality, should be used.

    Response: We will include data from 2015 in the 2017 SAR. The time period for the 2016 SAR is 2010-2014 (See response to Comment 16).

    Comment 29: Two individual commenters expressed concern about the propagation of gray seals in Cape Cod, Massachusetts. They note that the 2016 stock assessments do not highlight increasing populations in expanded territories and lack recent pup production data.

    Response: We appreciate the concerns expressed and are working toward publishing recent pup count and haul out survey data. We will include those count data in the 2017 SARs.

    Comments on Pacific Regional Reports

    Comment 30: The Commission appreciates NMFS' efforts to consolidate, update, and standardize the presentation of data and information in its stock assessment reports. Previously, the tables presenting data on fisheries-caused M/SI provided data for each of the last five years of available data. However, in the draft 2016 Pacific SARs only summary statistics for the five years are provided. Understanding the impact and potential mitigation of fisheries interactions on marine mammal populations, as well as trends, requires data not only on the mean bycatch rate, but also on its year-to-year changes (e.g., Carretta and Moore, 2014). The Commission recommends that, at a minimum, NMFS continue to report the annual “Percent Observer Coverage” and “Observer Mortality and Serious Injury” data in the `Human-Caused Mortality and Serious Injury' sections of its stock assessment reports.

    Response: We recognize the importance of access to the annual observed or documented M/SI data to assess year-to-year changes; thus, we reinstated annual-level details in the final 2016 SARs for those fisheries and stocks where there were takes. However, for some species where takes in a specific fishery have perennially been zero, we think that a consolidated summary that presents a range of observer coverage for a multi-year time period may be sufficient (see Table 5 in Wade and Angliss 1997). We will continue to assess the most appropriate level of detail on observer coverage and M/SI to include in fishery tables in the SARs.

    Comment 31: The Commission notes that the dynamics of some stocks display considerable heterogeneity in time and/or space. In those situations, a complete review of the SAR requires access to the data describing the variability over time or across the stock's distribution. The Commission recommends that NMFS provide data, in tables and graphs, specific to different years, areas, and sub-populations, as appropriate, when a stock exhibits important variation along those dimensions. When there is uncertainty, NMFS should err on the side of providing more information.

    Response: We appreciate this comment and recognize the possibility for variability in data relative to a marine mammal stock over time and/or space. However, we strive to strike the correct balance between providing enough detail in the SARs and relying on citations of published papers. Where deemed necessary, we will include such information as the Commission recommends, but we are unable to do so in all cases. The issue has been discussed with the three regional SRGs over the years, and they have generally supported this approach and continually ask the agency to keep the SARs succinct.

    Comment 32: The Organizations state that Guadalupe fur seals are of particular conservation concern because of the high rate of stranding along the U.S. West Coast in an ongoing unusual mortality event that started in January 2015. From 2015-2016, over 175 have stranded, but the number stranded may indicate that there may be a larger number of unseen mortalities. Because the SARs are a reference for making management decisions, many of which require quantitative information, the SARs should specify the number of strandings or provide a clear reference point rather than saying that stranding rates “were 8 times the historical average.” With respect to the geographic range of the stock, there is recent evidence of this threatened species expanding its breeding range into U.S. waters. The draft SAR confirms this on the initial page with a reference to NMFS' unpublished data. NMFS has publicly identified purported breeding colonies of Guadalupe fur seals along the U.S. West Coast, so this information should be incorporated into the SARs. Providing more details about the stock's range in the United States is especially important at this time because the SARs have not been updated since 2000.

    Response: We have added the number of animals that stranded during the unusual mortality event to the final Guadalupe fur seal SAR. Regarding the expansion of geographic range of the stock, we have already included information in the Guadalupe fur seal SAR reporting observations of pups born on San Miguel Island, including both published (Melin and DeLong 1999) and unpublished information.

    Comment 33: The Organizations recommend that the Guadalupe fur seal SAR provide additional information about the type and likely sources of fishing gear that entangles Guadalupe fur seals. Additional details should be provided on the reported mortalities such as the mesh size, gear, and the location of the entanglement to help identify fisheries that may have been involved. The vast majority of fishery entanglements are said to be due to unidentified gear, which might be informed by better gear marking. The failure to better identify gear can hamper NMFS' ability to address the potential need for modification of gear or fishing method's to reduce mortalities.

    Response: We agree that the ability to identify gear is crucial. However, records of Guadalupe fur seals that are observed entangled in fishing gear almost always lack sufficient information to identify the fishery origin of the gear. When details on the gear type are known, we provide that information in the annual human-caused M/SI reports and the respective SARs. We welcome suggestions as to how to better mark gear for source identification.

    Comment 34: The Organizations note the in the Guadalupe fur seal draft SAR, PBR is specified but without assignment of portion of the PBR to Mexico versus the United States. For example the SAR states that the “vast majority of this PBR would apply towards incidental mortality in Mexico as most of the population occurs outside of U.S. waters.” It is not clear how to analyze the significance of M/SI in the United States if the vast majority of the PBR should apply to Mexico. For example, the fourth page says that the U.S. fishery M/SI for this stock (3.2 animals per year) is less than 10 percent of the calculated PBR and, therefore, can be considered to be insignificant and approaching zero mortality and serious injury rate. But because the SARs does not specify the portion of PBR assigned to the United States, it is impossible to independently verify this conclusion.

    Response: We agree with the commenter that it is difficult to assess the significance of human-caused M/SI in U.S. waters because a prorated PBR is lacking. However, we are unable to prorate Guadalupe fur seal PBR between Mexico and U.S. waters due to a lack of data on: (1) The fraction of the population that utilizes U.S. waters and (2) the amount of time that animals are in U.S. waters. This transboundary stock is unique because a vast majority of the reproductive rookeries occur in Mexico and the stock that has undergone significant increases in population size, despite continued anthropogenic threats in Mexican and U.S. waters. To address the commenter's concern, we have modified the “Status of Stock” language in the final SAR to read: “The total U.S. fishery mortality and serious injury for this stock (3.2 animals per year) is less than 10 percent of the calculated PBR for the entire stock, but it is not currently possible to calculate a prorated PBR for U.S. waters with which to compare serious injury and mortality from U.S. fisheries. Therefore, it is unknown whether total U.S. fishery mortality is insignificant and approaching zero mortality and serious injury rate.”

    Comment 35: The Organizations recommend NMFS adopt a methodology to estimate cryptic mortality for pinnipeds similar to Caretta et al. 2016 that stated: “the mean recovery rate of California coastal bottlenose dolphin carcasses [is] 25 percent (95 percent CI 20 percent-33 percent) . . . [therefore] human-related deaths and injuries counted from beach strandings along the outer U.S. West Coast are multiplied by a factor of 4 to account for the non-detection of most carcasses (Carretta et al. 2016a).” This methodology would seem pertinent to apply in the Guadalupe fur seal SAR as well.

    Response: We have developed a methodology to estimate cryptic mortality for coastal bottlenose dolphins and are working towards developing such correction factors for other taxa. The carcass recovery factor we developed for coastal bottlenose dolphins provides a best-case scenario for delphinoid carcass recovery along the U.S. west coast, and we have used this correction factor for other dolphin and porpoise stock assessment reports in the Pacific region. We will continue to work with the regional SRGs to help address the negative biases associated with carcass recovery for all taxa.

    Comment 36: One individual points out that the California sea lion, harbor seal, and northern elephant seal reports were not revised in the draft 2016 SARs nor updated for the 2015 SARs. The commenter asserts that California is suffering from an inadvertent ecological disaster of sea lion and harbor seal overpopulation; further, the data have shown over-population for a decade or more, and OSP has been exceeded in both species at least in Southern California.

    Response: Section 117 of the MMPA requires us to review stock assessments at least annually when significant new information on a given stock becomes available or the stock is considered “strategic.” We must review all other stocks at least once every three years. If our review indicates that the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately determined, we must revise the SAR. The three pinniped stocks noted by the commenter are not strategic stocks, nor has an OSP determination been made for any of them.

    Comment 37: The Organizations note that because the short-beaked common dolphin stock's range extends out to 300 nautical miles off the coast, consideration should be given to attributing capture of this species to the fisheries operating in high seas in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Specifically in 2014, one short-beaked common dolphin was injured in the Hawaii shallow-set longline fishing east of 150 degrees W longitude—the boundary for the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission's jurisdiction. It would seem reasonable to attribute this injury to the CA/OR/WA stock. Hawaii pelagic longline effort appears to be shifting toward the U.S. West Coast in recent years, and it seems reasonable to consider attributing some portion of this and perhaps other U.S. West Coast marine mammal stocks to this fishery. For this reason, the Organizations recommend that pelagic longlines be identified as a potential interacting fishery in the introduction of the SAR, which currently mentions only tuna purse seine and gillnet fisheries.

    Response: We appreciate being alerted to this oversight in the draft short-beaked common dolphin SAR and have added two Hawaii shallow-set longline injury records (one in 2011, one in 2014) of short-beaked common dolphin to the final SAR.

    Comment 38: The Organizations note that there has been no observer coverage in the California squid purse seine fishery since 2008, and request that NMFS maintain in Table 1 the record of the interaction observed in this fishery in 2005 but omitted from the short-beaked common dolphin draft SAR. Without that record, Table 1 implies that the fishery no longer interacts with short-beaked common dolphin, which seems unlikely.

    Response: We have reinstated the portion of the fishery table in the short-beaked common dolphin final SAR that includes historic purse seine takes to better represent fishery risks to this stock.

    Comment 39: The Organizations suggest that the short-finned pilot whale SAR would benefit from additional clarity about the southern extent of the range of the stock. This would help guide management actions that affect short-finned pilot whales off the U.S. West Coast. The stock definition and geographic range for short-finned pilot whales was heavily edited, and, in the process, the edits struck the prior reference to the stock's range being continuous, with animals found off Baja California. This seems relevant to reinstate since, later in the SAR, NMFS retained and added information about Mexican gillnet fisheries and the lack of bycatch data. In addition, given the uncertainty surrounding the stock's range, which seems likely to extend into Mexico, the draft SARs should note the stranding deaths of 24 short-finned pilot whales in 2016 in Mexico. Given the SAR's observation of the “virtual disappearance of short-finned pilot whales from California” following the 1982-83 El Niño, improving the information about the range, stock status and population trends is critical for proper and conservative management of this stock.

    Response: The draft SAR contains language that states the range of the CA/OR/WA short-finned pilot whale stock extends into the eastern tropical Pacific, which includes Mexican waters. This represents an improvement of our understanding of pilot whale distribution compared with previous iterations of the SAR: “Pilot whales in the California Current and eastern tropical Pacific likely represent a single population, based on a lack of differentiation in mtDNA (Van Cise et al. 2016), while animals in Hawaiian waters are characterized by unique haplotypes that are absent from eastern and southern Pacific samples, despite relatively large sample sizes from Hawaiian waters.” Information on the 27 pilot whales that stranded in the Gulf of California in 2016 is not included in the SAR because the stranding was not linked to any anthropogenic factors; the stranding does not significantly contribute to knowledge of the stock's range, and, given that the CA/OR/WA short-finned pilot whale stock represents only a small portion of a larger eastern tropical Pacific population, the stranding is unlikely to affect the long-term abundance of the CA/OR/WA stock.

    Comment 40: The Organizations recommend that the section in the Southern Resident killer whale SAR on “habitat issues” should discuss the potential risk from oil spill and/or from commercial shipping traffic and should also include at least a brief acknowledgement of risk from increased noise and vessel traffic resulting from Naval activity in the Northwest Training and Testing program.

    Response: We have added language addressing oil spill risks to the final Southern Resident killer whale SAR. Increased noise and vessel traffic resulting from Naval activity in the Northwest Training and Testing program is not considered to be a significant change in the habitat of this stock and thus is not included in the SAR.

    Comment 41: The Organizations note that the Southern Resident killer whale stock is recognized to be especially reliant on Chinook salmon (which comprise up to 80 percent of their summer diet) and may be adversely affected by fishery management decisions. Contaminant levels of Persistent Organic Pesticides are high, and differ between pods but may be contributing to the precarious status of this population. For example, DDT levels are higher in K and L pods, indicating that those pods spend more time than J pod feeding on salmon from California rivers; PBDEs are higher in J pod, as they spend more time in Salish Sea waters. NMFS acknowledges the risks from these pollutants in the draft SAR for the California stock of common bottlenose dolphins, stating “[a]lthough the effects of pollutants on cetaceans are not well understood, they may affect reproduction or make the animals more prone to other mortality factors (Britt and Howard 1983; O'Shea et al. 1999).”

    Response: We have added language to the final Southern Resident killer whale SAR detailing some of the potential risk factors related to PCBs that are also reflected in the recovery plan for Southern Resident killer whales.

    Comment 42: The HLA encourages NMFS to make additional improvements to the draft 2016 false killer whale SAR, by eliminating the five-year look-back period and reporting only data generated after the False Killer Whale Take Reduction Plan (FKWTRP) regulations became effective. For example, the draft 2016 SAR should report M/SI values based on 2013, 2014, and 2015 data, and the data prior to 2013 should no longer be used because it is no longer part of the best available scientific information.

    Response: If there have been significant changes in fishery operations that are expected to affect incidental mortality rates, such as the 2013 implementation of the FKWTRP, the GAMMS (NMFS 2016) recommend using only the years since regulations were implemented. The SAR contains information preceeding and following the FKWTRP, 2008-2012 and 2013-2014 respectively, and reports M/SI for these two time periods as well as the most recent 5-year average. Although the estimated M/SI of false killer whales within the U.S. EEZ around Hawaii during 2013 and 2014 (6.2) is below the PBR (9.3), this estimate is within the range of past, pre-take reduction plan estimates, so there is not yet sufficient information to determine whether take rates in the fishery have decreased as a result of the FKWTRP. Finally, fishery-wide take rates in 2014 are among the highest recorded, suggesting FKWTRP measures may not be effective, and the change in fishery operation may not be significant enough to warrant abandoning the five-year averaging period. For these reasons, the strategic status for this stock has been evaluated relative to the most recent five years of estimated mortality and serious injury.

    Comment 43: The HLA asserts that the draft 2016 false killer whale SARs inappropriately relies on a “preliminary” PowerPoint presentation to report speculative conclusions. NMFS has adopted a policy that non-peer-reviewed information should not be included in the SARs. All references to information from the 2015 PowerPoint presentation (Forney 2015) are inappropriate and should be stricken from the SAR.

    Response: The presentation provided to the False Killer Whale Take Reduction Team is the most current assessment of the effectiveness of the FKWTRP. However, we acknowledge that it has not undergone formal peer-review, and as such, references to the presentation will be removed from the SAR. Even so, we believe it is still appropriate to pool five years to data to determine the stock's status, as described in the Status of Stock section of the Hawaii pelagic stock's report.

    Comment 44: The HLA notes that for a decade, NMFS has reported a M/SI rate for the deep-set fishery that exceeds PBR for the Hawaii pelagic false killer whale stock (“pelagic stock”). However, the best available information suggests that the number of false killer whales in the Hawaii EEZ has not declined during the same time that the supposedly unsustainable M/SI rate was occurring. The HLA disagrees with the M/SI levels reported in the draft SAR and with NMFS' conclusion that the vast majority of all fishery interactions with the pelagic stock cause injuries that “will likely result in mortality.” If that were the case, then after a decade or more of allegedly unsustainable levels of take, there would be some evidence of a declining pelagic stock abundance. No such evidence exists. The HLA recommends that the draft SAR expressly recognize this discrepancy, and NMFS should revisit the manner in which it determines M/SI for false killer whale interactions.

    Response: This comment has been addressed previously (see 78 FR 19446, April 1, 2013, comments 45 and 51; 79 FR 49053, August 18, 2014, comment 26; 80 FR 50599, August 20, 2015, comment 34; and 81 FR June 14, 2016, comment 44). The comment contends that the stock abundance has not declined in over a decade and attributes this persistence of false killer whales despite high levels of fishery mortality to NMFS' improper assessment of the severity of injuries resulting from fisheries interactions, improper assessment of population abundance and trend, or both. Assessment of injury severity under NMFS' 2012 serious injury policy has been discussed in numerous previous comment responses and is based on the best available science on whether a cetacean is likely to survive a particular type of injury. Further study of false killer whales would certainly better inform the assigned outcomes; but, until better data become available, the standard established in the NMFS 2012 policy on distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries will stand.

    Further, assessments of pelagic false killer whale population trend are inappropriate for several reasons: (1) The entire stock range is unknown, but certainly extends beyond the Hawaii EEZ, such that the available abundance estimates do not reflect true population size; (2) there have been only 2 surveys of the entire Hawaii EEZ, an insufficient number to appropriately assess trend; and (3) the available survey data were collected with different protocols for assessing false killer whale group size, a factor that will significantly impact the resulting abundance estimates. A robust assessment of population trend will require additional data and inclusion of environmental variables that influence false killer whale distribution and the proportion of the population represented within the survey area during each survey period.

    Comment 45: The HLA incorporates by reference its more specific comments on the draft 2014 SAR related to the 2010 Hawaiian Islands Cetacean Ecosystem and Assessment Survey (HICEAS) and the assumptions made by NMFS based upon the data from that survey. In addition, it emphasizes its repeated requests that NMFS publicly disclose information regarding the acoustic data acquired in the 2010 HICEAS survey. Substantial acoustic data was acquired during that survey, but NMFS still has not provided any meaningful analysis of that data or, for example, any basic indication of how many false killer whale vocalizations have been identified in the acoustic data. The acoustic data from the 2010 HICEAS survey contains information directly relevant to false killer whale abundance, and it must be analyzed by NMFS and reported in the false killer whale SAR, which must be based on the best available scientific information.

    Response: This comment has been addressed previously (see 80 FR 50599, August 20, 2015, comment 35; and 81 FR June 14, 2016, comment 45). Analysis of the acoustic data is a labor intensive and time-consuming process, particularly as automated methods for detection, classification, and localization are still improving. There were many changes in array hardware during the survey, further complicating streamlined analyses of these data. Portions of the data have been analyzed to verify species identification, assess sub-group spatial arrangements, or other factors. A full-scale analysis of this dataset for abundance is therefore not appropriate at this time. However, NMFS may consider analyzing the 2010 acoustic dataset in full or part following the planned 2017 HICEAS survey, when the most recent automated detection and classification approaches may be available.

    Comment 46: The HLA notes that the draft SAR assigns a recovery factor of 0.5 to the pelagic stock of false killer whales, which is the value typically assigned to depleted or threatened stocks, or stocks of unknown status, with a mortality estimate CV of 0.3 or less. However, the pelagic stock is not depleted or threatened, nor is its status unknown. Since NMFS began estimating Hawaii false killer whale abundance in 2000, as more data have been obtained, more whales have been observed, and the population estimates have increased from 121 in 2000 (a recognized underestimate for all false killer whales in the EEZ) to 268 in 2005, 484 in 2007, 1,503 in 2013, and 1,540 at present. Similarly, the incidence of fishery interactions with the pelagic stock has not decreased, nor has the rate of false killer whale depredation of fishing lines decreased (if anything, it has increased). All of the available data contradict any hypothesis that false killer whales in the Hawaii EEZ are decreasing. The HLA recommends that this status be accurately reflected with a recovery factor that is greater than 0.5 (i.e., closer to 1.0 than to 0.5).

    Response: This comment has been addressed previously (see 80 FR 50599, August 20, 2015, comment 36; and 81 FR June 14, 2016, comment 46). Reanalysis of existing datsets to derive more precise estimates does not constitute an increase in population size. The commenter is incorrect in suggesting that the historical sequence of available abundance estimates are due to natural population increases, when they are in fact due to improvements in abundance estimation methods for this species, some of which have resulted from reanalysis of the same data. There are only two EEZ-wide estimates of abundance (484 from a 2002 survey and 1,540 from a 2010 survey). These estimates may not be directly compared due to changes in group size enumeration methods between those surveys. For this reason the current status of pelagic false killer whales is unknown. This population may be reduced given fishing pressures within and outside of the EEZ over several decades. The status of Hawaii pelagic false killer whales is considered unknown because there are no trend data available to evaluate whether the population is increasing, stable, or declining. The recovery factor for Hawaii pelagic false killer whales will remain 0.5, as indicated, for a stock with a CV for the M/SI rate estimate that is less than or equal to 0.30.

    Comment 47: The HLA notes that, as with past draft SARs, the draft 2016 SAR attributes M/SI by the Hawaii-based deep-set longline fishery to the Main Hawaiian Island (MHI) insular false killer whale stock (“insular stock”). For at least the following two reasons, these attributions are inappropriate and contrary to the best available scientific information. First, there has never been a confirmed interaction between the deep-set fishery and an animal from the insular stock. Although there is anecdotal evidence of insular stock interactions with nearshore shortline fisheries and other small-scale fishing operations, none of these are documented or reliably reported, and none implicate the Hawaii-based longline fisheries, which have been excluded from nearshore fishing grounds for many years.

    Second, as NMFS recognized in the draft 2015 SAR, the range for the insular stock is, appropriately, much smaller than was previously assumed by NMFS. When this new range is taken into account, along with the FKWTRP-based year-round closure of the area to the north of the MHI, there is only a very small area in which longline fishing may overlap with the assumed range of the insular stock. No false killer whale interaction by the deep-set fishery has ever occurred in this area. It is therefore incorrect, and contrary to the best available information, to state that the deep-set fishery, as currently regulated, is “interacting with” the insular stock. If NMFS persists with its contention that the deep-set fishery “interacts with” the insular stock, then NMFS should, at a minimum, state in the SAR that there are no confirmed deep-set fishery interactions with the insular stock and that no deep-set fishery interactions with the insular stock have occurred in the very limited area where longline effort might overlap with the assumed range for the insular stock.

    Response: As noted in previous years (see 80 FR 50599, August 20, 2015, comment 37; and 81 FR June 14, 2016, comment 48), the commenter is correct that using the new MHI insular false killer whale stock range and the longline exclusion area required under the FKWTRP (in effect since 2013), there is little overlap between the MHI insular stock and the longline fishery. However, the commenter is mistaken that any take by the deep-set fishery is attributed to the MHI insular stock. The table for the Hawaii longline fisheries indicates 0.0 M/SI attributed to the MHI insular stock for 2013 and 2014. This 0.0 attribution is because the overlap area is very small and because fishing effort in that region was also small. It is rare that the stock-identity of a hooked or entangled whale can be determined, and as such NMFS follows the GAMMS and apportions those false killer whale takes of unknown stock to all stocks within the fishing area. NMFS has carried out this apportionment based on the distribution of fishing effort in areas of overlap between stocks and the fishery.

    Comment 48: The HLA states that NMFS' assumption that the insular stock has declined is speculative.

    Response: This comment has been addressed previously (see 80 FR 50599, August 20, 2015, comment 39 and 81 FR June 14, 2016, comment 49). NMFS makes no assumption that MHI insular stock abundance has declined in recent years. The minimum estimate reflects the number of individuals enumerated during the stated period and may reflect not only changes in actual population abundance, but also changes in encounter rates due to survey location or animal distribution.

    Comments on Alaska Regional Reports

    Comment 49: Over the past several years, the Commission has repeatedly recommended that NMFS improve its monitoring and reporting of Alaskan subsistence hunting and harvest working in collaboration with co-management partners. The Commission recognizes and appreciates the related updates made by NMFS to the SARs and encourages NMFS to continue to provide updated information wherever it becomes available, even if it pertains only to a limited number of villages or subset of years. Although NMFS has stated its desire to establish a comprehensive, statewide subsistence hunting/harvest monitoring program, it has yet to achieve that goal. The Commission acknowledges the efforts of NMFS' Alaska Fisheries Science Center and Alaska Regional Office to develop a list of research/monitoring priorities, solicit additional resources, and coordinate their efforts toward establishing the hunting/harvest monitoring program. Information on subsistence hunting and harvest is becoming increasingly important in the light of the pace of change in the Arctic. Therefore, the Commission recommends that NMFS continue to pursue the funding necessary for comprehensive surveys of Alaska native subsistence use and harvest of marine mammals. The Commission remains open to providing what support it can to NMFS' survey efforts and to helping address the lack of funding for such a program.

    Response: We acknowledge that we have limited monitoring and reporting of subsistence harvests. We will continue to provide the best available information about subsistence harvests in the SARs and will pursue opportunities to conduct comprehensive surveys of subsistence hunting as resources allow. We greatly appreciate the Commission's support and look forward to discussing ways forward to help facilitate NMFS' efforts.

    Comment 50: In the spring of 2012 and 2013, U.S. and Russian researchers conducted aerial abundance and distribution surveys for ice seals over the entire Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk. The Commission was encouraged to see preliminary analyses of a subset of these surveys included in the 2015 SARs. Nonetheless, the lack of the complete analysis of these surveys and revisions of the abundance estimates for bearded and ringed seals in this year's draft SARs is disappointing. The Commission recommends that NMFS make it a priority to complete these analyses and ensure that revised abundance estimates for bearded, ringed, and ribbon seals, based on all available data, are included in the draft 2017 SARs.

    Response: We are continuing to analyze data from the 2012-2013 aerial surveys of ice seals in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk; as soon as the data analysis is complete and a citable publication is available, we will revise the applicable abundance estimates in the SARs. We will include an updated abundance estimate for spotted seals in the U.S. sector of the Bering Sea (from a preliminary analysis of the 2012-2013 survey data) in the draft 2017 spotted seal SAR (the only ice seal SAR to be revised in the 2017 SAR cycle).

    Comment 51: The Commission notes that the draft 2016 SAR for the Southeast Alaska stock of harbor porpoise includes new abundance estimates for two sub-regions based on stratified, line-transect surveys conducted from 2010 to 2012. The line-transect abundance estimates were computed with the assumption that g(0), the probability of detection on the trackline, was 1.0, although this is almost certainly not true. As reported in the SAR, estimates of g(0) from other harbor porpoise populations vary from 0.5-0.8. Thus, the true abundance of the population is likely to be 20-50 percent greater than the estimates reported in the SAR. Nonetheless, the estimates provide a frame of reference for comparisons to harbor porpoise bycatch in the portion of the Southeast Alaska salmon drift gillnet fishery that was monitored in 2012-2013, for which the mean annual M/SI was at least double the corresponding PBR level. Further, the total M/SI, which was assumed to be a minimum as only a portion of allM/SI are typically observed, was nearly four times greater than PBR. Although a comprehensive trend analysis was not possible, the SAR reports that: “ . . . an analysis of the line-transect vessel survey data collected throughout the inland waters of Southeast Alaska between 1991 and 2010 suggested high probabilities of a population decline ranging from 2 to 4 percent per year for the whole study area . . . [but] when data from 2011 and 2012 were added to this analysis, the population decline was no longer significant.” Given this uncertainty and the apparent high levels of M/SI relative to PBR, the Commission recommends that NMFS conduct the necessary analyses to determine an appropriate g(0) to be used in the analysis of line-transect data for this stock, and revise the abundance estimates and PBR calculations accordingly for the draft 2017 SARs. If the reanalysis finds that M/SI still exceeds PBR, then the Commission recommends that NMFS consider forming a take reduction team to address mitigation of bycatch of this stock in the Alaska salmon drift gillnet and related fisheries.

    Response: We recognize the importance of determining a value for g(0) for harbor porpoise, and on a recent survey in Southeast Alaska we collected some preliminary data in a g(0) experiment. Although the sample size was small, ongoing analysis of these data will allow us to provide a preliminary value for g(0) for this species in the region. Use of existing values for g(0) is probably inappropriate given potential differences in populations, species, or study areas.

    Comment 52: The Commission recommends that NMFS give the determination of harbor porpoise stock structure throughout the region a high priority, particularly for this stock given the potentially high level of fisheries interactions.

    Response: We agree with the Commission that improving our understanding of harbor porpoise stock structure is a high priority. We collected data for genetics studies of harbor porpoise in the inland waters of Southeast Alaska during two vessel cruises in July and September 2016. One of the primary research priorities of these cruises was to collect environmental DNA (eDNA) from the fluke prints of harbor porpoise to inform evaluation of stock structure. We are currently analyzing the eDNA collected from the southern (Wrangell/Sumner Strait area) and northern (Glacier Bay/Icy Strait area) regions of the inland waters of Southeast Alaska.

    During the cruises, we also obtained photographs of harbor porpoise and collected acoustic samples from Dall's porpoise (to compare to our existing harbor porpoise acoustic samples) for a project to determine if Dall's porpoise and harbor porpoise can be differentiated acoustically. We anticipate that the results of these analyses will help inform whether separation of Southeast Alaska harbor porpoise into two or more stocks is appropriate.

    Comment 53: The Organizations request that NMFS update Appendix 6, “Observer coverage in Alaska commercial fisheries,” for each of the Alaska Region SARs. The current Appendix 6 shows observer coverage only for the years 1990-2009, which therefore omits observer coverage information for 4 out of the 5 most recent years included in the SARs. This is problematic especially because NMFS acknowledges that there is inadequate monitoring of Alaska commercial fisheries. Reporting current levels of observer coverage is imperative to understanding and improving monitoring and the interaction levels derived therefrom.

    Response: We have updated Appendix 6 in the final 2016 Alaska SARs to include the coverage for 1990 through 2014; the 2017 Alaska SARs will include coverage for 1990 through 2015.

    Comment 54: The Organizations comment that the limited amount of observer coverage in state-managed fisheries in Alaska creates uncertainty about the extent of M/SI, and this is a particular problem for humpback whales entangled in the Southeast Alaska salmon drift gillnets. Table 1 in the SAR for Central North Pacific humpback whales lists the fishery as “SE Alaska salmon drift gillnet (Districts 6, 7, 8)”—but this pertains to only a limited number of districts, leaving M/SI in the rest of the districts both unobserved and unestimated. NMFS acknowledges in the SAR for this stock that “[s]ince these three districts represent only a portion of the overall fishing effort in this fishery, we expect this to be a minimum estimate of mortality for the fishery.” The Organizations recommend that NMFS expand observer coverage, since the fishery is likely to interact with humpbacks in other portions of the range.

    Because of distribution of effort, it may not be possible to extrapolate the observed takes from these districts across the fishery in its entire range in southeast Alaska; however, it is clear that total M/SI is likely to be far higher than the limited data presented. The SAR lists mortality as 11 humpbacks. However, a draft report by the same author (Manly) extrapolated from this and estimated the number of mortalities for all of Southeast Alaska to be 68. Given the inadequate monitoring of the fisheries, NMFS must explain why observed M/SI were not extrapolated to the fishery in Southeast Alaska as was done by Manly in his draft and as would be consistent with fisheries listed in the annual List of Fisheries.

    Response: We acknowledge the need for monitoring state-managed fisheries for marine mammal interactions. Unfortunately, we had to discontinue operating the Alaska Marine Mammal Observer Program for state-managed fisheries due to a lack of resources. We continue to seek opportunities to improve our understanding of the interactions between state-managed fisheries and marine mammals.

    The extrapolation of humpback whale M/SI from 11 in the observed districts of the Southeast Alaska salmon drift gillnet fishery to 68 for all of Southeast Alaska was contained in a draft report but not carried over into the final report. During our review of the report, and consideration of what information to include in the SARs, we decided that extrapolating from the three observed districts of the fishery to the unobserved districts of the Southeast Alaska salmon drift gillnet fishery was unreliable given the variability in fishing effort and humpback whale distribution. Instead, the one observed interaction was the basis for estimating that 11 M/SI occurred in the observed districts; and, since the observed districts represent only a portion of the overall fishing effort in this fishery, we expect this to be a minimum estimate of the total level of humpback whale M/SI in salmon gillnet fisheries in Southeast Alaska. This is consistent with how we handled the M/SI of harbor porpoise, which was extrapolated within the three districts but not beyond the three observed districts to the rest of the Southeast Alaska salmon drift gillnet fishery.

    Comment 55: The Organizations note that NMFS states in the draft North Pacific sperm whale SARs that PBR is unknown for this stock (and the entire species is listed as a single endangered species under the ESA) but also concludes in the status of the stock section for this stock that total estimated annual level of human-caused M/SI (2.2 whales) “seems minimal.” Given the uncertainty surrounding the degree of depletion and recovery of the North Pacific sperm whale population, the SARs should be precautionary in the analysis of impacts of M/SI resulting from commercial fishing. The practical impact of the SARs continuing to find PBR “unknown” for this stock is that the North Pacific stock of sperm whales assessed in the Alaska SARs may be receiving less protection than other U.S. stocks of sperm whales. This appears to be the only U.S. stock of sperm whale for which the fisheries interacting with it are not listed as Category I or II; NMFS does not require MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E) authorization for fisheries interacting with the North Pacific Stock because, in this case, its PBR is said to be unknown.

    Response: As there are no available abundance estimates for the number of sperm whales in Alaska waters, Nmin is not available for this stock and therefore, the PBR is unknown. Assessing sperm whale populations presents considerable challenges, including the range and offshore distribution of the species, uncertainties regarding stock boundaries, the segregation by sex and maturational class that characterizes sperm whale distribution, and behavioral factors (e.g., long dive times) that make surveys difficult. Nonetheless, we plan to convene a working group to discuss the practicality of estimating sperm whale abundance and other issues surrounding assessment of this species. We have revised the text in the final 2016 sperm whale SAR to clarify that the estimate of annual fisheries-caused mortality and serious injury is a minimum estimate. We will also omit the characterization that an M/SI rate of 2.2 whales “seems minimal.” Even in the absence of a PBR, we continue to assess fishery interactions with sperm whales in Alaska, including efforts by the fishing industry to reduce interactions (e.g., the recent change to allow pot gear in the sablefish fishery to reduce depredation by sperm whales). Although we cannot conduct a quantitative tier analysis for stocks without PBRs, we can evaluate whether to classify fisheries by analogy to other similar fisheries based on various factors (50 CFR 229.2).

    Comment 56: The Organizations suggest adding information to the Cook Inlet beluga whale SAR from a new study of spatial and temporal patterns in the calling behavior of beluga whales in Cook Inlet.

    Response: We will review this information and consider including it in a future Cook Inlet beluga whale SAR.

    Comment 57: The Organizations point out that the last sentence on draft page 62 of the Cook Inlet beluga whale SAR should more correctly read: “The next abundance estimate survey was conducted in June 2016 and is currently undergoing analyses.” On this same page, using the formula provided for calculating minimum abundance, it appears that the minimum population estimate in the stock should be 287 not 280.

    Response: We have incorporated these corrections into the final 2016 Cook Inlet beluga whale SAR.

    Comment 58: The Organizations suggest that the Status of the Stock section of the Cook Inlet beluga whale SAR be updated to reflect that the recovery plan for the Cook Inlet beluga whales was finalized and published on January 4, 2017. Additionally, the Organizations suggest that the Habitat Concerns section be updated to reflect information that was in the draft and final recovery plan for this stock. These include a number of references.

    Response: We will add a statement about the final Recovery Plan to the Status of Stock section of the final 2016 Cook Inlet beluga whale SAR, and we will update the information on the Recovery Plan in the Habitat Concerns section of the draft 2017 Cook Inlet beluga whale SAR.

    Comment 59: The HLA notes that the draft 2016 SAR for the Central North Pacific humpback whale stock (“CNP Stock”) states that “until such time as the MMPA stock delineations are reviewed in light of the DPS designations, NMFS considers this stock endangered and depleted for MMPA management purposes (e.g., selection of a recovery factor, stock status).” Although the HLA appreciates that the MMPA humpback stock delineations do not align with the new humpback DPS designations, it is nevertheless inaccurate for the SAR to suggest that the entire CNP Stock is “endangered” and “depleted.” In fact, many whales within the CNP Stock's presently delineated range likely come from DPSs that are not “endangered” or “threatened.” At a minimum, they request that the SAR for the CNP Stock include a statement that the two observed CNP Stock interactions with the Hawaii-based longline fisheries occurred with animals from the Hawaii DPS, which is not listed as “threatened” or “endangered.”

    Response: We have added the following statement to the end of the “Status of Stock” section in the final 2016 Central North Pacific humpback whale SAR: “Humpback whale mortality and serious injury in Hawaii-based fisheries involves whales from the Hawaii DPS; this DPS is not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA.”

    Dated: June 21, 2017. Donna S. Wieting, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13369 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF487 Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Caribbean Fishery Management Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will hold a 5-day meeting to discuss the items contained in the agenda under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    DATES:

    The meetings will be held on July 10-14, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Council Office, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1903; telephone: (787) 766-5926.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Monday, July 10, 2017 —Call to Order —Adoption of Agenda —1st day Overview; review last meetings' outcomes —Review ABC CR (buffer) —Puerto Rico —Define process for determination of scalars used in ABC Control Rule —Define process for determination of buffers used in ABC Control Rule —Determine References Points (e.g., OFL, ABC) for species/species groupings for each Island Use of multi-year sequences for comparison to OFL (NS1) —Review and finalize Action 2—Indicator species for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John and St. Croix —Action 3: Time Series: Select a time series of landings data to establish management reference points for a stock/stock complex, as applicable —Finish with PR species (Action 3) Tuesday, July 11, 2017 —Finish with PR species (Action 3) Wednesday, July 12, 2017 —Day 3 USVI—STT/STJ —Action 3: Time Series: Select a time series of landings data to establish management reference points for a stock/stock complex, as applicable. —Determination of likely stock/complex status —Define process for determination of scalars used in ABC Control Rule —Define process for determination of buffers used in ABC Control Rule —Determine References Points (e.g., OFL, ABC) for species/species groupings for each Island Use of multi-year sequences for comparison to OFL (NS1) Thursday, July 13, 2017 —USVI STX —Review and finalize Action 2—Indicator species —Action 3: Time Series: Select a time series of landings data to establish management reference points for a stock/stock complex, as applicable. —Determination of likely stock/complex status —Define process for determination of scalars used in ABC Control Rule —Define process for determination of buffers used in ABC Control Rule —Determine References Points (e.g., OFL, ABC) for species/species groupings for each Island Use of multi-year sequences for comparison to OFL (NS1) Friday, July 14, 2017 —Recommendations to CFMC —Other Business Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918-1903, telephone (787) 766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: June 22, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13401 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RINS 0648-XA874, 0648-XA172, 0648-XA626, 0648-XA84, 0648-XF213, 0648-XB005, 0648-XC644, 0648-XD224, 0648-XD824, 0648-XF158, 0648-XE204, 0648-XE517, 0648-XF148, 0648-XE788, 0648-XE938, 0648-XF603, 0648-XF149, 0648-XF082, 0648-XF154, 0648-XF213, 0648-XF214, 0648-XF271, 0648-XF267, and 0648-XF352 Marine Mammals and Endangered Species; File Nos. 15240-01, 15453-01, 15569-01, 16160-02, 16163-03, 16479-04, 16609, 17086-01, 18016-01, 18537-02, 18890-01, 19508, 19621-01, 19697, 20294, 20339, 20430, 20455, 20465, 20527, 20646, 20993, 21026, 21043, 21155, and 21199 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; issuance of permits and permit amendments/modifications.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that permits or permit amendments have been issued to the following entities:

    RIN 0648-XA874; Permit No. 15240-01: NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC), 1845 Wasp Boulevard, Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818 (Responsible Party: Frank A. Parrish, Ph.D.);

    RIN 0648-XA172; Permit No. 15453-01: Waikiki Aquarium, 2777 Kalakaua Avenue, Honolulu, HI 96815 (Andrew Rossiter, Ph.D., Responsible Party);

    RIN 0648-XA626; Permit No. 15569-01: The Center for Whale Research (CWR; Kenneth C. Balcomb III, Responsible Party), P.O. Box 1577, Friday Harbor, WA 98250;

    RIN 0648-XA626; Permit No. 16160-02: The Whale Museum (Jenny Atkinson, Responsible Party), P.O. Box 945, Friday Harbor, WA 98250;

    RIN 0648-XA626; Permit No. 16163-03: NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC; M. Bradley Hanson, Ph.D., Responsible Party) 2725 Montlake Blvd.

    RIN 0648-XA84; Permit No. 16479-04: Pacific Whale Foundation (Gregory D. Kaufman, Responsible Party), 300 Maalaea Road, Suite 211, Wailuku, HI 96793;

    RIN 0648-XF213; Permit No. 16609: Zoological Society of San Diego (Douglas Myers, Responsible Party), P.O. Box 120551, San Diego, CA 92112;

    RIN 0648-XB005; Permit No. 17086-01: Robin Baird, Ph.D., Cascadia Research, 218 1/2 W. 4th Avenue, Olympia, WA 98501;

    RIN 0648-XC644; Permit No. 18016-01: Tamara McGuire, Ph.D., LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., 2000 W. International Airport Rd, Suite C1, Anchorage, AK 99502;

    RIN 0648-XD224; Permit No. 18537-02: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Michael J. Rehberg, Responsible Party), 525 W. 67th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99518;

    RIN 0648-XD824; Permit No. 18890-01: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Lori Quakenbush, Responsible Party), 525 W. 67th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99518;

    RIN 0648-XF158; Permit No. 19508: Katherine Mansfield, Ph.D., University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Boulevard, Building 20, BIO301, Orlando, FL 32825;

    RIN 0648-XE204; Permit No. 19621-01: Michael Arendt, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Marine Resources Division, 217 Fort Johnson Road, Charleston, SC 29412;

    RIN 0648-XE517; Permit No. 19697: Carlos E. Diez, Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales de Puerto Rico, Programa de Especies Protegidas, P.O. Box 366147, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00936;

    RIN 0648-XF148; Permit No. 20294: Robert DiGiovanni, Jr., Chief Scientist, Atlantic Marine Conservation Society (P.O. Box 932, Hampton Bays, New York, 11946;

    RIN 0648-XE788; Permit No. 20339: NMFS Southeast Fisheries Center (SEFSC), 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL 33149 [Responsible Party: Bonnie Ponwith];

    RIN 0648-XE938; Permit No. 20430: James Harvey, Ph.D., Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, 8272 Moss Landing Road, Moss Landing, CA, 95039;

    RIN 0648-XF603; Permit No. 20455: Randall Wells, Ph.D., Chicago Zoological Society's Sarasota Dolphin Research Program, c/o Mote Marine Laboratory, 1600 Ken Thompson Parkway, Sarasota, FL 34236;

    RIN 0648-XF149; Permit No. 20465: NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) Marine Mammal Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-6349 (Responsible Party: Dr. John Bengtson);

    RIN 0648-XF082; Permit No. 20527: Ann Pabst, Ph.D., University of North Carolina Wilmington, Biology and Marine Biology, 601 S. College Road, Wilmington, NC 28403;

    RIN 0648-XF213; Permit No. 20646: Morgridge Institute for Research [James Thomson, Ph.D., Responsible Party], 330 N. Orchard St., Madison, WI 53715;

    RIN 0648-XF154; Permit No. 20993: Christopher Cilfone, Be Blue, 2569 Douglas Hwy. Unit 1, Juneau, AK 99801;

    RIN 0648-XF214; Permit No. 21026: Dorian Houser, Ph.D., National Marine Mammal Foundation, 22400 Shelter Island Drive #200, San Diego, CA 92106;

    RIN 0648-XF271; Permit No. 21043: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, 585 Prineville Street, Port Charlotte, FL 33954;

    RIN 0648-XF267; Permit No. 21155: Karina Amaral, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Zoology Department, Avenida Bento Goncalves, 9500 Build 43435, Room 206, Porto Alegre, MI, 91.501-970, Brazil;

    RIN 0648-XF352; Permit No. 21199: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Natural History Unit, BBC Bristol, Whiteladies Road, United Kingdom BS8 2LR, (Responsible Party: Vanessa Coates).

    ADDRESSES:

    The permits and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shasta McClenahan (File Nos. 16160-02, 16163-03, 16609, 17086-01, 20430, 20455, 20465, 20527, 20646, and 21026), Amy Hapeman (File Nos. 16160-02, 16163-03, 18016-01, 19508, 19621-01, 19697, 20339, 20430, 20455, and 20465), Carrie Hubard (File Nos. 15240-01, 17086, 19508, 20993, 20527, 21026, 21155, and 21199), Jennifer Skidmore (File Nos. 21155, 15453-01, 16609, and 20646), Courtney Smith (File Nos. 16479-04, 18537-02, 18890-01, and 20294), Malcolm Mohead (File Nos. 19621-01 and 21043), Sara Young (File No. 15240-01, 18016-01 and 21199), and Erin Markin (File Nos. 19697 and 20339) at (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notices were published in the Federal Register that requests for a permit or permit amendment had been submitted by the above-named applicants. The requested permits have been issued under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226), as applicable.

    Permit No. 15240-01: The original permit (No. 15240), issued on May 15, 2012 (77 FR 31836) authorized the PIFSC to study 20 cetacean species in U.S. and international waters of the Pacific Islands Region. The action area includes Hawaii, Palmyra, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Howland Island, Baker Island, Jarvis Island, and Wake Island. Research methodologies include aerial and vessel surveys, behavioral observations, photo-identification, acoustic recordings, biopsy collection, and dart and suction cup tagging. Salvage and import/export of cetacean parts, specimens, and biological samples may also occur. The minor amendment (No. 15240-01) extends the duration of the permit through May 31, 2018, but does not change any other terms or conditions of the permit.

    Permit No. 15453-01: The original permit (No. 15453), issued on April 30, 2012 (77 FR 27718) authorized the Waikiki Aquarium to maintain in captivity up to three non-releasable Hawaiian monk seals (Neomonachus schauinslandi) for research and enhancement purposes. Research includes (1) a long-term study on the digestive efficiency of captive seals; and (2) a post-vaccination antibody response study using West Nile virus and canine distemper virus vaccinations. The seals will be displayed to the public incidental to the research program, and the Waikiki Aquarium provides daily public narrations and educational graphics about the Hawaiian monk seal. The minor amendment (No. 15453-01) extends the duration of the permit through April 30, 2018, but does not change any other terms or conditions of the permit.

    Permit No. 15569-01: The original permit (No. 15569), issued on June 5, 2012 (77 FR 35657) authorized WCR take of 22 species of marine mammals in the coastal eastern North Pacific from the southern boundary of California to Alaskan waters east of Kodiak Island, including all territorial waters up to 200 nautical miles offshore. Harassment of all species of cetaceans will occur through vessel approach for photographic identification, behavioral research, opportunistic sampling (fecal material and prey remains), remote measuring (aerial and laser techniques), and passive acoustic recording. The minor amendment (No. 15569-01) authorizes the addition of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) as an approved aerial system and extends the duration of the permit through June 6, 2018.

    Permit No. 16160-02: The original permit (No. 16160), issued on June 5, 2012 (77 FR 35657) authorized takes of eight species of cetaceans in the inland waters of Washington State. Harassment of all species will occur through close vessel approach for photo-identification, behavioral observation, and monitoring. The minor amendment (No. 16160-02) extends the duration of the permit through June 6, 2018.

    Permit No. 16163-03: The original permit (No. 16163), issued on June 5, 2012 (77 FR 35657) authorized take of 42 species of marine mammals in all U.S. and international waters in the Pacific Ocean, including waters of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawaii. Harassment of all species of cetaceans could occur through vessel approach for sighting surveys, photographic identification, behavioral research, opportunistic sampling (breath, sloughed skin, fecal material, and prey remains), acoustic imaging with echosounders, and aerial surveys. Twenty-seven cetacean species and unidentified mesoplodon species could be biopsy sampled, dart, and/or suction-cup tagged. Ultrasound sampling and active acoustic playback studies were authorized for killer whales including the Southern Resident stock. Import and export of marine mammal prey specimens, skin and blubber, sloughed skin, fecal and breath samples obtained was authorized. The minor amendment (No. 16163-03) extends the duration of the permit through June 6, 2018.

    Permit No. 16479-04: The original permit (No. 16479), issued on September 8, 2012 (77 FR 59594) authorized vessel approaches for photo-identification and behavioral observation of humpback whales and incidental harassment of Hawaiian insular false killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) in Maui County waters, Hawaii. A minor amendment (No. 01) to the permit was issued on August 23, 2013, authorizing the field season to start in December versus January of each permit year. A major amendment (No. 02) to the permit was issued on July 7, 2014 (79 FR 44754), authorizing the approach of false killer whales for photo-identification and behavioral observation to study their occurrence, distribution, movement, site fidelity, abundance, social organization, home ranges, and life history in place of previously authorized takes for incidental harassment during vessel surveys. The minor amendment (No. 16479-04) extends the duration of the permit through June 1, 2018.

    Permit No. 16609: The requested permit (82 FR 12081) authorizes the receipt, import, and export of biological samples to establish and bank cell lines. Samples may be received from any species of cetacean, pinniped, or sea turtle, including ESA-listed species, from up to 30 individuals of each species. The duration of the permit is five years.

    Permit No. 17086-01: The original permit (No. 17086), issued on May 11, 2012 (77 FR 29981), authorized takes of 27 species of cetaceans through vessel approach for sighting surveys, photographic identification, behavioral research, opportunistic sampling (sloughed skin, fecal material, breath samples, and prey remains), dart and/or suction-cup tagging, and import and export of marine mammal samples obtained. The minor amendment (No. 17086-01) extends the duration of the permit through May 12, 2018, but does not change any other terms or conditions of the permit.

    Permit No. 18016-01: The original permit (No. 18016), issued on May 29, 2014 (79 FR 41991), authorizes the permit holder to conduct vessel surveys in Cook Inlet, Alaska for photo-identification and observations of endangered Cook Inlet beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas). The purpose of the research is to identify individual whales and to provide information about movement patterns, habitat use, survivorship, reproduction, and population size. The amendment (No. 01) increases the number of whales that may be taken annually during vessel surveys. The amended permit is valid through June 1, 2019.

    Permit No. 18537-02: The original permit (No. 18537), issued on August 8, 2014 (79 FR 19578), authorized ADF&G to take Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) during aerial, vessel, and ground surveys in support of the long-term Steller sea lion research program. It also authorized incidental disturbance of California sea lions (Zalophus californianus), and northern fur (Callorhinus ursinus), harbor (Phoca vitulina), spotted (Phoca largha), ribbon (Histriophoca fasciata), ringed (Phoca hispida hispida), and bearded (Erignathus barbatus) seals during research activities; and, annual unintentional mortality of 5 Steller sea lions from the Western Distinct Population Segment (wDPS) and 10 Steller sea lions from the Eastern DPS through August 31, 2019. An amendment, Permit No. 18537-01, issued on March 31, 2016 (81 FR 21323, April 11, 2016) authorized an increase in the number of California and Steller (wDPS) sea lions taken during aerial surveys from 4,725 to 10,000, and from 48,000 to 75,000, respectively; and an increase in the volume on a single blood draw from Steller sea lions from up to 1 ml/kg to up to 4 ml/kg. The minor amendment (No. 18537-02) issued authorizes a change in Responsible Party (now Michael J. Rehberg).

    Permit No. 18890-01: The original permit (No. 18890), issued on March 26, 2015 (80 FR 15992), authorizes research on beluga (Delphinapterus leucas), bowhead (Balaena mysticetus), gray, and humpback whales in Alaska including photo-identification, biopsy sampling, and tagging (large whales and belugas) and aerial surveys and captures for health assessments (belugas, excluding the Cook Inlet Distinct Population Segment). Research studies include population abundance (beluga), stock structure (bowhead, gray, humpback, and beluga), feeding areas and other important habitats (all species), migration routes (all species), behavior relative to human disturbance (all species), and to genetically identify individuals in order to determine survival and calving intervals (belugas). The minor amendment (No. 18890-01) issued authorizes a change in Responsible Party (now Lori Quakenbush).

    Permit No. 19508: The requested permit (82 FR 4855) authorizes the permit holder to study loggerhead (Caretta caretta), Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), green (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) and leatherback (Dermochelys coraicea) sea turtles. Research may occur in three study areas: (1) Indian River Lagoon, Florida; (2) Trident Turning Basin, Cape Canaveral, Florida; and (3) Northern and Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Researchers may capture sea turtles by tangle net, dip net, or by hand and perform the following procedures performed before release: Measure, flipper tag, passive integrated transponder tag, photograph/video, gastric lavage, and scute, blood, fecal, and tissue sampling. A subset of animals would receive an epoxy attached transmitter before release. The permit is valid for five years from the date of issuance.

    Permit No. 19621-01: The original permit (No. 19621), issued on June 16, 2016 (81 FR 43589), authorizes the permit holder to conduct study loggerhead (Caretta caretta), Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), green (Chelonia mydas), and leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) sea turtles in the waters of Florida, Georgia and South Carolina. Researchers may capture animals by trawl or tangle net and perform the following procedures before release: Morphometrics, tagging, photography, biological sampling, ultrasound, marking, laparoscopy and associated transport, transmitter attachment, and/or epibiota removal. A limited number of sea turtles may accidentally die due to capture over the life of the permit. The modification (No. 01) authorizes researchers to (1) take olive ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) during all research projects; (2) expand Project 3's area to include coastal shoals adjacent to the Cape Canaveral channel; (3) extend Project 3's duration through October 2020; and (4) increase the annual take of green and loggerhead sea turtles by four and nine turtles, respectively, and authorize double tagging and tissue sampling of a small subset of these animals. The modified permit is valid through June 15, 2021.

    Permit No. 19697: The requested permit (81 FR 15684) authorizes research on green and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) sea turtle aggregations in the coastal waters of Puerto Rico, including Mona, Monito, and Desecheo Islands, and Culebra Archipelago. Sea turtles may be captured, marked, measured, weighed, photographed, and biologically sampled. A subset of animals may also be outfitted with satellite transmitters to track movements post-release or undergo ultrasound and tumor removal surgery in a local facility. The permit is valid for five years from the date of issuance.

    Permit No. 20294: The requested permit (82 FR 5538) authorizes aerial, vessel, and ground surveys of North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) and 44 other protected cetaceans and pinnipeds in Mid-Atlantic U.S. waters, from Massachusetts to North Carolina. Five of the target species are threatened or endangered: North Atlantic right, blue (Balaenoptera musculus), fin (B. physalus), sei (B. borealis), and sperm (Physeter macrocephalus) whales. Surveys will be conducted using fixed wing aircraft and vessels to assess seasonal abundance and distribution of marine mammals in the area. Ground surveys will be conducted on foot and with remote cameras to obtain counts of seals throughout different tidal cycles and to document prevalence of human interaction around seal haul-out sites accessible to the public. Seal scat will be collected for health assessment studies. The permit is valid for five years from the date of issuance.

    Permit No. 20339: The requested permit (81 FR 54047) authorizes research on loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, green, leatherback, hawksbill, olive ridley and unidentified sea turtles in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. Animals for study would be directly captured by trawl or obtained as legal bycatch from a commercial fishery. The purpose of this project is to assist in the development and testing of gear aboard commercial fishing vessels to mitigate interactions and capture of sea turtles. Researchers are authorized to measure, weigh, apply a temporary carapace mark, flipper and Passive Integrated Transponder tag, tissue sample, and photograph/video live sea turtles before release and to salvage carcasses and parts from dead sea turtles. The permit is valid for five years from the date of issuance.

    Permit No. 20430: The requested permit (81 FR 73381) authorizes research on large whales and dolphins in California waters including blue (Balaenoptera musculus), fin (B. physalus), humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae), gray (Eschrichtius robustus), and sperm (Physeter macrocephalus) whales, and Risso's dolphins (Grampus griseus) in order to study distribution, movement, diet, foraging, and acoustic behaviors of marine mammals. Research activities for large whales includes passive acoustics, behavioral observations, photography, video recording, biopsy sampling, collection of sloughed skin, attachment of suction cup or dart/barb tags, and tracking during vessel surveys. Research for Risso's dolphins includes passive acoustics, behavioral observations, and photo-identification. The number of species to be taken annually via tagging/biopsy/photo-identification are: 50/100/150 blue whales, 40/90/140 fin whales, 50/100/150 humpback whales, 160/210/260 gray whales, and 0/0/2,000 Risso's dolphins. Up to five sperm whales may be incidentally harassed and opportunistically photographed, annually. Up to 200 California sea lions (Zalophus californianus), 20 harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardii), 50 Pacific white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), 20 northern right whale dolphins (Lissodelphis borealis), 10 harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and 20 short-beaked common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) may be harassed incidental to research activities. The permit is valid through March 31, 2022.

    Permit No. 20455: The requested permit (81 FR 90781) authorizes takes of up to 10,000 bottlenose (Tursiops truncatus) and 1,000 Atlantic spotted (Stenella frontalis) dolphins annually during vessel surveys for photography, photo-identification, video recording, behavioral observation, acoustic playbacks, and passive acoustic recording, with concurrent deployment of an unmanned aircraft system for photogrammetry. Up to 250 bottlenose and 100 spotted dolphins of the above animals may also be biopsy sampled during vessel surveys annually, and up to 50 bottlenose and 25 spotted dolphins annually of the above animals may be captured for health assessments, which would include biological sampling, auditory brainstem response tests, metabolic rate studies, ultrasound, x-rays, marking, tagging, tracking, and release. Up to 25 adults or juveniles of each species annually would be remotely satellite tagged to test the feasibility of a new dorsal fin attachment method. Two unintentional mortalities of each species could occur due to capture over the life of the permit. The permit is valid through May 31, 2022.

    Permit No. 20465: The requested permit (82 FR 11179) authorizes researchers to monitor and evaluate cetacean trends, abundance, distribution, and health in the North Pacific Ocean, Bering, Beaufort, and Chukchi Seas, and in the Gulf of Maine and mid-Atlantic waters. Up to 26 species/stocks of cetaceans may be targeted for study including the following endangered or threatened species/stocks: Cook Inlet beluga, blue, fin, sei (B. borealis), bowhead (Balaena mysticetus), humpback, North Pacific right (Eubalaena japonica), Southern Resident killer (Orcinus orca), and sperm whales. Researchers may conduct manned and unmanned aerial surveys for counts, observations, photo-identification, photogrammetry, and video of cetaceans. Vessel surveys may be conducted for counts, biological sampling, observation, photo-identification, photogrammetry, video, tagging, and/or acoustic playbacks of cetaceans. Seven pinniped species including endangered Steller sea lions may be harassed incidental to research. Requested captures, research activities and associated mortalities of beluga whales is not authorized. The permit is valid for five years.

    Permit No. 20527: The requested permit (81 FR 91919) authorizes takes of up to 29 species of cetaceans year-round in the Atlantic Ocean from Delaware Bay to Cape Canaveral, FL, and will include aerial and vessel surveys to conduct counts, photo-identification, photogrammetry, and behavioral observations. The permit is valid through May 31, 2022.

    Permit No. 20646: The requested permit (82 FR 12081) authorizes the receipt, import, and export of biological samples to establish and bank cetacean stem cells. Samples may be acquired from any species of marine mammal; however, the applicant has identified 38 species of cetaceans, including ESA-listed species, to focus acquisition efforts. Up to 12 individuals of each species would be requested. In addition, eight samples (from four individual animals) currently on loan would be transferred permanently to the applicant. The permit is valid for five years.

    Permit No. 20993: The requested permit (82 FR 4860) authorizes the filming of 50 humpback whales in Hawaiian waters as part of a commercial photography project. Whales may be filmed using boats, unmanned aerial systems, or snorkelers. Bottlenose (Tursiops truncatus), pantropical spotted (Stenella attenuata), and spinner (S. longirostris) dolphins may be incidentally harassed during filming. Footage will be used to create a film about humpback whales and their conservation success. The permit is valid through April 30, 2018.

    Permit No. 21026: The requested permit (82 FR 11004) authorizes the use evoked auditory potential testing on stranded cetaceans to determine their hearing range. Up to 15 individuals of any species and any age class of non-listed or ESA-listed cetacean may be tested. Passive acoustic recording, suction-cup sensors, subcutaneous electrodes, and ultrasound may be used during testing. Listed cetacean species may include: Beluga, blue, bowhead, false killer (Pseudorca crassidens), fin, gray, humpback, killer North Atlantic right (Eubalaena glacialis), North Pacific right, sei, and sperm whales, and vaquita (Phocoena sinus). The permit is valid through March 31, 2022.

    Permit No. 21043: The requested permit (82 FR 15514) authorizes capture and further monitoring of endangered smalltooth sawfish to develop conservation and protective measures, ensuring species recovery. Other listed species potentially encountered and incidentally collected include green, hawksbill, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and loggerhead sea turtles. Researchers may capture smalltooth sawfish in Florida waters, and then measure, weigh, tag, genetic tissue sample, draw blood, and photograph the animals prior to release. The researchers will also receive salvaged animals and parts taken at other locations within the target species' range. The permit is valid through May 31, 2022.

    Permit No. 21155: The requested permit (82 FR 13801) authorizes the importation of 118 DNA samples from the Federal University of Rio Grande Do Sul in Brazil to the University of Michigan, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department in Ann Arbor, MI, for genetics research. The Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis) samples were collected between 1996 and 2016 via biopsy sampling of live animals or from stranded animals, in accordance with the laws of Brazil. The permit also authorizes the export of any remaining samples back to Brazil. The permit is valid for five months.

    Permit No. 21199: The requested permit (82 FR 18739) authorizes the BBC Natural History Unit to film killer whales (Orcinus orca), Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), and Pacific white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens). Filming may occur near Seward, Alaska over six days in May 2017 and in Juneau, AK over six days at the end of July 2017. Filming would occur from cameras on board a vessel or by helicopter. Hydrophones would be used to record vocalizations. Footage would be used for an Alaska Live television series to showcase the gathering of wildlife in Alaska that occurs around the salmon runs. The permit is valid through August 31, 2017.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), a final determination has been made that the activities proposed are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    As required by the ESA, as applicable, issuance of these permit was based on a finding that such permits: (1) Were applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

    Dated: June 22, 2017. Catherine Marzin, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13434 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force U.S. Air Force Partially Exclusive Patent License AGENCY:

    Department of the Air Force, Air Force Research Laboratory Information Directorate, Rome, New York, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to issue a partially exclusive patent license.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Air Force announces its intention to grant Mentis Technologies, having a place of business at 725 Daedalian Drive, Rome, New York 13440, a partially exclusive license in any right, title and interest the United States Air Force has in: In U.S. Patent No. 9,349,007 issued on May 24, 2016 and entitled “WEB MALWARE BLOCKING THROUGH PARALLEL RESOURCE RENDERING”, having been filed on May 29, 2014 as U.S. Patent Application No. 14/290,175.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    An exclusive license for this patent will be granted unless a written objection is received within fifteen (15) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Written objections should be sent to: Air Force Research Laboratory, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, AFRL/RIJ, 26 Electronic Parkway, Rome, New York 13441-4514. Telephone: (315) 330-2087; Facsimile (315) 330-7583.

    Authority:

    Pursuant to the provisions of part 404 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, which implements Public Law 96-517, as amended.

    Henry Williams, Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13402 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Intent To Grant an Exclusive License of U.S. Government-Owned Patents AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), announcement is made of the intent to grant an exclusive, royalty-bearing, revocable license to U.S. Patent 7,956,086, issued June 7, 2011, entitled, “Methods for the Formulation and Manufacture of Artesunic Acid for Injection” to Amivas, LLC, having its principal place of business at 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 630, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.

    ADDRESSES:

    Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, MD 21702-5012.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For licensing issues, Mr. Barry Datlof, Office of Research & Technology Applications, (301) 619-0033. For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808, both at telefax (301) 619-5034.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Anyone wishing to object to grant of this license can file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, within 15 days from the date of this publication. Written objections are to be filed with the Command Judge Advocate (see ADDRESSES).

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13408 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-03-P
    DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD Sunshine Act Notice AGENCY:

    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice of closed meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's (Board) regulations implementing the Government in the Sunshine Act, notice is hereby given of the Board's closed meeting described below.

    DATES:

    10:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m., July 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Glenn Sklar, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (800) 788-4016. This is a toll-free number.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The meeting will be closed to the public. No participation from the public will be considered during the meeting.

    STATUS:

    Closed. During the closed meeting, the Board Members will discuss issues dealing with potential Recommendations to the Secretary of Energy. The Board is invoking the exemptions to close a meeting described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3) and (9)(B) and 10 CFR 1704.4(c) and (h). The Board has determined that it is necessary to close the meeting since conducting an open meeting is likely to disclose matters that are specifically exempted from disclosure by statute, and/or be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. In this case, the deliberations will pertain to potential Board Recommendations which, under 42 U.S.C. 2286d(b) and (h)(3), may not be made publicly available until after they have been received by the Secretary of Energy or the President, respectively.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    The meeting will proceed in accordance with the closed meeting agenda which is posted on the Board's public Web site at www.dnfsb.gov. Technical staff may present information to the Board. The Board Members are expected to conduct deliberations regarding potential Recommendations to the Secretary of Energy.

    Dated: June 23, 2017. Joseph Bruce Hamilton, Vice Chairman.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13526 Filed 6-23-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 2017-2018 Award Year Deadline Dates for Reports and Other Records Associated With the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant Program, the Federal Work-Study Programs, the Federal Perkins Loan Program, the Federal Pell Grant Program, the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program, and the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant Program AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Catalog Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.007 Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG) Program; 84.033 Federal Work Study (FWS) Program; 84.038 Federal Perkins Loan (Perkins Loan) Program; 84.063 Federal Pell Grant (Pell Grant) Program; 84.268 William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program; 84.379 Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant Program; 84.408 Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant Program.

    SUMMARY:

    The Secretary announces deadline dates for the receipt of documents and other information from applicants and institutions participating in certain Federal student aid programs authorized under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), for the 2017-2018 award year. These programs, administered by the U.S. Department of Education (Department), provide financial assistance to students attending eligible postsecondary educational institutions to help them pay their educational costs.

    The Federal student aid programs (title IV, HEA programs) covered by this deadline date notice are the Pell Grant, Direct Loan, TEACH Grant, Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant, and campus-based programs (FSEOG, FWS, and Perkins Loan programs). The campus-based programs are only covered by Table A of this deadline date notice.

    DATES:

    Deadline and Submission Dates: See Tables A and B at the end of this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rene Tiongquico, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, 830 First Street NE., Union Center Plaza, 11th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-5345. Telephone: (202) 377-4270 or by email: [email protected]

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table A—2017-2018 Award Year Deadline Dates by Which a Student Must Submit the FAFSA, by Which the Institution Must Receive the Student's Institutional Student Information Record (ISIR) or Student Aid Report (SAR), and by Which the Institution Must Submit Verification Outcomes for Certain Students

    Table A provides information and deadline dates for receipt of the FAFSA, corrections to and signatures for the FAFSA, ISIRs, and SARs, and verification documents.

    The deadline date for the receipt of a FAFSA by the Department's Central Processing System is June 30, 2018, regardless of the method that the applicant uses to submit the FAFSA. The deadline date for the receipt of a signature page for the FAFSA (if required), corrections, notices of change of address or school, or requests for a duplicate SAR is September 15, 2018.

    For all title IV, HEA programs, an ISIR or SAR for the student must be received by the institution no later than the student's last date of enrollment for the 2017-2018 award year or September 22, 2018, whichever is earlier. Note that a FAFSA must be submitted and an ISIR or SAR received for the dependent student for whom a parent is applying for a Direct PLUS Loan.

    Except for students selected for Verification Tracking Groups V4 and V5, verification documents must be received by the institution no later than 120 days after the student's last date of enrollment for the 2017-2018 award year or September 22, 2018, whichever is earlier. For students selected for Verification Tracking Groups V4 and V5, institutions must submit identity and high school completion status verification results no later than 60 days following the institution's first request to the student to submit the documentation.

    For all title IV, HEA programs except for (1) Direct PLUS Loans that will be made to parent borrowers, and (2) Direct Unsubsidized Loans that will be made to dependent students who have been determined by the institution, pursuant to section 479A(a) of the HEA, to be eligible for such a loan without providing parental information on the FAFSA, the ISIR or SAR must have an official expected family contribution (EFC) and the ISIR or SAR must be received by the institution no later than the earlier of the student's last date of enrollment for the 2017-2018 award year or September 22, 2018.

    For a student who is requesting aid through the Pell Grant, FSEOG, FWS, and Federal Perkins Loan programs or for a student requesting Direct Subsidized Loans, who does not meet the conditions for a late disbursement under 34 CFR 668.164(j), a valid ISIR or valid SAR must be received by the institution by the student's last date of enrollment for the 2017-2018 award year or September 22, 2018, whichever is earlier.

    In accordance with 34 CFR 668.164(j)(4)(i), an institution may not make a late disbursement of title IV, HEA program funds later than 180 days after the date of the institution's determination that the student was no longer enrolled. Table A provides that, to make a late disbursement of title IV student assistance funds, an institution must receive a valid ISIR or valid SAR no later than 180 days after its determination that the student was no longer enrolled, but not later than September 22, 2018.

    Table B—2017-2018 Award Year Pell Grant, Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant, Direct Loan, and TEACH Grant Programs Deadline Dates for Disbursement by Institutions

    Table B provides the earliest disbursement date and the earliest and latest dates for institutions to submit Pell Grant, Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant, Direct Loan, and TEACH Grant disbursement records to the Department's Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) System and deadline dates for such records if an institution requests and receives approval to submit such records after the established deadline.

    An institution must submit Pell Grant, Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant, Direct Loan, and TEACH Grant disbursement records to COD, no later than 15 days after making the disbursement or becoming aware of the need to adjust a previously reported disbursement. In accordance with 34 CFR 668.164(a), title IV, HEA program funds are disbursed on the date that the institution: (a) Credits those funds to a student's account in the institution's general ledger or any subledger of the general ledger; or (b) pays those funds to a student directly. Title IV, HEA program funds are disbursed even if an institution uses its own funds in advance of receiving program funds from the Department.

    An institution's failure to submit disbursement records within the required timeframe may result in the Department rejecting all or part of the reported disbursement. Such failure may also result in an audit or program review finding or the initiation of an adverse action, such as a fine or other penalty for such failure, in accordance with subpart G of the General Provisions regulations in 34 CFR part 668.

    Deadline Dates for Enrollment Reporting by Institutions

    In accordance with 34 CFR 674.19(f), 34 CFR 682.610(c), 34 CFR 685.309(b), and 34 CFR 690.83(b)(2), upon receipt of an enrollment report from the Secretary, institutions must update all information included in the report and return the report to the Secretary in a manner and format prescribed by the Secretary and within the timeframe prescribed by the Secretary. Consistent with the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) Enrollment Reporting Guide, the Secretary has determined that institutions must report at least every two months. Institutions may find the NSLDS Enrollment Reporting Guide on the Information for Financial Aid Professionals Web site at http://www.ifap.ed.gov.

    Other Sources for Detailed Information

    We publish a detailed discussion of the Federal student aid application process in the 2017-2018 Federal Student Aid Handbook and in the 2017-2018 ISIR Guide.

    Additional information on the institutional reporting requirements for the Pell Grant, Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant, Direct Loan, and TEACH Grant programs is included in the 2017-2018 Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) Technical Reference. Also, see the NSLDS Enrollment Reporting Guide.

    You may access these publications by selecting the “iLibrary” link at the Information for Financial Aid Professionals Web site at: www.ifap.ed.gov.

    Applicable Regulations: The following regulations apply:

    (1) Student Assistance General Provisions, 34 CFR part 668.

    (2) Federal Pell Grant Program, 34 CFR part 690.

    (3) William D. Ford Direct Loan Program, 34 CFR part 685.

    (4) Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program, 34 CFR part 686.

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Program Authority:

    20 U.S.C. 1070a, 1070a-1, 1070b-1070b-4, 1070g, 1070h, 1087a-1087j, and 1087aa-1087ii; 42 U.S.C. 2751-2756b.

    Dated: June 22, 2017. Matthew D. Sessa, Acting Chief Operating Officer, Federal Student Aid. Table A—2017-2018 Award Year Deadline Dates by Which a Student Must Submit the FAFSA, by Which the Institution Must Receive the Student's Institutional Student Information Record (ISIR) or Student Aid Report (SAR), and by Which the Institution Must Submit Verification Outcomes for Certain Students Who submits? What is submitted? Where is it submitted? What is the deadline date for receipt? Student FAFSA—“FAFSA on the Web” (original or renewal) Electronically to the Department's Central Processing System (CPS) June 30, 2018.1 Signature page (if required) To the address printed on the signature page September 15, 2018. Student through an Institution An electronic FAFSA (original or renewal) Electronically to the Department's CPS using “Electronic Data Exchange” (EDE) or “FAA Access to CPS Online” June 30, 2018.1 Student A paper original FAFSA To the address printed on the FAFSA or envelope provided with the FAFSA June 30, 2018. Student Electronic corrections to the FAFSA using “Corrections on the Web” Electronically to the Department's CPS September 15, 2018.1 Signature page (if required) To the address printed on the signature page September 15, 2018. Student through an Institution Electronic corrections to the FAFSA Electronically to the Department's CPS using EDE or “FAA Access to CPS Online” September 15, 2018.1 Student Paper corrections to the FAFSA using a SAR, including change of mailing and email addresses and change of institutions To the address printed on the SAR September 15, 2018. Student Change of mailing and email addresses, change of institutions, or requests for a duplicate SAR To the Federal Student Aid Information Center by calling 1-800-433-3243 September 15, 2018. Student A SAR with an official EFC calculated by the Department's CPS, except for Parent PLUS Loans and Direct Unsubsidized Loans made to a dependent student under HEA section 479A(a), for which the ISIR does not need to have an official EFC To the institution The earlier of:
  • —The student's last date of enrollment for the 2017-2018 award year; or
  • —September 22, 2018.2
  • Student through CPS.. An ISIR with an official EFC calculated by the Department's CPS, except for Parent PLUS Loans and Direct Unsubsidized Loans made to a dependent student under HEA section 479A(a), for which the ISIR does not need to have an official EFC To the institution from the Department's CPS Student
  • Student through CPS.
  • Valid SAR (Pell Grant, FSEOG, FWS, Perkins Loan, and Direct Subsidized Loans)
  • Valid ISIR (Pell Grant, FSEOG, FWS, Perkins Loan, and Direct Subsidized Loans)
  • To the institution
  • To the institution from the Department's CPS
  • Except for a student meeting the conditions for a late disbursement under 34 CFR 668.164(j), the earlier of:
  • —The student's last date of enrollment for the 2017-2018 award year; or
  • —September 22, 2018.2
  • Student
  • Student through CPS.
  • Valid SAR (Pell Grant, FSEOG, FWS, Perkins Loan, and Direct Subsidized Loans)
  • Valid ISIR (Pell Grant, FSEOG, FWS, Perkins Loan, and Direct Subsidized Loans)
  • To the institution
  • To the institution from the Department's CPS
  • For a student receiving a late disbursement under 34 CFR 668.164(j)(4)(i), the earlier of:
  • —180 days after the date of the institution's determination that the student withdrew or otherwise became ineligible; or
  • —September 22, 2018.2
  • Student Verification documents To the institution The earlier of: 3
  • —120 days after the student's last date of enrollment for the 2017-2018 award year; or
  • —September 22, 2018.2
  • Institution Identity and high school completion verification results for a student selected for verification by the Department and placed in Verification Tracking Group V4 or V5 Electronically to the Department's CPS using “FAA Access to CPS Online” 60 days following the institution's first request to the student to submit the required V4 or V5 identity and high school completion documentation.4 1 The deadline for electronic transactions is 11:59 p.m. (Central Time) on the deadline date. Transmissions must be completed and accepted before 12:00 midnight to meet the deadline. If transmissions are started before 12:00 midnight but are not completed until after 12:00 midnight, those transmissions do not meet the deadline. In addition, any transmission submitted on or just prior to the deadline date that is rejected may not be reprocessed because the deadline will have passed by the time the user gets the information notifying him or her of the rejection. 2 The date the ISIR/SAR transaction was processed by CPS is considered to be the date the institution received the ISIR or SAR regardless of whether the institution has downloaded the ISIR from its Student Aid Internet Gateway (SAIG) mailbox or when the student submits the SAR to the institution. 3 Although the Secretary has set this deadline date for the submission of verification documents, if corrections are required, deadline dates for submission of paper or electronic corrections and, for Pell Grant applicants and applicants selected for verification, deadline dates for the submission of a valid SAR or valid ISIR to the institution must still be met. An institution may establish an earlier deadline for the submission of verification documents for purposes of the campus-based programs and the Direct Loan Program, but it cannot be later than this deadline date. 4 Note that changes to previously submitted Identity Verification Results must be updated within 30 days of the institution becoming aware that a change has occurred.
    Table B—Pell Grant, Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant, Direct Loan, and TEACH Grant Programs Deadline Dates for Disbursement Information by Institutions for the 2017-2018 Award Year or Processing Year 1 Which program? What is submitted? Under what
  • circumstances is
  • it submitted?
  • Where is it submitted? What are the deadlines for disbursement and for submission of records and information?
    Pell Grant, Direct Loan, TEACH Grant, and Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant programs An origination or disbursement record The institution has made or intends to make a disbursement To the Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) System using the Student Aid Internet Gateway (SAIG); or to the COD System using the COD Web site at: www.cod.ed.gov The earliest disbursement date is October 18, 2016.
  • The earliest submission date for anticipated disbursement information is March 27, 2017.
  • The earliest submission date for actual disbursement information is March 27, 2017, but no earlier than:
  • (a) 7 calendar days prior to the disbursement date under the advance payment method or the cash monitoring number one payment method; or (b) The disbursement date under the reimbursement or cash monitoring number two payment method. Pell Grant, Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant, and TEACH Grant programs An origination or disbursement record The institution has made a disbursement and will submit records on or before the deadline submission date To COD using SAIG; or to COD using the COD Web site at:www.cod.ed.gov The deadline submission date 2 is the earlier of:
  • (a) 15 calendar days after the institution makes a disbursement or becomes aware of the need to make an adjustment to previously reported disbursement data, except that records for disbursements made between October 18, 2016 and March 27, 2017 must be submitted no later than April 11, 2017; or
  • (b) September 28, 2018.
  • Direct Loan Program An origination or disbursement record The institution has made a disbursement and will submit records on or before the deadline submission date To COD using SAIG; or to COD using the COD Web site at: www.cod.ed.gov The deadline submission date 2 is the earlier of:
  • (a) 15 calendar days after the institution makes a disbursement or becomes aware of the need to make an adjustment to previously reported disbursement data, except that records of disbursements made between October 18, 2016 and March 27, 2017, may be submitted no later than April 11, 2017; or
  • (b) July 31, 2019.
  • Pell Grant and Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant programs A downward adjustment to an origination or disbursement record It is after the deadline submission date To COD using SAIG; or to COD using the COD Web site at: www.cod.ed.gov No later than September 29, 2023. Pell Grant, Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant programs An origination or disbursement record
  • TEACH Grant and Direct Loan programs
  • It is after the deadline submission date and the institution has received approval of its request for an extension to the deadline submission date.
  • Requests for extensions to the established submission deadlines may be made for reasons, including, but not limited to:
  • (a) A program review or initial audit finding under 34 CFR 690.83; (b) A late disbursement under 34 CFR 668.164(j); or (c) Disbursements previously blocked as a result of another institution failing to post a downward adjustment. Via the COD Web site at: www.cod.ed.gov The earlier of:
  • (a) When the institution is fully reconciled and is ready to submit all additional data for the program and the award year; or
  • (b) September 29, 2023.
  • When the institution is fully reconciled and is ready to submit all additional data for the program and the award year.
  • Pell Grant and Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant programs An origination or disbursement record It is after the deadline submission date and the institution has received approval of its request for an extension to the deadline submission date based on a natural disaster, other unusual circumstances, or an administrative error made by the Department Via the COD Web site at: www.cod.ed.gov The earlier of:
  • (a) A date designated by the Secretary after consultation with the institution; or
  • (b) February 1, 2019.
  • Pell Grant and Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant programs An origination or disbursement record It is after the deadline submission date and the institution has received approval of its request for administrative relief to extend the deadline submission date based on a student's reentry to the institution within 180 days after initially withdrawing.3 Via the COD Web site at: www.cod.ed.gov The earlier of:
  • (a) 15 days after the student reenrolls; or
  • (b) May 3, 2019.
  • 1 A COD Processing Year is a period of time in which institutions are permitted to submit Direct Loan records to the COD System that are related to a given award year. For a Direct Loan, the period of time includes loans that have a loan period covering any day in the 2017-2018 award year. 2 Transmissions must be completed and accepted before the designated processing time on the deadline submission date. The designated processing time is published annually via an electronic announcement posted to the Information for Financial Aid Professionals website (www.ifap.ed.gov). If transmissions are started at the designated time, but are not completed until after the designated time, those transmissions will not meet the deadline. In addition, any transmission submitted on or just prior to the deadline date that is rejected may not be reprocessed because the deadline will have passed by the time the user gets the information notifying him or her of the rejection. 3 Applies only to students enrolled in clock-hour and nonterm credit-hour educational programs. NOTE: The COD System must accept origination data for a student from an institution before it accepts disbursement information from the institution for that student. Institutions may submit origination and disbursement data for a student in the same transmission. However, if the origination data is rejected, the disbursement data is rejected.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13436 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Annual Notice of Interest Rates of Federal Student Loans Made Under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program On or After July 1, 2013 AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Acting Chief Operating Officer for Federal Student Aid announces the interest rates for loans made under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program on or after July 1, 2017, but before July 1, 2018. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.268.

    DATES:

    This notice is effective June 27, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rene Tiongquico, U.S. Department of Education, 830 First Street NE., 11th Floor, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 377-4270 or by email: [email protected].

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 455(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1087e(b)), provides formulas for determining the interest rates charged to borrowers for loans made under the Direct Loan Program including: Federal Direct Subsidized Stafford Loans (Direct Subsidized Loans); Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford Loans (Direct Unsubsidized Loans); Federal Direct PLUS Loans (Direct PLUS Loans); and Federal Direct Consolidation Loans (Direct Consolidation Loans).

    Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct PLUS Loans (collectively, Direct Loans) first disbursed on or after July 1, 2013, have a fixed interest rate that is calculated based on the high yield of the 10-year Treasury notes auctioned at the final auction held before June 1 of each year, plus a statutory add-on percentage (a “margin”). While the interest rate determination for new loans will be different from year to year, each of these loans will have a fixed interest rate for the life of the loan. In each case the calculated rate is capped at a maximum interest rate. On Wednesday, May 10, 2017, the United States Treasury Department held a 10-year Treasury note auction that resulted in a high yield of 2.400%.

    The following chart contains specific information on the calculation of the interest rates for Direct Loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2017, but before July 1, 2018. We will publish a separate notice containing the interest rates for Direct Loans that were made in prior years.

    Fixed-Rate Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct PLUS Loans First Disbursed On or After 7/1/2017 but Before 7/1/2018 Loan type Student grade level Cohort First
  • disbursed
  • on/after
  • First
  • disbursed
  • before
  • Index rate 10-Year treasury note
  • (%)
  • Margin
  • (%)
  • Fixed rate
  • (%)
  • Max. rate
  • (%)
  • Subsidized Undergraduates 7/1/2017 7/1/2018 2.400 2.05 4.45 8.25 Unsubsidized Undergraduates 7/1/2017 7/1/2018 2.400 2.05 4.45 8.25 Unsubsidized Graduate and Professional Students 7/1/2017 7/1/2018 2.400 3.60 6.00 9.50 PLUS Parents of Dependent Undergraduates 7/1/2017 7/1/2018 2.400 4.60 7.00 10.50 PLUS Graduate and Professional Students 7/1/2017 7/1/2018 2.400 4.60 7.00 10.50

    For an application for a Direct Consolidation Loan that was received by the Department on or after July 1, 2013, the interest rate on that loan is the weighted average of the loans being consolidated, rounded to the nearest higher 1/8 of 1 percent. These Direct Consolidation Loans do not have an interest rate cap.

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1087, et seq.

    Dated: June 22, 2017. Matthew D. Sessa, Acting Chief Operating Officer, Federal Student Aid.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13432 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [Docket No. PP-371] Informational Notice Regarding Public Notification Procedures for the Northern Pass Transmission Line Project AGENCY:

    Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of changes to the public notification procedures for consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act for the Northern Pass Transmission Line Project.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is notifying the public of changes to the public notification procedures for consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act for the Northern Pass Transmission Line Project, including implementation of the Programmatic Agreement developed for the Project.

    DATES:

    DOE is changing the public notification procedures for consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act for the Northern Pass Transmission Line Project effective June 14, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Requests for information about the proposed project and DOE's Section 106 review should be addressed to: Brian Mills, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; or by email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on DOE's review of the Presidential permit application, contact Brian Mills by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES above, or at 202-586-8267.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Executive Order (E.O.) 10485, as amended by E.O. 12038, requires that before an electric transmission facility may be constructed, operated, maintained, or connected at the U.S. international border, a Presidential permit must be issued by DOE. E.O. 10485 provides that DOE may issue a Presidential permit upon finding issuance of the permit to be consistent with the public interest and after obtaining favorable recommendations from the U.S. Departments of State and Defense. In determining whether issuance of a Presidential permit would be consistent with the public interest, DOE takes into account the potential effects of the issuance of a Presidential permit for the proposed project's international border crossing on historic properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and gives the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and state historic preservation offices (SHPOs) an opportunity to comment, in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (54 United States Code (U.S.C.) 306108) (Section 106), as amended, and the Section 106 implementing regulations (36 CFR part 800).

    On October 14, 2010, NPT applied to DOE for a Presidential permit to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a high-voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission line across the U.S.-Canada border (the proposed Project). On July 1, 2013, NPT submitted an amended Presidential permit application to DOE (see 78 FR 50405 (Aug. 19, 2013)). On August 31, 2015, NPT further amended its Presidential permit application to DOE (see 80 FR 58725 (Sep. 30, 2015)). The amended applications are summarized below.

    Applicant's Proposal

    In the July 2013 amended application, NPT proposed to construct and operate a primarily overhead high voltage direct current (HVDC) electric transmission line that would originate at an HVDC converter station to be constructed at the Des Cantons Substation in Québec, Canada, then would be converted from HVDC to alternating current (AC) in Franklin, NH, and would continue to its southern terminus in Deerfield, NH. The proposed facilities would be capable of transmitting up to 1200 megawatts (MW) of power.

    The New Hampshire portion of the proposed Project would be a single circuit 300 kilovolt (kV) HVDC transmission line running approximately 153 miles from the U.S. border crossing with Canada near the community of Pittsburg, NH, to a new HVDC-to-AC transformer facility to be constructed in Franklin, NH. From Franklin, NH, to the Project terminus at the Public Service Company of New Hampshire's existing Deerfield Substation located in Deerfield, NH, the proposed Project would consist of 34 miles of 345-kV AC electric transmission line. The total length of the proposed Project would be approximately 187 miles.

    NPT's August 2015 application amendment (80 FR 58725) changed the proposed transmission line route by adding three miles of buried transmission line adjacent to a road not previously analyzed, adding two new transition stations (one in Bridgewater and one in Bethlehem; both would transition the transmission line between aboveground and buried) of approximately one acre each, and increasing the amount of proposed buried transmission line from approximately eight miles to approximately 60 miles with a total proposed Project length of approximately 192 miles. In addition, the amendment proposed a minor shift (less than 100 feet) in the international border crossing location, changed the project size from 1,200 MW to 1,000 MW with a potential transfer capability of 1,090 MW and included other design changes (e.g., change in converter technology and type of cable). A copy of the amended Presidential permit application and maps of the proposed Project route can be found at the DOE environmental impact statement (EIS) Web site (http://www.northernpasseis.us).

    Section 106 Review

    Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the potential effects of their undertakings that require federal funding, approvals, or permits on historic properties and to give the ACHP and SHPOs an opportunity to comment. Compliance with Section 106 also requires consultation with other consulting parties, which may include federally-recognized Indian tribes, representatives of local governments, the applicant, certain individuals and organizations with a demonstrated interest in the proposed undertaking due to the nature of their legal or economic relation to the undertaking or affected properties, or their concern with the undertaking's effects on historic properties (36 CFR 800.2). The public is also a participant in the Section 106 process, and federal agencies must also seek and consider the views of the public (36 CFR 800.2(d)). If adverse effects on historic properties are anticipated, agencies develop measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate those adverse effects through consultation.

    DOE initiated Section 106 consultation with the NH SHPO—the New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources—in February 2011 in response to NPT's 2010 Presidential permit application. DOE suspended its Section 106 consultation following notification from NPT that NPT would be submitting an amended Presidential permit application. DOE re-engaged the NH SHPO in 2013 to continue Section 106 consultation on NPT's amended Presidential permit application submission; through consultation with the NH SHPO and other consulting federal agencies, DOE defined the area of potential effects (APE) (36 CFR 800.16(d)) and identified potential additional consulting parties (36 CFR 800.2). The ACHP was invited to participate in DOE's Section 106 consultation in January 2014; ACHP formally joined DOE's Section 106 consultation in February 2015. Additional consulting parties (36 CFR 800.2) were invited to participate in DOE's Section 106 consultation in January 2014. DOE initiated consultation with the VT SHPO—the Vermont Division of Historic Preservation—in June 2016 to address the portion of the APE within Vermont.

    When the potential effects on historic properties are complex, involve large land areas, and cannot be fully determined prior to approval of an undertaking, an agency's obligations under Section 106 are satisfied by negotiation and execution of a legally binding agreement called a Programmatic Agreement or PA. DOE has developed a draft PA through which it proposes to satisfy the Section 106 requirements for the proposed Northern Pass project. All information for the public regarding the Section 106 process are available at DOE's Section 106 Consultation Page for the proposed Northern Pass Transmission Line Project: http://www.northernpasseis.us/consultations/section106/.

    Change in Public Notification Procedure for Section 106 Consultation

    The Section 106 implementing regulations provide for specific public involvement opportunities in the Section 106 process. The level of public involvement is determined on a project-by-project basis by the federal agency implementing Section 106. DOE previously indicated that it would notify the public about the Section 106 process through future Federal Register notices (see 78 FR 54876 (Sept. 6, 2013)). DOE is no longer using the Federal Register to notify the public regarding Section 106. Going forward, DOE will continue to provide updates and information to the public, including about opportunities for public involvement, regarding the Section 106 process through DOE's Section 106 Consultation Page for the Project: http://www.northernpasseis.us/consultations/section106/. In accordance with this decision, on June 14, 2017, DOE notified the public that the draft Section 106 Programmatic Agreement for the Northern Pass Transmission Project was available to the public at this site.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 16, 2017. Brian Mills, Director, Transmission Permitting & Technical Assistance, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13418 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-1871-000] Bayshore Solar B, 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 B, 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 11, 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 21, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13384 Filed 6-26-17; 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 corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC17-132-000.

    Applicants: FPL Energy Wyman IV LLC, Public Service Company of New Hampshire.

    Description: Application for Authorization for Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Action of FPL Energy Wyman IV LLC, et. al.

    Filed Date: 6/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170621-5146.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: EG17-119-000.

    Applicants: Buckthorn Wind, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Buckthorn Wind, LLC.

    Filed Date: 6/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170621-5118.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-120-000.

    Applicants: Bearkat Wind Energy I, LLC.

    Description: Bearkat Wind Energy I, LLC's Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.

    Filed Date: 6/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170621-5149.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1877-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Letter Agreement Huntington Beach Energy Project SA No. 193 to be effective 6/22/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170621-5087.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1878-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Letter Agreement Alamitos Energy Center Project SA No. 194 to be effective 6/22/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170621-5088.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1879-000.

    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 205 filing of Rate Schedule 1 revisions for Ramapo PARs cost recovery to be effective 7/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170621-5124.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1880-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-06-21_SA 900 Termination of Entergy—Southcoast Wind LGIA to be effective 9/4/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170621-5147.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

    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 21, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13382 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. AD17-12-000; PL03-3-000; AD03-7-000; ER17-795-000; ER17-795-001; RP16-1299-000; RP16-1299-001; RP16-1299-002; ER17-386-001; ER17-386-002] Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference Docket Nos. Developments in Natural Gas Index Liquidity and Transparency AD17-12-000 Price Discovery in Natural Gas and Electric Markets PL03-3-000 Natural Gas Price Formation AD03-7-000 ISO New England Inc ER17-795-000
  • ER17-795-001
  • Kinetica Energy Express, LLC RP16-1299-000
  • RP16-1299-001
  • RP16-1299-002
  • New York Independent System Operator, Inc ER17-386-001
  • ER17-386-002
  • Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference

    As announced in the Notices issued May 10, 2017,1 and June 13, 2017,2 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff will hold a technical conference on Thursday, June 29, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. to discuss the state of liquidity and transparency in the physical natural gas markets. A revised agenda and list of panel participants for this conference are attached. The conference is free of charge and open to the public. Commission members may participate in the conference.

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

    2 Developments in Natural Gas Index Liquidity and Transparency, Docket No. AD17-12-000 (June 13, 2017) (Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference) (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/IDMWS/common/opennat.asp?fileID=14613488).

    This Supplemental Notice contains the following changes to the previously-issued technical conference agenda: (1) Edward Fortunato, Managing Director of Analytics for Constellation Energy, Exelon Corporation is not participating as a panelist on Panels 1 and 2 of the technical conference and; (2) Gregg Bradley, Supervisor of Market Compliance for the Internal Market Monitor, ISO New England Inc. will be a panelist on Panel 2 of the technical conference. Christopher Hamlen, Regulatory Counsel, ISO-NE, is not participating as a panelist.

    In addition, please take note that the Commission will accept post technical conference comments up to 30 days after the technical conference. Please file any comments with the Commission by July 31, 2017.

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

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

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

    For more information about the technical conference, please contact:

    Sarah McKinley (Logistics), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8368, [email protected] Eric Primosch (Technical), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6483, [email protected] Omar Bustami (Legal), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6214, [email protected] Dated: June 21, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. EN27JN17.000 Docket No. AD17-12-000 June 29, 2017 Agenda

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

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

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

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

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

    Panelists are encouraged to respond to the following:

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

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

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

    3Policy Statement on Natural Gas and Electric Price Indices, 104 FERC ¶ 61,121, at P 33 (2003).

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

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

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

    Panelists are encouraged to respond to the following:

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

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

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

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

    4Price Discovery in Natural Gas and Electric Markets, 109 FERC ¶ 61,184 at P60 (2004).

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

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

    Panelists are encouraged to respond to the following:

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

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

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

    Panelists: • Greg Leonard, Vice President, Cornerstone Research • Orlando Alvarez, President and CEO, BP Energy Company • Mark Callahan, Editorial Director for Platts North America, S&P Global • J.C. Kneale, Vice President of North American Natural Gas, Power & NGL Markets, InterContinental Exchange • Vince Kaminski, Professor in Practice of Energy, Rice University • Curtis Moffatt, Deputy General Counsel and Vice President, Kinder Morgan • Joe Bowring, President, Monitoring Analytics • Corey Grindal, Senior Vice President of Gas Supply, Cheniere Energy • Tom Haywood, Editor of Natural Gas Week, Energy Intelligence • Drew Fossum, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Tenaska Inc. • Joan Dreskin, Vice President and General Counsel, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America 5:25 p.m.-5:30 p.m. Closing Remarks
    [FR Doc. 2017-13391 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP17-441-000] Northwest Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed North Seattle Lateral Upgrade Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Session

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the North Seattle Lateral Upgrade Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Northwest Pipeline, LLC (Northwest) in Snohomish County, Washington. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. 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 21, 2017.

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. 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.

    Northwest provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” 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. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

    Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected] Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.

    (1) 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; or

    (2) 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

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP17-441-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    (4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the Commission invites you to attend the public scoping session its staff will conduct in the project area, scheduled as follows:

    Date and time Location Thursday, July 13, 2017, 5:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m. PDT Lynnwood Convention Center, 3711 196th Street SW., Lynnwood, WA 98036, (425) 778-7155.

    The primary goal of these scoping sessions is to have you identify the specific environmental issues and concerns that should be considered in the EA 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 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. PDT. You may arrive at any time after 5:00 p.m. There will not be a formal presentation by Commission staff when the session opens. If you wish to provide comments to the court reporter, the Commission staff will hand out numbers in the order of your arrival. Comments will be taken until 9:00 p.m. However, if no additional numbers have been handed out and all individuals who wish to provide comments have had an opportunity to do so, staff may conclude the session at 8:00 p.m. Please see appendix 1 for additional information on the session format and conduct.1

    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 scoping comments will be recorded by the court reporter (with FERC staff present) and become part of the public record for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly available on FERC's eLibrary system (see below for instructions on using eLibrary). If a significant number of people are interested in providing verbal comments in the one-on-one settings, a time limit of 3-5 minutes may be implemented for each commentor.

    It is important to note that 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. Representatives from Northwest will also be present to answer project-specific questions.

    Please note this is not your only public input opportunity; please refer to the review process flow chart in appendix 2.

    Summary of the Proposed Project

    Northwest proposes to remove approximately 6.6 miles of the 8-inch-diameter North Seattle Lateral pipeline and replace it with 20-inch-diameter pipeline, primarily in the same trench. The project is in Snohomish County, Washington. According to Northwest, the proposed facilities would increase service reliability and enable Northwest to provide an incremental 196,311 dekatherms per day of firm capacity to serve Puget Sound Energy.

    The North Seattle Lateral Upgrade Project would consist of the following facilities:

    • Replace 6.6-miles of 8-inch-diameter pipeline with 20-inch-diameter pipeline,

    • rebuild the existing North Seattle/Everett meter station in order to accommodate the increased delivery capacity of the North Seattle Lateral,

    • relocate an existing 8-inch pig launcher and a 20-inch pig receiver,2

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

    • replace an existing 8-inch mainline valve with a 20-inch valve.

    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 3.

    Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction activities related to the Upgrade Project would disturb about 103 acres of land for the pipeline replacement and aboveground facilities. The new pipeline would be installed within Northwest's existing easement. Following construction, Northwest would maintain its existing 48 acres of easement area for permanent operation of the project facilities; the remaining 54 acres of construction work space would be restored and revert to former uses. The entire existing right-of-way in which the replacements would be made parallels existing pipeline, utility, or road rights-of-way.

    Alternatives Under Consideration

    Northwest is considering two alternate configurations to the project, as shown in appendix 4. The first option, if geotechnical and engineering studies are favorable, would be to terminate the 20-inch-diameter pipeline at milepost 8.4 and place the relocated pig launcher/receiver at this point, near Newton Road (see figure 4a), rather than at milepost 8.9, as currently proposed. This would shorten the overall length of the pipeline replacement by approximately 0.3 mile. A second alternative is to divert the pipeline off the existing Northwest easement between Yew Way and Waverly Drive as it passes through the Fritch Forest Products mill facility, in order to avoid interference with mill operations. This alternative is depicted in figure 4b.

    The EA 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 issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us 3 to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.

    3 We, us, and our refer to the environmental staff of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:

    • Geology and soils;

    • land use;

    • water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;

    • vegetation and wildlife;

    • endangered and threatened species;

    • cultural resources;

    • air quality and noise;

    • public safety; and

    • cumulative impacts.

    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.

    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2 of this Notice.

    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.4 Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.

    4 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, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.5 We will define the project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) 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 construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.

    5 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's 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

    We have already identified two issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and the environmental information provided by Northwest. This preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.

    • Effects of construction on residential properties.

    • Impacts on sensitive fish species during stream construction activities.

    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) who are potential right-of-way grantors, 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. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.

    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies of the EA 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 the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 5).

    Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, 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. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the “Document-less Intervention Guide” under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Motions to intervene are more fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.

    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 at 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., CP17-441). 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 sessions 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 21, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13383 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14822-000] Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On January 18, 2017, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Aroo Pioneer Peak Pumped Storage Hydro Project to be located near Archbald Borough and Jefferson Township in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.

    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new upper reservoir with a surface area of 116 acres and a storage capacity of 1,740 acre-feet at a surface elevation of approximately 2,265 feet above mean sea level (msl) created through construction of a new roller-compacted concrete or rock-fill dam; (2) a new lower reservoir with a surface area of 184 acres and a storage capacity of 2,088 acre-feet at a surface elevation of 1,400 feet msl; (3) a new 10,000-foot-long, 48-inch-diameter penstock connecting the upper and lower reservoirs; (4) a new 150-foot-long, 50-foot-wide, 25-foot-high powerhouse containing two turbine-generator units with a total rated capacity of 123 megawatts; (5) a new 2,640-foot-long transmission line connecting the powerhouse to the PPL Electric Utilities' Peckville 230-kilovolt circuit; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an annual generation of 450,380 megawatt-hours.

    Applicant Contact: Adam Rousselle, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, 5710 Oak Crest Drive, Doylestown, PA 18902; phone: 267-254-6107.

    FERC Contact: Woohee Choi; phone: (202) 502-6336.

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

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-14822-000.

    More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-14822) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: June 21, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13387 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14825-000] Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On January 18, 2017, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Four Mile Pumped Storage Hydro Project to be located near the City of Frostburg in Allegany County, Maryland. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.

    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new upper reservoir with a surface area of 168 acres and a storage capacity of 2,520 acre-feet at a surface elevation of approximately 2,800 feet above mean sea level (msl) created through construction of a new roller-compacted concrete or rock-fill dam; (2) a new lower reservoir with a surface area of 55 acres and a storage capacity of 3,024 acre-feet at a surface elevation of 2,250 feet msl; (3) a new 5,823-foot-long, 48-inch-diameter penstock connecting the upper and lower reservoirs; (4) a new 150-foot-long, 50-foot-wide, 25-foot-high powerhouse containing two turbine-generator units with a total rated capacity of 114 megawatts; (5) a new 2,640-foot-long transmission line connecting the powerhouse to the Frostburg-Jennings 138-kilovolt circuit owned by Potomac Edison; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an annual generation of 414,741 megawatt-hours.

    Applicant Contact: Adam Rousselle, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, 5710 Oak Crest Drive, Doylestown, PA 18902; phone: 267-254-6107.

    FERC Contact: Woohee Choi; phone: (202) 502-6336.

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

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-14825-000.

    More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-14825) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: June 21, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13388 Filed 6-26-17; 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: ER16-2091-000; EL16-114-000.

    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.

    Description: Response of Idaho Power Company to October 10, 2016 Show Cause Order.

    Filed Date: 11/30/16.

    Accession Number: 20161130-5296.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1193-000.

    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.

    Description: Report Filing: Submission of Refund Report to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 6/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170621-5043.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1874-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2415R6 Kansas Municipal Energy Agency NITSA and NOA to be effective 6/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170621-5002.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1875-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 3114R3 Resale Power Group of Iowa to be effective 6/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170621-5050.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1876-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Otter Tail Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-06-21 SA 3020 OTP-OTP E&P (J510) to be effective 6/2/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170621-5071.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES17-37-000.

    Applicants: The Connecticut Light and Power Company, Western Massachusetts Electric Company.

    Description: Application of The Connecticut Light and Power Company and Western Massachusetts Electric Company to Issue Short-Term Debt Securities.

    Filed Date: 6/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170620-5159.

    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 21, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13392 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14826-000] Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On January 18, 2017, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Hudson Hill Pumped Storage Hydro Project to be located near Jackson Township in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.

    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new upper reservoir with a surface area of 70 acres and a storage capacity of 1,050 acre-feet at a surface elevation of approximately 2,150 feet above mean sea level (msl) created through construction of a new roller-compacted concrete or rock-fill dam; (2) a new lower reservoir with a surface area of 36 acres and a storage capacity of 1,260 acre-feet at a surface elevation of 1,550 feet msl; (3) a new 1,448-foot-long, 48-inch-diameter penstock connecting the upper and lower reservoirs; (4) a new 150-foot-long, 50-foot-wide, 25-foot-high powerhouse containing two turbine-generator units with a total rated capacity of 52 megawatts; (5) a new 7,920-foot-long transmission line connecting the powerhouse to the Laurel Hill 230-kilovolt transmission circuit owned by Pennsylvania Electric Company; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an annual generation of 188,518 megawatt-hours.

    Applicant Contact: Adam Rousselle, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, 5710 Oak Crest Drive, Doylestown, PA 18902; phone: 267-254-6107.

    FERC Contact: Woohee Choi; phone: (202) 502-6336.

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

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-14826-000.

    More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-14826) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: June 21, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13389 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14821-000] Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On January 18, 2017, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Armenia Pumped Storage Hydro Project to be located near Sullivan Township in Tioga County, Pennsylvania. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.

    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new upper reservoir with a surface area of 55 acres and a storage capacity of 825 acre-feet at a surface elevation of approximately 2,300 feet above mean sea level (msl) created through construction of a new roller-compacted concrete or rock-fill dam; (2) a new lower reservoir with a surface area of 25 acres and a storage capacity of 990 acre-feet at a surface elevation of 1,700 feet msl; (3) a new 3,568-foot-long, 48-inch-diameter penstock connecting the upper and lower reservoirs; (4) a new 150-foot-long, 50-foot-wide, 25-foot-high powerhouse containing two turbine-generator units with a total rated capacity of 41 megawatts; (5) a new transmission line connecting the powerhouse to the Armenia Mountain Wind Farm owned by EDP Renewables North America, LLC; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an annual generation of 148,121 megawatt-hours.

    Applicant Contact: Adam Rousselle, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, 5710 Oak Crest Drive, Doylestown, PA 18902; phone: 267-254-6107.

    FERC Contact: Woohee Choi; phone: (202) 502-6336.

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

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-14821-000.

    More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-14821) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: June 21, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13386 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Application for Transfer of Licenses and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene STS Hydropower Ltd. STS Hydropower, LLC

    Project Nos. 2411-027, 2446-049, 3819-011, 7120-063, 7242-059, and 9951-054

    On May 19, 2017, STS Hydropower Ltd. (transferor) and STS Hydropower, LLC (transferee) filed an application for transfer of licenses for the following projects.

    Project No. Project names Locations P-2411-027 Schoolfield Project Dan River, Pittsylvania County, VA. P-2446-049 Dixon Project Rock River, Lee County, IL. P-3819-011 Mt. Elbert Water Power Project Mt. Elbert Conduit, Lake County, CO. P-7120-063 Kekawaka Creek Project Kekawaka Creek, tributary to the Eel River, Trinity and Humboldt counties, CA. P-7242-059 Kanaka Project Sucker Run Creek, tributary of the South Fork Feather River, Butte County, CA. P-9951-054 French Landing Hydro Water Power Project Huron River, Wayne County, MI.

    The transferor and transferee seek Commission approval to transfer the licenses for the above mentioned projects from the transferor to the transferee.

    Applicant Contacts: For Transferor and Transferee: Mr. Bernard Cherry, Eagle Creek Renewable Energy, LLC, 65 Madison Avenue, Morristown, NJ 07960, Phone: 973-998-8400, email: [email protected] and Mr. Donald H. Clarke and Mr. Joshua E. Adrian, Duncan, Weinberg, Genzer & Pembroke, P.C., 1615 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20036, Phone: 202-467-6370, Emails: [email protected] and [email protected]

    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis, (202) 502-8735.

    Deadline for filing comments and motions to intervene: 30 days from the issuance date of this notice, by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and 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(s) P-2411-027, P-2446-049, P-3819-011, P-7120-063, P-7242-059, or P-9951-054.

    Dated: June 21, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13385 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0350; FRL-9964-16-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; The Consolidated Air Rule (CAR) for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “The Consolidated Air Rule (CAR) for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) (Renewal)” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through June 30, 2017. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register on May 3, 2016 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0350, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents for this ICR (The Consolidated Air Rule (CAR) for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 1854.10; OMB Control No. 2060-0443), which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: The synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI) is regulated by both New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) standards. The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, Subpart A, and any changes or additions to the Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 60, Subparts Ka, Kb, VV, VVa, DDD, III, NNN and RRR. The affected entities are also subject to the General Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, Subpart A, and any changes, or additions to the Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, Subparts BB, Y, V, F, G, H and I. As an alternative, SOCMI sources may choose to comply with the above standards under the consolidated air rule (CAR) at 40 CFR part 65 as promulgated December 14, 2000. Synthetic organic chemical manufacturing facilities subject to NSPS requirements must notify EPA of construction, modification, startups, shutdowns, date and results of initial performance test and excess emissions. Semiannual reports are also required. Synthetic organic chemical manufacturing facilities subject to NESHAP requirements must submit one-time-only reports of any physical or operational changes and the results of initial performance tests. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Periodic reports are also required semiannually at a minimum.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Synthetic organic chemical manufacturing facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 65).

    Estimated number of respondents: 5,198 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, semiannually and annually.

    Total estimated burden: 2,210,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $337,000,000 (per year), which includes $105,000,000 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase in the total estimated respondent labor burden and associated labor, capital/startup and O&M costs. This increase is not due to any program changes. Overall, the change in burden from the most recently-approved ICR is due to two reasons. First, the number of sources has increased industry growth. There is an estimated growth in the number of sources for the following referencing Subparts: Subpart Kb, Subpart VVa, Subpart DDD, Subpart III, Subpart NNN, Subpart RRR, Subpart V, and Subparts F, G, H and I (i.e., the HON). Second, this ICR assumes that all existing sources will have to familiarize with the regulatory requirements each year resulting in a small increase in labor burden and associated labor costs for all of the Subparts.

    Courtney Kerwin, Director, Regulatory Support Division.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13375 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL9963-83-OEI] Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of Hawaii AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Hawaii's request to revise its National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation EPA-authorized program to allow electronic reporting.

    DATES:

    EPA's approval is effective July 27, 2017 for the State of Hawaii's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program, if no timely request for a public hearing is received and accepted by the Agency.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1175, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR. CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving, electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic reporting. Additionally, § 3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3, subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.

    On May 15, 2017, the Hawaii Department of Health (HI DOH) submitted an application titled “Compliance Monitoring Data Portal” for revision to its EPA-approved drinking water program under title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed HI DOH's request to revise its EPA-authorized program and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revision set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve Hawaii's request to revise its Part 142—National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR part 141 is being published in the Federal Register. HI DOH was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized program listed above.

    Also, in today's notice, EPA is informing interested persons that they may request a public hearing on EPA's action to approve the State of Hawaii's request to revise its authorized public water system program under 40 CFR part 142, in accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(f). Requests for a hearing must be submitted to EPA within 30 days of publication of today's Federal Register notice. Such requests should include the following information:

    (1) The name, address and telephone number of the individual, organization or other entity requesting a hearing;

    (2) A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in EPA's determination, a brief explanation as to why EPA should hold a hearing, and any other information that the requesting person wants EPA to consider when determining whether to grant the request;

    (3) The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.

    In the event a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will provide notice of the hearing in the Federal Register not less than 15 days prior to the scheduled hearing date. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for hearing may be denied by EPA. Following such a public hearing, EPA will review the record of the hearing and issue an order either affirming today's determination or rescinding such determination. If no timely request for a hearing is received and granted, EPA's approval of the State of Hawaii's request to revise its part 142—National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program to allow electronic reporting will become effective 30 days after today's notice is published, pursuant to CROMERR section 3.1000(f)(4).

    Matthew Leopard, Director, Office of Information Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13443 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0563; FRL-9964-18-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through June 30, 2017. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register on March 22, 2017, during a 60-day comment period. No comments were received on that document. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0563, to (1) the EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Susan Fairchild, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail Code D243-04, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5167; fax number: (919) 541-5450; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents for this ICR (Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products (40 CFR part 59, subpart C) (Renewal); OMB Control Number 2060-0348; EPA ICR Number 1764.07), which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1744. For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: The EPA is required under section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the use of consumer and commercial products. Pursuant to CAA section 183(e)(3), the EPA published a list of consumer and commercial products and a schedule for their regulation (60 FR 15264). The standards for consumer products are codified at 40 CFR part 59, subpart C. The information collection includes initial reports and periodic recordkeeping necessary for the EPA to ensure compliance with Federal standards for VOC in consumer products. Respondents are manufacturers, distributors, and importers of consumer products. All information submitted to the EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, Confidentiality of Business Information. The reports required under the standards enable the EPA to identify all consumer products manufacturers, distributors, and importers in the United States and to determine which consumer products are subject to the standards.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action as respondents are manufacturers, distributors, and importers of consumer products.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Responses to the collection are mandatory under 40 CFR part 59, subpart C.

    Estimated number of respondents: 300 (total).

    Frequency of response: On occasion.

    Total estimated burden: 16,126 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $1,765,427 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.

    Changes in the estimates: There is a decrease of 13,487 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease is due to adjustments to the estimated hours for each level of review. These adjustments are consistent with the assumptions used routinely in ICR renewals, and are discussed in the supporting statements for this action.

    Courtney Kerwin, Director, Regulatory Support Division.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13373 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL9963-84-OEI] Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of New Mexico AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of New Mexico's request to revise its National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation EPA-authorized program to allow electronic reporting.

    DATES:

    EPA's approval is effective July 27, 2017 for the State of New Mexico's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program, if no timely request for a public hearing is received and accepted by the Agency.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1175, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR. CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving, electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic reporting. Additionally, § 3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3, subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.

    On May 19, 2017, the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) submitted an application titled “Compliance Monitoring Data Portal” for revision to its EPA-approved drinking water program under title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed NMED's request to revise its EPA-authorized program and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revision set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve New Mexico's request to revise its Part 142—National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR part 141 is being published in the Federal Register. NMED was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized program listed above.

    Also, in today's notice, EPA is informing interested persons that they may request a public hearing on EPA's action to approve the State of New Mexico's request to revise its authorized public water system program under 40 CFR part 142, in accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(f). Requests for a hearing must be submitted to EPA within 30 days of publication of today's Federal Register notice. Such requests should include the following information:

    (1) The name, address and telephone number of the individual, organization or other entity requesting a hearing;

    (2) A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in EPA's determination, a brief explanation as to why EPA should hold a hearing, and any other information that the requesting person wants EPA to consider when determining whether to grant the request;

    (3) The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.

    In the event a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will provide notice of the hearing in the Federal Register not less than 15 days prior to the scheduled hearing date. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for hearing may be denied by EPA. Following such a public hearing, EPA will review the record of the hearing and issue an order either affirming today's determination or rescinding such determination. If no timely request for a hearing is received and granted, EPA's approval of the State of New Mexico's request to revise its part 142—National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program to allow electronic reporting will become effective 30 days after today's notice is published, pursuant to CROMERR section 3.1000(f)(4).

    Matthew Leopard, Director, Office of Information Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13444 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9961-83-OA] Request for Nominations of Candidates to the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites nominations of scientific experts from a diverse range of disciplines to be considered for appointment to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB), and six SAB committees described in this notice. Appointments will be announced by the EPA Administrator.

    DATES:

    Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than July 27, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information about the CASAC membership appointment process and schedule, please contact Mr. Aaron Yeow, DFO, by telephone at 202-564-2050 or by email at [email protected] For information about the chartered SAB membership appointment process and schedule, please contact Mr. Thomas Carpenter, DFO, by telephone at (202) 564-4885 or by email at [email protected] For all other inquiries, nominators should contact the appropriate Designated Federal Officers (DFO) for the committees, as identified below. Anyone unable to submit electronic nominations may send a paper copy to the appropriate DFO.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The CASAC is a chartered Federal Advisory Committee, established pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(2), to provide advice, information and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on the scientific and technical aspects of air quality criteria and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The SAB is a chartered Federal Advisory Committee, established in 1978, under the authority of the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific and technical peer review, consultation, advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on the scientific bases for EPA's actions and programs. Members of the CASAC and the SAB constitute distinguished bodies of non-EPA scientists, engineers, economists, and behavioral and social scientists who are nationally and internationally recognized experts in their respective fields. Members are appointed by the EPA Administrator for a three-year term and serve as Special Government Employees who provide independent expert advice to the agency.

    Additional information about the CASAC is available at http://www.epa.gov/casac and information about the SAB is available at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

    Expertise Sought for CASAC: The CASAC was established pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(2), to review air quality criteria and NAAQS and recommend to the EPA Administrator any new NAAQS and revisions of existing criteria and NAAQS as may be appropriate. The CASAC shall also: Advise the EPA Administrator of areas in which additional knowledge is required to appraise the adequacy and basis of existing, new, or revised NAAQS; describe the research efforts necessary to provide the required information; advise the EPA Administrator on the relative contribution to air pollution concentrations of natural as well as anthropogenic activity; and advise the EPA Administrator of any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects which may result from various strategies for attainment and maintenance of such NAAQS. As required under the CAA section 109(d), the CASAC is composed of seven members, with at least one member of the National Academy of Sciences, one physician, and one person representing state air pollution control agencies. Accordingly, the SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts to serve on the CASAC who are physicians and members of the National Academy of Sciences with expertise in the health effects of air pollution. The SAB Staff Office is especially interested in scientists with expertise described above who have knowledge and experience in air quality relating to criteria pollutants (ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and lead). For further information about the CASAC membership appointment process and schedule, please contact Mr. Aaron Yeow, DFO, by telephone at 202-564-2050 or by email at [email protected]

    Expertise Sought for the SAB: The chartered SAB provides strategic advice to the EPA Administrator on a variety of EPA science and research programs. All the work of SAB committees and panels is under the direction of the chartered SAB. The chartered SAB reviews all SAB committee and panel draft reports and determines whether they are appropriate to send to the EPA Administrator. The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts to serve on the chartered SAB in the following disciplines as they relate to human health and the environment: analytical chemistry; benefit-cost analysis; causal inference; complex systems; ecological sciences and ecological assessment; economics; engineering; geochemistry; health sciences; hydrology; hydrogeology; medicine; microbiology; modeling; pediatrics; public health; risk assessment; social, behavioral and decision sciences; statistics; toxicology, and uncertainty analysis.

    The SAB Staff Office is especially interested in scientists in the disciplines described above who have knowledge and experience in air quality; agricultural sciences; atmospheric sciences; benefit-cost analysis; complex systems; drinking water; energy and the environment; epidemiological risk analyses; water quality; water quantity and reuse; ecosystem services; community environmental health; sustainability; chemical safety; green chemistry; homeland security; uncertainty analysis; and waste management.

    For further information about the chartered SAB membership appointment process and schedule, please contact Mr. Thomas Carpenter, DFO, by telephone at (202) 564-4885 or by email at [email protected]

    The SAB Staff Office is also seeking nominations of experts for six SAB committees: The Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee; the Drinking Water Committee; the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee; the Environmental Economics Advisory Committee; the Environmental Engineering Committee; and the Radiation Advisory Committee.

    (1) The SAB Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee (CAAC) provides advice through the chartered SAB regarding selected toxicological reviews of environmental chemicals available on EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts with experience in chemical assessments. Members should have expertise in one or more of the following disciplines: toxicology, including, developmental/reproductive toxicology, and inhalation toxicology; carcinogenesis; biostatistics; uncertainty analysis; and risk assessment. For further information about the CAAC membership appointment process and schedule, please contact Dr. Suhair Shallal, DFO, by telephone at (202) 564-2057 or by email at [email protected]

    (2) The SAB Drinking Water Committee (DWC) provides advice on the scientific and technical aspects of EPA's national drinking water program. The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts with experience on drinking water issues. Members should have expertise in one or more of the following disciplines: environmental engineering; epidemiology; microbiology; public health; uncertainty analysis; and risk assessment. For further information about the DWC membership appointment process and schedule, please contact Mr. Thomas Carpenter, DFO, by telephone at (202) 564-4885 or by email at [email protected]

    (3) The SAB Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC) provides advice on methods and analyses related to economics, costs, and benefits of EPA environmental programs. The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts in benefit-cost analysis and environmental economics to serve on the EEAC. For further information about the EEAC membership appointment process and schedule, please contact Dr. Holly Stallworth, DFO, by telephone at (202) 564-2073 or by email at [email protected]

    (4) The SAB Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) provides advice on risk management technologies to control and prevent pollution. The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts to serve on the EEC with demonstrated expertise in the following disciplines: environmental and water quality engineering; and remediation and technology. For further information about the EEC membership appointment process and schedule, please contact Mr. Edward Hanlon, DFO, by telephone at (202) 564-2134 or by email at [email protected]

    (5) The Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC) provides advice on radiation protection, radiation science, and radiation risk assessment. The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts to serve on the RAC with demonstrated expertise in the following disciplines: radiation carcinogenesis; radiation epidemiology; radiation exposure; radiation health and safety; radiological risk assessment; uncertainty analysis; and radionuclide fate and transport. For further information about the RAC membership appointment process and schedule, please contact Mr. Edward Hanlon, DFO, by telephone at (202) 564-2134 or by email at [email protected]

    (6) The SAB Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC) provides advice through the chartered SAB on the science and research to assess, protect and restore the health of ecosystems. The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts to serve on the EPEC with demonstrated expertise in the following disciplines: aquatic ecology; marine and estuarine ecology; ecological risk assessment; complex systems; uncertainty analysis; ecotoxicology; and systems ecology. For further information about the EPEC membership appointment process and schedule, please contact Dr. Thomas Armitage, DFO, by telephone at (202) 564-2155 or by email at [email protected]

    Selection Criteria for the CASAC, SAB and the SAB Committees

    Nominees are selected based on their individual qualifications. Curriculum vitae should reflect the following:

    —Demonstrated scientific credentials and disciplinary expertise in relevant fields; —Willingness to commit time to the committee and demonstrated ability to work constructively and effectively on committees; and —Background and experiences that would help members contribute to the diversity of perspectives on the committee, e.g., geographical, economic, social, cultural, educational backgrounds, professional affiliations; and other considerations.

    For the committee as a whole, consideration of the collective breadth and depth of scientific expertise; and a balance of scientific perspectives is important. As these committees undertake specific advisory activities, the SAB Staff Office will consider two additional criteria for each new activity: Absence of financial conflicts of interest and absence of an appearance of a loss of impartiality.

    How to Submit Nominations: Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified persons to be considered for appointment to these advisory committees. Individuals may self-nominate. Nominations should be submitted in electronic format (preferred) using the online nomination form under the “Nomination of Experts” category at the bottom of the SAB home page at http://www.epa.gov/sab. To be considered, all nominations should include the information requested below. EPA values and welcomes diversity. All qualified candidates are encouraged to apply regardless of sex, race, disability or ethnicity.

    Nominators are asked to identify the specific committee for which nominees are to be considered. The following information should be provided on the nomination form: Contact information for the person making the nomination; contact information for the nominee; the disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee; the nominee's curriculum vitae; and a biographical sketch of the nominee indicating current position, educational background; research activities; sources of research funding for the last two years; and recent service on other national advisory committees or national professional organizations. To help the agency evaluate the effectiveness of its outreach efforts, please indicate how you learned of this nomination opportunity. Persons having questions about the nomination process or the public comment process described below, or who are unable to submit nominations through the SAB Web site, should contact the DFO for the committee, as identified above. The DFO will acknowledge receipt of nominations and in that acknowledgement will invite the nominee to provide any additional information that the nominee feels would be useful in considering the nomination, such as availability to participate as a member of the committee; how the nominee's background, skills and experience would contribute to the diversity of the committee; and any questions the nominee has regarding membership. The names and biosketches of qualified nominees identified by respondents to this Federal Register notice, and additional experts identified by the SAB Staff Office, will be posted in a List of Candidates on the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab. Public comments on each List of Candidates will be accepted for 21 days from the date the list is posted. The public will be requested to provide relevant information or other documentation on nominees that the SAB Staff Office should consider in evaluating candidates.

    Candidates invited to serve will be asked to submit the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form allows EPA to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between that person's public responsibilities as a Special Government Employee and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a loss of impartiality, as defined by Federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded through the “Ethics Requirements for Advisors” link on the SAB home page at http://www.epa.gov/sab. This form should not be submitted as part of a nomination.

    Dated: June 20, 2017. Christopher S. Zarba, Director, EPA Science Advisory Staff Office.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13332 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL9963-85-OEI] Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of Nevada AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Nevada's request to revise its National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation EPA-authorized program to allow electronic reporting.

    DATES:

    EPA's approval is effective July 27, 2017 for the State of Nevada's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program, if no timely request for a public hearing is received and accepted by the Agency.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1175, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR. CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving, electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic reporting. Additionally, § 3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3, subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.

    On June 6, 2017, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) submitted a revised application titled “Compliance Monitoring Data Portal” for revision to its EPA-approved drinking water program under title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed NDEP's request to revise its EPA-authorized program and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application, as revised, met the standards for approval of authorized program revision set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve Nevada's request to revise its Part 142—National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR part 141 is being published in the Federal Register.

    NDEP was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized program listed above.

    Also, in today's notice, EPA is informing interested persons that they may request a public hearing on EPA's action to approve the State of Nevada's request to revise its authorized public water system program under 40 CFR part 142, in accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(f). Requests for a hearing must be submitted to EPA within 30 days of publication of today's Federal Register notice. Such requests should include the following information:

    (1) The name, address and telephone number of the individual, organization or other entity requesting a hearing;

    (2) A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in EPA's determination, a brief explanation as to why EPA should hold a hearing, and any other information that the requesting person wants EPA to consider when determining whether to grant the request;

    (3) The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.

    In the event a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will provide notice of the hearing in the Federal Register not less than 15 days prior to the scheduled hearing date. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for hearing may be denied by EPA. Following such a public hearing, EPA will review the record of the hearing and issue an order either affirming today's determination or rescinding such determination. If no timely request for a hearing is received and granted, EPA's approval of the State of Nevada's request to revise its part 142—National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program to allow electronic reporting will become effective 30 days after today's notice is published, pursuant to CROMERR section 3.1000(f)(4).

    Matthew Leopard, Director, Office of Information Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13445 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0303; FRL-9963-36-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through June 30, 2017. Public comments were requested previously via the Federal Register on May 3, 2016 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0303, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents for this ICR (“NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR part 60, subparts GGG and GGGa) (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 0983.15; OMB Control No. 2060-0067), which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: Owners or operators of the affected facilities described must make one-time only notifications and are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Monitoring requirements specific to Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries provide information on which components are leaking VOCs. NSPS subpart GGG references the compliance requirements of NSPS subpart VV; and NSPS subpart GGGa references the compliance requirements of NSPS subpart VVa. Periodically, owners or operators are required to record information identifying leaking equipment, repair methods used to stop the leaks, and dates of repair. The time period for this recordkeeping varies and depends on equipment type and leak history. Semiannual reports are required to measure compliance with the standards of NSPS subparts VV and VVa, as referenced by NSPS subparts GGG and GGGa. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance and in general, are required of all sources subject to NSPS. Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Petroleum Refineries.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subparts GGG and GGGa).

    Estimated number of respondents: 116 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.

    Total estimated burden: 183,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $18,900,000 (per year); there are neither annualized capital/startup nor operation & maintenance costs in this ICR.

    Changes in the Estimates: The increase in burden from the most-recently approved ICR is due to adjustments in Agency's estimates. The burden has increased due to more accurate estimates for recording operation parameters and semiannual work practice reports. The most-recently approved ICR underestimated the effort required to record operating parameters and develop semiannual reports. Updated estimates for these burden items increased the total respondent burden for subpart GGG from 18,800 to 130,000 hours and for subpart GGGa from 6,120 to 53,400 hours. This ICR takes into account estimates provided by consultations with industry trade associations.

    Courtney Kerwin, Director, Regulatory Support Division.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13374 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [9961-61-OEI] Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, Territory of U.S. Virgin Islands AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces EPA's approval of the Territory of U.S. Virgin Islands' request to revise/modify its EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System EPA-authorized program to allow electronic reporting.

    DATES:

    EPA's approval is effective June 27, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1175, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR. CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving, electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic reporting. Additionally, § 3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3, subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.

    On April 25, 2017, the U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning & Natural Resources (VI DPNR) submitted an application titled “National Network Discharge Monitoring Report System” for revision to its EPA-approved program under title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed VI DPNR's request to revise its EPA-authorized Part 123—EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revision set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve U.S. Virgin Islands' request to revise its Part 123—EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR part 122 is being published in the Federal Register.

    VI DPNR was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized program listed above.

    Matthew Leopard, Director, Office of Information Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13446 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION FDIC Advisory Committee on Community Banking; Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Community Banking, which will be held in Washington, DC. The Advisory Committee will provide advice and recommendations on a broad range of policy issues that have particular impact on small community banks throughout the United States and the local communities they serve, with a focus on rural areas.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, July 12, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in the FDIC Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Committee Management Officer of the FDIC, at (202) 898-7043.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda: The agenda will include a discussion of current issues affecting community banking. The agenda is subject to change. Any changes to the agenda will be announced at the beginning of the meeting.

    Type of Meeting: The meeting will be open to the public, limited only by the space available on a first-come, first-served basis. For security reasons, members of the public will be subject to security screening procedures and must present a valid photo identification to enter the building. The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (e.g., sign language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees needing such assistance should call (703) 562-6067 (Voice or TTY) at least two days before the meeting to make necessary arrangements. Written statements may be filed with the committee before or after the meeting. This Community Banking Advisory Committee meeting will be Webcast live via the Internet http://fdic.windrosemedia.com. Questions or troubleshooting help can be found at the same link. For optimal viewing, a high speed internet connection is recommended. The Community Banking meeting videos are made available on-demand approximately two weeks after the event.

    Dated: June 22, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13378 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    DATE AND TIME:

    Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 2:30 p.m.

    PLACE:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.

    STATUS:

    This meeting will be closed to the public.

    ITEM TO BE DISCUSSED:

    Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.

    PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13545 Filed 6-23-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 24, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. Bern Bancshares, Inc., Bern, Kansas; to acquire up to 6.47 percent of the voting shares of UBT Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire shares of United Bank & Trust, both in Marysville, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 22, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13419 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality: Request for Nominations for Public Members AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for nominations for public members.

    SUMMARY:

    The Council advises the Secretary of HHS (Secretary) and the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) on matters related to activities of the Agency to carry out its mission. AHRQ's mission is to produce evidence to make health care safer, higher quality, more accessible, equitable, and affordable, and to work within the U.S. epartment of Health and Human Services and with other partners to make sure that the evidence is understood and used. Seven current members' terms will expire in November 2017

    DATES:

    Nominations should be received on or before 60 days after date of publication.

    ADDRESSES:

    Nominations should be sent to Jaime Zimmerman AHRQ, 5600 Fishers Lane, 06E37A, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Nominations may also be emailed to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jaime Zimmerman, AHRQ, at (301) 427-1456.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    42 U.S.C. 299c establishes a National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality (the Council) and provides that the Secretary shall appoint to the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality twenty one appropriately qualified individuals. At least seventeen members shall be representatives of the public and at least one member shall be a specialist in the rural aspects of one or more of the professions or fields listed in the above summary. In addition, the Secretary designates, as ex officio members, representatives from other Federal agencies, principally agencies that conduct or support health care research, as well as Federal officials the Secretary may consider appropriate. 42 U.S.C. 299c(c)(3). Consistent with revised guidance regarding the ban on lobbyists serving as members of advisory boards and commissions, AHRQ will accept nominations for Federally registered lobbyists to serve on the Council in a representative capacity.

    The Council meets in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, generally in Rockville, Maryland, approximately three times a year to provide broad guidance to the Secretary and AHRQ's Director on the direction of and programs undertaken by AHRQ.

    Seven individuals will be selected by the Secretary to serve on the Council beginning with the meeting in the spring of 2018. Members generally serve 3-year terms. Appointments are staggered to permit an orderly rotation of membership. To fill these positions, we are seeking individuals with experience and success in (1) the conduct of research, demonstration projects, and evaluations with respect to health care; (2) the fields of health care quality research or health care improvement; (3) the practice of medicine; (4) other health professions; (5) representing the private health care sector (including health plans, providers, and purchasers) or administrators of health care delivery systems; (6) the fields of health care economics, information systems, law, ethics, business, or public policy; and, (7) representing the interests of patients and consumers of health care.

    Interested persons may nominate one or more qualified persons for membership on the Council. Self-nominations are accepted. Nominations shall include: (1) A copy of the nominee's resume or curriculum vitae; and (2) a statement that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Council. Selected candidates will be asked to provide detailed information concerning their financial interests, consultant positions and research grants and contracts, to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflict of interest. Please note that once a candidate is nominated, AHRQ may consider that nomination for future positions on the Council.

    The Department seeks a broad geographic representation. In addition, AHRQ conducts and supports research concerning priority populations, which include: Low-income groups; minority groups; women; children; the elderly; and individuals with special health care needs, including individuals with disabilities and individuals who need chronic care or end-of-life health care. See 42 U.S.C. 299(c). Nominations of persons with expertise in health care for these priority populations are encouraged.

    Sharon B. Arnold, Deputy Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13396 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice announces a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 26, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 2:45 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at AHRQ, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland, 20857.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jaime Zimmerman, Designated Management Official, at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 06E37A, Rockville, Maryland 20857, (301) 427-1456. For press-related information, please contact Alison Hunt at (301) 427-1244 or [email protected]

    If sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodation for a disability is needed, please contact the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity Management on (301) 827-4840, no later than Wednesday, July 19, 2017. The agenda, roster, and minutes will be available from Ms. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Ms. Campbell's phone number is (301) 427-1554.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Purpose

    The National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality is authorized by Section 941 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 299c. In accordance with its statutory mandate, the Council is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Director of AHRQ on matters related to AHRQ's conduct of its mission including providing guidance on (A) priorities for health care research, (B) the field of health care research including training needs and information dissemination on health care quality and (C) the role of the Agency in light of private sector activity and opportunities for public private partnerships. The Council is composed of members of the public, appointed by the Secretary, and Federal ex-officio members specified in the authorizing legislation.

    II. Agenda

    On Wednesday, July 26, 2017, there will be a subcommittee meeting for the National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report scheduled to begin at 7:30 a.m. This meeting is open to the public. The Council meeting will convene at 8:30 a.m., with the call to order by the Council Chair and approval of previous Council summary notes. The meeting is open to the public and will be available via webcast at www.webconferences.com/ahrq. The meeting will begin with an update on AHRQ's current research, programs, and initiatives. The agenda will also include an update on AHRQ's work in learning health care systems and AHRQ's EvidenceNOW initiative, and will focus on the use of AHRQ data and analytics to answer emerging policy questions. The final agenda will be available on the AHRQ Web site at www.AHRQ.gov no later than Wednesday, July 19, 2017.

    Sharon B. Arnold, Deputy Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13393 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Supplemental Evidence and Data Request on Drug Therapy for Early Rheumatoid Arthritis in Adults—An Update AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Request for supplemental evidence and data submissions.

    SUMMARY:

    The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is seeking scientific information submissions from the public. Scientific information is being solicited to inform our review of Drug Therapy for Early Rheumatoid Arthritis in Adults—An Update, which is currently being conducted by the AHRQ's Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) Program. Access to published and unpublished pertinent scientific information will improve the quality of this review.

    DATES:

    Submission Deadline on or before July 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Email submissions: [email protected]

    Print submissions:

    Mailing Address: Portland VA Research Foundation, Scientific Resource Center, ATTN: Scientific Information Packet Coordinator, P.O. Box 69539, Portland, OR 97239.

    Shipping Address (FedEx, UPS, etc.): Portland VA Research Foundation, Scientific Resource Center, ATTN: Scientific Information Packet Coordinator, 3710 SW U.S. Veterans Hospital Road, Mail Code: R&D 71, Portland, OR 97239.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ryan McKenna, Telephone: 503-220-8262 ext. 51723 or Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    AHRQ is conducting this systematic review pursuant to Section 902(a) of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 299a(a). The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has commissioned the Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) Program to complete a review of the evidence for Drug Therapy for Early Rheumatoid Arthritis in Adults—An Update.

    The EPC Program is dedicated to identifying as many studies as possible that are relevant to the questions for each of its reviews. In order to do so, we are supplementing the usual manual and electronic database searches of the literature by requesting information from the public (e.g., details of studies conducted). We are looking for studies that report on Drug Therapy for Early Rheumatoid Arthritis in Adults—An Update, including those that describe adverse events. The entire research protocol, including the key questions, is also available online at: https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction=displayproduct&productID=2475.

    This is to notify the public that the EPC Program would find the following information on Drug Therapy for Early Rheumatoid Arthritis in Adults—An Update helpful:

    A list of completed studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please indicate whether results are available on ClinicalTrials.gov along with the ClinicalTrials.gov trial number.

    For completed studies that do not have results on ClinicalTrials.gov, please provide a summary, including the following elements: Study number, study period, design, methodology, indication and diagnosis, proper use instructions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, primary and secondary outcomes, baseline characteristics, number of patients screened/eligible/enrolled/lost to follow-up/withdrawn/analyzed, effectiveness/efficacy, and safety results.

    A list of ongoing studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please provide the ClinicalTrials.gov trial number or, if the trial is not registered, the protocol for the study including a study number, the study period, design, methodology, indication and diagnosis, proper use instructions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and primary and secondary outcomes.

    Description of whether the above studies constitute ALL Phase II and above clinical trials sponsored by your organization for this indication and an index outlining the relevant information in each submitted file.

    Your contribution will be very beneficial to the EPC Program. Materials submitted must be publicly available or able to be made public. Materials that are considered confidential; marketing materials; study types not included in the review; or information on indications not included in the review cannot be used by the EPC Program. This is a voluntary request for information, and all costs for complying with this request must be borne by the submitter.

    The draft of this review will be posted on AHRQ's EPC Program Web site and available for public comment for a period of 4 weeks. If you would like to be notified when the draft is posted, please sign up for the email list at: https://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/join-the-email-list1/.

    The systematic review will answer the following questions. This information is provided as background. AHRQ is not requesting that the public provide answers to these questions.

    The Key Questions Key Question (KQ) 1

    For patients with early Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), do drug therapies differ in their ability to reduce disease activity, slow or limit the progression of radiographic joint damage, or induce remission?

    KQ 2

    For patients with early RA, do drug therapies differ in their ability to improve patient-reported symptoms, functional capacity, or quality of life?

    KQ 3

    For patients with early RA, do drug therapies differ in harms, tolerability, patient adherence, or adverse effects?

    KQ 4

    What are the comparative benefits and harms of drug therapies for early RA in subgroups of patients based on disease activity, prior therapy, demographics (e.g., women in their childbearing years), concomitant therapies, and presence of other serious conditions?

    Contextual Questions (CQs)

    Contextual questions are not systematically reviewed and use a “best evidence” approach. Information about the contextual questions may be included as part of the introduction or discussion section and related as appropriate to the Systematic Review.

    CQ 1

    Does treatment of early RA improve disease trajectory and disease outcomes compared with the trajectory or outcomes of treatment of established RA?

    CQ 2

    What barriers prevent individuals with early RA from obtaining access to indicated drug therapies?

    PICOTS (Populations, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes, Timing, Settings) Populations Inclusion I. All KQs: Adult outpatients ages 19 or older with an early RA diagnosis, defined as 1 year or less from disease diagnosis; we will include studies with mixed populations if >50% of study populations had an early RA diagnosis II. KQ 4 only: Subpopulations by age, sex/gender, race/ethnicity, disease activity, prior therapies, concomitant therapies, and other serious conditions Exclusion

    Adolescents and adult patients with disease greater than 1 year from diagnosis.

    Intervention/Exposure Inclusion I. FDA approved A. Corticosteroids: Methylprednisolone, prednisone, prednisolone B. csDMARDs: Hydroxychloroquine, leflunomide, methotrexate, sulfasalazine C. TNF biologics: Adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab D. Non-TNF biologics: Abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab E. tsDMARDs: Tofacitinib F. Biosimilars: Adalimumab-atto, infliximab-dyyb, infliximab-abda, etanercept-szzs II. Under review by FDA A. Non-TNF biologics: Sarilumab, sirukumab Exclusion

    Anakinra is excluded because, although it is approved for RA, clinically it is not used anymore for this population.

    Comparator Inclusion I. For head-to-head RCTs, head-to-head nRCTs, and prospective, controlled cohort studies (all KQs): Any active intervention listed above II. For additional observational studies of harms (i.e., overall [KQ 3] and among subgroups [KQ 4]: Any active intervention listed above or no comparator (e.g., postmarketing surveillance study of an active intervention with no comparison group) III. For double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials for network meta-analysis (all KQs): Placebo Exclusion

    All other comparisons, including active interventions not listed above.

    Outcomes Inclusion I. KQs 1, 4: Disease activity, radiographic joint damage, remission II. KQs 2, 4: Functional capacity, quality of life, patient-reported symptoms III. KQs 3, 4: Overall risk of harms, overall discontinuation, discontinuation because of adverse effects, risk of serious adverse effects, specific adverse effects, patient adherence Exclusion

    All other outcomes not listed.

    Timing Inclusion

    All KQs: At least 3 months of treatment.

    Exclusion

    <3 months treatment.

    Settings Inclusion

    All KQs: Outpatients.

    Exclusion

    Inpatients.

    Country Setting Inclusion

    All KQs: Any geographic area.

    Exclusion

    None.

    Study Designs Inclusion I. For all KQs (i.e., benefits and harms overall [KQs 1, 2, 3] and among subgroups [KQ 4]), we will include head-to head RCTs and nRCTs; prospective, controlled cohort studies (N ≥ 100); double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials for network meta-analysis; and SRs for identification of additional references only. II. For studies of harms (i.e., overall [KQ 3] and among subgroups [KQ 4]), we will also include any other observational study (e.g., cohort, case-control, large case series, post marketing surveillance) (N ≥ 100). Exclusion

    All other designs not listed.

    Publication Language Inclusion

    All KQs: English.

    Exclusion

    Languages other than English.

    Sharon B. Arnold, Deputy Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13395 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Supplemental Evidence and Data Request on Psychological and Pharmacological Treatments for Adults With Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): A Systematic Review Update AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Request for supplemental evidence and data submissions.

    SUMMARY:

    The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is seeking scientific information submissions from the public. Scientific information is being solicited to inform our review of Psychological and Pharmacological Treatments for Adults with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): A Systematic Review Update, which is currently being conducted by the AHRQ's Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) Program. Access to published and unpublished pertinent scientific information will improve the quality of this review.

    DATES:

    Submission Deadline on or before July 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Email submissions: [email protected]

    Print submissions:

    Mailing Address: Portland VA Research Foundation, Scientific Resource Center, ATTN: Scientific Information Packet Coordinator, P.O. Box 69539, Portland, OR 97239.

    Shipping Address (FedEx, UPS, etc.): Portland VA Research Foundation, Scientific Resource Center, ATTN: Scientific Information Packet Coordinator, 3710 SW U.S. Veterans Hospital Road, Mail Code: R&D 71, Portland, OR 97239.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ryan McKenna, Telephone: 503-220-8262 ext. 51723 or Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has commissioned the Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) Program to complete a review of the evidence for Psychological and Pharmacological Treatments for Adults with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): A Systematic Review Update. AHRQ is conducting this systematic review pursuant to Section 902(a) of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 299a(a).

    The EPC Program is dedicated to identifying as many studies as possible that are relevant to the questions for each of its reviews. In order to do so, we are supplementing the usual manual and electronic database searches of the literature by requesting information from the public (e.g., details of studies conducted). We are looking for studies that report on Psychological and Pharmacological Treatments for Adults with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): A Systematic Review Update, including those that describe adverse events. The entire research protocol, including the key questions, is also available online at: https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction=displayproduct&productid=2478.

    This is to notify the public that the EPC Program would find helpful the following information on Psychological and Pharmacological Treatments for Adults with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): A Systematic Review Update:

    A list of completed studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please indicate whether results are available on ClinicalTrials.gov along with the ClinicalTrials.gov trial number.

    For completed studies that do not have results on ClinicalTrials.gov, please provide a summary, including the following elements: Study number, study period, design, methodology, indication and diagnosis, proper use instructions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, primary and secondary outcomes, baseline characteristics, number of patients screened/eligible/enrolled/lost to follow-up/withdrawn/analyzed, effectiveness/efficacy, and safety results.

    A list of ongoing studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please provide the ClinicalTrials.gov trial number or, if the trial is not registered, the protocol for the study including a study number, the study period, design, methodology, indication and diagnosis, proper use instructions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and primary and secondary outcomes.

    Description of whether the above studies constitute ALL Phase II and above clinical trials sponsored by your organization for this indication and an index outlining the relevant information in each submitted file.

    Your contribution will be very beneficial to the EPC Program. Materials submitted must be publicly available or able to be made public. Materials that are considered confidential; marketing materials; study types not included in the review; or information on indications not included in the review cannot be used by the EPC Program. This is a voluntary request for information, and all costs for complying with this request must be borne by the submitter.

    The draft of this review will be posted on AHRQ's EPC Program Web site and available for public comment for a period of 4 weeks. If you would like to be notified when the draft is posted, please sign up for the email list at: https://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/join-the-email-list1/.

    The systematic review will answer the following questions. This information is provided as background. AHRQ is not requesting that the public provide answers to these questions.

    The Key Questions

    Key Question (KQ) 1. What is the comparative effectiveness of different psychological treatments for adults diagnosed with PTSD?

    I. How does comparative effectiveness vary by patient characteristics or type of trauma experienced?

    KQ 2. What is the comparative effectiveness of different pharmacological treatments for adults diagnosed with PTSD?

    I. How does comparative effectiveness vary by patient characteristics or type of trauma experienced?

    KQ 3. What is the comparative effectiveness of different psychological treatments and pharmacological treatments for adults diagnosed with PTSD?

    I. How does comparative effectiveness vary by patient characteristics or type of trauma experienced?

    KQ 4. What adverse events (AEs) are associated with treatments for adults diagnosed with PTSD?

    Contextual Question (CQ)

    CQ 1a. What are the components of effective psychological treatments (e.g., frequency or intensity of therapy, and/or aspects of the therapeutic modality)?

    CQ 1b. For psychological interventions that are effective in trial settings, what is the degree of fidelity when implemented in clinical practice settings?

    PICOTS (Populations, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes, Timing, Settings) Populations Inclusion

    I. Adults 18 years or older with PTSD based on any DSM diagnostic criteria.

    II. Subgroups of interest (KQs 1a, 2a, 3a) include those distinguished by patient characteristics (e.g., gender, age, race/ethnicity, comorbid mental and physical health conditions, employment types requiring trauma exposure [for example, first responders], severity of trauma experienced, different symptoms of PTSD, dissociation, and/or psychosis, PTSD symptom chronicity or severity) or type of trauma experienced (e.g., military/combat, natural disaster, war, political instability, relational [physical, emotional, or sexual abuse or exposure to domestic violence], repeat victimizations, cumulative).

    Exclusion

    All other.

    Intervention Inclusion

    I. Psychological interventions: Brief eclectic psychotherapy, CBT including cognitive restructuring, cognitive processing therapy, exposure-based therapy, coping skills therapy (e.g., stress inoculation therapy, assertiveness training, biofeedback, relaxation training), psychodynamic therapy, EMDR, IPT, group therapy, hypnosis or hypnotherapy, and energy psychology (including EFT).

    II. Pharmacological interventions: SSRIs (citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, and sertraline), SNRIs (desvenlafaxine, venlafaxine, and duloxetine), tricyclic antidepressants (imipramine, amitriptyline, and desipramine), other second-generation antidepressants (bupropion, mirtazapine, nefazodone, and trazodone), alpha blockers (prazosin), atypical antipsychotics (olanzapine, risperidone, ziprasidone, aripiprazole and quetiapine), benzodiazepines (alprazolam, diazepam, lorazepam, and clonazepam), anticonvulsants/mood stabilizers (topiramate, tiagabine, lamotrigine, carbamazepine, and divalproex).

    Exclusion

    I. Complementary and alternative medicine approaches.

    II. Psychological or pharmacological interventions not listed as included.

    Comparator Inclusion

    I. KQ 1 (1a): Psychological interventions listed above compared with one another, waiting list assignment, usual care (as defined by the study), no intervention, or sham.

    II. KQ 2 (2a): Pharmacological interventions listed above compared with one another or placebo.

    III. KQ 3 (3a): Psychological interventions listed above compared with pharmacological interventions listed above.

    IV. KQ 4: Any intervention listed above.

    Exclusion

    All other comparisons

    Outcomes Inclusion

    I. KQs 1-3: PTSD symptom reduction, prevention or reduction of comorbid medical or psychiatric conditions (e.g., coronary artery disease; depressive symptoms; anxiety symptoms; suicidal ideation/plans/attempts; and substance use, abuse, or dependence), remission (i.e., no longer having symptoms or loss of PTSD diagnosis), quality of life, disability or functional impairment, return to work or active duty status

    II. KQ 4: Overall and specific AEs (e.g., disturbed sleep, increased agitation, sedation, weight gain, metabolic side effects, and mortality), withdrawals due to AEs.

    Exclusion

    All other outcomes.

    Time Frame Inclusion

    I. Studies published from 2012 to the present will be searched to identify new studies meeting the review criteria. Findings of these newly identified studies will be synthesized with those from studies included in the prior review that continue to meet the new review criteria.

    II. At least 4 weeks study duration after randomization.

    Exclusion

    Less than 4 weeks.

    Settings Inclusion

    Outpatient and inpatient primary care or specialty mental health care; community settings e.g., churches, community health centers, rape crisis centers), military settings.

    Exclusion

    Other settings.

    Study Design Inclusion

    I. KQs 1-3: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of any sample size, systematic reviews (for references).

    II. KQ 4: AE data from trials for KQs 1-3, systematic reviews and meta-analyses (for references), nonrandomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies with an eligible comparison group and a sample size of at least 500, case-control studies with a sample size of at least 500.

    Exclusion

    All other designs and studies using included designs that do not meet the sample size criterion.

    Language Inclusion

    Studies published in English.

    Exclusion

    Studies published in languages other than English.

    Sharon B. Arnold, Deputy Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13394 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30 Day-17-0729] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) 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; (b) 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; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) 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; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Direct written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    Customer Surveys Generic Clearance for the National Center for Health Statistics (0920-0729, Expiration 05/31/2017)—Reinstatement—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k), as amended, authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through NCHS, shall collect statistics on “the extent and nature of illness and disability of the population of the United States.” This is a reinstatement request for a generic approval from OMB to conduct customer surveys over the next three years at an overall burden rate of 4000 hours.

    As part of a comprehensive program, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) plans to continue to assess its customers' satisfaction with the content, quality and relevance of the information it produces. NCHS will conduct voluntary customer surveys to assess strengths in agency products and services and to evaluate how well it addresses the emerging needs of its data users. Results of these surveys will be used in future planning initiatives.

    The data will be collected using a combination of methodologies appropriate to each survey. These may include: Evaluation forms, mail surveys, focus groups, automated and electronic technology (e.g., email, Web-based surveys), and telephone surveys. Systematic surveys of several groups will be folded into the program. Among these are Federal customers and policy makers, state and local officials who rely on NCHS data, the broader educational, research, and public health community, and other data users. Respondents may include data users who register for and/or attend NCHS sponsored conferences; persons who access the NCHS Web site and the detailed data available through it; consultants; and others. Respondent data items may include (in broad categories) information regarding respondent's gender, age, occupation, affiliation, location, etc., to be used to characterize responses only. Other questions will attempt to obtain information that will characterize the respondents' familiarity with and use of NCHS data, their assessment of data content and usefulness, general satisfaction with available services and products, and suggestions for improvement of surveys, services and products.

    In order to capture anticipated additional feedback opportunities, this reinstatement request allows for the potential increase in both respondents and time per response for a total estimated annual burden total of 4,000 hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate in the survey. The resulting information will be for NCHS internal use.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (hours)
  • Questionnaire for conference registrants/attendees Public/private researchers, Consultants, and others 6,000 1 15/60 Focus groups Public/private researchers, Consultants, and others 500 1 1 Web-based Public/private researchers, Consultants, and others 6,000 1 15/60 Other customer surveys Public/private researchers, Consultants, and others 2,000 1 15/60
    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. 2017-13414 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—State, Tribal, Local and Territorial (STLT) Subcommittee

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting of the aforementioned subcommittee:

    Time and Date:

    8:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m., EDT, August 11, 2017.

    Place:

    CDC, Building 19, Rooms 245-246, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30329. This meeting will also be held by teleconference.

    Status:

    Open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 20 people. The public is welcome to participate during the public comment, which is tentatively scheduled from 2:45 p.m. to 2:55 p.m., EDT. To participate on the teleconference, please dial 866-917-2712 and enter code 9418625.

    Purpose:

    The Subcommittee will provide advice to the ACD on strategies, future needs, and challenges faced by State, Tribal, Local and Territorial health agencies, and will provide guidance on opportunities for CDC through the ACD.

    Matters for Discussion:

    The STLT Subcommittee members will discuss progress on implementation of ACD-adopted recommendations related to the health department of the future, other emerging challenges and how CDC can best support STLT health departments in the transforming health system.

    The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Contact Person for More Information:

    José Montero, MD, Designated Federal Officer, STLT Subcommittee, ACD, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, MS E70, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone (404) 498-0259, email: [email protected] Please submit comments to [email protected] no later than August 4, 2017.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13339 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer 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: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Cancer Biomarkers and Bio Specimens.

    Date: July 27, 2017.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W264, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Reed A. Graves, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Research Technology and Contract Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W264, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750 240-276-6384, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 21, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13358 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging; 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 Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; “Relationship between Delirium and Alzheimer's disease”.

    Date: July 21, 2017.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 2C223, 7201 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Isis S. Mikhail, MD, MPH, DRPH, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7704, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 21, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13360 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease; 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 Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Systems Biology: The Next Generation for Infectious Diseases (U19).

    Date: July 19-20, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, Salon B, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Eleazar Cohen, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room 3G62A, National Institutes of Health, NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 2089-9823, (240) 669-5081, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Clinical Trial Planning Grant (R34).

    Date: July 20, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 3F100 Resource Library, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Robert C. Unfer, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room 3F40A, National Institutes of Health, NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5035, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 21, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13361 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of General Medical Sciences; 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 Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Review of PO1 Applications.

    Date: June 26, 2017.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 3An.12N, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Lisa Dunbar, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3AN12, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-2849, [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.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 21, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13362 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute Amended; Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, June 30, 2017, 8:00 a.m. to June 30, 2017, 6:00 p.m., Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD, 20852 which was published in the Federal Register on May 5, 2017, 82 FR 21256.

    The meeting notice is amended to change the meeting start time to 7:00 a.m. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: June 21, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13359 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; 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 Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; CREATE Device Review.

    Date: July 13, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Alexandria Mark Center, 5000 Seminary Road, Alexandria, VA 22311.

    Contact Person: Joel Saydoff, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3204, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, (301) 496-9223, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Special Emphasis Panel; Program Project Grant P01.

    Date: July 20, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites Alexandria Old Town, 1900 Diagonal Road, Alexandria, VA 22314.

    Contact Person: Ana Olariu, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3204, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, (301) 496-9223, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Special Emphasis Panel; Detecting Cognitive Impairment, Including Dementia, in Primary Care and Other Everyday Clinical Settings for the General Public and in Health Disparities Populations (UG3/UH3).

    Date: July 24, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hotel Monaco, 700 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20001.

    Contact Person: Shanta Rajaram, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3204, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, (301) 435-6033, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 21, 2017. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13363 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID: FEMA-2017-0027; OMB No. 1660-0013] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Exemption of State-Owned Properties Under Self-Insurance Plan AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency, 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 an extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the collection of information necessary to allow States to request an exemption from maintaining flood insurance on State-owned structures.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before August 28, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA-XXXX-XXXX. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW., 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-3100.

    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Suzan Krowel, Insurance Examiner, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, DHS/FEMA, at (202) 701-3701. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    State-owned properties covered under an adequate State policy of self-insurance satisfactory to FEMA are not required to purchase flood insurance in accordance with Section 102(c)(1) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4012a(c)(1)). NFIP regulations, 44 CFR part 75, establish the procedures by which a State insurance plans must meet to be found exempt from the requirement to purchase flood insurance coverage for State-owned structures and their contents. To be eligible for the exemption, State properties must be located in areas identified by the Administrator as A, AO, AH, A1-30, AE, AR, AR/A1-30, AR/AE, AR/AO, AR/AH, AR/A, A99, M, V, VO, V1-30, VE, and E zones, in which the sale of insurance has been made available.

    Collection of Information

    Title: Exemption of State-owned Properties Under Self-Insurance.

    Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection.

    OMB Number: 1660-0013.

    FEMA Forms: None.

    Abstract: Application for exemption must be made by the Governor or other duly authorized official of the State accompanied by sufficient supporting documentation which certifies that the plan of self-insurance upon which the application for exemption is based meets or exceeds the standards in NFIP regulations at 44 CFR 75.11.

    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 20.

    Number of Responses: 20.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5.

    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the hour burden is $8,547. There are no annual costs to respondents operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There is no annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is $3,920.10.

    Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) 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; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) 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.

    Dated: June 21, 2017. Tammi Hines, Records Management Program Chief (Acting), Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13340 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0008] Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Discretionary Options for Designated Spouses, Parents, and Sons and Daughters of Certain Military Personnel, Veterans, and Enlistees AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.

    DATES:

    The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until July 27, 2017. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at [email protected] All submissions received must include the agency name and the OMB Control Number 1615-0008 in the subject line.

    You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at (800) 375-5283; TTY (800) 767-1833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments

    The information collection notice was previously published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2017, at 82 FR 08070, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS did not receive any comments in connection with the 60-day notice.

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2005-0024 in the search box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection Request: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Discretionary Options for Designated Spouses, Parents, and Sons and Daughters of Certain Military Personnel, Veterans, and Enlistees.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: G-325A; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The information to be collected under the PM will be used by USCIS to determine eligibility of discretionary deferred action on a case-by-case basis, for certain family members of military personnel who currently serve on active duty or in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve, military personnel who previously served on active duty or in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve (who were not dishonorably discharged) whether they are living or deceased, and Delayed Entry Program (DEP) enlistees (as well as DEP enlistees themselves).

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection G-325A is 250 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.15 hours; 1.9 hours to comply with the guiding policy and .25 hours to complete the form.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 537.5 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $18,750.

    Dated: June 22, 2017. Jerry Rigdon, Deputy Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13410 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-6004-N-04] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Transfer and Consolidation of Public Housing Programs and Public Housing Agencies AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, PIH, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: August 28, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected] for a copy of the proposed forms or other available information. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., (L'Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109, (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Mussington.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Public Housing Program—Transfer and Consolidation of Public Housing Programs and Public Housing Agencies.

    OMB Approval Number: 2577-0280.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Form Number: No form is used to collect this information. Forms collected with information incidental to this collection are: HUD-52190-A, HUD-53012-A, HUD 53012-B, HUD-52722, HUD-52723, HUD-51999, SF-1199A, HUD-27056, HUD-27054A, HUD-52540.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: State legislatures or other local governing bodies may from time to time direct or agree that the public interest is best served if one public housing agency (PHA) cedes its public housing program to another PHA, or that two or more PHAs should be combined into one multijurisdictional PHA. This proposed information collection serves to protect HUD's several interests in either transaction: (1) Insuring the continued used of the property as public housing; (2) that HUD's interests are secured; and (3) that the operating and capital subsidies that HUD pays to support the operation and maintenance of public housing is properly paid to the correct PHA on behalf of the correct properties. In addition to submitting documentation to HUD, PHAs are required to make conforming changes to HUD's Public Housing Information Center (PIC).

    Total Estimated Burdens:

    Total Burden Hour Estimates for PHAs Number of transfer or consolidation actions Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of
  • requirement *
  • × Estimated
  • Average
  • time for
  • requirement
  • (hours)
  • = Estimated
  • Annual Burden
  • (hours)
  • 3 Transfers 6 1 120 720 2 Consolidations 4 1 200 800 Subtotals 10 320 1,520 * The frequency shown assumes that the receiving or consolidated PHA makes one submission for all other PHAs involved in either the transfer or consolidation.
    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

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

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: June 7, 2017. Merrie Nichols-Dixon, Director, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13450 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R4-ES-2017-N048; FXES11130400000EA-123-FF04EF1000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Availability of Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan; Lakes at St. Sebastian Preserve, Brevard County, FL AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments/information.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Atlantic Coast Paladin Estates, LLC and Micco Road Investments, LLC c/o the Kelsey Group are requesting a 10-year ITP. We request public comment on the permit application and accompanying proposed Lakes at St. Sebastian Preserve habitat conservation plan, as well as on our preliminary determination that the plan qualifies as low effect under the National Environmental Policy Act. To make this determination, we used our environmental action statement and low-effect screening form, which are also available for review.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by July 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    If you wish to review the application and HCP, you may request documents by email, U.S. mail, or phone (see below). These documents are also available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the office below. Send your comments or requests by any one of the following methods.

    Email: [email protected] Use “Attn: Permit number TE-24376C-0” as your message subject line for Lakes at St. Sebastian Preserve.

    Fax: Field Supervisor, (904) 731-3191, Attn: Permit number TE24376C-0.

    U.S. mail: Field Supervisor, Jacksonville Ecological Services Field Office, Attn: Permit number TE-24376C-0, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, Jacksonville, FL 32256.

    In-person drop-off: You may drop off information during regular business hours at the above office address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tera Baird, telephone: (904) 731-3196; email: Tera [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and our implementing Federal regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17 prohibit the “take” of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. Take of listed fish or wildlife is defined under the Act as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532). However, under limited circumstances, we issue permits to authorize incidental take—i.e., take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.

    Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively. The Act's take prohibitions do not apply to federally listed plants on private lands unless such take would violate State law. In addition to meeting other criteria, an incidental take permit's proposed actions must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plants.

    Applicants' Proposal Lakes at St. Sebastian Preserve

    Atlantic Coast Paladin Estates, LLC and Micco Road Investments, LLC c/o the Kelsey Group are requesting take of approximately 99.85 acres of nesting and foraging habitat for the Audubon's crested caracara (Polyborus plancus audubonii), incidental to the construction of a residential development, and together they seek a 10-year permit. The project is located on 98 separate parcels (Tax Account Nos. 3010967-3011065), located within Section 01, Township 30 South, Range 38 East in Brevard County, Florida. The applicants propose to mitigate for impacts to the species by protecting 20 acres of Audubon's crested caracara habitat within the Allen Broussard Conservancy. The applicants will also provide a $10,000 management endowment to ensure the continued success of managing these lands for two nesting pairs of Audubon's crested caracara.

    Our Preliminary Determination

    We have determined that the applicants' proposal, including the proposed mitigation and minimization measures, would have minor or negligible effects on the species covered in the HCP. Therefore, our proposed issuance of the requested ITP qualifies as a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as provided by Department of the Interior implementing regulations in part 46 of title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations (43 CFR 46.205, 46.210, and 46.215). A low-effect HCP is one involving (1) Minor or negligible effects on federally listed or candidate species and their habitats, and (2) minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources.

    Next Steps

    We will evaluate the HCP and comments we receive to determine whether the ITP application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). If we determine that the application meets these requirements, we will issue ITP number TE24376C-0. We will also evaluate whether issuance of the section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP complies with section 7 of the Act by conducting an intra-Service section 7 consultation. We will use the results of this consultation, in combination with the above findings, in our final analysis to determine whether or not to issue the ITP. If the requirements are met, we will issue the permit to the applicants.

    Public Comments

    If you wish to comment on the permit application, HCP, and associated documents, you may submit comments by any one of the methods in ADDRESSES.

    Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority:

    We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

    Dated: March 21, 2017. Jay B. Herrington, Field Supervisor, Jacksonville Field Office, Southeast Region.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13404 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-IA-2017-N070; FXIA16720900020-167-FF09A2000] Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1018-0123; International Conservation Grant Programs AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2017. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this IC, we must receive them by August 28, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your comments on the IC to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: BPHC, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or [email protected] (email). Please include “1018-0123” in the subject line of your comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, at [email protected] (email) or (703) 358-2503 (telephone).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    Some of the world's most treasured and exotic animals are dangerously close to extinction. Destruction of natural habitat, illegal poaching, and pet-trade smuggling are devastating populations of tigers, rhinos, marine turtles, great apes, elephants, and many other highly cherished species. The Division of International Conservation and Division of Scientific Authority administer competitive grant programs funded under the following authorities:

    • African Elephant Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4201-4245).

    • Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 4261).

    • Great Apes Conservation Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-411).

    • Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5306).

    • Marine Turtle Conservation Act (Pub. L. 108-266).

    • Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Wildlife Without Borders Programs-Africa, Mexico, Latin America and the Caribbean, Russia, Critically Endangered Species, Combatting Wildlife Trafficking, and Amphibians in Decline).

    Applicants submit proposals for funding in response to Notices of Funding Opportunity published by the Service on Grants.gov. We collect the following information:

    • Project summary and narrative.

    • Letter of appropriate government endorsement.

    • Brief curricula vitae for key project personnel.

    • Complete Standard Forms 424 and 424b (nondomestic applicants do not submit the standard forms).

    Proposals may also include, as appropriate, a copy of the organization's Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) and any additional documentation supporting the proposed project.

    The project summary and narrative are the basis for this information collection. A panel of technical experts reviews each proposal to assess how well the project addresses the priorities identified by each program's authorizing legislation and the associated project costs. As all of the on-the-ground projects are conducted outside the United States, the letter of appropriate government endorsement ensures that the proposed activities will be supportive of locally identified priorities and needs. Brief curricula vitae for key project personnel allow the review panel to assess the qualifications of project staff to effectively carry out the project goals and objectives. As all Federal entities must honor the indirect cost rates an organization has negotiated with its cognizant agency, we require all organizations with a NICRA to submit the agreement paperwork with their proposals to verify how their rate is applied in their proposed budget.

    All assistance awards under these grant programs have a maximum reporting requirement of:

    • An interim report (performance report and a financial status report) as appropriate, and

    • A final report (performance and financial status report and copies of all deliverables, photographic documentation of the project and products resulting from the project) due within 90 days of the end of the performance period.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1018-0123.

    Title: International Conservation Grant Programs.

    Service Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Description of Respondents: Domestic and nondomestic individuals; nonprofit organizations; educational institutions; private sector entities; and State, local, and tribal governments.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Requirement Annual
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • each
  • Total
  • annual
  • responses *
  • Completion
  • time per
  • response
  • (hours)
  • Total annual
  • burden
  • hours *
  • Grant Application: Individuals 1 1 1 22 22 Private Sector 414 1.48 613 22 13,486 Government 7 1.28 9 33 297 Grant Reporting: Individuals 2 2 4 20 80 Private Sector 312 2 624 20 12,480 Government 5 2 10 20 200 Totals 741 1,261 26,565 * Rounded.

    Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: The only foreseeable nonhour burden cost to respondents would be a small cost for making a telephone call or sending a facsimile. However, we do not expect that this would occur often, and any costs would be negligible.

    III. Comments

    We invite comments concerning this information collection on:

    • Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

    • The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.

    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    IV. Authorities

    The authorities for this action are the African Elephant Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4201-4245), the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 4261), the Great Apes Conservation Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-411), the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5306), the Marine Turtle Conservation Act (Pub. L. 108-266), and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Dated: June 22, 2017. Madonna L. Baucum, Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13420 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR [RC0ZCUPCA0, 177R0680R1, RR.17549897.2017000.01] Office of the Assistant Secretary—Water and Science; Notice of Termination of a Lease of Power Privilege Process for the Spanish Fork Flow Control Structure of the Central Utah Project AGENCY:

    Central Utah Project Completion Act Office, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Interior is announcing the termination of a lease of power privilege process for the Spanish Fork Flow Control Structure of the Central Utah Project located in Utah County, Utah.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Additional information related to this Federal Register Notice may be obtained by contacting Mr. Lee Baxter, Program Coordinator, Central Utah Project Completion Act Office, Department of the Interior, 302 East 1860 South, Provo, Utah 84606; (801) 379-1174; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The process for non-Federal development of hydroelectric power at the Spanish Fork Flow Control Structure was established through a Federal Register Notice (Notice) published May 11, 2011. The Notice announced the Department of the Interior's intent to consider proposals for non-Federal development of hydroelectric power at the Spanish Fork Flow Control Structure of the Central Utah Project. The Notice presented background information, proposal content guidelines, information concerning the selection of a non-Federal entity to develop hydroelectric power at the Spanish Fork River Flow Control Structure, and power purchasing and/or marketing considerations. The Notice also established the deadline for a potential lessee to enter into a lease with the United States as 5 years after notification of the selection of a potential lessee.

    On October 13, 2011, a joint proposal from the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Strawberry Water Users Association, and the South Valley Electric Service District was received in response to the Notice. The joint proposal was reviewed by an evaluation team comprised of specialists from the Bureau of Reclamation, Western Area Power Administration, and the Bonneville Power Administration.

    Based upon the recommendation from the evaluation team, the joint proposal was selected by the Department of the Interior as the potential lessee for non-Federal power development at the Spanish Fork Flow Control Structure. The joint applicants were notified of this decision by correspondence dated March 9, 2012, and were given a deadline of March 9, 2017, to enter into a lease with the United States.

    The deadline for entering into a lease has now passed and a lease was not negotiated and executed with the Department of the Interior. As a result, the Department of the Interior has rescinded the selection of Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Strawberry Water Users Association, and the South Valley Electric Service District as the successful potential joint lessee and has terminated this lease of power privilege process for the Spanish Fork Flow Control Structure.

    Future non-Federal development of hydroelectric power at the Spanish Fork Flow Control Structure would be considered upon request from interested parties. However, no formal request for proposals is being made by the Department of the Interior at this time.

    Dated: June 21, 2017. Reed R. Murray, Program Director, Department of the Interior.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13403 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4332-90-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1061] Certain Bar Code Readers, Scan Engines, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on May 23, 2017, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Honeywell International, Inc. of Morris Plains, New Jersey; Hand Held Products, Inc. d/b/a Honeywell Scanning & Mobility of Fort Mill, South Carolina; and Metrologic Instruments, Inc. d/b/a Honeywell Scanning & Mobility of Fort Mill, South Carolina. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain bar code readers, scan engines, products containing the same, and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,832,725 (“the '725 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,511,572 (“the '572 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,148,923 (“the '923 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,527,206 (“the '206 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,646,692 (“the '692 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 9,323,969 (“the '969 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute.

    The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

    ADDRESSES:

    The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katherine Hiner, the Office of Docket Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority:

    The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2017).

    Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on June 21, 2017, Ordered that

    (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain bar code readers, scan engines, products containing the same, and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1 and 4-6 of the '725 patent; claims 1-4, and 6-10 of the '572 patent; claims 1-6, 8, 10-12, and 19-33 of the '923 patent; claims 1, 3, 6-11, 14, 17-20, 23, and 26-28 of the '206 patent; claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, 16-20, 22, 24-27, 30, and 32 of the '692 patent; and claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11, and 13 of the '969 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

    (2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

    (a) The complainants are:

    Honeywell International, Inc., 115 Tabor Road, Morris Plains, NJ 07950. Hand Held Products, Inc., d/b/a Honeywell Scanning & Mobility, 9680 Old Bailes Road, Fort Mill, SC 29707. Metrologic Instruments, Inc., d/b/a Honeywell Scanning & Mobility, 9680 Old Bailes Road, Fort Mill, SC 29707.

    (b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:

    The Code Corporation, 12383 South Gateway Park, Suite 600, Draper, UT 84020. Cortex Pte Ltd., 1003 Bukit Merah Central #04-36, Inno Center, Singapore 159836.

    (3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

    The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.

    Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

    Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: June 21, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13368 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    JOINT BOARD FOR THE ENROLLMENT OF ACTUARIES Meeting of the Advisory Committee; Meeting AGENCY:

    Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries gives notice of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations (portions of which will be open to the public) at the Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, on July 13-14, 2017.

    DATES:

    Thursday, July 13, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Friday, July 14, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Elizabeth Van Osten, Designated Federal Officer, Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations, (703) 414-2163.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations will meet at the Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, on Thursday, July 13, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Friday, July 14, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    The purpose of the meeting is to discuss topics and questions that may be recommended for inclusion on future Joint Board examinations in actuarial mathematics and methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B) and to review the May 2017 Pension (EA-2L) and Basic (EA-1) Examinations in order to make recommendations relative thereto, including the minimum acceptable pass scores. Topics for inclusion on the syllabus for the Joint Board's examination program for the November 2017 Pension (EA-2F) Examination will be discussed.

    A determination has been made as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that the portions of the meeting dealing with the discussion of questions that may appear on the Joint Board's examinations and the review of the May 2017 EA-2L and EA-1 Examinations fall within the exceptions to the open meeting requirement set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public interest requires that such portions be closed to public participation.

    The portion of the meeting dealing with the discussion of the other topics will commence at 1:00 p.m. on July 13, 2017, and will continue for as long as necessary to complete the discussion, but not beyond 3:00 p.m. Time permitting, after the close of this discussion by Committee members, interested persons may make statements germane to this subject. Persons wishing to make oral statements should notify the Joint Board in writing prior to the meeting in order to aid in scheduling the time available and should submit the written text, or at a minimum, an outline of comments they propose to make orally. Such comments will be limited to 10 minutes in length. All persons planning to attend the public session should notify the Joint Board in writing to obtain building entry. Notifications of intent to make an oral statement or to attend must be sent electronically, by no later than July 6, 2017, to [email protected] Any interested person also may file a written statement for consideration by the Joint Board and the Committee by sending it to: Internal Revenue Service; Attn: Ms. Elizabeth Van Osten; Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries SE:RPO: Park 4, Floor 4; 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.

    Dated: June 19, 2017. Chet Andrzejewski, Chair, Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13347 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Joint Stipulation, Settlement Agreement, Order, and Final Judgment Under the Oil Pollution Act and the Clean Water Act

    On June 19, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Stipulation, Settlement Agreement, Order, and Final Judgment (“Stipulation”) with the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in the lawsuit entitled Evergreen Power, LLC and Asnat Realty, LLC v. United States, et al., Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01537-WWE.

    The Stipulation resolves the claims that Evergreen Power, LLC (“Evergreen”) and Asnat Realty, LLC (“Asnat”) filed against the United States, the U.S. Coast Guard, and Captain E.J. Cubanski, III; and the claims that the United States filed against Asnat, Evergreen, Uri Kaufman, and Ira Schwartz (collectively the Counterclaim Defendants”). The United States' Counterclaim seeks to impose civil penalties for violations of Section 311 of the Clean Water Act and to recover, under the Oil Pollution Act, removal costs incurred by the United States in connection with a 2014 response action at the English Station site at 510 Grand Avenue, New Haven, Connecticut. The Stipulation requires Asnat and Evergreen to pay $454,000 to fully reimburse the United States' oil removal costs, with interest, plus a $246,000 civil penalty. Under the Stipulation, the United States and the Counterclaim Defendants will dismiss their claims and provide mutual releases of liability, and the Counterclaim Defendants covenant not to sue or assert any claims against the United States in connection with the 2014 response action.

    The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Stipulation. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to Evergreen Power, LLC and Asnat Realty, LLC v. United States, et al., D.J. Ref. No. 90-5-1-1-11228. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:

    To submit comments: Send them to: By email [email protected] By mail Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    During the public comment period, the Stipulation may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. We will provide a paper copy of the Stipulation upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    Please enclose a check or money order for $2.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.

    Robert E. Maher, Jr., Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13333 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Investigations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221 (a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221 (a) of the Act.

    The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.

    The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, no later than July 7, 2017.

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than (INSERT DATE TEN DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN FR).

    The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5428, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 5th day of June 2017. Hope D. Kinglock, Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance. Appendix [352 TAA petitions instituted between 1/30/17 and 6/2/17] TA-W Subject firm (petitioners) Location Date of
  • institution
  • Date of
  • petition
  • 92588 Praxair, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Leechburg, PA 01/30/17 01/26/17 92589 Faurecia Automotive Seating (State/One-Stop) Sterling Heights, MI 01/30/17 01/27/17 92590 MUFG Union Bank, N.A. (State/One-Stop) Monterey Park, CA 01/30/17 01/27/17 92591 MV Metal Products & Services (Workers) Dowagiac, MI 01/30/17 01/27/17 92592 The Button House (State/One-Stop) New York, NY 01/30/17 01/27/17 92593 Integrated Power Services (Workers) Washington, PA 01/30/17 01/28/17 92594 Polycom Inc. (State/One-Stop) Westminster, CO 01/31/17 01/30/17 92595 Future Concepts LLC (State/One-Stop) La Verne, CA 01/31/17 01/30/17 92596 Bank of America Corporation (State/One-Stop) Utica, NY 01/31/17 01/30/17 92597 Computer Science Corporation (State/One-Stop) Coppell, TX 02/01/17 01/31/17 92598 Verizon Wireless (Workers) Rancho Cordova, CA 02/01/17 01/31/17 92599 M&G DuraVent (State/One-Stop) Albany, NY 02/02/17 02/01/17 92600 IDEX MPT, Inc. (Union) Elmhurst, IL 02/03/17 02/02/17 92601 Arrow International Inc. (Union) Reading, PA 02/03/17 02/02/17 92602 Nordson XALOY (Union) Pulaski, VA 02/03/17 02/02/17 92603 IEC Electronics Corporation (State/One-Stop) Newark, NY 02/03/17 12/13/16 92604 First American Title Insurance Company (State/One-Stop) Irvine, CA 02/03/17 02/02/17 92605 M + S US Inc (State/One-Stop) Plano, TX 02/03/17 02/02/17 92606 Hewlett Packard Enterprise (State/One-Stop) Cerritos, CA 02/03/17 02/02/17 92607 AIG PC Global Services, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Olathe, KS 02/06/17 02/03/17 92608 First Advantage Background Services Corporation (Workers) Indianapolis, IN 02/06/17 02/03/17 92609 Avantor Performance Materials (Workers) Phillipsburg, NJ 02/06/17 02/03/17 92610 Ericsson, Inc. (Company) Santa Clara, CA 02/06/17 02/05/17 92611 Tektronix including on-site leased wrkrs frm Adecco (State/One-Stop) Beaverton, OR 02/06/17 02/03/17 92612 Graphic Arts Center (State/One-Stop) Portland, OR 02/06/17 02/03/17 92613 Evonik (State/One-Stop) Portland, OR 02/06/17 02/03/17 92614 ATI Specialty Alloys and Components, Albany Operations 34th Ave Plant (State/One-Stop) Albany, OR 02/07/17 02/06/17 92615 MTBC Acquisition Corporation (State/One-Stop) Somerset, NJ 02/07/17 02/06/17 92616 Sprint (State/One-Stop) Blountville, TN 02/07/17 02/06/17 92617 Aero-Mach Labs, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Wichita, KS 02/07/17 02/07/17 92618 Bank of America (Workers) Plano, TX 02/07/17 01/25/17 92619 FormSolver, Inc. dba Framatic Co. (State/One-Stop) Los Angeles, CA 02/07/17 02/06/17 92620 Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation (Workers) East Hanover, NJ 02/08/17 02/07/17 92621 Silverack LLC (State/One-Stop) Brea, CA 02/08/17 02/07/17 92622 Pfizer ? Rouses Point (State/One-Stop) Rouses Point, NY 02/08/17 02/07/17 92623 ATCO Structures & Logistics (State/One-Stop) Pocatello, ID 02/08/17 02/07/17 92624 HUBS, Inc., Hubbell Incorporated (Delaware) (State/One-Stop) Shelton, CT 02/08/17 02/07/17 92625 Tronc, Inc. (Company) Chicago, IL 02/08/17 02/06/17 92626 Kaba llco Corp (Company) Winston-Salem, NC 02/08/17 01/11/17 92627 Ameridial (Workers) Spindale, NC 02/08/17 02/07/17 92628 Support.com, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Redwood City, CA 02/08/17 02/03/17 92629 Lone Star Tubular Service, Inc. (Workers) Lone Star, TX 02/08/17 12/21/16 92630 ITW Powertrain Components (Workers) Mazon, IL 02/08/17 02/07/17 92631 Oceaneering International, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Houston, TX 02/09/17 02/08/17 92632 Digital River, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Minnetonka, MN 02/09/17 02/08/17 92633 International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) (State/One-Stop) Lexington, KY 02/09/17 02/08/17 92634A Seagate Technology (State/One-Stop) Longmont, CO 02/13/17 02/10/17 92634 Seagate Technology (State/One-Stop) Shakopee, MN 02/13/17 02/10/17 92635 Ericsson, Inc. (State/One-Stop) San Jose, CA 02/13/17 02/10/17 92636 Verizon Wireless Call Center (State/One-Stop) Lincoln, NE 02/13/17 02/10/17 92637 Verso Dover Woodyard (State/One-Stop) Dover-Foxcroft, ME 02/14/17 02/14/17 92638 Sypris Technologies (Company) Louisville, KY 02/14/17 02/13/17 92639 Jabil Circuit, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Rochester, NY 02/14/17 02/14/17 92640 Manpower (State/One-Stop) Phoenix, AZ 02/14/17 02/13/17 92641 NCI Group, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Omaha, NE 02/14/17 02/13/17 92642 Yanfeng Global Automotive Interiors US 1 LLC (Union) Northwood, OH 02/14/17 01/19/17 92643 Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation (Workers) Rahway, NJ 02/14/17 02/08/17 92644 Luvo USA, LLC (State/One-Stop) Schaumburg, IL 02/15/17 02/14/17 92645 Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation (Workers) Kenilworth, NJ 02/15/17 02/15/17 92646 International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) (State/One-Stop) Poughkeepsie, NY 02/16/17 02/15/17 92647 Tri-Pro Forest Products, Inc. (Company) Orofino, ID 02/16/17 02/02/17 92648 Ventra Evart, LLC (State/One-Stop) Evart, MI 02/16/17 02/15/17 92649 Kleer Fax, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Amityville, NY 02/16/17 02/16/17 92650 KEMET Electronics Corporation (Company) Simpsonville, SC 02/17/17 02/16/17 92651 Verizon Wireless (State/One-Stop) Rochester, NY 02/17/17 02/16/17 92652 Technicolor (Company) Camarillo, CA 02/21/17 02/17/17 92653A TAB Products Co. LLC (Workers) Mayville, WI 02/21/17 02/17/17 92653B TAB Products Co. LLC (Workers) Mayville, WI 02/21/17 02/17/17 92653 TAB Products Co. LLC (Workers) Mayville, WI 02/21/17 02/17/17 92654 Thomson Reuters (State/One-Stop) Hauppauge, NY 02/21/17 02/17/17 92654A Thomson Reuters (State/One-Stop) Nutley, NJ 02/21/17 02/17/17 92655 J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Plano, TX 02/21/17 02/17/17 92656 Hyundai Rotem (Union) Philadelphia, PA 02/21/17 02/21/17 92657 Seattle Times Company (State/One-Stop) Seattle, WA 02/21/17 02/16/17 92658 Meadville Forging Company (CNC Division) (Company) Cambridge Springs, PA 02/21/17 02/20/17 92659 LedVance LLC (Company) Versailles, KY 02/21/17 02/20/17 92660 International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) (State/One-Stop) Hillsboro, OR 02/22/17 02/21/17 92661 McFarland Cascade (State/One-Stop) Rochester, WA 02/22/17 02/15/17 92662 TechInsights USA, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Austin, TX 02/22/17 02/21/17 92663 Lionbridge Technologies (Company) Bellevue, WA 02/22/17 02/16/17 92664 Corbis & Branded Entertainment Network (State/One-Stop) New York, NY 02/23/17 02/22/17 92665 CVG Alabama, LLC (State/One-Stop) Piedmont, AL 02/23/17 02/22/17 92666 Dickard-Widder Industries (Union) Maspath, NY 02/23/17 01/12/17 92667 NetApp, Inc. (Workers) Cranberry Township, PA 02/23/17 02/22/17 92668 Thomson Reuters Corporation (State/One-Stop) Stamford, CT 02/23/17 02/21/17 92669 International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) (Workers) Cambridge, MA 02/24/17 02/23/17 92670 International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) (State/One-Stop) Sterling Forrest, NY 02/24/17 02/23/17 92671 MACOM (State/One-Stop) Ithaca, NY 02/24/17 02/22/17 92672 Mayflower Vehicle Systems, LLC (Company) Shadyside, OH 02/24/17 02/23/17 92673 Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation (Workers) Kenilworth, NJ 02/24/17 02/23/17 92674 Rock of Ages (State/One-Stop) Graniteville, VT 02/24/17 02/23/17 92675 TE Connectivity (Company) Pennsauken, NJ 02/27/17 02/15/17 92676 Suniva, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Saginaw, MI 02/27/17 02/24/17 92677 Philips Lighting North America Corp. (State/One-Stop) Salina, KS 02/27/17 02/24/17 92678 Burroughs Inc. (State/One-Stop) Plymouth, MI 02/27/17 02/24/17 92679 B/E Aerospace, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Anaheim, CA 02/27/17 02/24/17 92680 Data Listing Services dba The Connection (Company) Olean, NY 02/27/17 02/24/17 92681 Business Health Solutions and Quality Tools & Abrasives (State/One-Stop) Indianapolis, IN 02/27/17 02/24/17 92682 Via Christi Health, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Wichita, KS 02/27/17 02/24/17 92682D Via Christi Hospital Wichita, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Wichita, KS 02/27/17 02/24/17 92682C Via Christi Hospital Wichita, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Wichita, KS 02/27/17 02/24/17 92682B Via Christi Hospital Manhattan, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Manhattan, KS 02/27/17 02/24/17 92682A Via Christi Hospital Pittsburgh, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Pittsburgh, KS 02/27/17 02/24/17 92683 National Oilwell Varco—IntelliServ (Workers) Provo, UT 02/28/17 02/27/17 92684 ASG Technologies Group, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Naples, FL 02/28/17 02/24/17 92685 Ricoh Electronics Inc (State/One-Stop) Tustin, CA 02/28/17 02/27/17 92686 Crew Knitwear LLC (State/One-Stop) Los Angeles, CA 03/01/17 02/28/17 92687 Mo Bio Laboratories, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Carlsbad, CA 03/01/17 02/28/17 92688 Core Pharma (State/One-Stop) Middlesex, NJ 03/01/17 02/28/17 92689 ATC Panels, Inc. (Workers) Franklin, VA 03/02/17 03/01/17 92690 Crown Casting (Company) Hodges, SC 03/02/17 03/01/17 92691 International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) (State/One-Stop) Poughkeepsie, NY 03/02/17 03/01/17 92692 Travelport, LP (State/One-Stop) Kansas City, MO 03/02/17 03/01/17 92693 International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) (Workers) Southbury, CT 03/03/17 03/02/17 92694 Lifescan Products LLC (Company) Aguadilla, PR 03/03/17 03/03/17 92695 Delta Products Corporation (State/One-Stop) Hillsboro, OR 03/06/17 03/03/17 92696 Littelfuse Inc. (Company) Eagle Pass, TX 03/06/17 03/03/17 92697 Felchar Manufacturing Corporation (State/One-Stop) Binghamton, NY 03/06/17 03/03/17 92698 Actronix, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Newport, AR 03/07/17 03/06/17 92699 Mustang Survival Manufacturing, Inc. (Workers) Spencer, WV 03/07/17 03/03/17 92700 Inteva Products (State/One-Stop) Adrian, MI 03/07/17 03/06/17 92701 Borg Warner Thermal Systems (State/One-Stop) Cadillac, MI 03/07/17 03/06/17 92702 First Data Resources LLC (State/One-Stop) Omaha, NE 03/08/17 03/06/17 92703 DAYCO Products, LLC (Company) Walterboro, SC 03/08/17 03/06/17 92704 Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Goleta, CA 03/08/17 03/07/17 92705 Manitowoc Cranes, LLC (Union) Manitowoc, WI 03/08/17 03/07/17 92706 Continental Casualty Company (State/One-Stop) Brea, CA 03/08/17 03/07/17 92707 Hewlett Packard Enterprise (State/One-Stop) Conway, AR 03/08/17 03/07/17 92708 HCL America Inc. (State/One-Stop) Mesquite, TX 03/08/17 03/07/17 92709 Stampede Forest Products, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Omak, WA 03/09/17 03/08/17 92710 Sutherland Global (State/One-Stop) Rochester, NY 03/09/17 03/08/17 92711 Amdocs Incorporated (Workers) Champaign, IL 03/10/17 03/09/17 92712 KNECT365 US, INC. (State/One-Stop) New York, NY 03/10/17 03/09/17 92713 Los Angeles Times (State/One-Stop) Los Angeles, CA 03/10/17 03/09/17 92714 TBMC (Company) Greenville, SC 03/10/17 03/09/17 92715 PaperWorks Industries, Inc. (Union) Philadelphia, PA 03/10/17 03/09/17 92716 Siemens Government Technologies, Inc (State/One-Stop) Wellsville, NY 03/10/17 03/09/17 92717 Aquion Energy (Workers) Mont Pleasant, PA 03/13/17 03/10/17 92718 DeVry Education Group (Company) Downers Grove, IL 03/13/17 03/10/17 92719 Burleigh Point LTD, dba RVCA (State/One-Stop) Irvine, CA 03/13/17 03/10/17 92720 Sweda Company LLC (State/One-Stop) City of Industry, CA 03/13/17 03/10/17 92721 Nippon Paper Industries USA, Co. Limited (Union) Port Angeles, WA 03/13/17 03/09/17 92722 Exacq Technologies (Workers) Fishers, IN 03/13/17 03/13/17 92723 Hexion, Inc. (Workers) Mount Jewett, PA 03/14/17 03/13/17 92724 Intel Corporation (State/One-Stop) Santa Clara, CA 03/14/17 03/13/17 92725 Stephens Paper (State/One-Stop) Stephens, AR 03/14/17 03/13/17 92726 Vonage (State/One-Stop) Holmdel, NJ 03/14/17 03/13/17 92727 Stragtegic Products and Services (State/One-Stop) Camarillo, CA 03/15/17 03/15/17 92728 Cooper-Standard Automotive FHS, Inc. (State/One-Stop) New Lexington, OH 03/15/17 03/14/17 92729 Avalon Laboratories, LLC (State/One-Stop) Rancho Dominguez, CA 03/15/17 03/14/17 92730 Magna Seating Systems of America, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Warren, OH 03/15/17 03/14/17 92731 LexisNexis (State/One-Stop) Colorado Springs, CO 03/15/17 03/14/17 92732 Ross Mould LLC (Company) Washington, PA 03/15/17 03/14/17 92733 Parker Hannifin Corporation (State/One-Stop) South Gate, CA 03/15/17 03/14/17 92734 MoneyGram International (Workers) Frisco, TX 03/15/17 03/14/17 92735 Ericsson (State/One-Stop) Plano, TX 03/16/17 03/15/17 92736 Holland, Inc. (Company) Holland, MI 03/16/17 03/14/17 92737 Fidelity National Information Services (State/One-Stop) Kansas City, MO 03/17/17 03/16/17 92738 International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) (State/One-Stop) Costa Mesa, CA 03/17/17 03/16/17 92739 Micrometals/Texas, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Abilene, TX 03/17/17 03/16/17 92740 NSi Industries LLC (Company) Mount Vernon, NY 03/17/17 03/16/17 92741 Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Workers) San Francisco, CA 03/17/17 03/16/17 92742 Panasonic Appliances Company of America (Workers) Danville, KY 03/20/17 03/18/17 92743 American Technical Ceramics Corporation (Company) Huntington, NY 03/20/17 03/17/17 92744 Royal Ingredients (State/One-Stop) Swedesboro, NJ 03/20/17 03/20/17 92745 Arrow International (Workers) Reading, PA 03/21/17 03/20/17 92745A Teleflex (Workers) Morrisville, NC 03/21/17 03/20/17 92746 Lucerne Textiles, Inc. (Company) Jersey City, NJ 03/21/17 03/20/17 92747 Wipro (State/One-Stop) East Brunswick, NJ 03/21/17 03/20/17 92748 Marland Mold, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Pittsfield, MA 03/21/17 03/16/17 92749 Aramark Cafe' (State/One-Stop) Lincoln, NE 03/22/17 03/22/17 92750 Cooper Standard Automotive (Workers) Goldsboro, NC 03/22/17 12/18/16 92751 Epicor Software (Workers) Bensalem, PA 03/22/17 03/21/17 92752 Coriant Operations, Inc. (Workers) Naperville, IL 03/22/17 03/21/17 92753 American Technical Ceramics (Company) Jacksonville, FL 03/23/17 03/16/17 92754 Axeon Specialty Products LLC (Union) Paulsboro, NJ 03/24/17 03/24/17 92755 Flextronics (State/One-Stop) Austin, PA 03/24/17 03/24/17 92756 International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) (State/One-Stop) Coppell, TX 03/24/17 03/23/17 92757 International Automotive Components (IAC) (State/One-Stop) Huron, OH 03/24/17 03/23/17 92758 Pentair Technical Solutions (State/One-Stop) Houston, TX 03/24/17 03/23/17 92759 Roche Diagnostics (Workers) Indianapolis, IN 03/24/17 03/20/17 92760 Fiserv Solutions, LLC (State/One-Stop) Hillsboro, OR 03/27/17 03/24/17 92760A Fiserv Solutions, LLC (State/One-Stop) Hillsboro, OR 03/27/17 03/24/17 92761 Streamline International (State/One-Stop) Wilsonville, OR 03/27/17 03/24/17 92762 John Deere & Company (State/One-Stop) Waterloo, IA 03/27/17 03/24/17 92763 Shoes for Crews, LLC (Workers) West Palm Beach, FL 03/27/17 03/23/17 92764 Emerson Process Management (State/One-Stop) Shakopee, MN 03/28/17 03/27/17 92765A Honeywell International, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Plymouth, MN 03/28/17 03/27/17 92765 Honeywell International, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Golden Valley, MN 03/28/17 03/27/17 92766 Mission Solar Energy (State/One-Stop) San Antonio, TX 03/28/17 03/27/17 92767 Ocwen Financial Corporation (State/One-Stop) Houston, TX 03/28/17 03/27/17 92768 Pacific Gas & Electric Company (Workers) San Francisco, CA 03/28/17 03/27/17 92769 River Steel (Company) La Crosse, WI 03/28/17 03/14/17 92770 St. John Knits (State/One-Stop) Irvine, CA 03/28/17 03/27/17 92771 Gloucester Seafood (State/One-Stop) Chelsea, MA 03/29/17 03/27/17 92772 ClydeUnion Pumps, an SPXFLOW Brand (Workers) Battle Creek, MI 03/29/17 03/28/17 92773 Freeport McMoran Oil and Gas (Workers) Houston, TX 03/30/17 03/26/17 92774 Ernst & Young LLP (Workers) Dallas, TX 03/30/17 03/29/17 92775 Multicare Tacoma (State/One-Stop) Auburn, WA 03/31/17 03/29/17 92776 IHI E&C International Corporation (State/One-Stop) Houston, TX 03/31/17 03/30/17 92777 Macy's Credit and Customer Services (Workers) Bridgeton, MO 03/31/17 03/29/17 92778 UTC Aerospace Systems (Butler) (Workers) Chula Vista, CA 03/31/17 03/22/17 92779 3M (Company) Elyria, OH 03/31/17 03/31/17 92780 SV Probe (Workers) Tempe, AZ 04/03/17 03/31/17 92781 TBC Timber, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Libby, MT 04/03/17 03/31/17 92782 Swift Spinning, Inc.—CYD Plant (Company) Columbus, GA 04/03/17 03/31/17 92783 Verizon, Incident Management (Workers) Cary, NC 04/03/17 03/31/17 92784 Pall Corporation (State/One-Stop) West Borough, MA 04/03/17 03/31/17 92785 Mitel (State/One-Stop) Reno, NV 04/04/17 04/03/17 92786 Nevamar Company, LLC (Company) Oshkosh, WI 04/04/17 04/03/17 92787 BCBG (State/One-Stop) Los Angeles, CA 04/04/17 04/03/17 92788 Staples Shared Services Center, LLC (Company) Columbia, SC 04/04/17 04/03/17 92789 United States Steel (Union) Lorain, OH 04/04/17 03/10/17 92790 A123Systems (Workers) Romulus, MI 04/05/17 04/04/17 92791 Alorica, Inc. (State/One-Stop) North Sioux City, SD 04/05/17 04/04/17 92792 Avantor Performance Materials (Union) Phillipsburg, NJ 04/06/17 04/05/17 92793 Classtex Knitting Mill (Company) Orwigsburg, PA 04/06/17 04/05/17 92794 Diamond Materials Tech, Inc. (Company) Colorado Springs, CO 04/06/17 04/05/17 92795 Piqua Champion Foundry (State/One-Stop) Piqua, OH 04/06/17 04/05/17 92796 Siemens Inc.—dba Dresser-Rand (State/One-Stop) Olean, NY 04/06/17 04/05/17 92797 AF Gloenco Company (State/One-Stop) Greenville, SC 04/07/17 04/07/17 92798 ATI Flat Rolled Products (Workers) Washington, PA 04/07/17 04/04/17 92799 Chippewa Shoe Company LLC (State/One-Stop) Bangor, ME 04/07/17 04/05/17 92800 Dell EMC (State/One-Stop) Round Rock, TX 04/07/17 04/06/17 92801 Fiat Chrylser (FCA) (Union) Sterling Heights, MI 04/07/17 04/06/17 92802 FirstSource (State/One-Stop) Louisville, KY 04/07/17 04/06/17 92803 LMI Solutions (Workers) Phoenix, AZ 04/07/17 04/05/17 92804 Schneider Electric (Union) Peru, IN 04/07/17 04/06/17 92805 Nielsen (Workers) Green Bay, WI 04/07/17 04/06/17 92806 Entergy Palisades Nuclear Power Plant (Company) Covert, MI 04/10/17 04/07/17 92807 I T O Industries, Inc. (Company) Bristol, WI 04/10/17 04/07/17 92808 Reddaway ? subsidiary of YRC Worldwide (State/One-Stop) Tualatin, OR 04/10/17 04/07/17 92809 Verizon—Incident Management (Verifying if same as 92783) (Workers) Cary, NC 04/10/17 04/07/17 92810 Avid Technology (State/One-Stop) Burlington, MA 04/11/17 04/06/17 92811 Power Probe Inc. (State/One-Stop) Brea, CA 04/11/17 04/10/17 92812 Sharp Laboratories of America (State/One-Stop) Camas, WA 04/11/17 04/06/17 92813 Storm Industries (State/One-Stop) Torrance, CA 04/11/17 04/10/17 92814 Argo Group International Holdings (Company) San Antonio, TX 04/12/17 04/11/17 92815 Land O'Lakes (State/One-Stop) Roseville, MN 04/12/17 04/11/17 92816 MGT Industries, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Los Angeles, CA 04/12/17 04/11/17 92817 Swartfager Welding (State/One-Stop) Knox, PA 04/12/17 04/11/17 92818 Crissair, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Valencia, CA 04/13/17 04/12/17 92819 Fox Rent A Car (State/One-Stop) Tulsa, OK 04/13/17 04/12/17 92820 International Specialty Tube, LLC (State/One-Stop) Detroit, MI 04/13/17 04/12/17 92821 Jamestown Industries Inc. (State/One-Stop) Youngstown, OH 04/13/17 04/12/17 92822 SAF-HOLLAND, Inc. (Company) Holland, MI 04/13/17 04/12/17 92823 Gloucester Seafood (State/One-Stop) Gloucester, MA 04/14/17 04/13/17 92824 Indspec (Workers) Petrolla, PA 04/14/17 04/13/17 92825 Marmon/Keystone LLC—M/K Express (Workers) East Butler, PA 04/14/17 04/10/17 92826 Honeywell International, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Melville, NY 04/17/17 04/14/17 92827 Praxair, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Leechburg, PA 04/17/17 04/03/17 92828 National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (State/One-Stop) San Diego, CA 04/18/17 04/17/17 92829 Thomson Reuters (State/One-Stop) New York, NY 04/18/17 04/17/17 92830 Glacier Line Logging (State/One-Stop) Libby, MT 04/19/17 04/18/17 92831 Monsoon Inc. (State/One-Stop) Portland, OR 04/20/17 04/19/17 92832 Finisar Corporation (Company) Horsham, PA 04/21/17 04/20/17 92833 Jamco of America Inc. (State/One-Stop) Everett, WA 04/21/17 04/19/17 92834 Pearson Education (State/One-Stop) Bloomington, MN 04/21/17 04/20/17 92835 Vius (DBA Leadec-Services) (State/One-Stop) Warren, OH 04/24/17 04/21/17 92836 Modis, LLC (Workers) Boise, ID 04/24/17 04/21/17 92837 Hoshmann Steinberg (State/One-Stop) Chino, CA 04/24/17 04/21/17 92838 DJO Global—New Brighton (State/One-Stop) New Brighton, MN 04/25/17 04/24/17 92839 Dura Automotive Systems, LLC (Company) Stockton, IL 04/26/17 04/25/17 92840 ESCO Co. LLC (Company) Muskegon, MI 04/26/17 04/25/17 92841 Honeywell International, Inc. (State/One-Stop) East Syracuse, NY 04/26/17 04/25/17 92842 Industrial Tube Company (State/One-Stop) Perris, CA 04/26/17 04/25/17 92843 Majestic Wood Products, LLC (State/One-Stop) White City, OR 04/26/17 04/25/17 92844 Teleflex/Arrow International (Company) Asheboro, NC 04/26/17 04/24/17 92845 Diodes FabTech Inc. (State/One-Stop) Lee's Summit, MO 04/27/17 04/26/17 92846 Ericsson Inc. (State/One-Stop) Plano, TX 04/27/17 04/26/17 92847 Parkdale America Plant 44 (Company) Williamston, NC 04/27/17 04/26/17 92848 Orion Fittings (State/One-Stop) Kansas City, KS 04/27/17 04/26/17 92849 BCBG Max Azria group, LLC (Workers) Vernon, CA 04/28/17 04/27/17 92850 Caterpillar Inc. (Company) Houston, PA 04/28/17 04/27/17 92851 Consolidated Metco (Company) Bryson City, NC 04/28/17 04/13/17 92852 Essentra Components (State/One-Stop) Erie, PA 04/28/17 04/27/17 92853 International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) (State/One-Stop) Chicago, IL 04/28/17 04/27/17 92854 PM Industries Inc. (State/One-Stop) Beaverton, OR 04/28/17 04/27/17 92855 Pochet of America, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Wayne, NJ 04/28/17 04/27/17 92856 Blue Cross Blue Shield (State/One-Stop) Providence, RI 05/01/17 04/28/17 92857 TE Connectivity/Measurement Specialties (Company) Chatsworth, CA 05/01/17 05/01/17 92858 Emblem Health (Workers) New York, NY 05/02/17 04/26/17 92859 Ericsson Inc. (State/One-Stop) Plano, TX 05/02/17 05/01/17 92860 Mellanox Technologies (State/One-Stop) Monterey Park, CA 05/02/17 04/26/17 92861 Rent-A-Center (State/One-Stop) Plano, TX 05/02/17 05/01/17 92862 Symantec Corporation/Varitas (State/One-Stop) Springfield, OR 05/02/17 05/01/17 92863 General Mills (State/One-Stop) Golden Valley, MN 05/02/17 05/01/17 92864 Canam Steel Corporation (Workers) Point of Rocks, MD 05/03/17 05/02/17 92865 Goodyear Commercial Tire & Service Centers (State/One-Stop) Fort Smith, AR 05/03/17 05/03/17 92866 LedVance, LLC f/k/a Osram Sylvania (State/One-Stop) St. Marys, PA 05/04/17 05/03/17 92867 White and Case LLP (State/One-Stop) Warrenville, IL and New York, NY, NY 05/04/17 04/17/17 92868 Zebra Technologies (State/One-Stop) Holtsville, NY 05/04/17 05/04/17 92869 Congoleum Corporation (State/One-Stop) Trenton, NJ 05/05/17 05/04/17 92870 Mondi Akrosil, LLC (State/One-Stop) Lancaster, OH 05/05/17 05/04/17 92871 Teradyne-Nextest (State/One-Stop) San Jose, CA 05/05/17 05/04/17 92872 Allied Ring Corporation (Company) St. Johns, MI 05/08/17 05/05/17 92873 Luvo USA, LLC, f/k/a Provita Cuisine LLC (State/One-Stop) Schaumburg, IL 05/08/17 05/05/17 92874 ASG Technologies Group, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Arlington, TX 05/09/17 05/08/17 92875 Baldor Electric (State/One-Stop) Fort Smith, AR 05/09/17 05/08/17 92876 Medtronic-Coon Rapids & Minnetonka locations (State/One-Stop) Coon Rapids, MN 05/09/17 05/08/17 92877 MarketSource (State/One-Stop) Vancouver, WA 05/09/17 05/05/17 92878 Trombetta Electronics (Company) Malden, MA 05/10/17 05/02/17 92879 Beaver-Visitec International, Inc. (Company) Waltham, MA 05/10/17 04/28/17 92880 Nexon America, Inc. (State/One-Stop) El Segundo, CA 05/10/17 05/09/17 92881 DME/Milacron (Workers) Youngwood, PA 05/11/17 05/09/17 92882 Triumph Aerostructures, Vought Aircraft Division (Union) Red Oak, TX 05/11/17 05/10/17 92883 Intel Corporation (Company) Hillsboro, OR 05/11/17 03/16/17 92884 Med Focus (State/One-Stop) Tigard, OR 05/12/17 05/11/17 92885 Surgical Specialties Corporation (Company) Reading, PA 05/12/17 05/11/17 92886 Maggy London International (State/One-Stop) New York, NY 05/15/17 05/10/17 92887 American Distribution & Warehousing Services (Workers) Ridgeway, VA 05/16/17 05/15/17 92888 Conduent, Inc (fka Xerox Commercial Solution, LLC) (State/One-Stop) Moosic, PA 05/16/17 05/12/17 92889 ContiTech North America, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Truman, AR 05/16/17 05/15/17 92890 International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) (State/One-Stop) Littleton, MA 05/16/17 05/11/17 92891 Medtronic (State/One-Stop) Columbia Heights, MN 05/16/17 05/15/17 92892 Timex Group USA, Inc. (State/One-Stop) North Little Rock, AR 05/16/17 05/15/17 92893 General Mills (Progresso Soup) (State/One-Stop) Vineland, NJ 05/17/17 05/16/17 92894 Plews, Inc. Subsidiary of Basil Tree LLC. (State/One-Stop) Dixon, IL 05/17/17 05/16/17 92895 SmashFly Technologies (State/One-Stop) Concord, MA 05/17/17 05/16/17 92896 Altiostar (State/One-Stop) Tewksbury, MA 05/18/17 05/16/17 92897 International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) (State/One-Stop) Endicott, NY 05/18/17 05/16/17 92898 Duracell (Company) Lancaster, SC 05/18/17 05/15/17 92899 EMC (State/One-Stop) Hopkinton, MA 05/18/17 05/16/17 92900 Bank of America (Workers) Simi Valley, CA 05/19/17 05/17/17 92901 McCain Foods (State/One-Stop) Grand Island, NE 05/19/17 05/18/17 92902 OECO Meggitt Aerospace (State/One-Stop) Milwaukee, OR 05/19/17 05/18/17 92903 Boeing Commercial Aircraft (Union) Tukwila, WA 05/22/17 05/19/17 92904 Boeing Commercial Aircraft (Union) Portland, OR 05/22/17 05/19/17 92905 Seagate Technology (State/One-Stop) Bloomington, MN 05/22/17 05/19/17 92906 Baker Hughes International (State/One-Stop) Houston, TX 05/23/17 05/22/17 92907 FCR/First Call Resolution (State/One-Stop) Grants Pass, OR 05/23/17 05/22/17 92908 SolarWorld Americans Inc. (State/One-Stop) Hillsboro, OR 05/23/17 05/22/17 92909 ZeaChem (State/One-Stop) Boardman, OR 05/23/17 05/18/17 92910 ABB Inc. (State/One-Stop) Cary, NC 05/24/17 05/22/17 92911 American Silk Mills (Workers) Plains, PA 05/24/17 05/24/17 92912 Dr. Leonard's Healthcare (State/One-Stop) Lincoln, NE 05/24/17 05/23/17 92913 Emblem Health (State/One-Stop) New York, NY 05/24/17 04/25/17 92914 Trostel Ltd. (Workers) Lake Geneva, WI 05/24/17 05/17/17 92915 Bloomberg LP (Workers) Skillman, NJ 05/25/17 05/24/17 92916 Kelvion, Inc. (Workers) York, PA 05/25/17 05/24/17 92917 Breg, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Grand Prairie, TX 05/26/17 05/25/17 92918 Breg, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Plano, TX 05/26/17 05/25/17 92919 eNNOVEA, LLC dba E.G. Industries (Workers) Erie, PA 05/31/17 05/10/17 92920 Health Care Service Corp. (State/One-Stop) Marion, IL 05/31/17 05/30/17 92921 JP Morgan Chase (State/One-Stop) Columbus, OH 05/31/17 05/30/17 92922 Ralph Lauren Corporation (Workers) Lyndhurst, NJ 05/31/17 05/31/17 92923 Health Care Services Corporation (State/One-Stop) Chicago, IL 06/01/17 05/15/17 92924 Owner Revolution (State/One-Stop) Atlantic, IA 06/01/17 05/31/17 92925 Bruker AXS Inc (Company) Madison, WI 06/01/17 05/31/17 92926 Android Industries—Detroit, LLC (State/One-Stop) Detroit, MI 06/01/17 06/01/17 92927 Nordson Polymer Processing System (Union) New Castle, PA 06/02/17 06/01/17 92928 Dell (Workers) Round Rock, TX 06/02/17 05/22/17
    [FR Doc. 2017-13415 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with the Section 223 (19 U.S.C. 2273) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271, et seq.) (“Act”), as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of the Act (“TAA”) for workers by (TA-W) number issued during the period of January 30, 2017 through June 2, 2017. (This Notice primarily follows the language of the Trade Act. In some places however, changes such as the inclusion of subheadings, a reorganization of language, or “and,” “or,” or other words are added for clarification.)

    Section 222(a)—Workers of a Primary Firm

    In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(a)) must be met, as follows:

    (1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(1)) is that a significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm (or “such firm”) have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

    AND (2(A) or 2(B) below)

    (2) The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied by either (A) the Increased Imports Path, or (B) the Shift in Production or Services to a Foreign Country Path/Acquisition of Articles or Services from a Foreign Country Path, as follows:

    (A) Increased Imports Path:

    (i) The sales or production, or both, of such firm, have decreased absolutely;

    AND (ii and iii below)

    (ii) (I) imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased OR

    (II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased; OR

    (II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using the services supplied by such firm, have increased; OR

    (III) imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased;

    AND

    (iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii) contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; OR

    (B) Shift in Production or Services to a Foreign Country Path OR Acquisition of Articles or Services from a Foreign Country Path:

    (i)(I) there has been a shift by such workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or the supply of services like or directly competitive with articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such firm; OR

    (II) such workers' firm has acquired from a foreign country articles or services that are like or directly competitive with articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such firm;

    AND

    (ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the acquisition of articles or services described in clause (i)(II) contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.

    Section 222(b)—Adversely Affected Secondary Workers

    In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(b)) must be met, as follows:

    (1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

    AND

    (2) the workers' firm is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(a)), and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification (as defined in subsection 222(c)(3) and (4) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(c)(3) and (4));

    AND

    (3) either—

    (A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; OR

    (B) a loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation determined under paragraph (1).

    Section 222(e)—Firms Identified by the International Trade Commission

    In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(e) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(e)) must be met, by following criteria (1), (2), and (3) as follows:

    (1) the workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—

    (A) An affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2252(b)(1));

    OR

    (B) an affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2436(b)(1)); OR

    (C) an affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));

    AND

    (2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—

    (A) A summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2252(f)(1)) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in the Federal Register under section 202(f)(3) (19 U.S.C. 2252(f)(3)); OR

    (B) notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1) is published in the Federal Register;

    AND

    (3) the workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—

    (A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); OR

    (B) not withstanding section 223(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2273(b)), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).

    Affirmative Determinations for Trade Adjustment Assistance

    The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.

    The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (Increased Imports Path) of the Trade Act have been met.

    TA-W No. Subject firm Location Impact date 91,169 Technicolor Creative Services USA, Inc., Technicolor USA, Inc., Production Services/Media Services Burbank, CA May 3, 2015. 91,169A Accounting Principles (Formerly Ajilon Professional Staffing), Apple One Employment Services, Optimum Staffing, etc Burbank, CA November 20, 2014. 91,332 Quantum Resources Recovery, Inc Portland, OR January 7, 2015. 91,481 Banks Lumber Company, Labor Ready Banks, OR February 17, 2015. 91,673 Climax Manufacturing Inc Lowville, NY April 6, 2015. 91,689 Warm Springs Forest Products Industries Warm Springs, OR April 12, 2015. 91,713 Roseburg Forest Products, Medium Density Fiberboard Division, Express Employment Professionals Medford, OR April 15, 2015. 91,793 Pacific Cast Technologies, Inc., ATI Cast Products/Albany Ops, Allegheny Technologies Incorporated, etc Albany, OR May 9, 2015. 91,799 Bushell Ribbon Corporation Santa Fe Springs, CA May 11, 2015. 91,812 Trinity Tank Car, Inc., Plant #1019, Plant #1017/1110, and Plant #1194/1200, etc Longview, TX May 13, 2015. 91,812A Trinity North American Freight Car, Inc., Trinity Rail Group, LLC, Trinity Industries, Inc., etc Cartersville, GA May 13, 2015. 91,812B Trinity Tank Car, Inc., Trinity Rail Group, LLC, Trinity Industries, Inc., etc Oklahoma City, OK May 13, 2015. 91,884 Kahlenberg Industries, Inc Two Rivers, WI June 6, 2015. 91,910 WireCo World Group St. Joseph, MO June 13, 2015. 91,910A WireCo World Group Chillicothe, MO June 13, 2015. 92,034 TTM Technologies, Inc., ViaSystems, Forest Grove Operations, Kelly Services, Randstad Forest Grove, OR July 19, 2015. 92,046 Blueprint Consulting Services Irving, TX July 22, 2015. 92,078 Intel Corporation, Data Center Group, Intel Security Group, Internet of Things Group, etc Rio Rancho, NM August 1, 2015. 92,087 Amsted Rail Company, Inc., Kelly Services, Accountemps and Office Team, Partners Personnel, etc Granite City, IL August 4, 2015. 92,116 Eaton Corporation, Vehicle Group North America, Bartech Belmond, IA August 9, 2015. 92,239 ArcelorMittal Steelton LLC, ArcelorMittal USA LLC, ArcelorMittal, S.A. Steelton, PA September 22, 2015. 92,298 Brillion Iron Works, Grede Holdings LLC, Metaldyne Performance Group Inc., Accuride Corporation Brillion, WI October 5, 2015. 92,307 A G Equipment Company Broken Arrow, OK October 5, 2015. 92,326 Millwork Holdings Co., Inc., Oxford Collections, Li & Fung Limited Gaffney, SC October 14, 2015. 92,326A Millwork Holdings Co., Inc.,, Oxford Collections, Li & Fung Limited, Winston Staffing, 24/Seven, etc New York, NY October 14, 2015. 92,365 Safelite Glass Corp., Enfield Division, Safelite Group, Inc., Action Staffing Group Enfield, NC October 26, 2015. 92,426 Enervest Employee Services, LLC, EnerVest, Ltd., Primoris Energy Services Sonora, TX November 16, 2015. 92,427 John Crane, Inc., Smith Group Cerritos, CA November 16, 2015. 92,433 Intel Corporation, Ocotillo Campus, Acculogic Inc., Advantest America Inc., etc Chandler, AZ November 18, 2015. 92,435 Gardner Denver, Inc., Industrials Products Manteca, CA November 18, 2015. 92,438 Consolidated Metco, Inc., Aerotek Clackamas, OR November 21, 2015. 92,453 Garco Building Systems, NCI Group, Inc., NCI Building Systems, Inc., Manpower Airway Heights, WA November 29, 2015. 92,479 The Doe Run Resources Corporation, Herculaneum Division, DR Acquisition Corp Herculaneum, MO December 8, 2015. 92,500 Project place International AB, Planview, Inc Austin, TX December 20, 2015. 92,509 Omak Forest Products, LLC, Omak Forest Products Omak, WA December 23, 2015. 92,510 Magnetic Metals Corporation, Camden Division, Rowan Technologies Inc Camden, NJ December 28, 2015. 92,542 Ardagh Glass Inc., Ardagh Holdings (UK) Ltd Wilson, NC January 9, 2016. 92,571 Alliance Castings Company, LLC, Ohio Castings, America's Back Office Inc., America's Back Office Inc Alliance, OH January 5, 2016. 92,572 Imperial Plastics, Inc., Express Employment Mankato, MN January 25, 2016. 92,578 TMCO, Inc., Express Employment Professionals Lincoln, NE January 26, 2016. 92,602 Nordson XALOY, Nordson Corporation, Bright Services, Manpower, and Aerotek Pulaski, VA February 2, 2016. 92,647 Tri-Pro Forest Products, Inc., Integrated Personnel, Inc Orofino, ID February 2, 2016. 92,672 Mayflower Vehicle Systems, LLC, Commercial Vehicle Group, Inc Shadyside, OH February 23, 2016. 92,699 Mustang Survival Manufacturing, Inc., Mustang Survival Holdings, Inc., Manpower Spencer, WV March 3, 2016. 92,732 Ross Mould LLC Washington, PA March 12, 2017.

    The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (Shift in Production or Services to a Foreign Country Path or Acquisition of Articles or Services from a Foreign Country Path) of the Trade Act have been met.

    TA-W No. Subject firm Location Impact date 90,125 Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc., Owens-Brockway Packaging, Inc., Owens-Illinois Group, Inc., etc Oakland, CA January 1, 2014. 90,324 Embarq Management Company/United Telephone of Pennsylvania, Embarq Corporation, CenturyLink, Inc Carlisle, PA January 1, 2014. 91,284 Ferus LP, Jenkins N2 Plant Division Jenkins, KY January 5, 2015. 91,314 Exterran Energy Solutions, L.P., Production Equipment Division, Aerotek Youngstown, OH January 7, 2015. 91,325 Mesabi Metallics Company LLC f/k/a Essar Steel Minnesota LLC, Essar Global Fund Limited, Express Employment Professionals, etc Hibbing, MN January 11, 2015. 91,359 CA Technologies, Inc Islandia, NY January 15, 2015. 91,766 Berwick Offray, LLC, CSS Industries, Inc., Blumenthal Lansing Company, LLC, TASC, Inc., etc Lansing, IA May 2, 2015. 91,777 UTC Aerospace Systems, United Technology Corporation, Aerotek Cleveland, OH May 4, 2015. 91,811 Sykes Enterprises, Incorporated, Customer Service Operations Division Langhorne, PA May 13, 2015. 91,814 Weatherford ALS, Weatherford International Longview, TX May 13, 2015. 91,819 Condor Flugdienst GmbH, Thomas Cook Group, Customer Service Division Itasca, IL May 17, 2015. 91,829 Jive Software, Inc., Aerotek, Secure Talent, IT Motives, Teksystems, and Vitamin T Portland, OR May 19, 2015. 91,882 SPX FLOW, Inc., FKA SPX Flow Technology, Adecco, Manpower, SGF Global, Remedy Staffing, etc McKean, PA June 6, 2015. 91,900 Intel Corporation, Adobe Systems Inc., Advanced Technology Group Inc., etc Hillsboro, OR June 9, 2015. 91,915 DST Brokerage Solutions, DST Systems, Inc., DST Technologies Baltimore, MD June 13, 2015. 91,915A DST Systems, Inc Kansas City, MO December 13, 2015. 91,915B Kelly Services, Working On-Site at DST Systems, Inc Kansas City, MO June 13, 2015. 91,934 Whirlpool Corporation, St. Joseph Tech Center St. Joseph, MI June 17, 2015. 91,955 ARRIS Solutions, Inc., ARRIS Enterprises, Inc., ARRIS Technologies, Inc., ARRIS Group, etc Beaverton, OR June 23, 2015. 92,041 Verizon Data Services, LLC, IT Quality Assurance, MTS Specialists III and IV Colorado Springs, CO July 21, 2015. 92,093 Honeywell Aerospace, Aerospace Division Phoenix, AZ August 4, 2015. 92,093A Honeywell Aerospace, Aerospace Division Olathe, KS August 4, 2015. 92,093B Honeywell Aerospace, Aerospace Division Albuquerque, NM August 4, 2015. 92,093C Honeywell Aerospace, Aerospace Division Clearwater, FL August 4, 2015. 92,093D Honeywell Aerospace, Aerospace Division Torrance, CA August 4, 2015. 92,093E Honeywell Aerospace, Aerospace Division Tucson, AZ August 4, 2015. 92,093F Honeywell Aerospace, Aerospace Division Urbana, OH August 4, 2015. 92,102 Cameron, Surface Division, Elwood Staffing Oklahoma City, OK August 9, 2015. 92,121 NCR Corporation, Call Center, Abacus Service Corporation, Aquent LLC, etc Duluth, GA July 20, 2015. 92,124 PanJit Americas, Inc Tempe, AZ August 18, 2015. 92,226 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Services, Service Request Management Division, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, HP, Inc Pontiac, MI September 19, 2015. 92,254 Mondelez Global LLC San Antonio, TX September 27, 2015. 92,257 Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Sales Strategy and Operations Division, Hewlett Packard, Inc Conway, AR September 27, 2015. 92,292 Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Global Real Estate Colorado Springs, CO October 3, 2015. 92,310 Martinrea Hot Stampings, Inc Detroit, MI October 3, 2015. 92,331 State Street Corporation, Global Trade Processing Group Kansas City, MO October 17, 2015. 92,334 State Street Corporation, Labor Analytics Group Kansas City, MO October 17, 2015. 92,334A State Street Corporation, Labor Analytics Group Boston, MA October 17, 2015. 92,374 AdvanTec Manufacturing USA, Inc., B & M Miller Equity Holdings, Freeman Marine Equipment, Inc Gold Beach, OR October 27, 2015. 92,375 Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Enterprise Storage Division, etc Charlotte, NC October 27, 2015. 92,391 Cambia Health Solutions, Inc., Membership Department and Claims Department Portland, OR November 3, 2015. 92,397 Lumileds LLC, Royal Philips, Production and Marketing Departments San Jose, CA November 4, 2015. 92,397A Adecco Working On-Site at Lumileds LLC, Royal Philips, Production and Marketing Departments San Jose, CA November 4, 2015. 92,410 GM Lordstown Stamping, General Motors Company, Development Dimensions International Warren, OH November 9, 2015. 92,410A GM Lordstown Stamping, General Motors Company, Development Dimensions International Warren, OH November 9, 2015. 92,428 Smith International, Inc., Schlumberger Ponca City, OK November 17, 2015. 92,429 CDC Corporation (also known as Conwed), Owens Corning Ladysmith, WI November 16, 2015. 92,431 Computer Sciences Corporation, Austin Facility, Finance and Accounting, Hire Strategy, Inc., etc Austin, TX November 18, 2015. 92,432 Blue Sea Systems, Inc., Express Employment Professionals and Manpower Bellingham, WA November 17, 2015. 92,440 LexisNexis, Case Law Operations Division, Reed Elsevier, PLC. and RELX, Inc., Allegis Colorado Springs, CO November 21, 2015. 92,444 Anthelio Healthcare Solutions, Medical Coding Services Division, Atos IT Solutions and Services, Atos Dallas, TX November 14, 2015. 92,465 GE Inspection Technologies, A Division of GE Oil & Gas, Kelly Services Lewistown, PA December 5, 2015. 92,466 Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, Oxford Global Resources Portland, OR December 6, 2015. 92,471 FCR, Aerotek Independence, OR December 7, 2015. 92,473 International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), Global Technology Services (GTS), QRDA Department Armonk, NY December 7, 2015. 92,480 Thermo Fisher Scientific, US Financial Shared Services Business Unit West Palm Beach, FL December 9, 2015. 92,486 Hewlett Packard Enterprise, ES Apps Delivery Services Division Portland, OR December 12, 2015. 92,487 Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Carl Zeiss AG, Randstad, Briand Executive Search, Network Executive, etc Dublin, CA November 30, 2015. 92,494A Health Care Service Corporation, Operations Support Services Division, Small Group Service Operation, etc Richardson, TX December 16, 2015. 92,496 Stanrail, Division of Roll Form Group, Inc., Samuel & Sons Company, Express, etc Gary, IN December 15, 2015. 92,497 Marge Carson, Inc., LaBarge Family Trust, Protech Staffing Services, Staffmark Pomona, CA December 16, 2015. 92,502 Interlectric Corporation, Nefglo Products Division, Intervestment Corporation Warren, PA December 21, 2015. 92,508 Thermo Fisher Scientific, Customer Channels Group (CCG) Finance Division, Adecco Pittsburgh, PA December 27, 2015. 92,515 Aeroflex/Metelics, Inc., MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc., etc Sunnyvale, CA January 3, 2016. 92,521 Capgemini America, Inc., Infra Business Unit, Operations Group, Capgemini North America, Inc., etc Marlborough, MA January 4, 2016. 92,522 Sprint Corporation, Business Wireless Billing Support Irving, TX January 4, 2016. 92,522A Sprint Corporation, Business Wireless Billing Support Atlanta, GA January 4, 2016. 92,523 Xerox, Xerox Technology, Collections Units, Customer Care Inquiry Units, etc Lewisville, TX January 4, 2016. 92,524 Mattoon Lamp Plant, Division of General Electric Lighting Mattoon, IL January 4, 2016. 92,530 General Electric LLC, Lexington Lamp Plant, Lamp Division, GE Lighting Lexington, KY January 5, 2016. 92,533 GM Detroit Hamtramck Assembly and GMSM LLC, General Motors, Development Dimensions International Detroit, MI January 6, 2016. 92,535 Hoffman Inc., Pentair, Staff Management Anoka, MN January 6, 2016. 92,536 The Timken Company, Randstand Pulaski, Staffmark, Quality Service Group, PIC, and Aerotek Pulaski, TN January 6, 2016. 92,539 Weather-Rite LLC, Specified Air Solutions, Montu Staffing and Indrotec Minneapolis, MN January 9, 2016. 92,544 Hewlett Packard Enterprises, ES Finance Division Colorado Springs, CO January 10, 2016. 92,548 Daniel Measurement and Control, Inc., Emerson Electric, Inc., G.A.S. Unlimited and CDI Corporation Houston, TX January 11, 2016. 92,556 HCL America, Inc., ERS Division, HCL Technologies Ltd., HCL Bermuda Ltd., and Axon Group Ltd Framingham, MA January 13, 2016. 92,557 Siemens Government Technologies, Inc., D/B/A Dresser Rand, Superior Workforce Solutions, Inc Wellsville, NY June 5, 2017. 92,558 New York Life Insurance Company, Technology Division, Abrams Security Group, LLC, EWG Solutions, Inc., etc Alpharetta, GA January 17, 2016. 92,559 Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing (OLS), Kelly Vendor Management Services (KVMS) Fort Washington, PA January 17, 2016. 92,560 APP USA Winddown, LLC (f/k/a American Apparel (USA), LLC), APP Winddown, LLC, American Apparel, LLC, APP Shipping Winddown, Inc., etc Los Angeles, CA January 17, 2016. 92,560A APP USA Winddown, LLC (f/k/a American Apparel (USA), LLC), APP Winddown, LLC, American Apparel, LLC, APP Shipping Winddown, Inc., etc Garden Grove, CA January 17, 2016. 92,560B APP USA Winddown, LLC (f/k/a American Apparel (USA), LLC), APP Winddown, LLC, American Apparel, LLC, APP Shipping Winddown, Inc., etc South Gate, CA January 17, 2016. 92,560C APP USA Winddown, LLC (f/k/a American Apparel (USA), LLC), APP Winddown, LLC, American Apparel, LLC, APP Shipping Winddown, Inc., etc La Mirada, CA January 17, 2016. 92,560D APP USA Winddown, LLC (f/k/a American Apparel (USA), LLC), APP Winddown, LLC, American Apparel, LLC, APP Shipping Winddown, Inc., etc Hawthorne, CA January 17, 2016. 92,561 Metglas, Inc., Hitachi Metals America, Ltd., Manpower Conway, SC November 25, 2016. 92,562 EmblemHealth Services Company, LLC, EmblemHealth, Inc., 441 9th Avenue New York, NY January 19, 2016. 92,562A EmblemHealth Services Company, LLC, EmblemHealth, Inc Melville, NY January 19, 2016. 92,562B EmblemHealth Services Company, LLC, EmblemHealth, Inc Hollywood, FL January 19, 2016. 92,562C EmblemHealth Services Company, LLC, EmblemHealth, Inc., 55 Water Street New York, NY January 19, 2016. 92,563 Mersen USA Newburyport-MA LLC, Mersen USA BN Corporation El Paso, TX January 20, 2016. 92,568 General Electric Lighting, Circleville Lamp Plant Circleville, OH January 24, 2016. 92,569 Triumph Composite Systems, Inc., A Division of Triumph Group Spokane, WA May 20, 2017. 92,570 The Bank of New York Mellon, Custody Reporting Department, The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation Brooklyn, NY January 24, 2016. 92,573 Koos Manufacturing, Inc South Gate, CA January 25, 2016. 92,575 Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Human Resources Division Colorado Springs, CO January 25, 2016. 92,576 Surgical Specialties Puerto Rico, Inc., Angiotech Pharmaceuticals, Kelly Services Aguadilla, PR June 5, 2017. 92,577 UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., Arden Hills Site, Aerotek, Adecco, Randstad, and HCL Arden Hills, MN January 26, 2016. 92,579 Emerson & Cuming Microwave Products, Inc., Laird Technologies, Inc., Kelly Services, Benskin & Hott, and Manpower Randolph, MA January 26, 2016. 92,580 Bose Corporation, Corporate Information Services (CIS), Randstad, etc Stow, MA January 26, 2016. 92,582 Codan US Corporation Santa Ana, CA January 26, 2016. 92,584 GSI Group, LLC, Grain Division, AGCO Corporation, Resource MFG, Manpower, and Aerotek Assumption, IL January 26, 2016. 92,585 MediaOcean LLC, Quality Assurance Division New York, NY January 26, 2016. 92,586 Cargill, Inc., Strategic Sourcing & Procurement Team, SGS Consulting, etc Blair, NE January 26, 2016. 92,599 M&G DuraVent, M&G Group, Westaff, Manpower and Adecco Albany, NY February 1, 2016. 92,600 IDEX MPT, Inc., D.B.A. The Fitzpatrick Company, IDEX Corporation Elmhurst, IL February 2, 2016. 92,606 Hewlett Packard Enterprise, ES-Finance Operations (ESFO), Hewlett Packard Cerritos, CA February 2, 2016. 92,608 First Advantage Background Services Corporation, First Advantage Corporation Indianapolis, IN February 3, 2016. 92,610 Ericsson, Inc., Business Unit IT Cloud Products, Fusion, HCL America, Inc., etc Santa Clara, CA February 5, 2016. 92,615 MTBC Acquisition Corporation, Medical Transcription Billing Corporation, Randstad Professionals Somerset, NJ February 6, 2016. 92,619 FormSolver, Inc. dba Framatic Co., MCS Industries Los Angeles, CA February 6, 2016. 92,620 Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation, Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research (NIBR) Group, etc East Hanover, NJ February 7, 2016. 92,622 Pfizer? Rouses Point, Pfizer Global Supply, Atrium Rouses Point, NY April 17, 2017. 92,624 HUBS, Inc., Hubbell Incorporated (Delaware), Finance Department, Hubbell Incorporated, Hamilton Connections Shelton, CT February 7, 2016. 92,630 ITW Powertrain Components, Powertrain Components, ITW, Kelly Services, Manpower, etc Mazon, IL February 7, 2016. 92,632 Digital River, Inc., Siris Capital Group, Aeries Technology, Cybage, SITEL, and AIM Consulting Minnetonka, MN February 8, 2016. 92,633 International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), XE54 and HXEA Departments, Global Technology Services (GTS) Division Lexington, KY February 8, 2016. 92,634 Seagate Technology, Randstad Shakopee, MN February 10, 2016. 92,634A Seagate Technology, Randstad and Tek Systems, Inc Longmont, CO February 10, 2016. 92,635 Ericsson, Inc., Business Unit IT & Cloud Products, Fusion, HCL America Inc., etc San Jose, CA February 10, 2016. 92,639 Jabil Circuit, Inc., Nypro Inc., Fountain Group LLC, Adecco, Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc Rochester, NY February 14, 2016. 92,643 Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme Corporation, Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Research Laboratories Division, etc Rahway, NJ February 8, 2016. 92,644 Luvo USA, LLC, Luvo, Inc Schaumburg, IL February 14, 2016. 92,645 Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation, Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Research Laboratories Division, etc Kenilworth, NJ February 15, 2016. 92,646 International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), LHHC and QZ9C Departments, Global Technology Services (GTS), etc Poughkeepsie, NY February 15, 2016. 92,650 KEMET Electronics Corporation, Tantalum, KEMET Corporation, Phillips Staffing Simpsonville, SC February 16, 2016. 92,652 Technicolor, Technicolor, Inc., Home Entertainment Services Division, Select Staffing Camarillo, CA February 17, 2016. 92,653 TAB Products Co. LLC, Accounting, T Acquisition LP Mayville, WI February 17, 2016. 92,653A TAB Products Co. LLC, California Technology Support, T Acquisition LP Mayville, WI February 17, 2016. 92,653B TAB Products Co. LLC, Human Resources, T Acquisition LP Mayville, WI February 17, 2016. 92,654 Thomson Reuters, Pontoon Hauppauge, NY February 17, 2016. 92,654A Thomson Reuters, Pontoon Nutley, NJ February 17, 2016. 92,655 J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., Information Technology Services, J.C. Penney Company, Inc., TCS Plano, TX February 17, 2016. 92,659 LedVance LLC, OSRAM Sylvania Inc., Lamp Division, Remedy, Manpower and Aerotek Versailles, KY February 20, 2016. 92,660 International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), TTS Department W14B, Global Technology Services (GTS) Division, etc Hillsboro, OR February 21, 2016. 92,662 TechInsights USA, Inc., Teardown.Com Division, TechInsights (Holdco) Limited Austin, TX February 21, 2016. 92,667 NetApp, Inc., Integrated Facilities Management & Datacenter Lab Cranberry Township, PA February 22, 2016. 92,669 International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), Enterprise Automation Distributed Systems (EADS), etc Cambridge, MA February 23, 2016. 92,670 International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), Security? Cross Service Line Department, Global Technology Services (GTS) Sterling Forrest, NY February 23, 2016. 92,671 MACOM, Adecco, Top Echelon, Express Employment Professionals Ithaca, NY February 22, 2016. 92,675 TE Connectivity, Tyco Electronics, Howard A. Schaevitz Technologies, Inc., etc Pennsauken, NJ February 15, 2016. 92,676 Suniva, Inc., Trillium Staffing Solutions Saginaw, MI February 24, 2016. 92,677 Philips Lighting North America Corp., Philips Lighting Salina, KS February 24, 2016. 92,679 B/E Aerospace, Inc., CAS-Refrigeration Products, Kimco Staffing, AnDek Staffing Services, etc Anaheim, CA February 24, 2016. 92,682 Via Christi Health, Inc., Ascension Health, Revenue Cycle, 8200 E. Thorn Drive Wichita, KS February 24, 2016. 92,682A Via Christi Hospital Pittsburgh, Inc., Via Christi Health, Inc., Revenue Cycle Pittsburgh, KS February 24, 2016. 92,682B Via Christi Hospital Manhattan, Inc., Via Christi Health, Inc., Revenue Cycle Manhattan, KS February 24, 2016. 92,682C Via Christi Hospital Wichita, Inc., Via Christi Health, Inc., Revenue Cycle, 3600 E. Harry Wichita, KS February 24, 2016. 92,682D Via Christi Hospital Wichita, Inc., Via Chris