Federal Register Vol. 82, No.14,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 14 (January 24, 2017)

Page Range8131-8352
FR Document

82_FR_14
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 8351 - Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pending RepealPDF
82 FR 8349 - National Day of Patriotic DevotionPDF
82 FR 8346 - Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies; Regulatory Freeze Pending ReviewPDF
82 FR 8214 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 8218 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
82 FR 8212 - Bureau of Justice Statistics; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension Without Change, of a Previously Approved Collection Firearm Inquiry Statistics (FIST) ProgramPDF
82 FR 8263 - Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation, Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 8248 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 8211 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation Liability Act (“CERCLA”)PDF
82 FR 8178 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 8186 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Submission for OMB ReviewPDF
82 FR 8230 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 8198 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Public Comment Request: Notice on Equal Access Regardless of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, or Marital Status for HUD's Community Planning and Development ProgramsPDF
82 FR 8220 - South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service Authority; Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, In-Containment Refueling Water Storage Tank (IRWST) Volume ChangesPDF
82 FR 8202 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Survey of Market Absorption of New Multifamily UnitsPDF
82 FR 8225 - South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service Authority; Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3; Tier 1 Editorial and Consistency ChangesPDF
82 FR 8200 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: FHA-Insured Mortgage Loan Servicing Involving the Claims and Conveyance Process, Property Inspection/PreservationPDF
82 FR 8219 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Piping Line Number Additions, Deletions and Functional Capability Re-DesignationPDF
82 FR 8224 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 CA04 Structural Module ITAAC Dimensions ChangePDF
82 FR 8201 - Mortgage and Loan Insurance Programs Under the National Housing Act-Debenture Interest RatesPDF
82 FR 8227 - Program-Specific Guidance About Commercial Radiopharmacy LicensesPDF
82 FR 8255 - Notice To Rescind Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement: Lone Star Regional Rail Project, Williamson, Travis, Bastrop, Hays, Caldwell, Comal Guadalupe and Bexar Counties, State of TexasPDF
82 FR 8203 - Little Sandy National Wildlife Refuge, Wood County, Texas; Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Draft Environmental AssessmentPDF
82 FR 8192 - Announcement of Meeting of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030PDF
82 FR 8172 - Enhanced Cyber Risk Management StandardsPDF
82 FR 8191 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request; Revised Annual and Final Reports for Performance Reporting Data From NIDILRR GranteesPDF
82 FR 8209 - Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof Institution of InvestigationPDF
82 FR 8207 - Certain Graphics Processors, DDR Memory Controllers, and Products Containing the Same Institution of InvestigationPDF
82 FR 8217 - Proposal Review Panel for Physics; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 8175 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Wisconsin Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Begin Discussion of a Draft Report Resulting From the Committee's Study of Hate Crime in the StatePDF
82 FR 8176 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Illinois Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Finalize Preparations for a Public Hearing on Civil Rights and Voter Participation in the StatePDF
82 FR 8175 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meetings of the West Virginia Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 8182 - Defense Science Board; Notice of Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
82 FR 8185 - Notice of Extension of Public Comment Period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for EA-18G “Growler” Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island Complex, WashingtonPDF
82 FR 8174 - Visioning of United States, (U.S.) Agricultural Systems for Sustainable Production Stakeholder Listening Session MeetingPDF
82 FR 8255 - Petition for Waiver of CompliancePDF
82 FR 8177 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Violations of the Export Administration RegulationsPDF
82 FR 8213 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Previously Approved CollectionPDF
82 FR 8187 - Granting of Request for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the Premerger Notification RulesPDF
82 FR 8196 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 8218 - Proposal Review Panel for Ocean Sciences Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 8190 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Proposed Collection; Comment Request for a Modified OGE Form 278e Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure ReportPDF
82 FR 8209 - Certain Athletic Footwear; Commission's Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation; Issuance of Consent Order; Termination of the InvestigationPDF
82 FR 8210 - Certain Food Supplements and Vitamins, Including Ocular Antioxidants and Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same; Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation Based on Settlement; Termination of the InvestigationPDF
82 FR 8193 - Meeting Announcement for the Technical Advisory Panel on Medicare Trustee ReportsPDF
82 FR 8178 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 8179 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
82 FR 8228 - Submission for Review: Revision of an Existing Information Collection, USAJOBS®, OMB Control No. 3206-0219PDF
82 FR 8177 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
82 FR 8211 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Third Partial Consent Decree Under the Clean Air ActPDF
82 FR 8228 - Excepted ServicePDF
82 FR 8206 - Final Environmental Impact Statement for Alcatraz Ferry Embarkation, Counties of Marin and San Francisco, CaliforniaPDF
82 FR 8235 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the PRISM Price Improvement Auction in BX Chapter VI, Section 9 and To Make Pilot Program PermanentPDF
82 FR 8244 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of FeesPDF
82 FR 8244 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a New Extended Life Priority Order Attribute Under Rule 4703, and To Make Related Changes to Rules 4702, 4752, 4753, 4754, and 4757PDF
82 FR 8230 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Transaction Fees To Implement New IncentivePDF
82 FR 8252 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees SchedulePDF
82 FR 8238 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule To Amend the Fees SchedulePDF
82 FR 8249 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 11.26 Regarding the Data Collection Requirements of the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program January 17, 2017PDF
82 FR 8241 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1, and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Adopt a New Exception in Phlx Rule 1000(f) for Sub-MPV Split-Price OrdersPDF
82 FR 8263 - Cost-of-Living Adjustments Effective December 1, 2016PDF
82 FR 8194 - National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 8196 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 8195 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 8194 - National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 8194 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 8195 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 8195 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 8182 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
82 FR 8256 - Limitation on Claims Against Proposed Public Transportation ProjectsPDF
82 FR 8179 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 8208 - Artists' Canvas From China; Scheduling of an Expedited Five-Year ReviewPDF
82 FR 8205 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 8185 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 8261 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Orders 13382, 13572, 13573, and 13582PDF
82 FR 8260 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Orders 13382, 13572, 13573, and 13582.PDF
82 FR 8262 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Order 13304PDF
82 FR 8259 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Appraisals for Higher-Priced Mortgage LoansPDF
82 FR 8185 - Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
82 FR 8179 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 8197 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 8174 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive LicensePDF
82 FR 8133 - Adjustment of Civil Penalties for Inflation for FY 2017PDF
82 FR 8318 - Qualifying Income From Activities of Publicly Traded Partnerships With Respect to Minerals or Natural ResourcesPDF
82 FR 8144 - Dividend Equivalents From Sources Within the United StatesPDF
82 FR 8172 - Dividend Equivalents From Sources Within the United StatesPDF
82 FR 8135 - Adjustments to Civil Penalty AmountsPDF
82 FR 8257 - Hazardous Materials: Oregon Hazardous Waste Management RegulationPDF
82 FR 8131 - Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustments for Ethics in Government Act ViolationsPDF
82 FR 8139 - Privacy Act ProceduresPDF
82 FR 8137 - Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation AdjustmentsPDF
82 FR 8165 - Treatment of Certain Interests in Corporations as Stock or Indebtedness; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 8169 - Treatment of Certain Interests in Corporations as Stock or Indebtedness; Correction.PDF
82 FR 8266 - Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity, Long-Term Debt, and Clean Holding Company Requirements for Systemically Important U.S. Bank Holding Companies and Intermediate Holding Companies of Systemically Important Foreign Banking OrganizationsPDF
82 FR 8170 - Annual Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties To Reflect InflationPDF

Issue

82 14 Tuesday, January 24, 2017 Contents Agricultural Research Agricultural Research Service NOTICES Intent to Grant Exclusive Licenses: Huvepharma, Inc. of Peachtree City, GA, 8174 2017-01385 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Research Service

NOTICES Meetings: Visioning of United States, Agricultural Systems for Sustainable Production Stakeholder Listening Session, 8174-8175 2017-01506
Army Army Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8179 2017-01432 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 8179-8182 2017-01477 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Illinois Advisory Committee, 8176-8177 2017-01520 2017-01521 West Virginia Advisory Committee, 8175-8176 2017-01519 Wisconsin Advisory Committee, 8175 2017-01522 Commerce Commerce Department See

Economic Development Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Violations of the Export Administration Regulations, 8177 2017-01498
Community Living Administration Community Living Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Revised Annual and Final Reports for Performance Reporting Data from NIDILRR Grantees, 8191-8192 2017-01537 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency PROPOSED RULES Enhanced Cyber Risk Management Standards, 8172 2017-01539 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Appraisals for Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans, 8259-8260 2017-01436 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

See

Navy Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8185 2017-01444 Meetings: Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing, 8185 2017-01433 Defense Science Board, 8182 2017-01516 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 8182-8185 2017-01450
Economic Development Economic Development Administration NOTICES Trade Adjustment Assistance Eligibility; Petitions, 8177-8178 2017-01472 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Equal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8186-8187 2017-01558 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Annual Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties to Reflect Inflation, 8170-8171 2017-00365 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation PROPOSED RULES Enhanced Cyber Risk Management Standards, 8172 2017-01539 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission RULES Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustments, 8137-8139 2017-00567 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Lone Star Regional Rail Project, Williamson, Travis, Bastrop, Hays, Caldwell, Comal Guadalupe and Bexar Counties, TX; Withdrawal, 8255 2017-01544 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Compliance Waivers; Petitions: Nevada Northern Railway Foundation d.b.a. Nevada Northern Railway Museum, 8255-8256 2017-01504 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System RULES Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity, Long-Term Debt, and Clean Holding Company Requirements, etc., 8266-8315 2017-00431 PROPOSED RULES Enhanced Cyber Risk Management Standards, 8172 2017-01539 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission RULES Adjustments to Civil Penalty Amounts, 8135-8137 2017-01125 NOTICES Early Terminations of Waiting Periods Under Premerger Notification Rules; Approvals, 8187-8190 2017-01491 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Limitation on Claims Against Proposed Public Transportation Projects, 8256-8257 2017-01449 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Little Sandy National Wildlife Refuge, Wood County, TX, 8203-8205 2017-01543 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 8260-8263 2017-01441 2017-01442 2017-01443 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8205-8206 2017-01445 Government Ethics Government Ethics Office RULES Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustments for Ethics in Government Act Violations, 8131-8133 2017-00627 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Modified OGE Form 278e Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report, 8190-8191 2017-01483 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Community Living Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

NOTICES Meetings: Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030, 8192-8193 2017-01541 Technical Advisory Panel on Medicare Trustee Reports, 8193-8194 2017-01479
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Equal Access Regardless of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, or Marital Status for HUD's Community Planning and Development Programs, 8198-8200 2017-01556 FHA-Insured Mortgage Loan Servicing Involving the Claims and Conveyance Process, Property Inspection/Preservation, 8200-8201 2017-01550 Survey of Market Absorption of New Multifamily Units, 8202-8203 2017-01552 Mortgage and Loan Insurance Programs Under the National Housing Act: Debenture Interest Rates, 8201-8202 2017-01547 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Geological Survey

See

National Indian Gaming Commission

See

National Park Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Dividend Equivalents from Sources within the United States, 8144-8165 2017-01163 Qualifying Income from Activities of Publicly Traded Partnerships With Respect to Minerals or Natural Resources, 8318-8343 2017-01208 Treatment of Certain Interests in Corporations as Stock or Indebtedness; Correction, 8165-8170 2017-00497 2017-00498 PROPOSED RULES Dividend Equivalents from Sources within the United States, 8172-8173 2017-01161 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Artists' Canvas from China; Expedited Five-Year Review, 8208-8209 2017-01446 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Athletic Footwear; Termination of Investigation, 8209 2017-01482 Certain Food Supplements and Vitamins, Including Ocular Antioxidants and Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same, 8210-8211 2017-01481 Certain Graphics Processors, DDR Memory Controllers, and Products Containing the Same, 8207-8208 2017-01530 Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof, 8209-8210 2017-01531 Justice Department Justice Department See

Parole Commission

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8213-8214 2017-01495 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Firearm Inquiry Statistics Program, 8212-8213 2017-01570 Proposed Consent Decrees: CERCLA, 8211 2017-01565 Clean Air Act, 8211-8212 2017-01471
Legal Legal Services Corporation NOTICES Meetings: Sunshine Act, 8214-8217 2017-01721 Management Management and Budget Office NOTICES Regulatory Freeze Pending Review, 8346 2017-01766 National Indian National Indian Gaming Commission RULES Privacy Act Procedures, 8139-8144 2017-00585 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 8196 2017-01488 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 8194-8195 2017-01452 2017-01453 National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 8194-8195 2017-01454 National Institute of Nursing Research, 8194 2017-01457 National Institute on Aging, 8195-8196 2017-01451 National Institutes of General Medical Sciences, 8195-8197 2017-01455 2017-01456 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Meetings: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 8179 2017-01447 New England Fishery Management Council, 8178 2017-01563 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 8178 2017-01478 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Alcatraz Ferry Embarkation, Counties of Marin and San Francisco, CA, 8206-8207 2017-01469 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Proposal Review Panel for Ocean Sciences, 8218 2017-01486 Proposal Review Panel for Physics, 8217-8218 2017-01525 2017-01526 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island Complex, WA, 8185-8186 2017-01513 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES Adjustment of Civil Penalties for Inflation, 8133-8135 2017-01313 NOTICES Exemptions and Combined License Amendments: South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service Authority; Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3; Tier 1 Editorial and Consistency Changes, 8225-8226 2017-01551 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 CA04 Structural Module ITAAC Dimensions Change, 8224-8225 2017-01548 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Piping Line Number Additions, Deletions and Functional Capability Re-Designation, 8219-8220 2017-01549 Guidance: Program-Specific Guidance about Commercial Radiopharmacy Licenses, 8227-8228 2017-01546 License Applications; Amendments: South Carolina Electric and Gas Co., South Carolina Public Service Authority Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, In-Containment Refueling Water Storage Tank (IRWST) Volume Changes, 8220-8223 2017-01555 Meetings: Sunshine Act, 8218-8219 2017-01663 Parole Parole Commission NOTICES Meetings: Sunshine Act, 8214 2017-01691 2017-01693 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: USAJOBS, 8228 2017-01475 Excepted Service, 8228-8230 2017-01470 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Hazardous Materials: Oregon Hazardous Waste Management, 8257-8259 2017-00788 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 8230 2017-01557 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: National Day of Patriotic Devotion (Proc. 9570), 8347-8349 2017-01798 EXECUTIVE ORDERS Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Minimizing the Economic Burden, Pending Repeal (EO 13765), 8351-8352 2017-01799 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Joint Standards for Assessing the Diversity Policies and Practices of Entities Regulated by the Agencies, 8248-8249 2017-01566 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: C2 Options Exchange, Inc., 8238-8241 2017-01462 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 8252-8255 2017-01463 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 8244-8248 2017-01466 NASDAQ BX, Inc., 8235-8238 2017-01467 NASDAQ PHLX, LLC, 8241-8244 2017-01460 NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 8230-8235, 8244 2017-01464 2017-01465 National Stock Exchange, Inc., 8249-8252 2017-01461 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8197-8198 2017-01430 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Cost-of-Living Adjustments Effective December 1, 2016, 8263-8264 2017-01458 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation, 8263 2017-01567 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Federal Reserve System, 8266-8315 2017-00431 Part III Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, 8318-8343 2017-01208 Part IV Management and Budget Office, 8346 2017-01766 Part V Presidential Documents, 8347-8349, 8351-8352 2017-01798 2017-01799 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 14 Tuesday, January 24, 2017 Rules and Regulations OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS 5 CFR Parts 2634 and 2636 RINs 3209-AA00 and 3209-AA38 Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustments for Ethics in Government Act Violations AGENCY:

Office of Government Ethics.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) is issuing this final rule in accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. This rulemaking adopts as final prior interim regulations making “catch-up” inflationary adjustments to each of the five civil monetary penalties provided in the Ethics in Government Act, as reflected in the executive branchwide financial disclosure and outside employment/activities regulations promulgated by OGE. This rulemaking also makes the 2017 annual adjustment to the Ethics in Government Act civil monetary penalties mandated by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.

DATES:

Effective date: This final rule is effective January 24, 2017.

Applicability date: This final rule is applicable January 15, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kimberly L. Sikora Panza, Associate Counsel, General Counsel and Legal Policy Division, Office of Government Ethics, Telephone: 202-482-9300; TTY: 800-877-8339; FAX: 202-482-9237.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background “Catch-up” Adjustment to Ethics in Government Act Civil Monetary Penalties

In November 2015, Congress passed the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) (the 2015 Act), which further amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410). The 2015 Act required Federal agencies to make inflationary adjustments to the civil monetary penalties (CMPs) within their jurisdiction with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through an interim final rule effective no later than August 1, 2016. The 2015 Act further mandates that Federal agencies make subsequent annual inflationary adjustments of their CMPs, to be effective no later than January 15 of each year.

In compliance with the 2015 Act and guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), on June 28, 2016, the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) published in the Federal Register an interim final rule with request for comments, 81 FR 41787 (June 28, 2016). The interim final rule, which became effective on August 1, 2016, made inflationary adjustments to the five CMPs provided in the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 as amended, 5 U.S.C. appendix (the Ethics Act).1 The Ethics Act provides for penalties that can be assessed by an appropriate United States district court, based upon a civil action brought by the Department of Justice, for the following five types of violations: Knowing and willful failure to file, report required information on, or falsification of a public financial disclosure report; knowing and willful breach of a qualified trust by trustees and interested parties; negligent breach of a qualified trust by trustees and interested parties; misuse of a public report; and violation of outside employment/activities provisions. See sections 102(f)(6)(C)(i) and (ii), 104(a), 105(c)(2) and 504(a) of the Ethics Act, 5 U.S.C. appendix, 102(f)(6)(C)(i) and (ii), 104(a), 105(c)(2) and 504(a). These penalties are reflected in 5 CFR 2634.701(b), 2634.702(a) and (b), and 2634.703 of OGE's executive branchwide financial disclosure regulation and 5 CFR 2636.104(a) of OGE's executive branchwide covered noncareer employee outside employment/activities regulation.

1 OGE has previously determined, after consultation with the Department of Justice, that the $200 late filing fee for public financial disclosure reports that are more than 30 days overdue (see section 104(d) of the Ethics Act, 5 U.S.C. appendix, 104(d), and 5 CFR 2634.704 of OGE's regulations thereunder) is not a CMP as defined under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act, as amended. Therefore, that fee is not being adjusted in this rulemaking (nor was it adjusted by OGE in previous CMP rulemakings), and will remain at its current amount of $200.

As explained in the preamble to the interim final rule, the increased civil monetary penalty amounts calculated in OGE's “catch-up” adjustment applied only to civil penalties assessed after August 1, 2016 whose associated violations occurred after November 2, 2015, the date of enactment of the 2015 Act. For the sake of clarity, OGE's interim final rule stated the original, previously-adjusted and newly-adjusted Ethics Act CMP amounts. OGE received no comments on the interim final rule, and therefore is adopting it as final in this rulemaking.

Annual Inflationary Adjustment to the Ethics in Government Act Civil Monetary Penalties

Beginning in 2017, the 2015 Act requires Federal agencies to make annual inflationary adjustments to their CMPs. The annual adjustments are based on the percent change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment, and the prior year's October CPI-U. Pursuant to OMB guidance, the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2017, based on the CPI-U for October 2016, not seasonally adjusted, is 1.01636. To calculate the 2017 annual adjustment, agencies must multiply the most recent penalty by the 1.01636 multiplier, and round to the nearest dollar.

Applying the formula established by the 2015 Act and OMB guidance, OGE is amending the Ethics Act CMPs through this rulemaking to:

(1) Increase the three penalties reflected in 5 CFR 2634.702(a), 5 CFR 2634.703, and 5 CFR 2636.104(a)—which were previously adjusted to a maximum of $18,936—to a maximum of $19,246;

(2) Increase the penalty reflected in 5 CFR 2634.702(b)—which was previously adjusted to a maximum of $9,468—to a maximum of $9,623; and

(3) Increase the penalty reflected in 5 CFR 2634.701(b)—which was previously adjusted to a maximum of $56,916—to a maximum of $57,847. Consistent with the implementation of the “catch-up” penalty adjustments, these adjusted penalty amounts will apply only to penalties assessed after January 15, 2017 (the applicability date of this final rule) whose associated violations occurred after November 2, 2015.

OGE will continue to make future annual inflationary adjustments to the Ethics Act CMPs in accordance with the statutory formula set forth in the 2015 Act.

II. Matters of Regulatory Procedure Administrative Procedure Act

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b), as Director of the Office of Government Ethics, I find that good cause exists for waiving the general notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment procedures as to these technical amendments. The notice and comment procedures are being waived because these amendments, which concern matters of agency organization, procedure and practice, are being adopted in accordance with statutorily mandated inflation adjustment procedures of the 2015 Act, which specifies that agencies shall adjust civil monetary penalties notwithstanding Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act. It is also in the public interest that the adjusted rates for civil monetary penalties under the Ethics in Government Act become effective as soon as possible in order to maintain their deterrent effect.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

As the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, I certify under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) that this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it primarily affects current Federal executive branch employees.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does not apply because this regulation does not contain information collection requirements that require approval of the Office of Management and Budget.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. chapter 5, subchapter II), this rule would not significantly or uniquely affect small governments and will not result in increased expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (as adjusted for inflation) in any one year.

Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 12866

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select the regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Office of Management and Budget has determined that rulemakings such as this implementing annual inflationary adjustments under the 2015 Act are not significant regulatory actions under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 12988

As Director of the Office of Government Ethics, I have reviewed this rule in light of section 3 of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, and certify that it meets the applicable standards provided therein.

List of Subjects 5 CFR Part 2634

Certificates of divestiture, Conflict of interests, Government employees, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trusts and trustees.

5 CFR Part 2636

Conflict of interests, Government employees, Penalties.

Dated: January 9, 2017. Walter M. Shaub, Jr., Director, U.S. Office of Government Ethics.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the U.S. Office of Government Ethics is adopting the interim final rule published at 81 FR 41787 (June 28, 2016) as a final rule with the following changes:

PART 2634—EXECUTIVE BRANCH FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE, QUALIFIED TRUSTS, AND CERTIFICATES OF DIVESTITURE 1. The authority citation for part 2634 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. App. (Ethics in Government Act of 1978); 26 U.S.C. 1043; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990), as amended by Sec. 31001, Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996) and Sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74 (Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015); E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306.

2. Section 2634.701 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 2634.701 Failure to file or falsifying reports.

(b) Civil action. The Attorney General may bring a civil action in any appropriate United States district court against any individual who knowingly and willfully falsifies or who knowingly and willfully fails to file or report any information required by filers of public reports under subpart B of this part. The court in which the action is brought may assess against the individual a civil monetary penalty in any amount, not to exceed the amounts set forth below, as provided by section 104(a) of the Act, as amended, and as adjusted in accordance with the inflation adjustment procedures prescribed in the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended:

Date of violation Penalty Violation occurring between Sept. 14, 2007 and Nov. 2, 2015 $50,000 Violation occurring after Nov. 2, 2015 57,847
3. Section 2634.702 is revised to read as follows:
§ 2634.702 Breaches by trust fiduciaries and interested parties.

(a) The Attorney General may bring a civil action in any appropriate United States district court against any individual who knowingly and willfully violates the provisions of § 2634.408(d)(1) or (e)(1). The court in which the action is brought may assess against the individual a civil monetary penalty in any amount, not to exceed the amounts set forth below, as provided by section 102(f)(6)(C)(i) of the Act and as adjusted in accordance with the inflation adjustment procedures prescribed in the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended:

Date of violation Penalty Violation occurring between Sept. 29, 1999 and Nov. 2, 2015 $11,000 Violation occurring after Nov. 2, 2015 19,246

(b) The Attorney General may bring a civil action in any appropriate United States district court against any individual who negligently violates the provisions of § 2634.408(d)(1) or (e)(1). The court in which the action is brought may assess against the individual a civil monetary penalty in any amount, not to exceed the amounts set forth below, as provided by section 102(f)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and as adjusted in accordance with the inflation adjustment procedures of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended:

Date of violation Penalty Violation occurring between Sept. 29, 1999 and Nov. 2, 2015 $5,500 Violation occurring after Nov. 2, 2015 9,623
4. Section 2634.703 is revised to read as follows:
§ 2634.703 Misuse of public reports.

(a) The Attorney General may bring a civil action against any person who obtains or uses a report filed under this part for any purpose prohibited by section 105(c)(1) of the Act, as incorporated in § 2634.603(f). The court in which the action is brought may assess against the person a civil monetary penalty in any amount, not to exceed the amounts set forth below, as provided by section 105(c)(2) of the Act and as adjusted in accordance with the inflation adjustment procedures prescribed in the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended:

Date of violation Penalty Violation occurring between Sept. 29, 1999 and Nov. 2, 2015 $11,000 Violation occurring after Nov. 2, 2015 19,246

(b) This remedy shall be in addition to any other remedy available under statutory or common law.

PART 2636—LIMITATIONS ON OUTSIDE EARNED INCOME, EMPLOYMENT AND AFFILIATIONS FOR CERTAIN NONCAREER EMPLOYEES 5. The authority citation for part 2636 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. App. (Ethics in Government Act of 1978); Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990), as amended by Sec. 31001, Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996) and Sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74 (Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015); E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306.

6. Section 2636.104 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 2636.104 Civil, disciplinary and other action.

(a) Civil action. Except when the employee engages in conduct in good faith reliance upon an advisory opinion issued under § 2636.103, an employee who engages in any conduct in violation of the prohibitions, limitations and restrictions contained in this part may be subject to civil action under 5 U.S.C. app. 504(a) and a civil monetary penalty of not more than the amounts set forth below, as adjusted in accordance with the inflation adjustment procedures prescribed in the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended, or the amount of the compensation the individual received for the prohibited conduct, whichever is greater.

Date of violation Penalty Violation occurring between Sept. 29, 1999 and Nov. 2, 2015 $11,000 Violation occurring after Nov. 2, 2015 19,246
[FR Doc. 2017-00627 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6345-03-P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 2 and 13 [NRC-2016-0165] RIN 3150-AJ82 Adjustment of Civil Penalties for Inflation for FY 2017 AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations to adjust the maximum civil monetary penalties (CMPs) it can assess under statutes enforced by the agency. These changes are mandated by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (FCPIAA), as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Improvements Act). The NRC is amending its regulations to adjust the maximum CMP for a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), or any regulation or order issued under the AEA from $280,469 to $285,057 per violation, per day. Additionally, the NRC is amending provisions concerning program fraud civil penalties by adjusting the maximum CMP under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act from $10,781 to $10,957 for each false claim or statement.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on January 24, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0165 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0165. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eric Michel, Office of the General Counsel, telephone: 301-287-3704, email: [email protected], U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents I. Background II. Discussion III. Rulemaking Procedure IV. Section-by-Section Analysis V. Regulatory Analysis VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act VII. Backfitting and Issue Finality VIII. Plain Writing IX. National Environmental Policy Act X. Paperwork Reduction Act XI. Congressional Review Act I. Background

Congress passed the FCPIAA in 1990 to allow for regular adjustment for inflation of CMPs, maintain the deterrent effect of such penalties and promote compliance with the law, and improve the collection of CMPs by the Federal government (Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note). The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 amended the FCPIAA to require the head of each agency to review, and if necessary adjust by regulation, the CMPs assessed under statutes enforced by that agency at least once every 4 years, in accordance with a statutory formula linked to the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) (Pub. L. 104-34, 110 Stat. 1321-373). Pursuant to this authority, the NRC increased the CMP amounts for violations of the AEA (codified at § 2.205 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)) and Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (codified at 10 CFR 13.3) on four occasions between 1996 and 2008.1

1 Adjustment of Civil Penalties for Inflation, 73 FR 54671 (September 23, 2008); Adjustment of Civil Penalties for Inflation, 69 FR 62393 (October 26, 2004); Adjustment of Civil Penalties for Inflation; Miscellaneous Administrative Changes, 65 FR 59270 (October 4, 2000); Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation, 61 FR 53554 (October 11, 1996). An adjustment was not performed in 2012 because the FCPIAA at the time required agencies to round their CMP amounts to the nearest multiple of $1,000 or $10,000, depending on the size of the CMP amount, and the 2012 adjustments based on the statutory formula were not large enough to warrant an adjustment.

On November 2, 2015, Congress amended the FCPIAA through the 2015 Improvements Act (Sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599). The 2015 Improvements Act required that the head of each agency perform a “catch-up” adjustment by rulemaking, not later than July 1, 2016, adjusting the CMPs within the jurisdiction of that agency according to the percentage change in the CPI between the month of October 2015 and October of the calendar year when the CMP amount was last established by Congress. The NRC performed this rulemaking on July 1, 2016 (81 FR 43019), increasing the amounts codified at 10 CFR 2.205 and 10 CFR 13.3 to $280,469 and $10,781, respectively.

The 2015 Improvements Act also requires that the head of each agency continue to adjust CMP amounts, rounded to the nearest dollar, each year thereafter. Specifically, each CMP is to be adjusted based on the percentage change between the CPI for the previous month of October, and the CPI for the month of October in the year preceding that. Therefore, the CMP adjustment required to be performed in 2017 is to be based on the percentage change between the CPI for the month of October 2016 and October 2015.

II. Discussion

Section 234 of the AEA limits civil penalties for violations of the AEA to $100,000 per day, per violation (42 U.S.C. 2282). However, as discussed in the Background section of this document, the NRC has increased this amount several times since 1996 under the FCPIAA, as amended. Using the formula in the 2015 Improvements Act, the $280,469 amount last established in July 2016 will increase by 1.636 percent, resulting in a new CMP amount of $285,057. This is based on the percentage change between the October 2016 CPI (241.729) and the October 2015 CPI (237.838).2 The NRC is amending 10 CFR 2.205 to reflect a new maximum CMP under the AEA in the amount of $285,057 per day, per violation. This represents an increase of $4,588.

2 These figures are confirmed by guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) concerning implementation of the 2015 Improvements Act. See OMB M-17-11, Implementation of the 2017 annual adjustment pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (December 16, 2016), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2017/m-17-11_0.pdf.

Monetary penalties under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act were established in 1986 at $5,000 per claim (Pub. L. 99-509, 100 Stat. 1938; 31 U.S.C. 3802). Since 1996 the NRC has adjusted this amount (currently set at $10,781) multiple times under the FCPIAA, as amended. Using the same previously discussed formula in the 2015 Improvements Act, the $10,781 amount will increase by 1.636 percent, resulting in a new CMP amount of $10,957. Therefore, the NRC is amending 10 CFR 13.3 to reflect a new maximum CMP amount of $10,957 per claim. This represents an increase of $176.

As permitted by the 2015 Improvements Act, the NRC may apply these increased CMP amounts to any penalties assessed by the agency after the effective date of this final rule (January 24, 2017), regardless of whether the associated violation occurred before or after this date (Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 600; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note). The NRC assesses civil penalty amounts, based on the class of licensee and severity of the violation, in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy (ADAMS Accession No. ML16197A561).

III. Rulemaking Procedure

The 2015 Improvements Act expressly states that agencies shall make the adjustments required by the act “notwithstanding section 553 of title 5, United States Code”. Therefore, because this final rule has been expressly exempted by Congress from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), it is being issued without prior public notice or opportunity for public comment, with an immediate effective date.

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis 10 CFR 2.205

Paragraph (j) in § 2.205 is revised by replacing “$280,469” with “$285,057.”

10 CFR 13.3

Paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) and (b)(1)(ii) in § 13.3 are revised by replacing “$10,781” with “$10,957.”

V. Regulatory Analysis

This final rule adjusts for inflation the maximum CMPs the NRC may assess under the AEA and under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986. The formula for determining the amount of the adjustment is mandated by Congress in the FCPIAA, as amended by the 2015 Improvements Act (codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note). Congress passed this legislation on the basis of its findings that the power to impose monetary civil penalties is important to deterring violations of Federal law and furthering the policy goals of Federal laws and regulations. Congress has also found that inflation has diminished the impact of these penalties and their effect. The principal purposes of this legislation are to provide for adjustment of civil monetary penalties for inflation, maintain the deterrent effect of civil monetary penalties, and promote compliance with the law. Therefore, these are the anticipated impacts of this final rule. Direct monetary impacts fall only upon licensees or other persons subjected to NRC enforcement for violations of the AEA and regulations and orders issued under the AEA (10 CFR 2.205), or those licensees or persons subjected to liability pursuant to the provisions of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (31 U.S.C. 3801-3812) and the NRC's implementing regulations (10 CFR part 13).

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to regulations for which a Federal agency is not required by law, including the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C 553(b), to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking. 5 U.S.C. 604. As discussed in this notice under Section III, “Rulemaking Procedure,” the NRC has determined that this final rule is exempt from the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and that notice and comment need not be provided. Accordingly, the NRC also determines that the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply to this final rule.

VII. Backfitting and Issue Finality

The NRC has not prepared a backfit analysis for this final rule. This final rule does not involve any provision that would impose a backfit, nor is it inconsistent with any issue finality provision, as those terms are defined in 10 CFR chapter I. As mandated by Congress, this final rule adjusts CMP amounts for violations of already-existing NRC regulations and requirements. This final rule does not modify any licensee system, structures, components, designs, approvals, or procedures required for the construction or operation of any facility.

VIII. Plain Writing

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).

IX. National Environmental Policy Act

The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action described as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this final rule.

X. Paperwork Reduction Statement

This final rule does not contain a collection of information as defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

XI. Congressional Review Act

This final rule is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 2

Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct material, Classified information, Confidential business information, Freedom of information, Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste treatment and disposal.

10 CFR Part 13

Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Fraud, Organization and function (government agencies), Penalties.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR parts 2 and 13.

PART 2—AGENCY RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 29, 53, 62, 63, 81, 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 189, 191, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2239, 2241, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 206 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5846); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 114(f), 134, 135, 141 (42 U.S.C. 10134(f), 10154, 10155, 10161); Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 552, 553, 554, 557, 558); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

Section 2.205(j) also issued under 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

2. Amend § 2.205 by revising paragraph (j) to read as follows:
§ 2.205 Civil penalties.

(j) Amount. A civil monetary penalty imposed under Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or any other statute within the jurisdiction of the Commission that provides for the imposition of a civil penalty in an amount equal to the amount set forth in Section 234, may not exceed $285,057 for each violation. If any violation is a continuing one, each day of such violation shall constitute a separate violation for the purposes of computing the applicable civil penalty.

PART 13—PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL REMEDIES 3. The authority citation for part 13 continues to read as follows: Authority:

31 U.S.C. 3801 through 3812; 44 U.S.C. 3504 note. Section 13.3 also issued under 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. Section 13.13 also issued under 31 U.S.C. 3730.

4. Amend § 13.3 by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) and (b)(1)(ii) to read as follows:
§ 13.3 Basis for civil penalties and assessments.

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(iv) Is for payment for the provision of property or services which the person has not provided as claimed, shall be subject, in addition to any other remedy that may be prescribed by law, to a civil penalty of not more than $10,957 for each such claim.

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) Contains or is accompanied by an express certification or affirmation of the truthfulness and accuracy of the contents of the statement, shall be subject, in addition to any other remedy that may be prescribed by law, to a civil penalty of not more than $10,957 for each such statement.

Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of January, 2017.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Victor M. McCree, Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 2017-01313 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 1 Adjustments to Civil Penalty Amounts AGENCY:

Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) is confirming certain amendments made on an interim final basis to the civil penalty amounts within its jurisdiction in June 2016 and implementing further adjustments to the civil penalty amounts within its jurisdiction to account for inflation, as required by law.

DATES:

Effective: January 24, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenny A. Wright, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, FTC, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2907, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Commission Rule 1.98 sets forth civil penalty amounts for violations of certain laws enforced by the Commission.1 As mandated by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015,2 the Commission adjusted the maximum civil penalty amounts under its jurisdiction through an Interim Final Rulemaking in June 2016.3 This statutorily mandated “catch-up” adjustment was designed to address inflation since the civil penalties were first enacted. This Notice confirms those amendments and implements additional inflationary adjustments mandated by law.

1 16 CFR 1.98.

2 Public Law 114-74, 701, 129 Stat. 599 (2015). The Act amends the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act (“FCPIAA”), Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note).

3 81 FR 42476 (June 30, 2016).

Following the initial catch-up adjustment, the FCPIAA, as amended, directs agencies to adjust their civil penalties for inflation every January thereafter. Accordingly, the Commission is increasing these maximum civil penalty amounts to address inflation since the initial “catch-up” adjustment. The following adjusted amounts will take effect on January 24, 2017:

• Section 7A(g)(1) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(g)(1) (premerger filing notification violations under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Improvements Act)—Increase from $40,000 to $40,654;

• Section 11(l) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 21(l) (violations of cease and desist orders issued under Clayton Act section 11(b))—Increase from $21,250 to $21,598;

• Section 5(l) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(l) (unfair or deceptive acts or practices)—Increase from $40,000 to $40,654;

• Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(A) (unfair or deceptive acts or practices)—Increase from $40,000 to $40,654;

• Section 5(m)(1)(B) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(B) (unfair or deceptive acts or practices)—Increase from $40,000 to $40,654;

• Section 10 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 50 (failure to file required reports)—Increase from $525 to $534;

• Section 5 of the Webb-Pomerene (Export Trade) Act, 15 U.S.C. 65 (failure by associations engaged solely in export trade to file required statements)—Increase from $525 to $534;

• Section 6(b) of the Wool Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. 68d(b) (failure by wool manufacturers to maintain required records)—Increase from $525 to $534;

• Section 3(e) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. 69a(e) (failure to maintain required records regarding fur products)—Increase from $525 to $534;

• Section 8(d)(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. 69f(d)(2) (failure to maintain required records regarding fur products)—Increase from $525 to $534;

• Section 333(a) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6303(a) (knowing violations of EPCA § 332, including labeling violations)—Increase from $433 to $440;

• Section 525(a) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6395(a) (recycled oil labeling violations)—Increase from $21,250 to $21,598;

• Section 525(b) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6395(b) (willful violations of recycled oil labeling requirements)—Increase from $40,000 to $40,654;

• Section 621(a)(2) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681s(a)(2) (knowing violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act)—Increase from $3,756 to $3,817;

• Section 1115(a) of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, Public Law 108-173, 21 U.S.C. 355 note (failure to comply with filing requirements)—Increase from $14,142 to $14,373; and

• Section 814(a) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, 42 U.S.C. 17304 (violations of prohibitions on market manipulation and provision of false information to federal agencies)—Increase from $1,138,330 to $1,156,953.

Calculation of Inflation Adjustments

The FCPIAA, as amended, directs federal agencies to adjust each civil monetary penalty under their jurisdiction for inflation no later than January 15 of every year pursuant to a cost-of-living adjustment.4 The cost-of-living adjustment is based on the percent change between the U.S. Department of Labor's Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers (“CPI-U”) for the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment, and the CPI-U for October of the prior year.5 Based on that formula, the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2017 is 1.01636. The FCPIAA also directs that these penalty level adjustments should be rounded to the nearest dollar. Agencies do not have discretion over whether to adjust a maximum civil penalty, or the method used to determine the adjustment.

4 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (4).

5Id. (3), (5)(b); Office of Management and Budget, M-17-11, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Implementation of the 2017 annual adjustment pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Dec. 16, 2016), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2017/m-17-11_0.pdf.

The following chart illustrates the application of these adjustments to the civil monetary penalties under the Commission's jurisdiction.

Calculation of Adjustments to Maximum Civil Monetary Penalties Citation Description Current
  • penalty
  • (2016)
  • Adjustment multiplier Adjusted
  • penalty
  • 16 CFR 1.98(a): 15 U.S.C. 18a(g)(1) Premerger filing notification violations $40,000 1.01636 $40,654 16 CFR 1.98(b): 15 U.S.C. 21(l) Violations of cease and desist orders 21,250 1.01636 21,958 16 CFR 1.98(c): 15 U.S.C. 45(l) Unfair or deceptive acts or practices 40,000 1.01636 40,654 16 CFR 1.98(d): 15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(A) Unfair or deceptive acts or practices 40,000 1.01636 40,654 16 CFR 1.98(e): 15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(B) Unfair or deceptive acts or practices 40,000 1.01636 40,654 16 CFR 1.98(f): 15 U.S.C. 50 Failure to file required reports 525 1.01636 534 16 CFR 1.98(g): 15 U.S.C. 65 Failure to file required statements 525 1.01636 534 16 CFR 1.98(h): 15 U.S.C. 68d(b) Failure to maintain required records 525 1.01636 534 16 CFR 1.98(i): 15 U.S.C. 69a(e) Failure to maintain required records 525 1.01636 534 16 CFR 1.98(j): 15 U.S.C. 69f(d)(2) Failure to maintain required records 525 1.01636 534 16 CFR 1.98(k): 42 U.S.C. 6303(a) Knowing violations 433 1.01636 440 16 CFR 1.98(l): 42 U.S.C. 6395(a) Recycled oil labeling violations 21,250 1.01636 21,598 16 CFR 1.98(l): 42 U.S.C. 6395(b) Willful violations 40,000 1.01636 40,654 16 CFR 1.98(m): 15 U.S.C. 1681s(a)(2) Knowing violations 3,756 1.01636 3,817 16 CFR 1.98(n): 21 U.S.C. 355 note Non-compliance with filing requirements 14,142 1.01636 14,373 16 CFR 1.98(o): 42 U.S.C. 17304 Market manipulation or provision of false information to federal agencies 1,138,330 1.01636 1,156,953
    Effective Dates of New Penalties

    These new penalty levels apply to civil penalties assessed after the effective date of the applicable adjustment, including civil penalties whose associated violation predated the effective date.6 These adjustments do not retrospectively change previously assessed or enforced civil penalties that the FTC is actively collecting or has collected.

    6 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (6).

    Procedural Requirements

    The FCPIAA, as amended, directs agencies to publish the required inflation adjustments in the Federal Register by no later than January 15, 2017, notwithstanding section 553 of title 5, United States Code. Pursuant to this congressional mandate, prior public notice and comment under the APA and a delayed effective date are not required. For this reason, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) also do not apply.7 Further, this rule does not contain any collection of information requirements as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 as amended. 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    7 A regulatory flexibility analysis under the RFA is required only when an agency must publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for comment. See 5 U.S.C. 603.

    List of Subjects for 16 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Trade practices.

    Text of Amendments

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Trade Commission amends Title 16, chapter I, subchapter A, of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

    PART 1—GENERAL PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for subpart L continues to read as follows: Authority:

    28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    2. Revise § 1.98 to read as follows:
    § 1.98 Adjustment of civil monetary penalty amounts.

    This section makes inflation adjustments in the dollar amounts of civil monetary penalties provided by law within the Commission's jurisdiction. The following civil penalty amounts apply to violations occurring after January 24, 2017.

    (a) Section 7A(g)(1) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(g)(1)—$40,654;

    (b) Section 11(l) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 21(l)—$21,598;

    (c) Section 5(l) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(l)—$40,654;

    (d) Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(A)—$40,654;

    (e) Section 5(m)(1)(B) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(B)—$40,654;

    (f) Section 10 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 50—$534;

    (g) Section 5 of the Webb-Pomerene (Export Trade) Act, 15 U.S.C. 65—$534;

    (h) Section 6(b) of the Wool Products Labeling Act, 15 U.SC. 68d(b)—$534;

    (i) Section 3(e) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. 69a(e)—$534;

    (j) Section 8(d)(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. 69f(d)(2)—$534;

    (k) Section 333(a) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6303(a)—$440;

    (l) Sections 525(a) and (b) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6395(a) and (b), respectively—$21,598 and $40,654, respectively;

    (m) Section 621(a)(2) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681s(a)(2)—$3,817;

    (n) Section 1115(a) of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, Public Law 108-173, 21 U.S.C. 355 note—$14,373;

    (o) Section 814(a) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, 42 U.S.C. 17304—$1,156,953; and

    (p) Civil monetary penalties authorized by reference to the Federal Trade Commission Act under any other provision of law within the jurisdiction of the Commission—refer to the amounts set forth in paragraphs (c) through (f) of this section, as applicable.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01125 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Parts 250 and 385 [Docket No. RM17-9-000; Order No. 834] Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustments AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is issuing a final rule to amend its regulations governing the maximum civil monetary penalties assessable for violations of statutes, rules, and orders within the Commission's jurisdiction. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended most recently by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, requires the Commission to issue this final rule.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective January 24, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Todd Hettenbach, Attorney, Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8794, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Order No. 834 Final Rule (Issued January 9, 2017)

    1. In this final rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is complying with its statutory obligation to amend the civil monetary penalties provided by law for matters within the agency's jurisdiction.

    I. Background

    2. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Adjustment Act),1 which further amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (1990 Adjustment Act),2 required the head of each federal agency to issue a rule by July 2016 adjusting for inflation each “civil monetary penalty” provided by law within the agency's jurisdiction and to make further inflation adjustments on an annual basis every January 15 thereafter.3

    1 Sec. 701, Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 584, 599.

    2 Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note).

    3 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, at (4). The Commission made its July 2016 adjustment in Docket No. RM16-16-000. See Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustments, Order No. 826, 81 FR 43937 (July 6, 2016), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,386 (2016).

    II. Discussion

    3. The 2015 Adjustment Act defines a civil monetary penalty as any penalty, fine, or other sanction that: (A)(i) Is for a specific monetary amount as provided by federal law or (ii) has a maximum amount provided for by federal law; (B) is assessed or enforced by an agency pursuant to federal law; and (C) is assessed or enforced pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the federal courts.4 This definition applies to the maximum civil penalties that may be imposed under the Federal Power Act (FPA),5 the Natural Gas Act (NGA),6 the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA),7 and the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA).8

    4Id. (3).

    5 16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.

    6 15 U.S.C. 717 et seq.

    7 15 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.

    8 49 App. U.S.C. 1 et seq. (1988).

    4. Under the 2015 Adjustment Act, the first step for such adjustment of a civil monetary penalty for inflation requires determining the percentage by which the U.S. Department of Labor's Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers (CPI-U) for October of the preceding year exceeds the CPI-U for October of the year before that.9 The CPI-U for October 2016 exceeded the CPI-U for October 2015 by 1.636 percent.10

    9 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, at (5)(b)(1).

    10See, e.g., Memorandum from Shaun Donovan, Office of Management and Budget, Implementation of the 2017 Annual Adjustment Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, 1 (Dec. 16, 2016).

    5. The second step requires multiplying the CPI-U percentage increase by the applicable existing maximum civil monetary penalty.11 This step results in a base penalty increase amount.

    11Id. (5)(a).

    6. The third step requires rounding the base penalty increase amount to the nearest dollar and adding that amount to the base penalty to calculate the new adjusted maximum civil monetary penalty.12

    12Id.

    7. Under the 2015 Adjustment Act, an agency is directed to use the maximum civil monetary penalty applicable at the time of assessment of a civil penalty, regardless of the date on which the violation occurred.13

    13Id. (6).

    8. The adjustments that the Commission is required to make pursuant to the 2015 Adjustment Act are reflected in the following table:

    Source Existing maximum civil monetary penalty New adjusted maximum civil monetary
  • penalty
  • 16 U.S.C. 825o-1(b), Sec. 316A of the Federal Power Act $1,193,970 per violation, per day $1,213,503 per violation, per day. 16 U.S.C. 823b(c),
  • Sec. 31(c) of the Federal Power Act
  • $21,563 per violation, per day $21,916 per violation, per day.
    16 U.S.C. 825n(a),
  • Sec. 315(a) of the Federal Power Act
  • $2,750 per violation $2,795 per violation.
    15 U.S.C. 717t-1,
  • Sec. 22 of the Natural Gas Act
  • $1,193,970 per violation, per day $1,213,503
  • per violation, per day.
  • 15 U.S.C. 3414(b)(6)(A)(i), Sec. 504(b)(6)(A)(i) of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 $1,193,970 per violation, per day $1,213,503 per violation, per day. 49 App. U.S.C. 6(10) (1988), Sec. 6(10) of the Interstate Commerce Act $1,250 per offense and $62.50 per day after the first day $1,270 per offense and $64 per day after the first day. 49 App. U.S.C. 16(8) (1988), Sec. 16(8) of the Interstate Commerce Act $12,500 per violation, per day $12,705 per violation, per day. 49 App. U.S.C. 19a(k) (1988), Sec. 19a(k) of the Interstate Commerce Act $1,250 per offense, per day $1,270 per offense, per day. 49 App. U.S.C. 20(7)(a) (1988), Sec. 20(7)(a) of the Interstate Commerce Act $1,250 per offense, per day $1,270 per offense, per day.
    III. Administrative Findings

    9. Congress directed that agencies issue final rules to adjust their maximum civil monetary penalties notwithstanding the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).14 Because the Commission is required by law to undertake these inflation adjustments notwithstanding the notice and comment requirements that otherwise would apply pursuant to the APA, and because the Commission lacks discretion with respect to the method and amount of the adjustments, prior notice and comment would be impractical, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest.

    14Id. (3)(b)(2).

    10. The citation of authority for part 385 is also revised to make a technical correction.

    IV. Regulatory Flexibility Statement

    11. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, requires agencies to certify that rules promulgated under their authority will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.15 The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act apply only to rules promulgated following notice and comment.16 The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply to this rulemaking because the Commission is issuing this final rule without notice and comment.

    15 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

    16 5 U.S.C. 603, 604.

    V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    12. This rule does not require the collection of information. The Commission is therefore not required to submit this rule for review to the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.17

    17 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).

    VI. Document Availability

    13. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and print the contents of this document via the Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.

    14. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number (excluding the last three digits) in the docket number field.

    15. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at [email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659, [email protected]

    VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    16. For the same reasons the Commission has determined that public notice and comment are unnecessary, impractical, and contrary to the public interest, the Commission finds good cause to adopt an effective date that is less than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act,18 and therefore, the regulation is effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

    18 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

    17. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This Final Rule is being submitted to the Senate, House, and Government Accountability Office.

    List of Subjects 18 CFR Part 250

    Natural Gas and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    18 CFR Part 385

    Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Penalties, Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    By the Commission.

    Issued: January 9, 2017.

    Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends parts 250 and 385, Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 250—FORMS 1. The authority citation for part 250 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    2. Amend § 250.16 by revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows:
    § 250.16 Format of compliance plan transportation services and affiliate transactions.

    (e) Penalty for failure to comply. (1) Any person who transports gas for others pursuant to Subparts B or G of Part 284 of this chapter and who knowingly violates the requirements of §§ 358.4 and 358.5, § 250.16, or § 284.13 of this chapter will be subject, pursuant to sections 311(c), 501, and 504(b)(6) of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978, to a civil penalty, which the Commission may assess, of not more than $1,213,503 for any one violation.

    PART 385—RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 3. The authority citation for part 385 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 551-557; 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 16 U.S.C. 791a-825v, 2601-2645; 28 U.S.C. 2461; 31 U.S.C 3701, 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352, 16441, 16451-16463; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. U.S.C. 1-85 (1988); 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (1990); 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (2015).

    4. Revise § 385.1504(a) to read as follows:
    § 385.1504 Maximum civil penalty (Rule 1504).

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the Commission may assess a civil penalty of up to $21,916 for each day that the violation continues.

    5. Revise § 385.1602 to read as follows:
    § 385.1602 Civil penalties, as adjusted (Rule 1602).

    The current inflation-adjusted civil monetary penalties provided by law within the jurisdiction of the Commission are:

    (a) 15 U.S.C. 3414(b)(6)(A)(i), Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978: $1,213,503.

    (b) 16 U.S.C. 823b(c), Federal Power Act: $21,916 per day.

    (c) 16 U.S.C. 825n(a), Federal Power Act: $2,795.

    (d) 16 U.S.C. 825o-1(b), Federal Power Act: $1,213,503 per day.

    (e) 15 U.S.C. 717t-1, Natural Gas Act: $1,213,503 per day.

    (f) 49 App. U.S.C. 6(10) (1988), Interstate Commerce Act: $1,270 per offense and $64 per day after the first day.

    (g) 49 App. U.S.C. 16(8) (1988), Interstate Commerce Act: $12,705 per day.

    (h) 49 App. U.S.C. 19a(k) (1988), Interstate Commerce Act: $1,270 per day.

    (i) 49 App. U.S.C. 20(7)(a) (1988), Interstate Commerce Act: $1,270 per day.

    [FR Doc. 2017-00567 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Indian Gaming Commission 25 CFR Part 515 RIN 3141-AA65 Privacy Act Procedures AGENCY:

    National Indian Gaming Commission, Department of the Interior.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or the Commission) is establishing this rule in Chapter III of title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This rule describes the procedures and policies adopted by the Commission pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974. Under the Act, a Federal agency must publish notice, in the Federal Register, of any systems of records that it intends to create as well as procedures regarding the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of the records within those systems. The Commission previously published notice of the creation of two systems of records, namely the Indian Gaming Individuals Record System and the Management Contract Individuals Record System. The regulations set forth here update the Commission's previously published procedures and serve to streamline how the Commission processes its Privacy Act requests.

    DATES:

    Effective January 24, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew Mendoza, Staff Attorney, at (202) 632-7003 or by fax (202) 632-7066 (these numbers are not toll free).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), enacted on October 17, 1988, established the National Indian Gaming Commission. Congress enacted the Privacy Act in 1974 (Public Law 93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a). The Commission originally adopted Privacy Act procedures on January 22, 1993. Since that time, the Commission has changed the location of its headquarters office, established a new system of records, and streamlined the way it processes Privacy Act requests. On February 26, 2015, the Commission announced its intent to update its Privacy Act procedures through tribal consultation and accepted comments from the regulated community orally at several consultation sessions. The Commission also accepted written comments via the consultation process through February 23, 2016. On August 26, 2016, after reviewing those comments, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which invited additional comments from the general public. No additional comments were received during that period.

    Although no comments were received during the comment period, the Commission made two substantive changes to the proposed rule. Specifically, the Commission is lengthening the time period for appeals in Section 515.7(b) from 30 working days to 90 calendar days. One of the major reasons for updating the Commission's Privacy Act regulations was to align the procedures for processing Privacy Act requests with the Commission's processes under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. On June 30, 2016, President Obama signed the FOIA Improvements Act of 2016 into law. Among the many changes to the FOIA, agencies are now required to provide requesters with not less than 90 days to appeal adverse determinations made under that Act. Since the Commission processes all Privacy Act requests simultaneously under both, the FOIA and Privacy Act, the Commission decided to lengthen the amount of time for a requester to appeal an adverse determination under the Privacy Act to match the timeline established in the FOIA.

    Additionally, the Commission corrected an error in Section 515.7(c), which addresses the timeframe in which the Privacy Act Appeals Officer must respond to an appeal. In the proposed rule, the Privacy Act Appeals Officer was provided with 30 working days to respond to an appeal. While this timeframe is within the Commission's current regulations, it differs from the one set out within the Commission's FOIA regulations. Under the FOIA, an agency is required to respond to an appeal of an adverse determination within 20 working days of its receipt. To streamline the Commission's appeals procedures and synchronize the time for responses for requests that must be processed under both statutes, this section should have read 20 working days rather than 30. The provision is being adjusted accordingly.

    Executive Order 13175

    The National Indian Gaming Commission is committed to fulfilling its tribal consultation obligations—whether directed by statute or administrative action such as Executive Order (EO) 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments)—by adhering to the consultation framework described in its Consultation Policy published July 15, 2013. Pursuant to the Order, the Commission engaged in extensive consultation on this topic.

    One comment received through consultation requested that Section 515.10 be revised to prevent the Commission from charging fees for the first copy of a record or any portion of a record to an individual to whom the record pertains.

    The Commission disagrees and decided to keep the fee provisions as initially presented. The Privacy Act allows agencies to establish fees for duplication so long as there is no cost for searching or reviewing the record. The Commission believes that the proposed regulation appropriately places the cost of duplicating records on the requesting individual and not on the Commission or tribes who fund its operations.

    The same commenter also recommended that Section 515.11 clearly state the penalties for providing a false statement under 18 U.S.C. 494 and 495.

    The Commission disagrees. The proposed regulation identifies the relevant statutes, which lay out the penalties for providing a false statement. If the Commission were to clearly state the penalties associated with those offenses, it would also be required to change its regulations if Congress amended the penalties listed in those statutes. The Commission prefers the approach in the proposed regulations, which eliminates any need to update the provision in the future should the penalties change.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act: The Commission certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The factual basis for this certification is as follows: This rule is procedural in nature and will not impose substantive requirements that would be considered impacts within the scope of the Act.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Commission is an independent regulatory agency, and, as such, is exempt from the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.

    Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the Commission has determined that this proposed rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.

    Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Commission has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Executive Order.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The proposed rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of more than $100 million per year; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of U.S. based enterprises.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed rule does not contain any information collection requirements for which the Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) would be required.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    The Commission has determined that the proposed rule does not constitute a major Federal Action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

    List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 515

    Administrative practice and procedure, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Commission revises part 25 CFR part 515 to read as follows: PART 515—PRIVACY ACT PROCEDURES Sec. 515.1 Purpose and scope. 515.2 Definitions. 515.3 Request for access to records. 515.4 Responsibility for responding to requests. 515.5 Responses to requests for access to records. 515.6 Request for amendment or correction of records. 515.7 Appeals of initial agency adverse determination. 515.8 Requests for an accounting of record disclosure. 515.9 Notice of court-ordered and emergency disclosures. 515.10 Fees. 515.11 Penalties. 515.12 [Reserved] 515.13 Specific exemptions. Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552a

    § 515.1 Purpose and scope.

    This part contains the regulations the National Indian Gaming Commission (Commission) follows in implementing the Privacy Act of 1974. These regulations should be read together with the Privacy Act, which provides additional information about records maintained on individuals. The regulations in this part apply to all records contained within systems of records maintained by the Commission that are retrieved by an individual's name or personal identifier. They describe the procedures by which individuals may request access to records about themselves, request amendment or correction of those records, and request an accounting of disclosures of those records by the Commission. The Commission shall also process all Privacy Act requests for access to records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, and the Commission's FOIA regulations contained in 25 CFR part 517, which gives requesters maximum disclosure.

    § 515.2 Definitions.

    For the purposes of this subpart:

    (a) Individual means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

    (b) Maintain means store, collect, use, or disseminate.

    (c) Record means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by the Commission, including education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history, and that contains the individual's name, or identifying number, symbol, or other identifier assigned to the individual, such as social security number, finger or voice print, or photograph.

    (d) System of records means a group of any records under the control of the Commission from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifier assigned to the individual.

    (e) Routine use means use of a record for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which it was collected.

    (f) Working day means a Federal workday that does not include Saturdays, Sundays, or Federal holidays.

    § 515.3 Request for access to records.

    (a) How made and addressed. Any individual may make a request to the Commission for access to records about him or herself. Such requests shall conform to the requirements of this section. The request may be made in person at 90 K Street NE., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20002 during the hours of 9 a.m. to 12 noon and 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, in writing at NIGC Attn: Privacy Act Officer, C/O Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop #1621, Washington, DC 20240, or via electronic mail addressed to [email protected]

    (b) Description of records sought. Each request for access to records must describe the records sought in enough detail to enable Commission personnel to locate the system of records containing them with a reasonable amount of effort. Whenever possible, the request should describe the records sought, the time periods in which the records were compiled, any tribal gaming facility with which they were associated, and the name or identifying number of each system of records in which the records are kept.

    (c) Agreement to pay fees. Requests shall also include a statement indicating the maximum amount of fees the requester is willing to pay to obtain the requested information. The requester must send acknowledgment to the Privacy Act Officer indicating his/her willingness to pay the fees. Absent such an acknowledgment within the specified time frame, the request will be considered incomplete, no further work shall be done, and the request will be administratively closed.

    (d) Verification of identity. When making a request for access to records the individual seeking access must provide verification of identity. The requester must provide a full name, current address, and date and place of birth. The request must be signed and must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, which is a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. In order to assist in the identification and location of requested records, a request may also, at the requester's option, include a social security number.

    (e) Verification of guardianship. When making a request as a parent or guardian of a minor or as the guardian of someone determined by a court to be incompetent, for access to records about that individual, the request must establish:

    (1) The identity of the individual who is the subject of the record by stating the name, current address, date and place of birth, and, at the requester's option, the social security number of the individual;

    (2) The requester's own identity, as required in paragraph (d) of this section;

    (3) That the requester is the parent or guardian of the individual and proof of such relationship by providing a birth certificate showing parentage or a court order establishing guardianship; and

    (4) That the requester is acting on behalf of that individual in making the request.

    (f) Verification in the case of third party information requests. Any individual who desires to have a record covered by this part disclosed to or mailed to another person may designate such person and authorize such person to act as his or her agent for that specific purpose. The authorization shall be in writing, signed by the individual whose record is requested, and notarized or witnessed as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.

    (g) In-person disclosures. An individual to whom a record is to be disclosed in person, pursuant to this section, may have a person of his or her own choosing accompany him or her when the record is disclosed. If a requester is accompanied by another individual, the requester shall be required to authorize in writing any discussion of the records in the presence of the other person.

    § 515.4 Responsibility for responding to requests.

    (a) In general. In determining which records are responsive to a request, the Commission ordinarily will include only records in its possession as of the date it begins its search for records. If any other date is used, the Privacy Act Officer shall inform the requester of that date.

    (b) Authority to grant or deny requests. The Privacy Act Officer shall make initial determinations either to grant or deny in whole or in part access to records.

    (c) Consultations and referrals. When the Commission receives a request for a record in its possession, the Privacy Act Officer shall determine whether another agency of the Federal Government is better able to determine whether the record is exempt from disclosure under the Privacy Act. If the Privacy Act Officer determines that it is best able to process the record in response to the request, then it shall do so. If the Privacy Act Officer determines that it is not best able to process the record, then it shall either:

    (1) Respond to the request regarding that record, after consulting with the agency best able to determine whether to disclose it and with any other agency that has a substantial interest in it; or

    (2) Refer the responsibility for responding to the request regarding that record to the agency best able to determine whether to disclose it, or to another agency that originated the record. Ordinarily, the agency that originated a record will be presumed to be best able to determine whether to disclose it.

    (d) Notice of referral. Whenever the Privacy Act Officer refers all or any part of the responsibility for responding to a request to another agency, it ordinarily shall notify the requester of the referral and inform the requester of the name of each agency to which the request has been referred and of the part of the request that has been referred.

    § 515.5 Responses to requests for access to records.

    (a) Acknowledgement of requests. Upon receipt of a request, the Privacy Act Officer ordinarily shall, within 20 working days, send an acknowledgement letter which shall confirm the requester's agreement to pay fees under § 515.9 and provide an assigned request number.

    (b) Grants of requests for access. Once the Privacy Act Officer makes a determination to grant a request for access in whole or in part, it shall notify the requester in writing. The notice shall inform the requester of any fee charged under § 515.9 of this part and the Privacy Act Officer shall disclose records to the requester promptly on payment of any applicable fee. If a request is made in person, the Privacy Act Officer will disclose the records to the requester directly, in a manner not unreasonably disruptive of its operations, on payment of any applicable fee and with a written record made of the grant of the request. If a requester is accompanied by another individual, the requester shall be required to authorize in writing any discussion of the records in the presence of the other person.

    (c) Adverse determinations of requests for access. If the Privacy Act Officer makes any adverse determination denying a request for access in any respect, it shall notify the requester of that determination in writing. The notification letter shall be signed by the official making the determination and include:

    (1) The name and title of the person responsible for the denial;

    (2) A brief statement of the reason(s) for the denial, including any Privacy Act exemption(s) applied to the denial;

    (3) A statement that the denial may be appealed under § 515.7 and a description of the requirements of § 515.7.

    § 515.6 Request for amendment or correction of records.

    (a) How made and addressed. An individual may make a request for an amendment or correction to a Commission record about that individual by writing directly to the Privacy Act Officer, following the procedures in § 515.3. The request should identify each particular record in question, state the amendment or correction that is sought, and state why the record is not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete. The request may include any documentation that would be helpful to substantiate the reasons for the amendment sought.

    (b) Privacy Act Officer response. The Privacy Act Officer shall, not later than 10 working days after receipt of a request for an amendment or correction of a record, acknowledge receipt of the request and provide notification of whether the request is granted or denied. If the request is granted in whole or in part, the Privacy Act Officer shall describe the amendment or correction made and shall advise the requester of the right to obtain a copy of the amended or corrected record. If the request is denied in whole or in part, the Privacy Act Officer shall send a letter signed by the denying official stating:

    (1) The reason(s) for the denial; and

    (2) The procedure for appeal of the denial under paragraph (c) of this section.

    (c) Appeals. A requester may appeal a denial of a request for amendment or correction in the same manner as a denial of a request for access as described in § 515.7. If the appeal is denied, the requester shall be advised of the right to file a Statement of Disagreement as described in paragraph (d) of this section and of the right under the Privacy Act for judicial review of the decision.

    (d) Statements of Disagreement. If the appeal under this section is denied in whole or in part, the requester has the right to file a Statement of Disagreement that states the reason(s) for disagreeing with the Privacy Act Officer's denial of the request for amendment or correction. Statements of Disagreement must be concise, must clearly identify each part of any record that is disputed, and should be no longer than one typed page for each fact disputed. The Statement of Disagreement shall be placed in the system of records in which the disputed record is maintained and the record shall be marked to indicate a Statement of Disagreement has been filed.

    (e) Notification of amendment, correction, or disagreement. Within 30 working days of the amendment or correction of the record, the Privacy Act Officer shall notify all persons, organizations, or agencies to which it previously disclosed the record, and if an accounting of that disclosure was made, that the record has been amended or corrected. If a Statement of Disagreement was filed, the Commission shall append a copy of it to the disputed record whenever the record is disclosed and may also append a concise statement of its reason(s) for denying the request to amend the record.

    (f) Records not subject to amendment. Section 515.13 lists the records that are exempt from amendment or correction.

    § 515.7 Appeals of initial adverse agency determination.

    (a) Adverse determination. An initial adverse agency determination of a request may consist of: A determination to withhold any requested record in whole or in part; a determination that a requested record does not exist or cannot be located; a determination that the requested record is not a record subject to the Privacy Act; a determination that a record will not be amended; a determination to deny a request for an accounting; a determination on any disputed fee matter; and any associated denial of a request for expedited treatment under the Commission's FOIA regulations.

    (b) Appeals. If the Privacy Act Officer issues an adverse determination in response to a request, the requester may file a written notice of appeal. The notice shall be accompanied by the original request, the initial adverse determination that is being appealed, and a statement describing why the adverse determination was in error. The appeal shall be addressed to the Privacy Act Appeals Officer at the locations listed in § 515.3 of this part no later than 90 calendar days after the date of the letter denying the request. Both the appeal letter and envelope should be marked “Privacy Act Appeal.” Any Privacy Act appeals submitted via electronic mail should state “Privacy Act Appeal” in the subject line.

    (c) Responses to appeals. The decision on appeal will be made in writing within 20 working days of receipt of the notice of appeal by the Privacy Act Appeals Officer. For good cause shown, however, the Privacy Act Appeals Officer may extend the 30 working day period. If such an extension is taken, the requester shall be promptly notified of such extension and the anticipated date of decision. A decision affirming an adverse determination in whole or in part will include a brief statement of the reason(s) for the determination, including any Privacy Act exemption(s) applied. If the adverse determination is reversed or modified in whole or in part, the requester will be notified in a written decision and the request will be reprocessed in accordance with that appeal decision. The response to the appeal shall also advise of the right to institute a civil action in a Federal district court for judicial review of the decision.

    (d) When appeal is required. In order to institute a civil action in a federal district court for judicial review of an adverse determination, a requester must first appeal it under this section.

    § 515.8 Requests for an accounting of record disclosure.

    (a) How made and addressed. Subject to the exceptions listed in paragraph (b) of this section, an individual may make a request for an accounting of the disclosures of any record about that individual that the Commission has made to another person, organization, or agency. The accounting contains the date, nature and purpose of each disclosure, as well as the name and address of the person, organization, or agency to which the disclosure was made. The request for an accounting should identify each particular record in question and should be made in writing to the Commission's Privacy Act Officer, following the procedures in § 515.3.

    (b) Where accountings are not required. The Commission is not required to provide an accounting where they relate to:

    (1) Disclosures for which accountings are not required to be kept, such as those that are made to employees of the Commission who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties and disclosures that are made under section 552 of title 5;

    (2) Disclosures made to law enforcement agencies for authorized law enforcement activities in response to written requests from those law enforcement agencies specifying the law enforcement activities for which the disclosures are sought; or

    (3) Disclosures made from law enforcement systems of records that have been exempted from accounting requirements.

    (c) Appeals. A requester may appeal a denial of a request for an accounting in the same manner as a denial of a request for access as described in § 515.7 of this part and the same procedures will be followed.

    (d) Preservation of accountings. All accountings made under this section will be retained for at least five years or the life of the record, whichever is longer, after the disclosure for which the accounting is made.

    § 515.9 Notice of court-ordered and emergency disclosures.

    (a) Court-ordered disclosures. When a record pertaining to an individual is required to be disclosed by a court order, the Privacy Act Officer shall make reasonable efforts to provide notice of this to the individual. Notice shall be given within a reasonable time after the Privacy Act Officer's receipt of the order—except that in a case in which the order is not a matter of public record, the notice shall be given only after the order becomes public. This notice shall be mailed to the individual's last known address and shall contain a copy of the order and a description of the information disclosed. Notice shall not be given if disclosure is made from a criminal law enforcement system of records that has been exempted from the notice requirement.

    (b) Emergency disclosures. Upon disclosing a record pertaining to an individual made under compelling circumstances affecting health or safety, the Privacy Act Officer shall, within a reasonable time, notify that individual of the disclosure. This notice shall be mailed to the individual's last known address and shall state the nature of the information disclosed; the person, organization, or agency to which it was disclosed; the date of disclosure; and the compelling circumstances justifying disclosure.

    § 515.10 Fees.

    The Commission shall charge fees for duplication of records under the Privacy Act in the same way in which it charges duplication fees under § 517.9 of this part. No search or review fee may be charged for any record. Additionally, when the Privacy Act Officer makes a copy of a record as a necessary part of reviewing the record or granting access to the record, the Commission shall not charge for the cost of making that copy. Otherwise, the Commission may charge a fee sufficient to cover the cost of duplicating a record.

    § 515.11 Penalties.

    Any person who makes a false statement in connection with any request for access to a record, or an amendment thereto, under this part, is subject to the penalties prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 494 and 495.

    § 515.12 [Reserved]
    § 515.13 Specific exemptions.

    (a) The following systems of records are exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1) and (f):

    (1) Indian Gaming Individuals Records System.

    (2) Management Contract Individuals Record System.

    (b) The exemptions under paragraph (a) of this section apply only to the extent that information in these systems is subject to exemption under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). When compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the overall responsibilities of the Commission, with respect to licensing of key employees and primary management officials for employment in an Indian gaming operation or verifying the suitability of an individual who has a financial interest in, or management responsibility for a management contract, the applicable exemption may be waived by the Commission.

    (c) Exemptions from the particular sections are justified for the following reasons:

    (1) From 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), because making available the accounting of disclosures to an individual who is the subject of a record could reveal investigative interest. This would permit the individual to take measures to destroy evidence, intimidate potential witnesses, or flee the area to avoid the investigation.

    (2) From 5 U.S.C. 552a(d), (e)(1), and (f) concerning individual access to records, when such access could compromise classified information related to national security, interfere with a pending investigation or internal inquiry, constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, reveal a sensitive investigative technique, or pose a potential threat to the Commission or its employees or to law enforcement personnel. Additionally, access could reveal the identity of a source who provided information under an express promise of confidentiality.

    (3) From 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(2), because to require the Commission to amend information thought to be incorrect, irrelevant, or untimely, because of the nature of the information collected and the length of time it is maintained, would create an impossible administrative and investigative burden by continually forcing the Commission to resolve questions of accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness.

    (4) From 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1) because:

    (i) It is not always possible to determine relevance or necessity of specific information in the early stages of an investigation.

    (ii) Relevance and necessity are matters of judgment and timing in that what appears relevant and necessary when collected may be deemed unnecessary later. Only after information is assessed can its relevance and necessity be established.

    (iii) In any investigation the Commission may receive information concerning violations of law under the jurisdiction of another agency. In the interest of effective law enforcement and under 25 U.S.C. 2716(b), the information could be relevant to an investigation by the Commission.

    (iv) In the interviewing of individuals or obtaining evidence in other ways during an investigation, the Commission could obtain information that may or may not appear relevant at any given time; however, the information could be relevant to another investigation by the Commission.

    Dated: December 30, 2016. Jonodev Chaudhuri, Chairman. Kathryn Isom-Clause, Vice-Chair. Sequoyah Simermeyer, Commissioner.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00585 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7565-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9815] RIN 1545-BM33 Dividend Equivalents From Sources Within the United States AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Final regulations and temporary regulations.

    SUMMARY:

    This document provides guidance to nonresident alien individuals and foreign corporations that hold certain financial products providing for payments that are contingent upon or determined by reference to U.S. source dividend payments. This document also provides guidance to withholding agents that are responsible for withholding U.S. tax with respect to a dividend equivalent, as well as certain other parties to section 871(m) transactions and their agents.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: These regulations are effective on January 19, 2017.

    Applicability Dates: For dates of applicability, see §§ 1.871-15(r); 1.871-15T(r)(4); 1.1441-1(f)(5); 1.1441-2(f); 1.1441-7(a)(4); 1.1461-1(i).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    D. Peter Merkel or Karen Walny at (202) 317-6938 (not a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paperwork Reduction Act

    The collection of information contained in these final regulations has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) under control numbers 1545-0096 and 1545-1597. The collections of information in these regulations are in § 1.871-15T(p) and are an increase in the total annual burden in the current regulations under §§ 1.1441-1 through 1.1441-9. This information is required to establish whether a payment is treated as a U.S. source dividend for purposes of section 871(m) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). This information will be used for audit and examination purposes. The IRS intends that these information collection requirements will be satisfied by persons complying with chapter 3 reporting requirements and the requirements of the applicable qualified intermediary (QI) revenue procedure, or alternative certification and documentation requirements set out in these regulations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.

    Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

    Background

    On January 23, 2012, the Federal Register published temporary regulations (TD 9572) at 77 FR 3108 (2012 temporary regulations), and a notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to the temporary regulations and notice of public hearing at 77 FR 3202 (2012 proposed regulations, and together with the 2012 temporary regulations, 2012 section 871(m) regulations) under section 871(m) of the Code. The 2012 section 871(m) regulations relate to dividend equivalents from sources within the United States paid to nonresident alien individuals and foreign corporations. Corrections to the 2012 temporary regulations were published on February 6, 2012, and March 8, 2012, in the Federal Register at 77 FR 5700 and 77 FR 13969, respectively. A correcting amendment to the 2012 temporary regulations was also published on August 31, 2012, in the Federal Register at 77 FR 53141. The Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the IRS received written comments on the 2012 proposed regulations, and a public hearing was held on April 27, 2012.

    On December 5, 2013, the Federal Register published final regulations and removal of temporary regulations (TD 9648) at 78 FR 73079 (2013 final regulations), which finalized a portion of the 2012 section 871(m) regulations. On the same date, the Federal Register published a withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking, a notice of proposed rulemaking, and a notice of public hearing at 78 FR 73128 (2013 proposed regulations). In light of comments on the 2012 proposed regulations, the 2013 proposed regulations described a new approach for determining whether a payment made pursuant to a notional principal contract (NPC) or an equity-linked instrument (ELI) is a dividend equivalent based on the delta of the contract. In response to written comments on the 2013 proposed regulations, the Treasury Department and the IRS released Notice 2014-14, 2014-13 IRB 881, on March 24, 2014 (see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b)), stating that the Treasury Department and the IRS anticipated limiting the application of the rules with respect to specified ELIs described in the 2013 proposed regulations to ELIs issued on or after 90 days after the date of publication of final regulations.

    On September 18, 2015, the Federal Register published final regulations and temporary regulations (TD 9734), at 80 FR 56866, which finalized a portion of the 2013 proposed regulations and introduced new temporary regulations based on comments received with respect to the 2013 proposed regulations (2015 final regulations and 2015 temporary regulations, respectively, and together, the 2015 regulations). On the same date, the Federal Register published a notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations and a notice of public hearing at 80 FR 56415 (2015 proposed regulations, and together with the 2015 final regulations, 2015 section 871(m) regulations). A correcting amendment to the 2015 final regulations and the 2015 proposed regulations was published on December 7, 2015, in the Federal Register at 80 FR 75946 and 80 FR 75956, respectively.

    The Treasury Department and the IRS received written comments on the 2015 proposed regulations, which are available at www.regulations.gov. The public hearing scheduled for January 15, 2016, was cancelled because no request to speak was received.

    On July 1, 2016, the Treasury Department and the IRS released Notice 2016-42, 2016-29 IRB 67 (see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b)) (QI Notice), containing a proposed amended qualified intermediary agreement. The QI Notice included the requirements and obligations applicable to a QI that acts as a qualified derivatives dealer (QDD). The Treasury Department and the IRS received written comments on Notice 2016-42, which to the extent related to section 871(m) and QDDs are discussed in the “Qualified Derivatives Dealer” section of this preamble. On December 30, 2016, the Treasury Department and the IRS released Revenue Procedure 2017-15, 2017-3 IRB 437 (2017 QI Agreement), which contains the final QI withholding agreement and the requirements and obligations applicable to QDDs.

    On December 2, 2016, the Treasury Department and the IRS released Notice 2016-76, 2016-51 IRB 834, providing guidance for complying with the final and temporary regulations under sections 871(m) and 1441, 1461, and 1473 in 2017 and 2018 and explaining how the IRS intends to administer those regulations in 2017 and 2018.

    On March 6, 2014, temporary regulations (TD 9658) revising certain provisions of the final chapters 3 and 61 regulations were published in the Federal Register (79 FR 12726), and corrections to those temporary regulations were published in the Federal Register (79 FR 37181) on July 1, 2014. Those regulations were issued to coordinate with certain provisions of the 2013 final chapter 4 regulations, as well as temporary regulations (TD 9657) under chapter 4 published in the Federal Register (79 FR 12812). A notice of proposed rulemaking cross-referencing the 2014 temporary coordination regulations was published in the Federal Register on March 6, 2014 (79 FR 12880). On January 6, 2017, the Treasury Department and IRS published in the Federal Register (82 FR 2046) final chapters 3 and 61 regulations, as well as temporary regulations (TD 9808).

    This Treasury decision generally adopts the 2015 proposed regulations with the changes discussed in this preamble. This Treasury decision also includes several technical amendments to the 2015 final regulations in response to comments on those regulations, which are discussed in this preamble. Finally, this Treasury decision provides new temporary regulations based on comments received with respect to the 2015 proposed regulations.

    Summary of Comments and Explanation of Provisions I. Technical Corrections to Certain Definitions A. Broker

    Section 1.871-15(p) generally provides that a broker or dealer is responsible for determining whether a potential section 871(m) transaction is a section 871(m) transaction and for reporting to the customer the timing and amount of any dividend equivalent. Section 1.871-15(a)(1) defines the term broker as “a broker within the meaning provided in section 6045(c).” Comments explained that many regulated investment companies satisfy the definition of a broker under section 6045(c) and the regulations thereunder because the term broker includes a corporation that regularly redeems its own shares. The comments noted that these regulated investment companies may enter into transactions as a short party with a foreign financial institution who is the long party. In these transactions, the comments asserted, the foreign financial institution (not the regulated investment company) is more capable of determining delta and making other calculations.

    The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that an entity should not be treated as a broker for purposes of section 871(m) solely because it redeems its own shares. The rules are intended to assign responsibility for making the determinations related to potential section 871(m) transactions to the party that regularly enters into equity derivatives with customers or holds equity derivatives on behalf of customers. When a regulated investment company is the short party in a transaction with a financial institution, the Treasury Department and the IRS agree that the financial institution is in the better position to determine delta and make other determinations required by section 871(m). Accordingly, the definition of the term broker has been revised in the temporary regulations so that it will not apply to a corporation that would be treated as a broker pursuant to section 6045(c) solely because it regularly redeems its own shares.

    B. Dividend Equivalents

    Section 1.871-15(c) provides that, subject to certain exceptions, a dividend equivalent includes any payment that references the payment of a dividend from an underlying security pursuant to a securities lending or sale-repurchase transaction, specified NPC, or specified ELI. A dividend is defined in § 1.871-15(a)(3) as “a dividend as described in section 316.” Section 1.871-15(c)(2)(ii) reduces a dividend equivalent by any amount treated in accordance with sections 305(b) and (c) as a dividend (a “section 305(c) dividend”) with respect to the underlying security referenced by the section 871(m) transaction.

    A comment suggested that the regulations clarify how this rule applies when a derivative references an underlying security that has a section 305(c) dividend. Another comment noted that § 1.871-15(c)(2)(ii) reduces the dividend equivalent amount by section 305(c) dividends, and that this reduction arguably applies both to the person who holds the underlying security giving rise to the section 305(c) dividend and to a holder of a section 871(m) transaction that references the underlying security that gives rise to the section 305(c) dividend.

    To address these comments, these final regulations revise the definition of a dividend to explicitly provide that it applies without regard to whether there is an actual distribution of cash or property. A conforming change is also made to § 1.871-15(c)(2)(ii), which is revised to clarify that only a long party that is treated as receiving a section 305(c) dividend is entitled to reduce its dividend equivalent amount and that a section 305(c) dividend gives rise to a dividend equivalent.

    Thus, for example, a long party that owns a convertible note that is a section 871(m) transaction and has a section 305(c) dividend can reduce its dividend equivalent by the section 305(c) dividend. In contrast, a long party that owns a specified NPC that references the same convertible note would receive a dividend equivalent that includes the section 305(c) dividend and would not be entitled to reduce its dividend equivalent by the section 305(c) dividend on the convertible note because the long party does not own the note, and therefore, is not treated as receiving a section 305(c) dividend for federal income tax purposes.

    C. Simple Contract

    To be a simple contract as defined in § 1.871-15(a)(14)(i), the number of shares required to calculate the amounts paid or received on any payment determination date must be ascertainable at the time the delta for the transaction is calculated. Several comments noted that transactions may provide for anti-dilution adjustments to the number of shares as a result of certain corporate actions, and that these adjustments could cause contracts that otherwise would be simple contracts subject to the delta test to become complex contracts subject to the more complicated substantial equivalence test. Adjustments that are intended to maintain the status quo of shareholders generally should not preclude a transaction from being treated as a simple contract. Accordingly, a sentence is added to § 1.871-15(a)(14)(i) to provide that an adjustment to the number of shares of the underlying security for a merger, stock split, cash dividend, or similar corporate action that impacts all the holders of the underlying security will not prevent the transaction from being a simple contract.

    II. Certain Insurance Contracts

    The exceptions for payments made pursuant to annuity, endowment, and life insurance contracts were issued as a temporary rule in § 1.871-15T(c)(2)(iv) of the 2015 temporary regulations. Comments generally agreed with the result in § 1.871-15T(c)(2)(iv)(A) with respect to insurance contracts issued by domestic insurance companies. Several comments requested that § 1.871-15T(c)(2)(iv)(A) be issued as a final regulation without any change. These comments noted that any U.S. source dividend that a foreign insurer receives on U.S. stock it owns with respect to an annuity, endowment, or life insurance contract is already subject to withholding tax.

    Another comment recommended changes to make the exception for insurance issued by a foreign company more administrable. That comment suggested that the regulations be extended to any foreign insurance company, without regard to whether the company is predominantly engaged in the business of insurance and would be subject to tax under subchapter L. This comment also recommended that the regulations define the terms “annuity contract,” “insurance contract,” “life insurance contract,” “endowment contract,” and “foreign insurance company” based on regulations under section 1471. Finally, the comment noted that the requirement that a company be “predominantly engaged in an insurance business” is unnecessary in light of the requirement that a corporation “would be subject to tax under subchapter L if it were a domestic corporation” because a corporation that would be “subject to tax under subchapter L if it were a domestic corporation” necessarily would be “predominantly engaged in an insurance business.”

    Comments also recommended that the temporary rule relating to reinsurance should be finalized. Another comment noted that reinsurance subject to the U.S. federal excise tax under section 4371 is not subject to withholding and expressed concern about the interaction of the excise tax and the application of section 871(m) if the reinsurance exception in the temporary regulations was allowed to expire.

    These regulations finalize § 1.871-15T(c)(2)(iv) with one change. The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that a company that is taxable under subchapter L as an insurance company is necessarily predominantly engaged in an insurance business. Accordingly, in finalizing § 1.871-15T(c)(2)(iv)(B), the redundant phrase “predominantly engaged in an insurance business ” is removed. Although comments suggested other modifications to certain terms and the addition of certain defined terms, these final regulations do not make these additional changes. The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that the scope of entities and contracts described in the temporary regulations as eligible for the exception is appropriate for section 871(m), and that it is beyond the scope of these regulations to define terms relating to insurance.

    III. Determining Delta and the Initial Hedge

    Section 1.871-15(g)(2) provides that the delta of a potential section 871(m) transaction is determined only when the contract is issued. For this purpose, an NPC or ELI is issued at the time of the contract's inception, original issuance, or issuance as a result of a deemed exchange pursuant to section 1001. See § 1.871-15(a)(6). The same standard is used to determine when a contract is issued for purposes of the substantial equivalence test for complex contracts.

    For simple contracts, comments generally suggested changing the time for calculating delta to the earlier of the trade date or the date on which the parties agreed to the material terms or final pricing for the contract. One comment recommended that the date and time when the material terms are finalized is the appropriate date for determining delta because that is the time when the economic terms of the potential section 871(m) transactions are established. Finally, the parties to the contract are generally bound by the terms on the pricing date, not the settlement date. A comment suggested using the trade date if the pricing date is more than 14 days before the issue date because providing too long a period between the pricing and issue date may present an opportunity for abuse.

    For listed options, comments suggested a different method for determining the delta of the contract. These comments recommend that the delta for listed options should be based on the closing price from the prior trading day. The comments acknowledged that this approach would be less accurate than the requirement in the final regulations; however, these comments asserted that using the delta calculation from the prior day for listed options would substantially reduce the burden on taxpayers and make the rules more administrable. Comments also noted that the Options Clearing Corporation currently calculates the end-of-day delta for options listed on U.S. options exchanges.

    For complex contracts, comments recommended that the substantial equivalence test should be conducted on the date when the short party's hedge is established. According to the comments, the issuer of a complex contract enters into a hedge on the pricing date, not the settlement date. The pricing date therefore reflects the economics of a complex contract more accurately than the settlement date, as long as the two dates are not separated by too much time.

    The Treasury Department and the IRS agree with the comments that the date for determining delta and for performing the substantial equivalence test should be revised to be more administrable and to reflect more accurately the economics of the transactions. Accordingly, these regulations provide that the delta of a simple contract is determined on the earlier of the date that the potential section 871(m) transaction is priced and the date when the potential section 871(m) transaction is issued; however, the issue date must be used to determine the delta if the potential section 871(m) transaction is priced more than 14 calendar days before it is issued. A similar rule also applies to the substantial equivalence test.

    In addition, the regulations provide a new rule for determining the delta of an option listed on a regulated exchange. For these options, the delta is determined based on the delta of the option at the close of business on the business day before the date of issuance. For this purpose, the regulations define a regulated exchange. A regulated exchange is any exchange defined in § 1.871-15(l)(3)(vii) or a foreign exchange that (A) is regulated by a government agency in the jurisdiction in which the exchange is located, (B) maintains certain requirements designed to protect investors and to prevent fraud and manipulation, (C) maintains rules to promote active trading of listed options, and (D) had trades for which the notional value exceeded $10 billion per day during the prior calendar year.

    The 2015 final regulations provided a simplified delta calculation for certain simple contracts that reference 10 or more underlying securities, provided that the short party uses an exchange-traded security that references substantially all the underlying securities to hedge the NPC or ELI at the time it is issued (the “hedge security”). The simplified delta calculation allows the short party to calculate the delta of the NPC or ELI by reference to changes in the value of the hedge security. Comments suggested that this rule be extended to cases in which the short party could fully hedge its position by acquiring the exchange-traded security even if it does not in fact hedge in this manner. Because the exchange-traded security must provide a full hedge of the NPC or ELI for this rule to apply, the Treasury Department and the IRS agree that the exchange-traded security will provide an acceptable delta calculation whether or not the short party actually uses that security as its hedge. Accordingly, the regulations are amended to permit the delta with respect to those NPCs and ELIs to be calculated by determining the ratio of the change in the fair market value of the simple contract to a small change in the fair market value of an exchanged-traded security when the exchange-traded security would fully hedge the NPC or ELI.

    Some comments noted that third-party data, including delta calculations, may be available for certain potential section 871(m) transactions. These comments requested that the final regulations be amended to explicitly permit withholding agents to rely on this data. Although the final regulations are not amended, the Treasury Department and the IRS note that nothing in the regulations prohibits a taxpayer from obtaining information from a third party. While taxpayers and withholding agents can use third party data to determine whether a potential section 871(m) transaction is a section 871(m) transaction, taxpayers and withholding agents that rely on third-party data remain responsible for the accuracy of that information.

    One comment noted that the issuer of a structured note (or an affiliate of the issuer) may act as a market maker for the structured note, and thus may purchase the note in its dealer capacity and then sell the note to the market. According to the comment, if the purchase is treated as a redemption by the issuer of the instrument for tax purposes, the subsequent sale to the market would be treated as a new issue for section 871(m) purposes, in which case the delta for the instrument (or substantial equivalence test) would need to be recomputed at such time. The comment suggested that rules similar to those in section 108 with respect to the purchase of debt instruments by an issuer acting in a dealer capacity could apply to equity derivative structured notes. The Treasury Department and the IRS acknowledge the concern raised by the comment. However, the Treasury Department and the IRS are concerned that an overly broad exception for dealer activity may facilitate transactions that are inconsistent with section 871(m) by allowing dealers to offer instruments that would be subject to section 871(m) so long as the instruments were originally issued with a delta below 0.80. While a dealer that issued such an instrument holds the instrument in inventory, the dealer does not need to hedge the position with an unrelated party. For this reason, market making activity by the issuer of an instrument (or an affiliate of the issuer) presents different policy concerns from market making by an unrelated dealer. The Treasury Department and the IRS invite further comments on the appropriate treatment of structured notes and similar instruments that are acquired by the issuer or an affiliate in its dealer capacity.

    IV. Substantial Equivalence Test

    Comments to the 2013 proposed regulations generally agreed that the delta test was fair and practical for the majority of equity-linked derivatives. However, comments explained that the delta test would be impractical or impossible to apply to more exotic equity derivatives, such as structured notes in which the long party's return was determined based on an initially indeterminate number of shares of the underlying security. The 2015 section 871(m) regulations address this concern by providing an alternative test—the “substantial equivalence test”—for contracts with indeterminate deltas. For purposes of applying this test, the regulations distinguish between simple and complex contracts. Generally, a simple contract is a contract that references a single, fixed number of shares and has a single maturity or exercise date. A complex contract is any contract that is not a simple contract. Contracts with indeterminate deltas are classified as complex contracts and are subject to the substantial equivalence test.

    Generally, the substantial equivalence test measures the change in value of a complex contract when the price of the underlying security referenced by that contract is hypothetically increased by one standard deviation or decreased by one standard deviation (each, a “testing price”) and compares that change to the change in value of the shares of the underlying security that would be held to hedge the complex contract when the contract is issued (the “initial hedge”) at each testing price. The smaller the proportionate difference between the change in value of the complex contract and the change in value of its initial hedge at multiple testing prices, the more equivalence there is between the contract and the referenced underlying security. When this difference is equal to or less than the difference for a simple contract benchmark with a delta of 0.80 and its initial hedge, the complex contract is treated as substantially equivalent to the underlying security. When the steps of the substantial equivalence test cannot be applied to a particular complex contract, a taxpayer must use the principles of the substantial equivalence test to reasonably determine whether the complex contract is a section 871(m) transaction with respect to each underlying security.

    The Treasury Department and the IRS requested comments regarding the substantial equivalence test. In particular, comments were requested on whether two testing points were adequate to ensure that the test would capture appropriate transactions and on the administrability of the test. Comments also were requested on the application of the test to complex contracts that reference multiple securities, including path-dependent instruments (that is, an instrument for which the final value depends, in whole or in part, on the price sequence (or path) of the underlying security before the maturity of the instrument). Comments generally did not recommend material changes to the test. As a result, these final regulations adopt the substantial equivalence test as proposed in the 2015 proposed regulations with minor changes as described in this section.

    One comment noted that the substantial equivalence test might be unduly burdensome in certain cases, such as when it is obvious that a particular instrument would satisfy the test and application of the test would have no effect on the amount of withholding. This comment suggested that an issuer of a complex contract be allowed to use an alternative test to determine the withholding tax imposed with respect to a dividend equivalent as long as the alternative test resulted in the same amount of withholding tax as would have been the case if the issuer had used the substantial equivalence test. These final regulations do not adopt this comment. Even in those cases where the result for a potential section 871(m) transaction is intuitive, administration of such an alternative approach would generally require applying the substantial equivalence test to demonstrate that the alternative test results in the same amount of withholding tax as the substantial equivalence test. As issuers of complex contracts become proficient with the substantial equivalence test it is expected that it will be relatively straightforward to determine whether a particular instrument is subject to withholding under section 871(m).

    Another comment suggested that the Treasury Department and the IRS consider whether the substantial equivalence test could be manipulated to allow taxpayers to understate the similarity of a complex contract to the underlying security. This comment suggested that more guidance should be offered about the criteria for determining whether a simple contract is “closely comparable” to a complex contract for purposes of choosing a simple contract benchmark. The same comment recommended that the regulations specify that the benchmark contract could be a hypothetical instrument, and that the material terms, including the treatment of dividends, should be consistent with the terms of the complex contract (aside from the terms that make the contract complex and that make the delta of the closely comparable benchmark 0.8).

    In response to this comment, the final regulations provide that the simple contract benchmark may be an actual or hypothetical simple contract that, at the time the substantial equivalence test is applied to the complex contract, has a delta of 0.8, references the applicable underlying security referenced by the complex contract, and has terms that are consistent with all the material terms of the complex contract, including the maturity date. In addition, to further ensure comparability between the simple contract benchmark and the complex contract, the final regulations provide that the simple contract benchmark must consistently apply reasonable inputs, including a reasonable time period for the contract. For example, the reasonable time period for the contract must be consistently applied in determining the standard deviation and probability, as well as the maturity date and any other terms dependent on that time period.

    V. Amount and Timing of a Taxpayer's Liability

    Section 1.871-15(j) contains rules for determining the amount of the dividend equivalent. In addition, § 1.871-15(j) requires that the amount of a dividend equivalent be determined on the earlier of the record date of the dividend and the day before the ex-dividend date with respect to the dividend. In many cases, the amount of a dividend equivalent will be determined before a withholding agent will be required to withhold any tax pursuant to newly redesignated § 1.1441-2(e)(7) (formerly § 1.1441-2(e)(8)). Comments requested that a foreign holder's tax liability be deferred until withholding is required, in order to avoid the need for the foreign holder to file a return and pay tax. The comments noted that this approach would be consistent with the general withholding regime under chapter 3 of the Code. With respect to a section 871(m) transaction acquired by a foreign investor after its initial issuance, a comment requested clarification that the foreign investor is only liable for dividends determined on the underlying security during the period that the foreign investor is the beneficial owner of the section 871(m) transaction.

    These regulations include several new provisions in response to these comments. First, § 1.871-15(j)(4) is added to provide that a long party generally is liable for tax on a dividend equivalent in the year the dividend equivalent payment is subject to withholding pursuant to § 1.1441-2(e)(7), or in the case of a QDD, when the payment of the applicable dividend on the underlying security is subject to withholding.

    Second, the regulations are amended to clarify that the amount of a dividend equivalent subject to tax will not change because the tax is withheld at a later date. Section 1.871-15(j)(2) establishes the time for determining the amount of a dividend equivalent; the amount of the long party's tax liability should not change because the withholding agent does not withhold at the time the tax liability arises. Therefore, changes in facts (such as the tax rate or whether the recipient is a qualified resident of a country with which the U.S. has an income tax treaty) between the time that the amount of a dividend equivalent is determined and the time that withholding occurs, do not affect tax liability. For example, if at the time for determining the dividend equivalent amount, the long party qualifies for a treaty, but in the year the amount is withheld the long party does not, the dividend equivalent would qualify for treaty benefits.

    Finally, § 1.871-15(j)(1) expressly provides that the long party is only liable for tax on dividend equivalents that arise while the long party is a party to the transaction. For example, if long party A, a foreign person, enters into a section 871(m) transaction on an underlying stock that pays quarterly dividends, and sells the transaction to B, a foreign person, after four dividends on the underlying stock have been paid, A will be subject to tax on those four dividend equivalents and B will be subject to tax on subsequent dividend equivalents as long as B holds the section 871(m) transaction. Alternatively, if A is a U.S. person, B would still only be subject to tax on the dividend equivalents after it acquires the transaction.

    VI. Qualified Index

    Section 1.871-15(l) provides a safe harbor for derivatives based on certain qualified indices. Section 1.871-15(l)(1) provides that the purpose of the exception for qualified indices is to provide a safe harbor for potential section 871(m) transactions that reference certain passive indices, and that an index is not a qualified index if treating the index as a qualified index would be contrary to this purpose. Section 1.871-15(l)(4) provides a specific safe harbor for derivatives based on an index in which the U.S. stock components comprise, in the aggregate, 10 percent or less of the weighting of all the component securities in the index. A comment regarding the 10 percent safe harbor indicated that some taxpayers, notwithstanding the purpose test for indices in § 1.871-15(l)(1), may seek to use a customized index to make tax-advantaged investments in specific U.S. stocks. Although the index described by the comment may not be a qualified index as a result of the purpose rule in § 1.871-15(l)(1), the final regulations are revised to clarify that, in order to meet this 10 percent safe harbor, an index must be widely traded and must not be formed or availed of with a principal purpose of tax avoidance.

    Comments to the qualified indices rules in the 2015 final regulations also requested that the Treasury Department and the IRS address how the rules apply to an index in the first year it is created. Accordingly, these final regulations add § 1.871-15(l)(2)(ii) to provide that, for the first year, an index is tested on the first business day it is listed, and the dividend yield calculation is determined using the dividend yield that the index would have had in the immediately preceding year if it had the same components throughout that year that it has on the day it is created.

    VII. Combined Transactions

    For purposes of determining whether transactions are section 871(m) transactions, the 2015 final regulations treat two or more transactions as a single transaction when a long party (or a related person) enters into multiple transactions that reference the same underlying security, the combined potential section 871(m) transactions replicate the economics of a transaction that would be a section 871(m) transaction, and the transactions were entered into in connection with each other. The 2015 final regulations also provide brokers acting as short parties with two presumptions that may be applied to determine whether to combine potential section 871(m) transactions. First, a broker may presume that transactions are not entered into in connection with each other if the long party holds the transactions in separate accounts. Second, a broker may presume that transactions entered into two or more business days apart are not entered into in connection with each other. A broker, however, cannot rely on the first presumption if it has actual knowledge that the long party created or used separate accounts to avoid section 871(m). In addition, neither presumption applies if the broker has actual knowledge that transactions were entered into in connection with each other. Section 1.1441-1(b)(4)(xxiii) also permits withholding agents to rely on these presumptions.

    Comments suggested several changes to the combined transaction rules. Comments noted that it will be burdensome to identify every contract that a customer entered into with respect to the same underlying security within two days of each other. To replace the presumptions, comments recommended that a withholding agent only be required to combine contracts if the withholding agent had actual knowledge that two contracts were priced, marketed, or sold in connection with each other.

    The Treasury Department and the IRS disagree that the priced, marketed, or sold standard should replace the combination presumptions. Comments noted a “not uncommon” example of an active foreign investor who acquires or sells within a two-day period hundreds of listed options referencing the same underlying security. The Treasury Department and the IRS, however, intended to treat those transactions as combined to the extent that the potential section 871(m) transactions are entered into in connection with each other and satisfy the other requirements of § 1.871-15(n)(1). The priced, marketed, or sold standard provides an inadequate substitute for the combined transaction test and the presumptions because investors can replicate a section 871(m) transaction by entering into multiple potential section 871(m) transactions. For example, an investor could replicate a delta one transaction by entering into a put option and a call option on the same underlying security at the same time, with the same strike price, whether or not the options are priced, marketed, or sold together. For this reason, the priced, marketed, or sold standard provides an inadequate substitute for the presumptions. The comments submitted with respect to the combination rule acknowledge short parties and withholding agents are aware that foreign investors use multiple transactions in a manner that are combined under the final regulations. The “priced, marketed, or sold” standard would undermine the enforcement of the combination rules.

    Notwithstanding the prior paragraph, Notice 2016-76 provides a simplified standard for withholding agents to determine whether transactions entered into in 2017 are combined transactions. A withholding agent will only be required to combine transactions entered into in 2017 for purposes of determining whether the transactions are section 871(m) transactions when the transactions are over-the-counter transactions that are priced, marketed, or sold in connection with each other. Withholding agents will not be required to combine any transactions that are listed securities that are entered into in 2017.

    Another comment noted that the final regulations indicated that transactions would only be combined into simple contracts. This comment recommended that the final regulation be amended if the Treasury Department and the IRS disagreed with this reading of the combination rule. The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that transactions will only be combined into simple transactions pursuant to § 1.871-15(n); therefore, the final regulations are not amended.

    Other comments suggested some clarifications to the combination rules to resolve ambiguities. For example, comments requested, among other things, that (1) ordering rules provide that a contract cannot be combined more than once and (2) no combination transaction should have a delta of more than one. The final regulations are not amended to address these issues because the final regulations are intended to provide a general framework for determining when two or more transactions should be combined. The comments received to date show that industry understanding of how the combination rules may be administered continues to develop as financial institutions work to establish systems. As this understanding evolves, the Treasury Department and the IRS may publish subsequent guidance to address the issues raised by these comments. Until such further guidance is issued, taxpayers may adopt any reasonable methodology to combine transactions within the general framework of the final regulations.

    VIII. Party Responsible for Determining Delta and Other Information

    The 2015 final regulations provide that when one of the parties to a potential section 871(m) transaction is a broker or dealer, that broker or dealer is responsible for determining whether the transaction is a section 871(m) transaction. When both parties to a potential section 871(m) transaction are a broker or dealer or neither party to a potential section 871(m) is a broker or dealer, the short party to the transaction must determine whether the transaction is a section 871(m) transaction.

    Comments noted that multiple parties could be responsible for determining whether a transaction is a section 871(m) transaction because the definition of a “party to the transaction” includes a long party, a short party, any agent acting on behalf of a long party or short party, and any person acting as an intermediary with respect to a potential section 871(m) transaction. Comments noted that both a short party and one or more agents of the short party may be a broker or dealer; in this case, the 2015 final regulations do not identify which of the responsible parties has the primary obligation to determine whether the transaction is a section 871(m) transaction.

    Comments requested that the regulations clarify which broker has the obligation to determine whether a listed option is a section 871(m) transaction when multiple brokers or dealers are involved. One comment recommended that the long party's broker that has custody of the transaction at the end of the day would be best suited to act as the responsible party. Comments also noted that the short party or the agent of a short party may not have the relevant information necessary to determine when withholding should take place. For example, when a long party has sold an instrument in the secondary market, the short party and its agent may not have any knowledge of that sale. As a result, the long party's broker should be the responsible party.

    Other comments indicated that the issuer should be the responsible party when the issuer itself is a broker or a dealer, or when the issuer has an affiliate that is a broker or dealer. In these cases, the issuer or its affiliate is likely to have the information necessary to determine whether the transaction is a section 871(m) transaction. As noted in other comments, an intermediary to a transaction issued by a broker or dealer, such as a clearinghouse, will not have the information necessary to determine whether a potential section 871(m) transaction is a section 871(m) transaction, and is unlikely to know either the time or the amount to withhold.

    The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that the final regulations may result in multiple parties to a transaction qualifying as the party responsible for determining whether a potential section 871(m) transaction is a section 871(m) transaction. New temporary regulations resolve this duplication of responsible parties under § 1.871-15(p)(1) in the following circumstances: (1) Both the short party and an agent or intermediary of the short party are a broker or a dealer; (2) the short party is not a broker or dealer and more than one of the agents or intermediaries of the short party is a broker or dealer; (3) the short party and its agents or intermediaries are not brokers or dealers, and more than one agent or intermediary acting on behalf of the long party is a broker or dealer; and (4) potential section 871(m) transactions are traded on an exchange and cleared by a clearing organization.

    Specifically, § 1.871-15T(p)(1)(ii) provides that the short party is the responsible party when both the short party and an agent or intermediary acting on behalf of the short party are a broker or dealer. In these circumstances, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that the short party should be the responsible party because it will have access to the relevant data regarding that transaction, whereas an agent or intermediary may not have the necessary information. As the responsible party, the short party may contract with a third party to make the determinations on its behalf; however, the short party remains responsible for the accuracy of any calculations by the third party.

    In addition, if the short party is not a broker or dealer, but more than one agent or intermediary acting on behalf of the short party is a broker or dealer, § 1.871-15T(p)(1)(ii) provides that the broker or dealer closest to the short party in the payment chain is the responsible party. The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that the agent or intermediary closest in the chain to the short party will have the best access to any information the short party has that is necessary to determine whether a potential section 871(m) transaction is a section 871(m) transaction and to make other relevant determinations.

    Section 1.871-15T(p)(1)(ii) also generally provides that when one or more agents or intermediaries acting on behalf of the long party are brokers or dealers, the agent or intermediary that is closest to the long party in the payment chain is the responsible party when neither the short party nor any agent or intermediary acting on behalf of the short party is a broker or dealer. In this situation, the temporary regulations place the responsibility with the agent or intermediary closest to the long party because this agent or intermediary will know whether or not the long party is subject to tax under section 871 or 881 and when the long party has terminated or otherwise disposed of the transaction.

    Similarly, these temporary regulations also provide a rule for determining the responsible party when potential section 871(m) transactions are traded on an exchange and cleared by a clearing organization. When more than one broker or dealer acts as an agent or intermediary between the short party and a foreign investor on an exchange-traded contract, the broker or dealer that has an ongoing customer relationship with the foreign investor is the responsible party. Generally, this intermediary will be the clearing firm.

    Finally, these temporary regulations provide that the issuer of a potential section 871(m) transaction will be the responsible party for certain ELIs. Specifically, the issuer is the responsible party for structured notes (including contingent payment debt instruments), warrants, convertible stocks, and convertible debt instruments. Because the issuer of these ELIs ordinarily will have structured the ELI, determined the pricing of the ELI, and hedged the ELI, the issuer ordinarily will be in the best position to act as the responsible party. While the issuer of an ELI may not be a broker or dealer, an issuer of an ELI typically is advised by a broker or dealer.

    IX. Qualified Derivatives Dealer

    Section 1.871-15T(q) permits a QDD to reduce its liability under section 871 or 881 for a dividend or dividend equivalent to the extent it makes an offsetting dividend equivalent payment in its dealer capacity. Only an eligible entity that has entered into a QI agreement can be a QDD. An eligible entity is defined as: (1) A dealer in securities subject to regulatory supervision as a dealer, (2) a bank subject to regulatory supervision as a bank, or (3) a wholly-owned entity of a bank subject to regulatory supervision as a bank when the wholly-owned entity (a) issues potential section 871(m) transactions to customers and (b) receives dividends or dividend equivalent payments from stock or potential section 871(m) transactions that hedge the potential section 871(m) transactions issued to customers. § 1.1441-1T(e)(6). An entity is only a QDD when acting in its QDD capacity.

    A. Income Tax Treaties

    In general, section 871(m) and the regulations thereunder apply to a dividend equivalent payment without regard to whether the payor of the dividend equivalent payment is domestic or foreign. Section 1.894-1(c)(2) provides that “[t]he provisions of an income tax convention relating to dividends paid to or derived by a foreign person apply to the payment of a dividend equivalent described in section 871(m) and the regulations thereunder.” Consistent with the foregoing, the 2017 QI Agreement provides that a QDD must treat any dividend equivalent as a dividend from sources within the United States for purposes of section 881 and chapters 3 and 4 consistent section 871(m) and the regulations thereunder. The 2017 QI Agreement provides that a QDD may reduce the rate of withholding under chapter 3 based only on a beneficial owner's claim that it is entitled to a reduced rate of withholding for portfolio dividends under the dividends article of an applicable income tax treaty.

    B. Eligible Entities

    Comments requested that the Treasury Department and the IRS expand the scope of entities that qualify as an eligible entity under § 1.1441-1(e), and therefore can act as a QDD under a QI agreement. One comment requested that the eligibility criteria be expanded to permit a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) of a U.S financial institution to act as a QDD even if the CFC is not a QI. Other comments recommended that the definition of an eligible entity be expanded to include a bank holding company if the entity regularly issues potential section 871(m) transactions to customers and receives dividends or dividend equivalent payments pursuant to potential section 871(m) transactions to hedge the transactions issued to customers. Comments noted that a bank holding company is subject to a wide range of regulatory regimes.

    Comments also recommended that the scope of eligible entities be expanded to include subsidiaries of securities dealers and bank holding companies that regularly issue potential section 871(m) transactions to customers and receive dividends or dividend equivalent amounts with respect to hedges of those customer transactions. Comments noted that these entities are part of a regulated financial group.

    In response to comments, the 2017 QI Agreement announced the expansion of the definition of eligible entities to include a bank holding company and subsidiaries of a bank holding company. The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that a bank holding company and subsidiaries of a bank holding company should be included in the definition of an eligible entity because these entities are regulated financial institutions.

    The 2017 QI Agreement clarified that the eligible entity test is applied at the home office or branch level, and that each home office or branch is a separate QDD. The 2017 QI Agreement also expanded what constitutes an eligible entity to include a foreign branch of a U.S. financial institution that would meet the requirements of an eligible entity if the branch were a separate entity, though such a branch will not be subject to tax on its QDD tax liability because it is otherwise subject to tax on a net income basis under chapter 1. Both of these changes are incorporated in these final regulations. These final regulations also clarify that a subsidiary of a bank or bank holding company could be indirectly wholly-owned by the qualifying bank or bank holding company provided that the subsidiary, acting in its equity derivatives dealer capacity, (1) issues potential section 871(m) transactions to customers, and (2) receives dividends with respect to stock or dividend equivalent payments pursuant to potential section 871(m) transactions that hedge potential section 871(m) transactions that it issues.

    These final regulations do not expand the eligible entity definition to specifically include CFCs. The comments generally did not adequately explain why CFCs cannot avail themselves of the QI regime (with the QDD provisions). Permitting CFCs that are not QIs to be QDDs would eliminate the compliance benefits provided in the 2017 QI Agreement and would make it more difficult for the IRS to verify compliance with the QDD rules. However, to provide the IRS with flexibility to administer the QDD regime, an eligible entity is defined to include any other person acceptable to the IRS, which is similar to the allowance provided to the IRS in defining persons eligible to enter into a QI agreement as provided in § 1.1441-1(e)(5)(ii)(D).

    A comment also raised a technical issue with who can qualify as a QI, expressing concern that some eligible entities that are not foreign financial institutions may not be able to enter into QI agreements because they are not eligible to become a QI. The 2017 QI Agreement and these final regulations now clarify that an eligible entity (notwithstanding that the entity otherwise would not be eligible to be a QI) can enter into a QI agreement in order to implement the QDD provisions.

    C. Section 871(m) Amount and QDD's Tax Liability

    Section 1.871-15T(q)(1) of the 2015 temporary regulations provided that a QDD generally would not be liable for tax under section 871 or 881 on a dividend or dividend equivalent payment that the QDD receives in its capacity as a QDD, provided that the QDD complies with its obligations under the qualified intermediary agreement. Section 1.1441-1T(e)(6) of the 2015 temporary regulations provided that a QDD would not be subject to withholding on such dividends or dividend equivalents. Section D of this Part IX describes certain changes to the foregoing rules that the Treasury Department and the IRS determined are appropriate in light of the adoption of the net delta approach described in this Part IX.C.

    Section 1.871-15T(q)(1) of the 2015 temporary regulations further provides that, if a QDD receives a dividend or dividend equivalent payment and the offsetting dividend equivalent payment the QDD is contractually obligated to make on the same underlying security is less than the dividend and dividend equivalent amount the QDD received, the QDD would be liable for tax under section 871(a) or 881 for the difference.

    The QI Notice described proposed changes to the QI agreement that would implement the QDD tax liability described in § 1.871-15T(q). Under the QI Notice, a QDD's section 871(m) amount for a dividend was the excess of the dividends on underlying securities associated with potential section 871(m) transactions and dividend equivalent payments that it received that reference the same dividend over dividend equivalent payments and any qualifying dividend equivalent offsetting payment that the QDD made or was contractually obligated to make with respect to the same dividend. The QI Notice described a qualifying dividend equivalent offsetting payment as (a) any payment made or contractually obligated to be made to a United States person that would be a dividend equivalent payment if made to a person who was not a United States person and (b) any payment made to a foreign person that would be a dividend equivalent payment if the payment were not treated as income effectively connected with the conduct of a U.S. trade or business.

    In addition, the QI Notice proposed rules regarding how a QDD would calculate its QDD tax liability. Specifically, under the QI Notice, the QDD tax liability was the sum of a QDD's liability under sections 871(a) and 881 for (a) its section 871(m) amount; (b) its dividends that are not on underlying securities associated with potential section 871(m) transactions and its dividend equivalent payments received as a QDD in its non-dealer capacity; and (c) any other payments, such as interest, received as a QDD with respect to potential section 871(m) transactions or underlying securities that are not dividend or dividend equivalent payments.

    Comments requested that a QDD be permitted to elect to calculate its section 871(m) amount either by using (1) the method described in the QI Notice or (2) its net delta exposure to an underlying security. According to comments, the net delta exposure is a calculation, measured in shares of stock, that aggregates all the shares of an underlying security and all equity derivative transactions referring to the same underlying security that the QDD has entered into in a dealer capacity (whether customer transactions or hedging transactions). Comments explained that net delta accurately measures a QDD's residual exposure to an underlying security. Comments noted that financial institutions use net delta exposure for business and non-tax regulatory purposes.

    Comments also requested that the Treasury Department and the IRS expand the offsetting dividend equivalent payment to include all customer transactions, such as potential section 871(m) transactions with a delta below 0.8, grandfathered transactions, and transactions that reference a qualified index.

    In response to comments relating to the QI Notice, Notice 2016-76 announced that the regulations would be revised to require a QDD to calculate its section 871(m) amount based on the net delta approach. The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that the net delta approach provides an administrable and accurate method for a QDD to determine its residual exposure to underlying securities. The Treasury Department and the IRS, however, do not agree with comments indicating that QDDs should be permitted to elect to use the net delta exposure method or the rule described in the QI Notice. It would be burdensome to the IRS to administer a system that permits a QDD to use multiple methods to calculate its section 871(m) amount. The Treasury Department and the IRS, however, will consider comments that explain in more detail why a choice of methods for determining the section 871(m) amount is in the best interests of both taxpayers and the government.

    These final regulations further explain how a QDD's section 871(m) amount is computed. The amount is determined separately for each dividend on an underlying security. For example, if a QDD enters into section 871(m) transactions that reference stock A (which pays a $5 dividend per share), hedges the transactions by acquiring actual shares of stock, and has a net delta exposure to one share of stock, the QDD will have a tax liability pursuant to sections 871(a) and 881 with respect to a $5 dividend based on its net delta exposure to one share of stock A. Amounts with respect to other dividends on the same stock or another stock are not taken into account.

    Because these final regulations adopt the net delta exposure method for calculating the section 871(m) amount, the concepts of offsetting dividend equivalent payments and qualifying dividend equivalent offsetting payments have been eliminated from these final regulations.

    These final regulations revise the calculation of a QDD's tax liability on the section 871(m) amount to correspond with the changes regarding the determination of the section 871(m) amount discussed in this section and the changes to withholding on payments to a QDD that are discussed in the following section of this preamble. Specifically, a QDD's tax liability on its section 871(m) amount is, for each dividend on each underlying security, the amount by which its tax liability under section 881 for its section 871(m) amount exceeds the amount of tax paid by the QDD under section 881 (including amounts withheld on payments to the QDD) on dividend payments received by the QDD in its capacity as an equity derivatives dealer. The QDD also is liable for tax under section 881 for dividend equivalent payments received by a QDD in its non-equity derivatives dealer capacity and for any other payments (including dividends) it receives as a QDD to the extent the full liability was not satisfied by withholding.

    D. Withholding on Dividends Paid to a QDD

    In general, under the law in effect prior to 2017, an eligible entity that would qualify as a QDD under these final regulations generally was subject to tax under section 881 and to withholding tax under chapters 3 and 4 on actual dividends in the same manner as any other foreign recipient. As described in the preceding section, the 2015 temporary regulations provided that a QDD would no longer be subject to tax or to withholding on actual dividends received in its capacity as a QDD. The Treasury Department and the IRS are concerned that this exemption in the 2015 temporary regulations, when combined with the net delta exposure method, could result in U.S. source dividends escaping U.S. tax completely in certain circumstances. For example, if a QDD holds physical shares of an underlying security that it uses to hedge a delta 0.5 option, both the dividend and the option would not be subject to tax under section 871 or section 881. In response to this concern, Notice 2016-76 announced that the Treasury Department and the IRS intended to revise §§ 1.871-15T(q)(1) and 1.1441-1(b)(4)(xxii) to provide that a QDD will remain liable for tax under section 881(a)(1) and subject to withholding under chapters 3 and 4 on dividends on physical shares and deemed dividends received. These final regulations revise §§ 1.871-15T(q)(1) and 1.1441-1(b)(4)(xxii) accordingly. However, as announced in the 2017 QI Agreement, in order to allow taxpayers time to implement the net delta approach, these regulations continue to provide that dividends on physical shares and deemed dividends received by a QDD in its QDD capacity in 2017 will not be subject to tax under section 881(a)(1) or subject to withholding under chapters 3 and 4. A QDD will be subject to withholding on dividends (including deemed dividends) received on or after January 1, 2018.

    The Treasury Department and the IRS will consider comments recommending approaches for alleviating any overwithholding (and preventing any underwithholding) that might occur on dealer transactions with customers and on positions that hedge customer transactions when withholding on dividends (including deemed dividends) paid to QDDs resumes in 2018.

    The QI Notice provided that a withholding agent (other than a withholding agent that itself was acting as a QDD) would not be required to withhold or report on payments made to a QDD with respect to potential section 871(m) transactions and underlying securities, other than reporting for dividends and substitute dividends. A comment requested that a withholding agent should only be exempt from withholding and reporting on dividends and dividend equivalents paid to a QDD. In response to this comment, the 2017 QI Agreement provides that all payments (other than dividend equivalent payments) made to a QDD with respect to underlying securities will be subject to withholding and reporting if the payments would be subject to withholding and reporting to a non-QDD. Consistent with the 2017 QI Agreement, the final regulations provide that all payments (other than dividend equivalent payments) made to a QDD with respect to underlying securities will be subject to withholding and reporting if those payments would be subject to withholding and reporting when received by a foreign person.

    E. Dealer Versus Proprietary Capacity

    The 2015 temporary regulations only permitted a taxpayer to act as a QDD with respect to certain payments received in its dealer capacity. Comments requested that a taxpayer be permitted to act as a QDD for payments received in its proprietary capacity for administrative reasons. The QI Notice and the 2017 QI Agreement reflect this change to the scope of QDD payments. The change in QDD scope does not impact the limitation on amounts entitled to be offset, which remain limited to dealer activity.

    Consistent with the 2015 regulations, the QI Notice and the 2017 QI Agreement provide that, for purposes of determining the QDD tax liability, payments received by a QDD acting as a proprietary trader are treated as payments received in its non-dealer capacity, while transactions properly reflected in a QDD's dealer book are presumed to be held by a dealer in its dealer capacity. For purposes of determining the QDD tax liability, dealer activity is limited to its activity as an equity derivatives dealer. One comment requested that the regulations clarify and qualify the distinction between receiving a payment in a dealer versus in a proprietary trader capacity and the impact of the distinction on the ability of an entity to act as a QDD. The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that the regulations adequately delineate between dealer and proprietary transactions in § 1.871-15(q)(2).

    F. Timing of Withholding

    Generally, newly redesignated § 1.1441-2(e)(7) (formerly § 1.1441-2(e)(8)) provides that a withholding agent must withhold on a dividend equivalent on the later of the date on which the amount of the dividend equivalent is determined and the date that a payment occurs. A payment generally occurs when money or other property is paid to or by the long party, or the long party sells, exchanges, transfers, or otherwise disposes of a section 871(m) transaction. Notwithstanding this general rule applicable to withholding agents, the QI Notice announced that a QDD must withhold with respect to a dividend equivalent payment on the dividend payment date for the applicable dividend on the underlying security as determined in § 1.1441-2(e)(4).

    Comments noted that this change would require a QDD to pay tax prior to the date that other withholding agents would have been required to withhold. In addition, comments expressed concern that this rule would result in cashless withholding for many transactions. Comments also noted that withholding agents have been building withholding systems according to the general rule provided in the final section 871(m) regulations. Comments recommended that the final section 871(m) regulations be amended to permit a QDD to elect to withhold on the payment of the dividend equivalent as provided in newly redesignated § 1.1441-2(e)(7) or on the dividend payment date as determined in § 1.1441-2(e)(4).

    The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that a QDD should continue to be required to withhold on the dividend payment date as determined in § 1.1441-2(e)(4), because the time that a QDD withholds on customer transactions should match the time period for which it determines its own tax liability with respect to the section 871(m) amount. This is because the withholding tax that may apply to customer transactions is the justification for relieving the QDD from tax on its section 871(m) amount. In addition, this rule simplifies the reconciliation statement, makes it easier for reviewers and the IRS to verify that a QDD has complied with the requirements of the 2017 QI Agreement, and avoids a number of other issues that would arise under the requested approach, including statute of limitation issues. With respect to the concerns expressed regarding the need to build systems, the Treasury Department and the IRS note that this timing rule is consistent with the rule that was proposed in the QI Notice, released July 1, 2016. Moreover, as described in Notice 2016-76, during 2017, the IRS will take into account the extent to which a QDD has made a good faith effort to comply with the QDD provisions in the QI agreement when enforcing those provisions.

    G. Qualified Securities Lenders (QSL) and Credit Forward

    Notice 2010-46, 2010-24 I.R.B. 757 (see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b)), (QSL Notice) outlined a proposed credit forward system that allowed a withholding agent to limit the aggregate U.S. gross-basis tax in a series of securities lending transactions to the amount of U.S. gross-basis tax applicable to the foreign taxpayer receiving a substitute or actual dividend in the series of transactions who bears the highest rate of U.S. gross-basis tax. The preamble to the 2015 regulations indicated that the credit forward system remained under consideration, but noted that, during the transition period provided in Notice 2010-46, the IRS has experienced difficulty verifying that prior withholding has occurred. Comments were requested on the need for the regime and how it could be implemented.

    Comments requested that the credit forward system be retained. One comment requested that the credit forward system be retained when QDD status was not available. In contrast, another comment suggested that the stringency resulting from tightening the eligibility requirements for QDDs to QIs that are subject to reporting and compliance requirements would improve the ability to verify that prior withholding occurred.

    As discussed in Part IX.B of this preamble the Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that it is not appropriate to permit credits or offsets for any entity that does not qualify as an eligible entity. In reaching this conclusion, the Treasury Department and the IRS agree with the comment that indicated that the QDD rules provide a more administrable method of determining that withholding properly occurred. If the entity is acting as an intermediary instead of acting as a principal, it may choose to be a QI that is not a QDD. The second comment did not explain why the existing QDD regime is insufficient.

    In addition to comments regarding the credit forward system, a comment requested that QSL status be preserved as a standalone rule for securities lending transactions that are part of a separate line of business from other potential section 871(m) transactions. Another comment recommended reverting to the eligibility requirements for a QSL in the QSL Notice by extending QDD status to custodian QIs that are subject to regulatory supervision by a governmental authority in the jurisdiction in which the entity was created, as long as the entity agrees to assume primary withholding and reporting responsibility with respect to dividend equivalent payments and complies with all QDD certification requirements.

    While the Treasury Department and the IRS understand that the QSL regime was administratively more convenient for taxpayers than the QI regime, it created administrability problems, particularly with respect to verification, for the IRS. That regime is being replaced by incorporating the QDD rules into the existing QI framework, including the specific rules for pooled reporting on Form 1042-S, and the QI requirements for compliance review and certification. With respect to banks, custodians, and clearing organizations that do not issue potential section 871(m) transactions to customers, the Treasury Department and the IRS are concerned that reverting to the eligibility requirements for a QSL in the QSL Notice would permit an entity to act as a QDD that does not act as a financial intermediary in a chain of section 871(m) transactions.

    As part of the transition relief announced in Notice 2016-76, the Treasury Department and the IRS announced that taxpayers may continue to rely on the QSL Notice during 2017. The QSL Notice will be obsoleted as of January 1, 2018.

    X. Rules for Withholding on Dividend Equivalents

    Newly designated § 1.1441-2(e)(7) provides that a withholding agent is not obligated to withhold on a dividend equivalent until the later of when a payment is made with respect to a section 871(m) transaction and when the amount of a dividend equivalent is determined. For purposes of § 1.1441-2(e)(7), a payment with respect to a section 871(m) transaction occurs when the long party receives or makes a payment, when there is a final settlement of the section 871(m) transaction, or when the long party sells or otherwise disposes of the section 871(m) transaction. The 2015 final regulations adopted this approach in response to taxpayer comments.

    A. Transactions Transferred to a Different Account

    The 2015 final regulations provide that a payment occurs when the long party sells or disposes of a section 871(m) transaction; however, when a long party transfers a section 871(m) transaction from one broker or custodian to another broker or custodian, the 2015 final regulations do not treat that transfer as a payment. A comment noted that it is common for investors to change relationships with brokers and custodians who hold their securities, which may result in section 871(m) transactions being transferred from one broker or custodian to another. The comment asserted that it is inappropriate and burdensome for a withholding agent to be responsible for dividend equivalent amount calculations relating to dividends that occurred before the date that the new broker or custodian holds the section 871(m) transaction on behalf of a long party. The comment recommended that the Treasury Department and the IRS amend the 2015 final regulations to provide that a transfer of a section 871(m) transaction from one broker or custodian to another, without a change in beneficial ownership, constitutes a payment for purposes of § 1.1441-2(e)(7).

    The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that requiring a broker or custodian to withhold on dividend equivalent payments that occurred before holding a section 871(m) transaction on behalf of a customer would be burdensome to the withholding agent. As a result, § 1.1441-2(e)(7) is revised to provide that a payment of a dividend equivalent occurs when a section 871(m) transaction is transferred to an account not maintained by the withholding agent or upon a termination of the account relationship.

    B. Option To Withhold on Dividend Payment Date

    While § 1.1441-2(e)(7) generally defers withholding on a section 871(m) transaction until there is a payment made pursuant to the transaction, comments noted that § 1.1441-2(e)(7) will require cashless withholding in certain circumstances. To implement the 2015 final regulations, comments noted that market participants would be required to develop or amend collateral and indemnity arrangements with customers. Some comments recommended amending the 2015 final regulations to allow withholding agents to treat a dividend equivalent as paid and subject to withholding on the dividend payment date for the underlying security referenced by the section 871(m) transaction. Comments indicated that some withholding agents believe that it will be easier to implement withholding on the dividend payment date for the underlying security because their systems are already designed to track the time and amount of actual dividends. Many withholding agents, however, have contractual agreements with customers that prohibit withholding earlier than a date permitted by regulations.

    The Treasury Department and the IRS appreciate that some withholding agents would rather not develop new systems to track dividend equivalents over multiple years, while other financial institutions prefer the time for withholding provided by § 1.1441-2(e)(7). To accommodate both approaches, the Treasury Department and the IRS are amending the regulations to allow withholding agents the flexibility to withhold either based on the “later of” rule, as determined under § 1.1441-2(e)(7), or on the dividend payment date for the underlying security. This change will allow withholding agents that prefer to withhold on the dividend payment date to do so, without eliminating the “later of” rule in § 1.1441-2(e)(7) that generally ties withholding to a cash payment. As discussed in Part IX.F of this preamble, if a withholding agent acts as a QDD, it will be required to use the dividend payment date.

    A withholding agent that chooses to withhold on the dividend payment date for the underlying security referenced by the section 871(m) transaction must apply the election consistently to all section 871(m) transactions of the same type. In other words, a withholding agent that chooses to withhold on the dividend payment date for securities lending transactions must do so for all securities lending transactions, but may choose to withhold on NPCs under the rule in § 1.1441-2(e)(7). When a withholding agent withholds on the dividend payment date under this alternate method, the withholding agent must notify each payee in writing before the time for determining the long party's first dividend equivalent payment. A withholding agent that withholds on the dividend payment date for the underlying security also must attach a statement to its Form 1042 for the year of the change notifying the IRS of the change and when it applies.

    XI. Applicability Date

    The current regulations provide that § 1.871-15(d)(2) and (e) apply to any payment made on or after January 1, 2017, with respect to any transaction issued on or after January 1, 2017. Several comments requested that implementation of these provisions be delayed until at least January 1, 2018. One comment requested that implementation be delayed until at least one year after the date guidance resolving all issues raised by the comment is issued. The primary reasons comments provided for the requests to delay implementation were the need for additional guidance, the need for additional time to make systems operational, and the recent release of additional QDD guidance in the QI Notice and in Notice 2016-76. Comments also requested a delay in the combination rule generally. Another comment agreed with the request for a delayed effective date for the combination rule, unless the rule was revised to require withholding agents only to combine transactions that the withholding agent has actual knowledge are priced, marketed, or sold in connection with each other. A comment also requested a transition period until December 31, 2018, for enforcement and administration of QDD obligations.

    The 2013 proposed regulations provided that the proposed sections would apply to payments made on or after the date the regulations were finalized. However, when the regulations were finalized in 2015, the Treasury Department and the IRS provided that the regulations generally would only apply to transactions issued on or after January 1, 2017, to ensure adequate time to develop systems needed to implement the regulations.

    Both the 2015 regulations and the amendments to those regulations that are included in these regulations, many of which were previously announced in the QI Notice, Notice 2016-76, and the 2017 QI Agreement, make the withholding required under section 871(m) easier to implement and more administrable. In light of these revisions, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that it is not necessary or appropriate to uniformly extend the applicability date for all section 871(m) transactions. In particular, taxpayers have had ample time to develop systems to implement withholding on section 871(m) transactions that are delta one transactions. The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined, however, that taxpayers and withholding agents need additional time to implement the section 871(m) regulations for section 871(m) transactions other than delta one transactions. Accordingly, these regulations postpone the implementation of the section 871(m) regulations with respect to non-delta one transactions until January 1, 2018.

    In addition, in response to comments, Notice 2016-76 announced transition relief for combined transactions by providing a simplified rule for withholding agents to determine whether transactions entered into in 2017 are combined transactions. Also in response to comments, Notice 2016-76 delayed the application of section 871(m) for certain exchange-traded notes. Notice 2016-76 also announced that calendar years 2017 and 2018 would be phase-in years. In enforcing and administering section 871(m) (1) with respect to delta-one transactions in 2017, and (2) with respect to non-delta-one transactions in 2018, the IRS will take into account the extent to which the taxpayer or withholding agent made a good faith effort to comply with the section 871(m) regulations. Similarly, Notice 2016-76 and the 2017 QI Agreement provide that calendar year 2017 will be a phase-in year for QDDs. As discussed in Part XI.D, the 2017 QI Agreement and these regulations provide that a QDD will not be subject to withholding on actual or deemed dividends in 2017. Finally, the 2017 QI Agreement and these final regulations do not impose tax on a QDD's section 871(m) amount for tax years beginning before January 1, 2018.

    Effect on Other Documents

    Notice 2010-46 (2010-24 I.R.B. 757) is obsolete as of January 1, 2018.

    Special Analyses

    Certain IRS regulations, including these, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that few, if any, small entities will be affected by these regulations. The regulations primarily will affect multinational financial institutions, which tend to be larger businesses, and foreign persons. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding this regulation was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.

    Drafting Information

    The principal authors of these regulations are D. Peter Merkel and Karen Walny of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). Other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS also participated in the development of these regulations.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

    PART 1—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 is amended by removing the sectional authority for § 1.871-15 and adding in its place a sectional authority for §§ 1.871-15 and 1.871-15T to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    §§ 1.871-15 and 1.871-15T also issued under 26 U.S.C. 871(m). * * *

    Par. 2. Section 1.871-15 is amended by: 1. Revising paragraph (a)(1). 2. Revising paragraph (a)(14)(i). 3. Adding a new second sentence to paragraph (a)(14)(ii)(B). 4. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(ii). 5. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(iv). 6. Revising paragraphs (g)(2) through (g)(3), redesignating paragraph (g)(4) as (g)(5), and adding new paragraph (g)(4). 7. Revising paragraph (h). 8. Revising paragraphs (i)(3)(ii) and (i)(3)(iii). 9. Adding introductory text to paragraph (j)(1). 10. Adding paragraph (j)(4). 11. Revising paragraph (l)(2). 12. Revising paragraph (l)(4). 13. Redesignating paragraphs (n)(3)(i) and (n)(3)(ii) as (n)(3)(ii) and (n)(3)(iii), respectively. 14. Adding new paragraph (n)(3)(i). 15. Revising paragraph (p)(1). 16. Adding paragraphs (p)(4)(iii) and (p)(5). 17. Revising paragraph (q). 18. Revising paragraphs (r)(3) and (r)(4). 19. Adding paragraph (r)(5).

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 1.871-15 Treatment of dividend equivalents.

    (a) * * * (1) Broker. [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.871-15T(a)(1).

    (14) * * * (i) Simple contract. A simple contract is an NPC or ELI for which, with respect to each underlying security, all amounts to be paid or received on maturity, exercise, or any other payment determination date are calculated by reference to a single, fixed number of shares (as determined in paragraph (j)(3) of this section) of the underlying security, provided that the number of shares can be ascertained at the calculation time for the contract, and there is a single maturity or exercise date with respect to which all amounts (other than any upfront payment or any periodic payments) are required to be calculated with respect to the underlying security. For purposes of this section, a contract that provides an adjustment to the number of shares of the underlying security for a merger, stock split, cash dividend, or similar corporate action that affects all holders of the underlying securities proportionately will not cease to be treated as referencing a single, fixed number of shares solely as a result of that provision. A contract has a single exercise date even though it may be exercised by the holder at any time on or before the stated expiration of the contract. An NPC or ELI that includes a term that discontinuously increases or decreases the amount paid or received (such as a digital option), or that accelerates or extends the maturity is not a simple contract. A simple contract that is an NPC is a simple NPC. A simple contract that is an ELI is a simple ELI.

    (ii) * * * (B)

    Example.

    * * * Pursuant to paragraph (j)(3) of the section, the ELI references 200 shares when Stock X appreciates, but only 100 shares when Stock X depreciates. * * *

    (c) * * *

    (2) * * * (ii) Section 305 coordination. A dividend equivalent received by a long party, who is a shareholder as defined in § 1.305-1(d) of an instrument that gives rise to a dividend pursuant to sections 305(b) and (c) (including a debt instrument that is convertible into shares of stock and stock that is convertible into shares of another class of stock) that is also a section 871(m) transaction, is reduced by any amount treated as a dividend by sections 305(b) and (c) to the long party. For other section 871(m) transactions that reference an underlying security that is an instrument treated as paying a dividend pursuant to sections 305(b) and (c) and for which the long party is not a shareholder as defined in § 1.305-1(d), the dividend equivalent received by the long party with respect to the section 871(m) transaction includes (and is not reduced by) any amount treated as a dividend pursuant to sections 305(b) and (c).

    (iv) Payments made pursuant to annuity, endowment, and life insurance contracts—(A) Insurance contracts issued by domestic insurance companies. A payment made pursuant to a contract that is an annuity, endowment, or life insurance contract issued by a domestic corporation (including its foreign or U.S. possession branch) that is a life insurance company described in section 816(a) does not include a dividend equivalent if the payment is subject to tax under section 871(a) or section 881.

    (B) Insurance contracts issued by foreign insurance companies. A payment does not include a dividend equivalent if it is made pursuant to a contract that is an annuity, endowment, or life insurance contract issued by a foreign corporation that would be subject to tax under subchapter L if it were a domestic corporation.

    (C) Insurance contracts held by foreign insurance companies. A payment made pursuant to a policy of insurance (including a policy of reinsurance) does not include a dividend equivalent if it is made to a foreign corporation that would be subject to tax under subchapter L if it were a domestic corporation.

    (g) * * *

    (2) Time for determining delta—(i) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (g)(4) of this section, the delta of a potential section 871(m) transaction is determined at the calculation time for the potential section 871(m) transaction.

    (ii) Calculation time. The calculation time for a potential section 871(m) transaction is the earlier of when the potential section 871(m) transaction is priced and when the potential section 871(m) transaction is issued. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if the pricing time is more than 14 calendar days before the potential section 871(m) transaction is issued, the calculation time is when the potential section 871(m) transaction is issued.

    (iii) Pricing time. A potential section 871(m) transaction is priced when all material economic terms for the transaction have been agreed upon, including the price at which the transaction is sold.

    (3) Simplified delta calculation for certain simple contracts that reference multiple underlying securities. If an NPC or ELI references 10 or more underlying securities and an exchange-traded security (for example, an exchange-traded fund) is available that would fully hedge the NPC or ELI at the calculation time, the delta of the NPC or ELI may be calculated by determining the ratio of the change in the fair market value of the simple contract to a small change in the fair market value of the exchange-traded security. A delta determined under this paragraph (g)(3) must be used as the delta for each underlying security for purposes of calculating the amount of a dividend equivalent as provided in paragraph (j)(1)(ii) of this section.

    (4) Delta calculation for listed options—(i) In general. The delta of an option contract that is listed on a regulated exchange described in paragraph (g)(4)(ii) of this section is the delta of that option at the close of business on the business day before the date of issuance. On the date an option contract is listed for the first time, the delta is the delta of that option at the close of business on the date of issuance. Notwithstanding the preceding two sentences, the delta of a listed option that is also a customized option is determined under the rules of paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of this section.

    (ii) Regulated exchange. For purposes of paragraph (g)(4)(i) of this section, a regulated exchange is any exchange that is either:

    (A) Described in paragraph (l)(3)(vii) of this section; or

    (B) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.871-15T(g)(4)(ii)(B).

    (h) Substantial equivalence test—(1) In general. The substantial equivalence test described in this paragraph (h) applies to determine whether a complex contract is a section 871(m) transaction. The substantial equivalence test assesses whether a complex contract substantially replicates the economic performance of the underlying security by comparing, at various testing prices for the underlying security, the differences between the expected changes in value of that complex contract and its initial hedge with the differences between the expected changes in value of a simple contract benchmark (as described in paragraph (h)(2) of this section) and its initial hedge. If the complex contract contains more than one reference to a single underlying security, all references to that underlying security are taken into account for purposes of applying the substantial equivalence test with respect to that underlying security. With respect to an equity derivative that is embedded in a debt instrument or other derivative, the substantial equivalence test is applied to the complex contract without taking into account changes in the market value of the debt instrument or other derivative that are not directly related to the equity element of the instrument. The complex contract is a section 871(m) transaction with respect to an underlying security if, for that underlying security, the expected change in value of the complex contract and its initial hedge is equal to or less than the expected change in value of the simple contract benchmark and its initial hedge when the substantial equivalence test described in this paragraph (h) is calculated at the calculation time for the complex contract. To the extent that the steps of the substantial equivalence test set out in this paragraph (h) cannot be applied to a particular complex contract, a taxpayer must use the principles of the substantial equivalence test to reasonably determine whether the complex contract is a section 871(m) transaction with respect to each underlying security. For purposes of this section, the test must be applied and the inputs must be determined in a commercially reasonable manner. The term of the simple contract benchmark must be, and the inputs must use, a reasonable time period, consistently applied (for example, in determining the standard deviation and probability). If a taxpayer calculates any relevant input for non-tax business purposes, that input ordinarily is the input used for purposes of this section.

    (2) Simple contract benchmark. The simple contract benchmark is an actual or hypothetical simple contract that, at the calculation time for the complex contract, has a delta of 0.8, references the applicable underlying security referenced by the complex contract, and has terms that are consistent with all the material terms of the complex contract, including the maturity date. If an actual simple contract does not exist, the taxpayer must create a hypothetical simple contract. Depending on the complex contract, the simple contract benchmark might be, for example, a call option, a put option, or a collar.

    (3) Substantial equivalence. A complex contract is a section 871(m) transaction with respect to an underlying security if the complex contract calculation described in paragraph (h)(4) of this section results in an amount that is equal to or less than the amount of the benchmark calculation described in paragraph (h)(5) of this section.

    (4) Complex contract calculation—(i) In general. The complex contract calculation for each underlying security referenced by a potential section 871(m) transaction that is a complex contract is computed by:

    (A) Determining the change in value (as described in paragraph (h)(4)(ii) of this section) of the complex contract with respect to the underlying security at each testing price (as described in paragraph (h)(4)(iii) of this section);

    (B) Determining the change in value of the initial hedge for the complex contract at each testing price;

    (C) Determining the absolute value of the difference between the change in value of the complex contract determined in paragraph (h)(4)(i)(A) of this section and the change in value of the initial hedge determined in paragraph (h)(4)(i)(B) of this section at each testing price;

    (D) Determining the probability (as described in paragraph (h)(4)(iv) of this section) associated with each testing price;

    (E) Multiplying the absolute value for each testing price determined in paragraph (h)(4)(i)(C) of this section by the corresponding probability for that testing price determined in paragraph (h)(4)(i)(D) of this section;

    (F) Adding the product of each calculation determined in paragraph (h)(4)(i)(E) of this section; and

    (G) Dividing the sum determined in paragraph (h)(4)(i)(F) of this section by the initial hedge for the complex contract.

    (ii) Determining the change in value. The change in value of a complex contract is the difference between the value of the complex contract with respect to the underlying security at the calculation time for the complex contract and the value of the complex contract with respect to the underlying security if the price of the underlying security were equal to the testing price at the calculation time for the complex contract. The change in value of the initial hedge of a complex contract with respect to the underlying security is the difference between the value of the initial hedge at the calculation time for the complex contract and the value of the initial hedge if the price of the underlying security were equal to the testing price at the calculation time for the complex contract.

    (iii) Testing price. The testing prices must include the prices of the underlying security if the price of the underlying security at the calculation time for the complex contract were alternatively increased by one standard deviation and decreased by one standard deviation, each of which is a separate testing price. In circumstances where using only two testing prices is reasonably likely to provide an inaccurate measure of substantial equivalence, a taxpayer must use additional testing prices as necessary to determine whether a complex contract satisfies the substantial equivalence test. If additional testing prices are used for the substantial equivalence test, the probabilities as described in paragraph (h)(4)(iv) of this section must be adjusted accordingly.

    (iv) Probability. For purposes of paragraphs (h)(4)(i)(D) and (E) of this section, the probability of an increase by one standard deviation is the measure of the likelihood that the price of the underlying security will increase by any amount from its price at the calculation time for the complex contract. For purposes of paragraphs (h)(4)(i)(D) and (E) of this section, the probability of a decrease by one standard deviation is the measure of the likelihood that the price of the underlying security will decrease by any amount from its price at the calculation time for the complex contract.

    (5) Benchmark calculation. The benchmark calculation with respect to each underlying security referenced by the potential section 871(m) transaction is determined by using the computation methodology described in paragraph (h)(4) of this section with respect to a simple contract benchmark for the underlying security.

    (6) Substantial equivalence calculation for certain complex contracts that reference multiple underlying securities. If a complex contract references 10 or more underlying securities and an exchange-traded security (for example, an exchange-traded fund) is available that would fully hedge the complex contract at its calculation time, the substantial equivalence calculations for the complex contract may be calculated by treating the exchange-traded security as the underlying security. When the exchange-traded security is used for the substantial equivalence calculation pursuant to this paragraph (h)(6), the initial hedge is the number of shares of the exchange-traded security for purposes of calculating the amount of a dividend equivalent as provided in paragraph (j)(1)(iii) of this section.

    (7) Example. The following example illustrates the rules of paragraph (h) of this section. For purposes of this example, Stock X is common stock of domestic corporation X. FI is the financial institution that structures the transaction described in the example, and is the short party to the transaction. Investor is a nonresident alien individual.

    Example.

    Complex contract that is not substantially equivalent. (i) FI issues an investment contract (the Contract) that has a stated maturity of one year, and Investor purchases the Contract from FI at issuance for $10,000. At maturity, the Contract entitles Investor to a return of $10,000 (i) plus 200 percent of any appreciation in Stock X above $100 per share, capped at $110, on 100 shares or (ii) minus 100 percent of any depreciation in Stock X below $90 on 100 shares. At the calculation time for the Contract, the price of Stock X is $100 per share. Thus, for example, Investor will receive $11,000 if the price of Stock X is $105 per share at maturity of the Contract, but Investor will receive $9,000 if the price of Stock X is $80 per share when the Contract matures. At issuance, FI acquires 64 shares of Stock X to fully hedge the Contract issued to Investor. The calculation time for this example is the issuance.

    (ii) The Contract references an underlying security and is not an NPC, so it is classified as an ELI under paragraph (a)(4) of this section. At the calculation time for the Contract, the Contract does not provide for an amount paid at maturity that is calculated by reference to a single, fixed number of shares of Stock X. When the Contract matures, the amount paid is effectively calculated based on either 200 shares of Stock X (if the price of Stock X has appreciated up to $110) or 100 shares of Stock X (if the price of Stock X has declined below $90). Consequently, the Contract is a complex contract described in paragraph (a)(14) of this section.

    (iii) Because it is a complex ELI, FI applies the substantial equivalence test described in paragraph (h) of this section to determine whether the Contract is a specified ELI. FI determines that the price of Stock X would be $120 if the price of Stock X were increased by one standard deviation, and $79 if the price of Stock X were decreased by one standard deviation. Based on these results, FI next determines the change in value of the Contract to be $2000 at the testing price that represents an increase by one standard deviation ($12,000 testing price minus $10,000 issue price) and a negative $1,100 at the testing price that represents a decrease by one standard deviation ($10,000 issue price minus $8,900 testing price). FI performs the same calculations for the 64 shares of Stock X that constitute the initial hedge, determining that the change in value of the initial hedge is $1,280 at the testing price that represents an increase by one standard deviation ($6,400 at issuance compared to $7,680 at the testing price) and negative $1,344 at the testing price that represents a decrease by one standard deviation ($6,400 at issuance compared to $5,056 at the testing price).

    (iv) FI then determines the absolute value of the difference between the change in value of the initial hedge and the Contract at the testing price that represents an increase by one standard deviation and a decrease by one standard deviation. Increased by one standard deviation, the absolute value of the difference is $720 ($2,000-$1,280); decreased by one standard deviation, the absolute value of the difference is $244 (negative $1,100 minus negative $1,344). FI determines that there is a 52% chance that the price of Stock X will have increased in value when the Contract matures and a 48% chance that the price of Stock X will have decreased in value at that time. FI multiplies the absolute value of the difference between the change in value of the initial hedge and the Contract at the testing price that represents an increase by one standard deviation by 52%, which equals $374.40. FI multiplies the absolute value of the difference between the change in value of the initial hedge and the Contract at the testing price that represents a decrease by one standard deviation by 48%, which equals $117.12. FI adds these two numbers and divides by the number of shares that constitute the initial hedge to determine that the transaction calculation is 7.68 ((374.40 plus 117.12) divided by 64).

    (v) FI then performs the same calculation with respect to the simple contract benchmark, which is a one-year call option that references one share of Stock X, settles on the same date as the Contract, and has a delta of 0.8. The one-year call option has a strike price of $79 and has a cost (the purchase premium) of $22. The initial hedge for the one-year call option is 0.8 shares of Stock X.

    (vi) FI first determines that the change in value of the simple contract benchmark is $19.05 if the testing price is increased by one standard deviation ($22.00 at issuance to $41.05 at the testing price) and negative $20.95 if the testing price is decreased by one standard deviation ($22.00 at issuance to $1.05 at the testing price). Second, FI determines that the change in value of the initial hedge is $16.00 at the testing price that represents an increase by one standard deviation ($80 at issuance to $96 at the testing price) and negative $16.80 at the testing price that represents a decrease by one standard deviation ($80.00 at issuance to $63.20 at the testing price).

    (vii) FI determines the absolute value of the difference between the change in value of the initial hedge and the one-year call option at the testing price that represents an increase by one standard deviation is $3.05 ($16.00 minus $19.05). FI next determines the absolute value of the difference between the change in value of the initial hedge and the option at the testing price that represents a decrease by one standard deviation is $4.15 (negative $16.80 minus negative $20.95). FI multiplies the absolute value of the difference between the change in value of the initial hedge and the option at the testing price that represents an increase by one standard deviation by 52%, which equals $1.586. FI multiplies the absolute value of the difference between the change in value of the initial hedge and the option at the testing price that represents a decrease by one standard deviation by 48%, which equals $1.992. FI adds these two numbers and divides by the number of shares that constitute the initial hedge to determine that the benchmark calculation is 4.473 ((1.586 plus 1.992) divided by .8).

    (viii) FI concludes that the Contract is not a section 871(m) transaction because the transaction calculation of 7.68 exceeds the benchmark calculation of 4.473.

    (i) * * *

    (3) * * * (ii) Publicly available dividend amount. For purposes of paragraph (i)(3)(i) of this section, if a section 871(m) transaction references the same underlying securities as a security (for example, stock in an exchange-traded fund) or index for which there is a publicly available quarterly dividend amount, the publicly available dividend amount may be used to determine the per-share dividend amount for the section 871(m) transaction with any adjustment for special dividends.

    (iii) Dividend amount for a section 871(m) transaction using the simplified delta calculation. When the delta of a section 871(m) transaction is determined under paragraph (g)(3) of this section, the per-share dividend amount for that section 871(m) transaction must be determined using the dividend amount for the exchange-traded security that would fully hedge the section 871(m) transaction (whether or not the exchange-traded security is actually acquired).

    (j) * * * (1) Calculation of the amount of a dividend equivalent. The long party is liable for tax on any dividend equivalents required to be determined pursuant to paragraph (j)(2) of this section only with respect to dividend equivalents that arise while the long party is a party to the transaction. The amount of any dividend equivalent is determined as follows:

    (4) Taxable year of a dividend equivalent. A long party is liable for tax on a dividend equivalent in the year the dividend equivalent is subject to withholding pursuant to § 1.1441-2(e)(7). Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a long party that is a qualified derivatives dealer is liable for tax on a dividend equivalent when the applicable dividend on the underlying security would be subject to withholding pursuant to § 1.1441-2(e)(4). The amount of the long party's tax liability, however, is determined by reference to the amount that would have been due at the time the dividend equivalent amount is determined pursuant to paragraph (j)(2) of this section based on the beneficial owners at that time (for example, based on the tax rate at that time, whether the long party qualified for a treaty benefit at that time, and in the case of a partnership, based on the partners at that time).

    (l) * * *

    (2) Qualified index not treated as an underlying security—(i) In general. For purposes of this section, a qualified index is treated as a single security that is not an underlying security. The determination of whether an index referenced in a potential section 871(m) transaction is a qualified index is made at the calculation time for the transaction based on whether the index is a qualified index on the first business day of the calendar year containing the calculation time.

    (ii) Rule for the first year of an index. In the case of an index that was not in existence on the first business day of the calendar year containing the calculation time for the transaction, paragraph (l)(2) of this section is applied by testing the index on the first business day it is created, and the dividend yield calculation required by paragraph (l)(3)(vi) of this section is determined by using the dividend yield that the index would have had in the immediately preceding year if it had the same components throughout that year that it has on the day it is created.

    (4) Safe harbor for certain indices that reference assets other than underlying securities. Notwithstanding paragraph (l)(3) of this section, an index is a qualified index if the index is widely traded, the referenced component underlying securities in the aggregate comprise 10 percent or less of the weighting of the component securities in the index, and the index was not formed or availed of with a principal purpose of avoiding U.S. withholding tax.

    (n) * * *

    (3) Short party presumptions regarding combined transactions—(i) In general. If a short party relies on the presumption provided in paragraph (n)(3)(ii) of this section or in paragraph (n)(3)(iii) of this section, the short party is not required to treat those potential section 871(m) transactions as part of a single transaction pursuant to paragraph (n)(1) of this section.

    (p) * * * (1) Responsible party—(i) In general. If a broker or dealer is a party to a potential section 871(m) transaction with a counterparty or customer that is not a broker or dealer, the broker or dealer is required to determine whether the potential section 871(m) transaction is a section 871(m) transaction. If both parties to a potential section 871(m) transaction are brokers or dealers, or neither party to a potential section 871(m) transaction is a broker or dealer, the short party must determine whether the potential section 871(m) transaction is a section 871(m) transaction.

    (ii) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.871-15T(p)(1)(ii).

    (iii) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.871-15T(p)(1)(iii).

    (iv) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.871-15T(p)(1)(iv).

    (v) Obligations of the responsible party. The party to the transaction that is required to determine whether a transaction is a section 871(m) transaction must also determine and report to the counterparty or customer the timing and amount of any dividend equivalent (as described in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this section). Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (n)(3) of this section, the party required to make the determinations described in this paragraph is required to exercise reasonable diligence to determine whether a transaction is a section 871(m) transaction, the amount of any dividend equivalents, and any other information necessary to apply the rules of this section. The information must be provided in the manner prescribed in paragraphs (p)(2) and (p)(3) of this section. The determinations required by paragraph (p) of this section are binding on the parties to the potential section 871(m) transaction and on any person who is a withholding agent with respect to the potential section 871(m) transaction unless the person knows or has reason to know that the information received is incorrect. The determinations are not binding on the Commissioner.

    (4) * * *

    (iii) Recordkeeping required for certain options. With respect to any option to which paragraph (g)(4) of this section applies, contemporaneous documentation is not required to be retained provided that there is a pre-existing documented methodology that is sufficient to permit the delta for the transaction to be verified at a later time.

    (5) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.871-15T(p)(5).

    (q) Dividend and dividend equivalent payments to a qualified derivatives dealer—(1) In general. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (q), a qualified derivatives dealer described in § 1.1441-1(e)(6) that receives a payment (within the meaning of paragraph (i) of this section) of a dividend equivalent in its equity derivatives dealer capacity will not be liable for tax under section 881 on that dividend equivalent, provided that the qualified derivatives dealer complies with its obligations under the qualified intermediary agreement described in §§ 1.1441-1(e)(5) and 1.1441-1(e)(6). A qualified derivatives dealer is liable for tax under section 881(a)(1) on its section 871(m) amount for each dividend on each underlying security. This tax liability is reduced (but not below zero) by the amount of tax paid by the qualified derivatives dealer under section 881(a)(1) on dividends it receives with respect to that underlying security on that same dividend in its capacity as an equity derivatives dealer. In addition, a qualified derivatives dealer is liable for tax under section 881(a)(1) for all dividend equivalents it receives that are not received in its equity derivatives dealer capacity. A qualified derivatives dealer also is liable for tax under section 881(a)(1) for all dividends it receives, other than dividends received in 2017 in its equity derivatives dealer capacity. This paragraph does not apply for a qualified derivatives dealer that is a foreign branch of a United States financial institution (within the meaning of § 1.1471-5(e)).

    (2) Transactions on the books of an equity derivatives dealer. Transactions properly reflected in a qualified derivatives dealer's equity derivatives dealer book are presumed to be held by the dealer in its equity derivatives dealer capacity for purposes of determining the qualified derivatives dealer's tax liability. For purposes of determining whether a dealer is acting in its equity derivatives dealer capacity, only the dealer's activities as an equity derivatives dealer are taken into account. Accordingly, for purposes of this paragraph (q), a dividend or dividend equivalent is treated as received by a qualified derivatives dealer acting in its non-equity derivatives dealer capacity if the dividend or dividend equivalent is received by a qualified derivatives dealer acting as a proprietary trader.

    (3) Section 871(m) amount. For each dividend on each underlying security, the section 871(m) amount is the product of:

    (i) The qualified derivatives dealer's net delta exposure to the underlying security for the applicable dividend, multiplied by;

    (ii) The applicable dividend amount per share.

    (4) Net delta exposure. The net delta exposure to an underlying security is the amount (measured in number of shares) by which (A) the aggregate number of shares of an underlying security that the qualified derivatives dealer has exposure to as a result of positions in the underlying security (including as a result of owning the underlying security) with values that move in the same direction as the underlying security (the long positions) exceeds (B) the aggregate number of shares of an underlying security that the qualified derivatives dealer has exposure to as a result of positions in the underlying security with values that move in the opposite direction from the underlying security (the short positions). The net delta exposure calculation only includes long positions and short positions that the qualified derivatives dealer holds in its equity derivatives dealer capacity (as described in paragraph (q)(2) of this section). Any long positions or short positions that are treated as effectively connected with the qualified derivatives dealer's conduct of a trade or business in the United States for U.S. federal income tax purposes are excluded from the net delta exposure computation. The net delta exposure to an underlying security is determined at the end of the day on the date provided in § 1.871-15(j)(2) for the applicable dividend. For purposes of this calculation, net delta must be determined in a commercially reasonable manner. If a qualified derivatives dealer calculates net delta for non-tax business purposes, the net delta ordinary will be the delta used for that purpose, subject to the modifications required by this definition. Each qualified derivatives dealer must determine its net delta exposure separately only taking into account transactions that are recognized and are attributable to that qualified derivatives dealer for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

    (5) Examples. The following examples illustrate the rules of this paragraph (q):

    Example 1.

    Forward contract entered into by a foreign equity derivatives dealer. (i) Facts. FB is a foreign bank that is a qualified intermediary that acts as a qualified derivatives dealer. On April 1, Year 1, FB enters into a cash settled forward contract initiated by a foreign customer (Customer) that entitles Customer to receive from FB all of the appreciation and dividends on 100 shares of Stock X, and obligates Customer to pay FB any depreciation on 100 shares of Stock X, at the end of three years. FB hedges the forward contract by entering into a total return swap contract with a domestic broker (U.S. Broker) and maintains the swap contract as a hedge for the duration of the forward contract. The swap contract entitles FB to receive an amount equal to all of the dividends on 100 shares of Stock X and obligates FB to pay an amount referenced to a floating interest rate each quarter, and also entitles FB to receive from or pay to U.S. Broker, as the case may be, the difference between the value of 100 shares of Stock X at the inception of the swap and the value of 100 shares of Stock X at the end of 3 years. Stock X pays a quarterly dividend of $0.25 per share. At the end of the day on the date provided in paragraph (j)(2) of this section for the dividend, FB owns the forward contract and total return swap; FB does not own any shares of Stock X or any other transactions that reference Stock X. FB provides valid documentation to U.S. Broker that FB will receive payments under the swap contract in its capacity as a qualified derivatives dealer, and FB contemporaneously enters both the swap contract with U.S. Broker and the forward contract with Customer on its equity derivatives dealer books.

    (ii) Application of rules. At the end of the day on the date provided in paragraph (j)(2) of this section for the dividend, FB is a long party on a delta one contract (the total return swap) and a short party on a delta one contract (the forward contract with Customer). Pursuant to § 1.1441-1(b)(4)(xxii), U.S. Broker is not obligated to withhold on the dividend equivalent payments to FB on the swap contract that are referenced to Stock X dividends because U.S. Broker has received valid documentation that it may rely upon to treat the payment as made to FB acting as a qualified derivatives dealer. Pursuant to paragraph (q)(1) of this section, FB is not liable for tax under sections 871(m) and 881 on the payments it receives from U.S. Broker referenced to Stock X dividends because FB's net delta exposure with respect to 100 shares of Stock X is zero at the end of the day on the date provided in paragraph (j)(2) of this section for the dividend. The net delta exposure is zero because the taxpayer has 100 shares of Stock X long position exposure as a result of the total return swap that is reduced by 100 shares of Stock X short position exposure as a result of the forward contract. FB is required to withhold on dividend equivalent payments to Customer on the forward contract in accordance with § 1.1441-2(e)(7).

    Example 2.

    At-the-money option contract entered into by a foreign equity derivatives dealer. (i) Facts. The facts are the same as Example 1, but Customer purchases from FB an at-the-money call option on 100 shares of Stock X with a term of one year. The call option has a delta of 0.5, and FB hedges the call option by entering into a total return swap that references 50 shares of Stock X with U.S. Broker. At the end of the day on the date provided in paragraph (j)(2) of this section for the dividend, the call option has a delta of 0.6, FB hedges the call option with a total return swap that references 60 shares of Stock X with U.S. Broker, and FB has no shares of Stock X or other transactions that reference Stock X.

    (ii) Application of rules. At the end of the day on the date provided in paragraph (j)(2) of this section for the dividend, FB is a long party on 60 shares of Stock X through the total return swap and a short party on an option. Because the option has a delta of less than 0.8 at the calculation time, it is not a section 871(m) transaction. Therefore, there will be no dividend equivalent payments made by FB to Customer that are subject to withholding. Pursuant to § 1.1441-1(b)(4)(xxii), U.S. Broker is not obligated to withhold on the dividend equivalents with respect to Stock X paid to FB because U.S. Broker has received valid documentation that it may rely upon to treat the dividend equivalents as paid to FB acting as a qualified derivatives dealer. The net delta exposure is zero at the end of the day on the date provided in paragraph (j)(2) of this section for the dividend because FB has a long position of 60 shares as a result of the total return swap, which is reduced by FB's short position of 60 shares as a result of the option.

    Example 3.

    In-the-money option contract entered into by a foreign equity derivatives dealer. (i) Facts. The facts are the same as Example 2, but Customer purchases from FB an in-the-money call option on 100 shares of Stock X with a term of one year. The call option has a delta of 0.8 and FB hedges the call option by purchasing 80 shares of Stock X, which are held in an account with U.S. Broker, who also acts as paying agent. The price of Stock X declines substantially and the option lapses unexercised. At the end of the day on the date provided in paragraph (j)(2) of this section for the dividend, the call option has a delta of 0.48 and FB has reduced its hedge to 50 shares of Stock X with U.S. Broker. In addition, on that date, FB owns no other shares of Stock X or any other transactions that reference Stock X in its equity derivatives dealer capacity.

    (ii) Application of rules. At the end of the day on the date provided in paragraph (j)(2) of this section for the dividend, FB is a long party on 50 shares of Stock X and a short party on an option. Because the option has a delta of 0.8 at the calculation time, it is a section 871(m) transaction. Therefore, FB is required to withhold on dividend equivalent payments to Customer on the option contract in accordance with § 1.1441-2(e)(7). U.S. Broker is required to withhold on the Stock X dividends paid to FB. Assuming that FB is a qualified resident of a country that provides withholding on dividends at a 15 percent rate, U.S. Broker is required withhold on the dividends with respect to the 50 shares of stock held by FB. FB's net delta exposure is two shares of Stock X at the end of the day on the date provided in paragraph (j)(2) of this section because FB has a long position of 50 shares, reduced by FB's short position of 48 shares as a result of the option. FB's section 881 tax on the $0.50 (two shares multiplied by a dividend of $0.25 per share) is reduced (but not below zero) by the section 881 tax amount paid by qualified derivatives dealer on the 50 shares. Therefore, FB's section 871(m) amount is zero.

    (r) * * *

    (3) Effective/applicability date for paragraphs (d)(2) and (e). Paragraphs (d)(2) and (e) of this section apply to any payment made on or after January 1, 2017, with respect to any transaction with a delta of one issued on or after January 1, 2017. Paragraphs (d)(2) and (e) of this section apply to any payment made on or after January 1, 2018, with respect to any other transaction issued on or after January 1, 2018. Notwithstanding the prior sentence, paragraphs (d)(2) and (e) of this section will apply to any payments made on or after January 1, 2020, with respect to the exchange-traded notes issued on or after January 1, 2017, that are identified in a separate notice, and not payments made before January 1, 2020, with respect to those notes. Notwithstanding the first sentence of this paragraph (r)(3), paragraphs (d)(2) and (e) of this section do not apply to payments made in 2017 to a qualified derivatives dealer in its equity derivatives dealer capacity to hedge transactions that have a delta of less than one.

    (4) Effective/applicability date for paragraphs (c)(2)(iv), (h), and (q) of this section. Paragraphs (c)(2)(iv), (h), and (q) of this section apply to payments made on or after January 1, 2017.

    (5) Effective/applicability date for paragraphs (g)(4)(ii)(B), (p)(1)(ii) through (iv), and (p)(5) of this section. [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.871-15T(r)(5).

    § 1.871-15 [Amended]
    Par. 3. For each section listed in the table, remove the language in the “Remove” column and add in its place the language in the “Add” column as set forth below: Section Remove Add § 1.871-15(a)(3) section 316 section 316 (even if there is no actual distribution of cash or property). § 1.871-15(a)(5) the time the NPC or ELI is issued, the calculation time for the NPC or ELI,. § 1.871-15(a)(14)(ii)(B), newly designated third sentence issuance the calculation time. § 1.871-15(a)(15), first sentence a payment with respect to § 1.871-15(c)(1) introductory text paragraph (2) paragraph (c)(2) of this section. § 1.871-15(c)(1)(i) references the payment of a dividend references a dividend. § 1.871-15(c)(1)(ii) references the payment of a dividend references a dividend. § 1.871-15(c)(1)(iii) references the payment of a dividend references a dividend. § 1.871-15(c)(2)(i), first sentence and second sentence section 871 section 871(a). § 1.871-15(d)(2)(i) when the NPC is issued at the calculation time for the NPC. § 1.871-15(d)(2)(ii) when the NPC is issued at the calculation time for the NPC. § 1.871-15(e)(1) when the ELI is issued at the calculation time for the ELI. § 1.871-15(e)(2) when the ELI is issued at the calculation time for the ELI. § 1.871-15(i)(1) references the payment of a dividend references a dividend. § 1.871-15(i)(2)(i) estimated payment of dividends estimated dividend. § 1.871-15(i)(2)(ii) estimated dividend payment estimated dividend. § 1.871-15(i)(2)(iii), first sentence and second sentence the time the transaction is issued the calculation time. § 1.871-15(i)(2)(iii), last sentence to pay a dividend to have a dividend. § 1.871-15(j)(1)(i) each underlying security each dividend on an underlying security. § 1.871-15(j)(1)(ii) introductory text each underlying security each dividend on an underlying security. § 1.871-15(j)(1)(iii) introductory text each underlying security each dividend on an underlying security. § 1.871-15(l)(1), first sentence The purpose of this section The purpose of this paragraph (l). § 1.871-15(l)(1), second sentence described in this paragraph described in this paragraph (l). § 1.871-15(l)(7) references a security (for example, stock in an exchange-traded fund) references an exchange-traded fund. § 1.871-15(m)(2)(ii), first sentence at the time the potential 871(m) transaction referencing that partnership interest is issued at the calculation time for the potential section 871(m) transaction referencing that partnership interest. § 1.871-15(m)(2)(ii), first sentence paragraph (m)(2)(i) paragraph (m)(2)(i) of this section. § 1.871-15(n)(4)(iii), heading and first sentence less than fewer than. § 1.871-15(p)(4)(ii) 10 business days of the date the potential section 871(m) transaction is issued 10 business days of the date containing the calculation time for the potential section 871(m) transaction. § 1.871-15(r)(4), heading paragraphs (c)(2)(iv), (h), and (q) paragraphs (g)(4)(ii)(B), (p)(1)(ii) through (iv), and (p)(5). Par. 4. Revise § 1.871-15T to read as follows:
    § 1.871-15T Treatment of dividend equivalents (temporary).

    (a) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.871-15(a).

    (1) Broker. A broker is a broker within the meaning provided in section 6045(c), except that the term does not include any corporation that is a broker solely because it regularly redeems its own shares.

    (a)(2) through (g)(4)(ii)(A) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.871-15(a)(2) through (g)(4)(ii)(A).

    (B) A foreign securities exchange that:

    (1) Is regulated or supervised by a governmental authority of the country in which the market is located;

    (2) Has trading volume, listing, financial disclosure, surveillance, and other requirements designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open, fair and orderly market, and to protect investors, and the laws of the country in which the exchange is located and the rules of the exchange ensure that those requirements are actually enforced;

    (3) Has rules that effectively promote active trading of listed options on the exchange; and

    (4) Has an average daily trading volume on the exchange exceeding $10 billion during the immediately preceding calendar year. If an exchange in a foreign country has more than one tier or market level on which listed options may be separately listed or traded, each tier or market level is treated as a separate exchange.

    (g)(5) through (p)(1)(i) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.871-15(g)(5) through (p)(1)(i).

    (ii) Transactions with multiple brokers. For a potential section 871(m) transaction in which both the short party and an agent or intermediary acting on behalf of the short party are a broker or dealer, the short party must determine whether the potential section 871(m) transaction is a section 871(m) transaction. For a potential section 871(m) transaction in which the short party is not a broker or dealer and more than one agent or intermediary acting on behalf of the short party is a broker or dealer, the broker or dealer that is a party to the transaction and closest to the short party in the payment chain must determine whether the potential section 871(m) transaction is a section 871(m) transaction. For a potential section 871(m) transaction in which neither the short party nor any agent or intermediary acting on behalf of the short party is a broker or dealer, and the long party and an agent or intermediary acting on behalf of the long party are a broker or dealer, or more than one agent or intermediary acting on behalf of the long party is a broker or dealer, the broker or dealer that is a party to the transaction and closest to the long party in the payment chain must determine whether the potential section 871(m) transaction is a section 871(m) transaction.

    (iii) Responsible party for transactions traded on an exchange and cleared by a clearing organization. Except as provided in paragraph (p)(1)(iv) of this section, for a potential section 871(m) transaction that is traded on an exchange and cleared by a clearing organization, and for which more than one broker-dealer acts as an agent or intermediary between the short party and a foreign payee, the broker or dealer that has an ongoing customer relationship with the foreign payee with respect to that transaction (generally the clearing firm) must determine whether the potential section 871(m) transaction is a section 871(m) transaction.

    (iv) Responsible party for certain structured notes, warrants, and convertible instruments. When a potential section 871(m) transaction is a structured note, warrant, convertible stock, or convertible debt, the issuer is the party responsible for determining whether a potential section 871(m) transaction is a section 871(m) transaction.

    (p)(1)(v) through (p)(4) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.871-15(p)(1)(v) through (p)(4).

    (5) Example. The following example illustrates the rules of paragraph (p) of this section:

    Example 1.

    CO is a domestic clearing organization and is not a broker as defined in § 1.871-15(a)(1). CO serves as a central counterparty clearing and settlement service provider for derivatives exchanges in the United States. EB and CB are brokers organized in the United States and members of CO. FC, a foreign corporation, instructs EB to execute the purchase of a call option that is a specified ELI (as described in § 1.871-15(e)). EB effects the trade for FC on the exchange and then, as instructed by FC, transfers the option to CB to be cleared with CO. The exchange matches FC's order with an order for a written call option with the same terms and then sends the matched trade to CO, which clears the trade. CB and the clearing member representing the person who sold the call option settle the trade with CO. Upon receiving the matched trade, the option contracts are novated and CO becomes the counterparty to CB and the counterparty to the clearing member representing the person who sold the call option. Both EB and CB are broker-dealers acting on behalf of FC for a potential section 871(m) transaction. Under paragraph (p)(1)(iii) of this section, however, only CB is required to make the determinations described in § 1.871-15(p).

    (q) through (r)(4) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.871-15(r)(1) through (4).

    (5) Effective/applicability date. This section applies to payments made on or after on January 19, 2017.

    (s) Expiration date. This section expires January 17, 2020.

    Par. 5. Section 1.1441-1 is amended by: 1. Revising paragraphs (b)(4)(xxii), (e)(3)(ii)(E), (e)(5),and (e)(6). 2. Adding a new sentence to the end of paragraph (e)(2)(i). 3. Adding new paragraph (f)(5).

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 1.1441-1 Requirement for the deduction and withholding of tax on payments to foreign persons.

    (b) * * *

    (4) * * *

    (xxii) Certain payments to qualified derivatives dealers (as described in paragraph (e)(6) of this section). For purposes of this withholding exemption, the qualified derivatives dealer must furnish to the withholding agent the documentation described in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section. A withholding agent that makes a payment to a qualified intermediary that is acting as a qualified derivatives dealer is not required to withhold on the following payments if the withholding agent can reliably associate the payment with a valid qualified intermediary withholding certificate as described in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section, including the certification described in paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(E):

    (A) A payment with respect to a potential section 871(m) transaction that is not an underlying security;

    (B) A payment of a dividend equivalent; or

    (C) A payment of a dividend in 2017.

    (e) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) * * * For purposes of a qualified intermediary acting as a qualified derivatives dealer, a qualified intermediary withholding certificate, as described in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section is a beneficial owner withholding certificate for purposes of treaty claims for dividends.

    (3) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (E) In the case of any payment with respect to a potential section 871(m) transaction (including any dividend equivalent payment within the meaning of § 1.871-15(i)) or underlying security (as defined in § 1.871-15(a)(15)) received by a qualified intermediary acting as a qualified derivatives dealer, a certification that the home office or branch receiving the payment, as applicable, meets the requirements to act as a qualified derivatives dealer as further described in paragraph (e)(6) of this section and that the qualified derivatives dealer assumes primary withholding and reporting responsibilities under chapters 3, 4, and 61, and section 3406 with respect to any payments it makes with respect to potential section 871(m) transactions;

    (5) Qualified intermediaries—(i) In general. A qualified intermediary, as defined in paragraph (e)(5)(ii) of this section, may furnish a qualified intermediary withholding certificate to a withholding agent. The withholding certificate provides certifications on behalf of other persons for the purpose of claiming and verifying reduced rates of withholding under section 1441 or 1442 and for the purpose of reporting and withholding under other provisions of the Code, such as the provisions under chapter 61 and section 3406 (and the regulations under those provisions), or for the qualified derivative dealer (if applicable). Furnishing such a certificate is in lieu of transmitting to a withholding agent withholding certificates or other appropriate documentation for the persons for whom the qualified intermediary receives the payment, including interest holders in a qualified intermediary that is fiscally transparent under the regulations under section 894. Although the qualified intermediary is required to obtain withholding certificates or other appropriate documentation from beneficial owners, payees, or interest holders pursuant to its agreement with the IRS, it is generally not required to attach such documentation to the intermediary withholding certificate. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a qualified intermediary must provide a withholding agent with the Forms W-9, or disclose the names, addresses, and taxpayer identifying numbers, if known, of those U.S. non-exempt recipients for whom the qualified intermediary receives reportable amounts (within the meaning of paragraph (e)(3)(vi) of this section) to the extent required in the qualified intermediary's agreement with the IRS. When a qualified intermediary is acting as a qualified derivatives dealer, the withholding certificate entitles a withholding agent to make payments with respect to potential section 871(m) transactions that are not underlying securities and dividend equivalent payments on underlying securities to the qualified derivatives dealer free of withholding. A withholding agent is required to withhold on all other U.S. source FDAP payments made to a qualified derivatives dealer as required by applicable law. Paragraph (e)(6) of this section contains detailed rules prescribing the circumstances in which a qualified intermediary can act as a qualified derivatives dealer. A person may claim qualified intermediary status before an agreement is executed with the IRS if it has applied for such status and the IRS authorizes such status on an interim basis under such procedures as the IRS may prescribe.

    (ii) [Reserved]. For additional guidance, see § 1.1441-1T(e)(5)(ii).

    (A) Through (C) [Reserved]. For additional guidance, see § 1.1441-1T(e)(5)(ii)(A)-(C).

    (D) A foreign person that is a home office or has a branch that is an eligible entity as described in paragraph (e)(6)(ii) of this section, without regard to the requirement that the person be a qualified intermediary; or

    (E) [Reserved]. For additional guidance, see § 1.1441-1T(e)(5)(ii)(E).

    (iii) [Reserved]. For additional guidance, see § 1.1441-1T(e)(5)(iii).

    (iv) [Reserved]. For additional guidance, see § 1.1441-1T(e)(5)(iv).

    (v) [Reserved]. For additional guidance, see § 1.1441-1T(e)(5)(v).

    (A) [Reserved]. For additional guidance, see § 1.1441-1T(e)(5)(v)(A).

    (B) [Reserved]. For additional guidance, see § 1.1441-1T(e)(5)(v)(B).

    (1)-(3) [Reserved]. For additional guidance, see § 1.1441-1T(e)(5)(v)(B)(1)-(3).

    (4) If a qualified intermediary is acting as a qualified derivatives dealer, designate the accounts:

    (i) For which the qualified derivatives dealer is receiving payments with respect to potential section 871(m) transactions or underlying securities as a qualified derivatives dealer;

    (ii) For which the qualified derivatives dealer is receiving payments with respect to potential section 871(m) transactions (and that are not underlying securities) for which withholding is not required;

    (iii) For which qualified derivatives dealer is receiving payments with respect to underlying securities for which withholding is required; and

    (iv) If applicable, identifying the home office or branch that is treated as the owner for U.S. income tax purposes; and

    (6) Qualified derivatives dealers—(i) In general. To act as a qualified derivatives dealer under a qualified intermediary withholding agreement, the home office or branch that is a qualified intermediary must be an eligible entity as described in paragraph (e)(6)(ii) of this section and, in accordance with the qualified intermediary agreement, must—

    (A) Furnish to a withholding agent a qualified intermediary withholding certificate (described in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section) that indicates that the home office or branch receiving the payment is a qualified derivatives dealer with respect to the payments associated with the withholding certificate;

    (B) Agree to assume the primary withholding and reporting responsibilities, including the documentation provisions under chapters 3, 4, and 61, and section 3406, the regulations under those provisions, and other withholding provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, for payments made as a qualified derivatives dealer with respect to potential section 871(m) transactions. For this purpose, a qualified derivatives dealer is required to obtain a withholding certificate or other appropriate documentation from each counterparty to whom the qualified derivatives dealer makes a reportable payment (including a dividend equivalent payment within the meaning of § 1.871-15(i)). The qualified derivatives dealer is also required to determine whether any payment it makes with respect to a potential section 871(m) transaction is, in whole or in part, a dividend equivalent;

    (C) Agree to remain liable for tax under section 881, if any, on any payment with respect to a potential section 871(m) transaction (including a dividend equivalent payment within the meaning of § 1.871-15(i)) and underlying securities (including dividends) it receives as a qualified derivatives dealer, or in the case of dividend equivalents received in the equity derivatives dealer capacity, the taxes required pursuant to § 1.871-15(q);

    (D) Comply with the compliance review procedures applicable to a qualified intermediary that acts as a qualified derivatives dealer under the qualified intermediary withholding agreement, which will specify the time and manner in which a qualified derivatives dealer must:

    (1) Certify to the IRS that it has complied with the obligations to act as a qualified derivatives dealer (including its performance of a periodic review applicable to a qualified derivatives dealer);

    (2) Report to the IRS any amounts subject to reporting on Forms 1042-S (including dividend equivalent payments that it made);

    (3) Report to the IRS on the appropriate U.S. tax return, its tax liabilities, including its tax liability pursuant to § 1.871-15(q)(1) and any other taxes on payments with respect to potential section 871(m) transactions or underlying securities as defined in § 1.871-15(a)(15) it receives; and

    (4) Respond to inquiries from the IRS about obligations it has assumed as a qualified derivatives dealer in a timely manner;

    (E) Agree to act as a qualified derivatives dealer for all payments made as a principal with respect to potential section 871(m) transactions and all payments received as a principal with respect to potential section 871(m) transactions and underlying securities as defined in § 1.871-15(a)(15) (including dividend equivalent payments within the meaning of § 1.871-15(i)), excluding any payments made or received by the qualified derivatives dealer to the extent the payment is treated as effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States within the meaning of section 864, and not act as a qualified derivatives dealer for any other payments. For purposes of this paragraph (E), any securities lending or sale-repurchase transaction that the qualified intermediary enters into that is a section 871(m) transaction is treated as entered into as a principal unless the qualified intermediary determines that it is acting as an intermediary with respect to that transaction; and

    (F) Each home office or branch must qualify and be approved for qualified derivatives dealer status and must represent itself as a QDD on its Form W-8IMY and separately identify the home office or branch as the recipient on a withholding statement (if necessary). The home office means a foreign person, excluding any branches of the foreign person, that applies for qualified derivatives dealer status. Each home office or branch that obtains qualified derivatives dealer status must be treated as a separate qualified derivatives dealer.

    (ii) Definition of eligible entity. An eligible entity is a home office or branch that is a qualified intermediary and that, treating the home office or branch as a separate entity, is—

    (A) An equity derivatives dealer subject to regulatory supervision as a dealer by a governmental authority in the jurisdiction in which it was organized or operates;

    (B) A bank or bank holding company subject to regulatory supervision as a bank or bank holding company (as applicable) by a governmental authority in the jurisdiction in which it was organized, or operates or an entity that is wholly-owned (directly or indirectly) by a bank or bank holding company subject to regulatory supervision as a bank or bank holding company (as applicable) by a governmental authority in the jurisdiction in which the bank or bank holding company (as applicable) was organized or operates and that in its equity derivatives dealer capacity—

    (1) Issues potential section 871(m) transactions to customers; and

    (2) Receives dividends with respect to stock or dividend equivalent payments pursuant to potential section 871(m) transactions that hedge potential section 871(m) transactions that it issued;

    (C) A foreign branch of a U.S. financial institution, if the foreign branch would meet the requirements of paragraph (A) or (B) of this section if it were a separate entity; or

    (D) Any person otherwise acceptable to the IRS.

    (f) * * *

    (5) Effective/applicability date. Paragraphs (e)(5)(ii)(D) and (e)(5)(v)(B)(4) of this section apply to payments made on or after on January 19, 2017.

    Par. 6. Section 1.1441-1T is amended by: 1. Redesignating paragraph (e)(5)(ii)(D) as paragraph (e)(5)(ii)(E), redesignating paragraph (e)(5)(v)(B)(4) as paragraph (e)(5)(v)(B)(5) and adding new paragraphs (e)(5)(ii)(D) and (e)(5)(v)(B)(4). 2. Revising paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(E), (e)(5)(i), (e)(5)(v)(B)(4), and (e)(6). 3. Removing the language “Except for paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(E) and (e)(6), this section” from the first sentence of paragraph (f)(3) and adding in its place “This section”, and removing the third sentence in paragraph (f)(3), and 4. Removing the language “Except for paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(E) and (e)(6), the applicability” from the first sentence of paragraph (g) and adding in its place “The Applicability” and removing the second sentence in paragraph (g).
    § 1.1441-1T Requirement for the deduction and withholding of tax on payments to foreign persons (temporary).

    (e) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (E) [Reserved]. For additional guidance, see § 1.1441-1(e)(3)(ii)(E).

    (5) Qualified Intermediaries—(i) [Reserved]. For additional guidance, see § 1.1441-1(e)(5)(i).

    (ii) * * *

    (D) [Reserved]. For additional guidance, see § 1.1441-1(e)(5)(ii)(D).

    (v) * * *

    (B) * * *

    (4) [Reserved]. For additional guidance, see § 1.1441-1(e)(5)(v)(B)(4).

    (6) [Reserved]. For additional guidance, see § 1.1441-1(e)(6).

    Par. 7. Section 1.1441-2 is amended by: 1. Revising paragraphs (e)(7)(i) and (e)(7)(ii). 2. Removing “paragraph (e)(8)(ii)(A)” from paragraph (e)(7)(iii) and adding in “paragraph (e)(7)(ii)(A)” in its place. 3. Adding paragraphs (e)(7)(iv) through (ix). 4. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (f)(1) and adding a new last sentence.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 1.1441-2 Amounts subject to withholding.

    (e) * * *

    (7) Payments of dividend equivalents—(i) In general. Subject to paragraphs (e)(7)(iv), (vi), and (vii) of this section, a payment of a dividend equivalent is not considered to be made until the later of when—

    (A) The amount of a dividend equivalent is determined as provided in § 1.871-15(j)(2), and

    (B) A payment occurs with respect to the section 871(m) transaction after the amount of a dividend equivalent is determined as provided in § 1.871-15(j)(2).

    (ii) Payment. For purposes of paragraph (e)(7) of this section, a payment occurs with respect to a section 871(m) transaction when—

    (A) Money or other property is paid to or by the long party, unless the section 871(m) transaction is described in § 1.871-15(i)(3), in which case a payment is treated as being made at the end of the applicable calendar quarter;

    (B) The long party sells, exchanges, transfers, or otherwise disposes of the section 871(m) transaction (including by settlement, offset, termination, expiration, lapse, or maturity); or

    (C) The section 871(m) transaction is transferred to an account that is not maintained by the withholding agent or the long party terminates the account relationship with the withholding agent.

    (iv) Option to withhold on dividend payment date. A withholding agent may withhold on the payment date described in paragraph (e)(4) of this section for the applicable dividend on the underlying security (the dividend payment date) if it withholds on that date for all section 871(m) transactions of the same type (securities lending or sale-repurchase transaction, NPC, or ELI) and satisfies the requirements to paragraph (e)(7)(v) of this section.

    (v) Changes to time of withholding. This paragraph describes how a withholding agent changes the time that it withholds on a dividend equivalent payment to a time described in paragraph (e)(7)(i) or (iv) of this section and these requirements must be satisfied for a withholding agent to change the time it withholds. A withholding agent must apply the change consistently to all transactions of the same type entered into on or after the change. For transactions of the same type entered into before the change, a withholding agent must withhold under the original approach throughout the term of the transaction. When a withholding agent changes the time that it will withhold, the withholding agent must notify each payee in writing that it will withhold using the approach described in paragraph (e)(7)(i) or (iv) of this section, as applicable, before the time for determining the payee's first dividend equivalent payment (as determined under § 1.871-15(j)(2)). With respect to transactions held by an intermediary or foreign flow-through entity, a withholding agent is treated as providing notice to each payee holding that transaction through the entity when it notifies the intermediary or foreign flow-through entity of the time it will withhold, as described in the preceding sentence, provided that the intermediary or foreign flow-through entity agrees to provide the same notice to each payee. The withholding agent must attach a statement to its relevant income tax return (filed by the due date, including extensions) for the year of the change notifying the IRS of the change and when it applies, identifying the types of section 871(m) transaction to which the change applies, and certifying that has notified its payees. For purposes of this paragraph, a withholding agent will be considered to have entered into a transaction on the first date the withholding agent becomes responsible for withholding on the transaction (based on the rule in paragraph (e)(7)(ix) of this section).

    (vi) Withholding by qualified derivatives dealers. A withholding agent that is acting as a qualified derivatives dealer must withhold with respect to a dividend equivalent payment on the payment date described in paragraph (e)(4) of this section for the applicable dividend on the underlying security and must notify each payee in writing that it will withhold on the dividend payment date before the time for determining the payee's first dividend equivalent payment (as determined under § 1.871-15(j)(2)).

    (vii) Withholding with respect to derivatives that reference partnerships. To the extent that a withholding agent is required to withhold with respect to a partnership interest described in § 1.871-15(m), the liability for withholding arises on March 15 of the year following the year in which the payment of a dividend equivalent (determined under § 1.871-15(i)) occurs.

    (viii) Notification to holders of withholding timing. If a withholding agent is required to notify a payee of when it will withhold under paragraph (e)(7)(v) of this section, it may use the reporting methods prescribed in § 1.871-15(p)(3)(i).

    (ix) Withholding agent responsibility. A withholding agent is only responsible for dividend equivalent amounts determined (as provided in § 1.871-15(j)(2)) during the period the withholding agent is a withholding agent for the section 871(m) transaction.

    (f) * * * (1) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, paragraph (e)(7) of this section applies to payments made on or after September 18, 2015. Paragraphs (e)(7)(ii)(D) and (e)(7)(iv) through (viii) of this section apply to payments made on or after January 19, 2017.

    Par. 8. Section 1.1441-7 is amended by: 1. Revising Example 7 in paragraph (a)(3). 2. Adding Example 8 and 9 to paragraph (a)(3). 3. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (a)(4).

    The additions read as follows:

    § 1.1441-7 General provisions relating to withholding agents.

    (a) * * *

    (3) * * *

    Example 7.

    CO is a domestic clearing organization. CO serves as a central counterparty clearing and settlement service provider for derivatives exchanges in the United States. CB is a broker organized in Country X, a foreign country, and a clearing member of CO. CB is a nonqualified intermediary, as defined in § 1.1441-1(c)(14). FC is a foreign corporation that has an account with CB. FC instructs CB to purchase a call option that is a specified ELI (as described in § 1.871-15(e)). CB effects the trade for FC on the exchange. The exchange matches FC's order with an order for a written call option with the same terms. The exchange then sends the matched trade to CO, which clears the trade. CB and the clearing member representing the person who sold the call option settle the trade with CO. Upon receiving the matched trade, the option contracts are novated and CO becomes the counterparty to CB and the counterparty to the clearing member representing the person who sold the call option. To the extent that there is a dividend equivalent with respect to the call option, both CO and CB are withholding agents as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. As a withholding agent, CO and CB must each determine whether it is obligated to withhold under chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations thereunder.

    Example 8.

    FCO is a foreign clearing organization. FCO serves as a central counterparty clearing and settlement service provider for derivatives exchanges in Country A, a foreign country. CB is a broker organized in Country A, and a clearing member of FCO. CB is a nonqualified intermediary, as defined in § 1.1441-1(c)(14). FC is a foreign corporation that has an account with CB. FC instructs CB to purchase a call option that is a section 871(m) transaction. CB effects the trade for FC on the exchange. The exchange matches FC's order with an order for a written call option with the same terms. The exchange then sends the matched trade to FCO, which clears the trade. CB and the clearing member representing the call option seller settle the trade with FCO. Upon receiving the matched trade, the option contracts are novated and FCO becomes the counterparty to CB and the counterparty to the clearing member representing the call option seller. To the extent that there is a dividend equivalent with respect to the call option, both FCO and CB are withholding agents as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

    Example 9.

    The facts are the same as Example 8, except that CB is a qualified intermediary, as defined in § 1.1441-1(c)(15), that has assumed the primary obligation to withhold, deposit, and report amounts under chapters 3 and 4 of Internal Revenue Code. CB provides a written statement to FCO representing that it has assumed primary withholding responsibility for any dividend equivalent payment with respect to the call option. FCO, therefore, is not required withhold on a dividend equivalent payment to CB.

    (4) * * * Example 8 and Example 9 of paragraph (a)(3) of this section apply to payments made on or after January 19, 2017.

    § 1.1461-1 [Amended]
    Par. 9. For each section listed in the table, remove the language in the “Remove” column and add in its place the language in the “Add” column as set forth below: Section Remove Add § 1.1461-1(c)(2)(i) introductory text, fourth sentence a withholding agent withheld an amount a withholding agent withheld (including under § 1.1441-2(e)(7)) an amount. § 1.1461-1(c)(2)(i)(M) references the payment of a dividend references a dividend. § 1.1461-1(c)(2)(ii)(J) or (xxiii); or (xxiii). This exception does not apply to withholding agents that are qualified derivatives dealers; John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: January 11, 2017. Mark J. Mazur, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy).
    [FR Doc. 2017-01163 Filed 1-19-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9790] RIN 1545-BN40 Treatment of Certain Interests in Corporations as Stock or Indebtedness; Correction AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Correcting amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains corrections to the final and temporary regulations (T.D. 9790) that were published in the Federal Register on Friday, October 21, 2016 (81 FR 72858). The regulations relate to the determination of whether an interest in a corporation is treated as stock or indebtedness for all purposes of the Internal Revenue Code.

    DATES:

    These corrections are effective on January 23, 2017, and applicable October 21, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Austin M. Diamond-Jones, (202) 317-5363, or Joshua G. Rabon, (202) 317-6938 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The final and temporary regulations that are the subject of this correction are under sections 385 and 752 of the Internal Revenue Code.

    Need for Correction

    As published, the final and temporary regulations contain errors which may prove to be misleading and need to be clarified.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

    PART 1—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 2. Section 1.385-1 is amended by revising the fifth sentence of paragraph (c)(4)(vii) Example 2 (i) to read as follows:
    § 1.385-1 General provisions.

    (c) * * *

    (4) * * *

    (vii) * * *

    Example 2.

    * * *

    (i) * * * In addition to other assets representing 85% of the value of its total assets, S2 owns all of the stock of S3, which has elected to be treated as a taxable REIT subsidiary of S2 under section 856(l)(1). * * *

    Par. 3. Section 1.385-2 is amended by: 1. Revising paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(C)(3). 2. Revising the third sentence of paragraph (a)(5)(i). 3. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a)(5)(ii). 4. Revising the third sentence of paragraph (b)(1). 5. Revising the third sentence of paragraph (c)(2)(ii). 6. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(A). 7. Revising the third sentence of paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(E). 8. Revising the paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A) subject heading. 9. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A)(3)(i). 10. Revising the third sentence of paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(A). 11. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(B)(1). 12. Adding a subject heading to paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(B)(2)(i). 13. Revising the paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(E) subject heading. 14. Revising paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(E)(3). 15. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(i)(A). 16. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (e)(3)(ii). 17. Revising the paragraph (h)(4) Example introductory text. 18. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (h)(4)(ii)(A). 19. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (h)(4)(ii)(C).

    The addition and revisions read as follows:

    § 1.385-2 Treatment of certain interests between members of an expanded group.

    (a) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (C) * * *

    (3) Overlapping assets and revenue. If there are multiple applicable financial statements that reflect the assets, portion of the assets, or revenue of the same expanded group member, any duplication (by stock, consolidation, or otherwise) of that expanded group member's assets or revenue may be disregarded for purposes of paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section such that the total assets or annual total revenue of that expanded group member is only reflected once.

    (5) * * *

    (i) * * * An issuer is also considered to have characterized an EGI as indebtedness if the issuer claims any federal income tax benefit with respect to an EGI resulting from characterizing the EGI as indebtedness for federal tax purposes, such as by claiming an interest deduction under section 163 with respect to interest paid or accrued on the EGI on a federal income tax return (or, if the issuer is a member of a consolidated group, the issuer or the common parent of the consolidated group claims a federal income tax benefit by claiming such an interest deduction), or if the issuer reports the EGI as indebtedness or amounts paid or accrued on the EGI as interest on an applicable financial statement. * * *

    (ii) * * * The consistency rule in paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section and section 385(c)(1) does not apply with respect to an EGI to the extent that the EGI is treated as stock under this section or § 1.385-3, or it has been determined that the EGI is treated as stock under applicable federal tax principles. * * *

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * * If the documentation and information described in paragraph (c) of this section are not prepared and maintained with respect to an EGI in accordance with this section, and no exception listed in paragraph (b)(2) of this section applies, the EGI is treated as stock for all federal tax purposes. * * *

    (c) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (ii) * * * The rights of a creditor must include rights that superior to the rights of shareholders (other than holders of interests treated as stock solely by reason of § 1.385-3 and holders of interests with creditor's rights under commercial law treated as stock under this section) to receive assets of the issuer in case of dissolution. * * *

    (iii) * * *

    (A) * * * Documentation with respect to an EGI that is nonrecourse under its terms must include information on any cash and property that secures the EGI, including—

    (E) * * * Documentation required under paragraph (c)(2) of this section may be prepared by employees of expanded group members, by agents of expanded group members, or by third parties.

    (3) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (A) Revolving credit, omnibus, umbrella, master, cash pool, and similar agreements

    (3) * * *

    (i) * * * If an EGI is issued under an agreement described in paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A) of this section, written documentation must be prepared with respect to the analysis date and written documentation with a new analysis date must be prepared at least annually to satisfy the requirements in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section for EGIs issued under such an agreement on or after the most recent analysis date. * * *

    (4) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (A) * * * In the case of an applicable interest that becomes an EGI subsequent to issuance, including an intercompany obligation, as defined in § 1.1502-13(g)(2)(ii), that ceases to be an intercompany obligation, the relevant date is the date on which the applicable interest becomes an EGI.

    (B) * * *

    (1) * * * In the case of an applicable interest that becomes an EGI subsequent to issuance, the relevant date is the date on which the applicable interest becomes an EGI and any relevant date after the date that the applicable interest becomes an EGI.

    (2) * * *

    (i) In general. * * *

    (E) Revolving credit, omnibus, umbrella, master, cash pool, and similar agreements

    (3) Relevant dates for EGIs documented under an overall arrangement. A relevant date of an EGI under paragraphs (c)(4)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section is also a relevant date for each EGI documented under an overall arrangement described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.

    (d) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (A) Any interest that is issued or deemed issued in the legal form of a debt instrument (including a draw or separate amount borrowed under an overall arrangement described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section regardless of whether a separate legal document is issued in connection with the draw or separate amount borrowed), which therefore does not include, for example, a sale-repurchase agreement treated as indebtedness under federal tax principles; or

    (e) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (ii) * * * For purposes of determining whether an EGI originally treated as indebtedness ceases to be treated as indebtedness by reason of this section, the rules of this section apply before the rules of § 1.1001-3. * * *

    (h) * * *

    (4) * * *

    Example.

    Application of paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (c)(4) of this section to an EGI. * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (A) * * * Because FP is traded on an established financial market within the meaning of § 1.1092(d)-1(b) and USS1 is a covered member, EGI A, EGI B, and EGI C are subject to the rules of this section.

    (C) The credit analysis was prepared with an analysis date of Date B of Year 1. * * *

    Par. 4. Section 1.385-3 is amended by: 1. Revising paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(E)(2). 2. Revising the paragraph (b)(5) subject heading. 3. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (c)(3)(i)(C)(1). 4. Revising the paragraph (c)(3)(i)(C)(3) subject heading. 5. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(i)(C)(3)(i). 6. Adding subject headings to paragraphs (g)(3)(ii) introductory text, (g)(3)(iii) introductory text, and (g)(3)(iv) introductory text. 7. Revising paragraph (g)(3)(iv)(B)(1). 8. Adding a subject heading to paragraph (g)(3)(v). 10. Revising paragraphs (g)(24)(ii)(B) and (C)

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 1.385-3 Transactions in which debt proceeds are distributed or that have a similar effect.

    (b) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (iii) * * *

    (E) * * *

    (2) Effect of certain modifications. Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(E)(1) of this section, if a covered debt instrument is treated as exchanged for a modified covered debt instrument pursuant to § 1.1001-3(b) and the modification, or one of the modifications, that results in the deemed exchange includes the substitution of an obligor on the covered debt instrument, the addition or deletion of a co-obligor on the covered debt instrument, or the material deferral of scheduled payments due under the covered debt instrument, then the modified covered debt instrument is treated as issued on the date of the deemed exchange for purposes of paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(A) of this section.

    (5) Coordination between general rule and funding rule. * * *

    (c) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (C) * * *

    (1) * * * The term expanded group earnings means, with respect to a covered member and an expanded group period of the covered member, the earnings and profits accumulated by the covered member during the expanded group period, computed as of the close of the taxable year of the covered member, without diminution by reason of any distributions or acquisitions by the covered member described in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3)(i) of this section. * * *

    (3) Look-through rule for dividends—(i) In general. For purposes of paragraph (c)(3)(i)(C)(1) of this section, a dividend from a member of the same expanded group (distributing member) is not taken into account for purposes of calculating a covered member's expanded group earnings, except to the extent the dividend is attributable to earnings and profits accumulated by the distributing member in a taxable year ending after April 4, 2016, during its expanded group period (qualified earnings and profits). For purposes of the preceding sentence, a dividend received from a member (intermediate distributing member) is not taken into account for purposes of calculating the qualified earnings and profits of a distributing member (or another intermediate distributing member), except to the extent the dividend is attributable to qualified earnings and profits of the intermediate distributing member. A dividend from a distributing member or an intermediate distributing member is considered to be attributable to qualified earnings and profits to the extent thereof. If the distributing member or the intermediate distributing member is not a covered member, the expanded group period of the member is determined under the principles of paragraph (c)(3)(i)(E) of this section. If a controlled partnership receives a dividend from a distributing member and a portion of the dividend is allocated (including through one or more partnerships) to a covered member, then, for purposes of this paragraph (c)(3)(i)(C)(3), the covered member is treated as receiving the dividend from the distributing member.

    (g) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (ii) Qualified dealer debt instrument. * * *

    (iii) Excluded statutory or regulatory debt instrument. * * *

    (iv) Excepted regulated financial company. * * *

    (B) * * *

    (1) General rule. For purposes of paragraph (g)(3)(iv) of this section, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (g)(3)(iv)(B)(2) of this section, the term regulated financial group means any expanded group of which a covered member that is a regulated financial company within the meaning of paragraphs (g)(3)(iv)(A)(1) through (10) of this section would be the expanded group parent if no person owned, directly or indirectly (as defined in § 1.385-1(c)(4)(iii)), the regulated financial company. A domestic eligible entity (within the meaning of § 301.7701-5(a) of this chapter) treated as a partnership or disregarded as an entity separate from its owner is, for purposes of this paragraph (g)(3)(iv)(B), also treated as a covered member.

    (v) Regulated insurance company. * * *

    (24) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (B) A distribution or acquisition by either the seller or a successor seller to or from either the acquirer, the seller, or a successor seller is not treated as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section for purposes of applying paragraph (b)(3) of this section to a covered debt instrument of the acquirer. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term successor seller means a member of the expanded group that receives property (other than expanded group stock) in a distribution or acquisition from the seller or another successor seller and is controlled by the acquirer as determined under the principles of paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. A successor seller is treated as a successor to the acquirer to the extent of the value of the property received in a distribution or acquisition described in the preceding sentence and, for purposes of applying this paragraph (g)(24)(ii)(B).

    (C) To the extent that a covered debt instrument of the acquirer is treated as funding a distribution or acquisition by the seller or successor seller described in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)(A) through (C) of this section, or would be treated but for the exceptions described in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section, the value of the expanded group stock described in paragraph (g)(24)(ii)(A) of this section is reduced by an amount equal to the distribution or acquisition for purposes of any further application of paragraph (g)(24)(ii)(A) of this section with respect to the acquirer and seller.

    Par. 5. Section 1.385-3T is amended by: 1. Revising the third sentence of paragraph (b)(3)(vii)(A)(1)(iii). 2. Revising the fifth sentence and adding a new sixth sentence to paragraph (h) Example 13(i). 3. Revising the third sentence of paragraph (h) Example 13(ii)(D). 4. Revising the third sentence of paragraph (h) Example 14(ii)(D). 5. Revising paragraph (h) Example 15(i). 6. Revising the fifth sentence of paragraph (h) Example 18(ii)(A). 7. Revising paragraph (l).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 1.385-3T Certain distributions of debt instruments and similar transactions (temporary).

    (b) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (vii) * * *

    (A) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iii) * * * Additionally, the amount owed by any issuer shall be reduced by the amount of the issuer's deposits with a qualified cash pool header, but only to the extent of amounts borrowed from the same qualified cash pool header that satisfy the requirements of paragraph (b)(3)(vii)(A)(2) (if the covered debt instrument was issued in a prior taxable year) or (b)(3)(vii)(A)(1)(ii) of this section.

    (h) * * *

    Example 13.

    * * *

    (i) * * * On Date A in Year 1, FP lends $200x to PRS in exchange for PRS Note with stated principal amount of $200x, which is payable at maturity. PRS Note also provides for annual payments of interest that are qualified stated interest. * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (D) * * * Similarly, FP is deemed to transfer a portion of PRS Note with a principal amount equal to $90x (the adjusted issue price of the specified portion with respect to USS2) to USS2 in exchange for deemed partner stock in USS2 with a fair market value of $90x. * * *

    Example 14.

    * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (D) * * * Similarly, FP is deemed to transfer a portion of PRS Note with a principal amount equal to $90x (the adjusted issue price of the specified portion with respect to USS2) to USS2 in exchange for stock of USS2 with a fair market value of $90x. * * *

    Example 15.

    * * *

    (i) Facts. The facts are the same as in Example 13 of this paragraph (h)(3), except that USS2 does not distribute $90x to FP until Date C in Year 2, which is less than 36 months after Date A in Year 1. On Date C in Year 2, DS's, USS2's, and USP's issuance percentages under paragraph (g)(16) of this section are unchanged at 45%, 45%, and 10%, respectively.

    Example 18.

    * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (A) * * * DS's distribution to USS1 is a disregarded distribution because it is a distribution between members of a consolidated group that is disregarded under the one-corporation rule described in § 1.385-4T(b)(1). * * *

    (l) Expiration date. This section expires on October 13, 2019.

    Par. 6. Section 1.385-4T is amended by: 1. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (b)(2). 2. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (b)(3)(i). 3. Revising paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) and (iii). 4. Revising paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A)(1). 5. Revising paragraph (b)(5)(i). 6. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (b)(6). 7. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (c)(1)(i). 8. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (d)(3). 9. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (d)(4) introductory text. 10. Revising paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (ii). 11. Revising paragraph (e)(3). 12. Revising paragraph (e)(5). 13. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (f)(3) Example 1(ii). 14. Revising the seventh sentence of paragraph (f)(3) Example 4(ii). 15. Revising the sixth sentence of paragraph (f)(3) Example 5(ii). 16. Revising paragraph (h).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 1.385-4T Treatment of consolidated groups.

    (b) * * *

    (2) * * * The one-corporation rule described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section does not apply in determining the members of an expanded group. * * *

    (3) * * *

    (i) * * * If a covered debt instrument treated as issued by a consolidated group under the one-corporation rule described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section is treated as stock under §§ 1.385-3 or 1.385-3T, the covered debt instrument is treated as stock in the member of the consolidated group that would be the issuer of such debt instrument without regard to this section. * * *

    (ii) Application of the covered debt instrument exclusions. For purposes of determining whether a debt instrument issued by a member of a consolidated group is a covered debt instrument, each test described in § 1.385-3(g)(3) is applied on a separate member basis without regard to the one-corporation rule described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

    (iii) Qualified short-term debt instrument. The determination of whether a member of a consolidated group has issued a qualified short-term debt instrument for purposes of § 1.385-3(b)(3)(vii) is made on a separate member basis without regard to the one-corporation rule described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

    (4) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (A) * * *

    (1) A qualified contribution to any member of a consolidated group that remains a member of the consolidated group immediately after the qualified contribution from a person other than a member of the same consolidated group is treated as made to the one corporation described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section;

    (5) * * *

    (i) First, determine the characterization of the transaction under federal tax law without regard to the one-corporation rule described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

    (6) * * * For purposes of this section and §§ 1.385-3 and 1.385-3T, and notwithstanding the one-corporation rule described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a partnership that is wholly owned by members of a consolidated group is treated as a partnership. * * *

    (c) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) * * * For purposes of this section and §§ 1.385-3 and 1.385-3T, when a debt instrument ceases to be a consolidated group debt instrument as a result of a transaction in which the member of the consolidated group that issued the instrument (the issuer) or the member of the consolidated group holding the instrument (the holder) ceases to be a member of the same consolidated group but both the issuer and the holder continue to be members of the same expanded group, the issuer is treated as issuing a new debt instrument to the holder in exchange for property immediately after the debt instrument ceases to be a consolidated group debt instrument. * * *

    (d) * * *

    (3) * * * If a departing member has issued a covered debt instrument (determined without regard to the one-corporation rule described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section) that is not a consolidated group debt instrument and that is not treated as stock immediately before the departing member ceases to be a consolidated group member, then the departing member (and not the consolidated group) is treated as issuing the covered debt instrument on the date and in the manner the covered debt instrument was issued. * * *

    (4) * * * This paragraph (d)(4) applies when a departing member ceases to be a consolidated group member in a transaction other than a distribution to which section 355 (or so much of section 356 as relates to section 355) applies, and the consolidated group has made a regarded distribution or acquisition. * * *

    (i) If the departing member made the regarded distribution or acquisition (determined without regard to the one-corporation rule described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section), the departing member (and not the consolidated group) is treated as having made the regarded distribution or acquisition.

    (ii) If the departing member did not make the regarded distribution or acquisition (determined without regard to the one-corporation rule described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section), then the consolidated group (and not the departing member) continues to be treated as having made the regarded distribution or acquisition.

    (e) * * *

    (3) Disregarded distribution or acquisition. The term disregarded distribution or acquisition means a distribution or acquisition described in § 1.385-3(b)(2) or (b)(3)(i) between members of a consolidated group that is disregarded under the one-corporation rule described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

    (5) Regarded distribution or acquisition. The term regarded distribution or acquisition means a distribution or acquisition described in § 1.385-3(b)(2) or (b)(3)(i) that is not disregarded under the one-corporation rule described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

    (f) * * *

    (3) * * *

    Example 1.

    * * *

    (ii) * * * Pursuant to paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section, the transaction is first analyzed without regard to the one-corporation rule described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, and therefore UST is treated as issuing a covered debt instrument in exchange for expanded group stock. * * *

    Example 4.

    * * *

    (ii) * * * Under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, for purposes of § 1.385-3, DS1 is treated as issuing a new debt instrument to USS1 in exchange for property immediately after DS1 Note ceases to be a consolidated group debt instrument. * * *

    Example 5.

    * * *

    (ii) * * * Under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, for purposes of § 1.385-3, DS1 is treated as issuing a new debt instrument to USS1 in exchange for property immediately after DS1 Note ceases to be a consolidated group debt instrument. * * *

    (h) Expiration date. This section expires on October 13, 2019.

    Par. 7. Section 1.752-2T is amended by revising paragraph (m)(2) to read as follows:
    § 1.752-2T Partner's share of recourse liabilities (temporary).

    (m) * * *

    (2) Paragraphs (c)(3) and (l)(4) of this section expire on October 13, 2019.

    Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, Procedure and Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00498 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9790] RIN 1545-BN40 Treatment of Certain Interests in Corporations as Stock or Indebtedness; Correction. AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Final and temporary regulations; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains corrections to the final and temporary regulations (T.D. 9790) that were published in the Federal Register on Friday, October 21, 2016 (81 FR 72858). The regulations relate to the determination of whether an interest in a corporation is treated as stock or indebtedness for all purposes of the Internal Revenue Code.

    DATES:

    These corrections are effective on January 23, 2017, and applicable October 21, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Austin M. Diamond-Jones, (202) 317-5363, or Joshua G. Rabon, (202) 317-6938 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The final and temporary regulations that are the subject of this correction are under sections 385 and 752 of the Internal Revenue Code.

    Need for Correction

    As published, the final regulations contain errors which may prove to be misleading and need to be clarified.

    Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the final and temporary regulations (TD 9790) that are the subject of FR Doc. 2016-25105 are corrected as follows:

    1. On page 72877, in the preamble, second column, the fourth sentence of the second full paragraph, “The Treasury Department and the IRS have considered this comment and determined that it would be appropriate to disregard subordination if the recharacterization occurred as a result of § 1.385-3 and the final regulations reflect that decision” is corrected to read “The Treasury Department and the IRS have considered this comment and determined that it would be appropriate to disregard subordination if the recharacterization occurred as a result of § 1.385-3 or if a recharacterized EGI provides creditor's rights under commercial law and the final regulations reflect that decision”.

    2. On page 72906, second column, the last paragraph, “The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that the proposed regulations already properly provided for this result. As a result of an issuance described in the subsidiary stock issuance exception, the issuer (S2) becomes a successor to the transferor (S1) to the extent of the value of the expanded group stock acquired from the issuer, but only with respect to a debt instrument of the issuer issued during the per se period determined with respect to the issuance. If the issuer (S2) engages in another transaction described in the subsidiary stock issuance exception as a transferor, the acquisition of the stock of the expanded group member (the second issuer) would also not constitute an acquisition of expanded group stock by reason of the exception. Therefore, under a second application of the subsidiary stock issuance exception, the acquisition of the stock of S3 by the issuer (S2), a successor to the transferor (S1), is not treated as described in the second prong of the funding rule and thus cannot be treated as funded by a covered debt instrument issued by the transferor (S1). After the second issuance, the second issuer (S3) is a successor to both the first transferor (S1) and the first issuer (S2), which remains a successor to the first transferor (S1). The final and temporary regulations change the terminology, but do not change the result of the proposed regulations in this regard.” is corrected to read, “The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that the proposed regulations already properly provided for this result in the situation where S2 controls S3 within the meaning of § 1.385-3(c)(2)(i)(B). However, the final regulations further clarify the application of the subsidiary stock acquisition exception in other tiered transfer situations, for instance where S2 subsequently engages in a transaction with an expanded group member controlled by S1, but not controlled by S2. See § 1.385-3(g)(24)(ii)(B).”.

    3. On page 72916, second column, the second sentence of the first full paragraph from the bottom, “The comments cited leases treated as loans under section 467; receivables and payables resulting from correlative adjustments under section 482; production payments under section 636; coupon stripping transactions under section 1286; and debt (or instruments treated as debt) described in section 856(m)(2), 860G(a)(1), or 1361(c)(5)” is corrected to read “The comments cited leases treated as loans under section 467; receivables and payables resulting from conforming adjustments under section 482; production payments under section 636; coupon stripping transactions under section 1286; and debt (or instruments treated as debt) described in section 856(m)(2), 860G(a)(1), or 1361(c)(5)”.

    4. On page 72916, third column, the first complete sentence of the incomplete paragraph at the top, “The final and temporary regulations also provide an exception for debt instruments deemed to arise as a result of transfer pricing adjustments under section 482” is corrected to read “The final and temporary regulations also provide an exception for debt instruments that arise due to conforming adjustments under § 1.482-1(g)(3)”.

    Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, Procedure and Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00497 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 1 [DA 16-1453] Annual Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties To Reflect Inflation AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act) requires the Federal Communications Commission to amend its forfeiture penalty rules to reflect annual adjustments for inflation in order to improve their effectiveness and maintain their deterrent effect. The 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act provides that the new penalty levels shall apply to penalties assessed after the effective date of the increase, including when the penalties whose associated violation predate the increase.

    DATES:

    Effective January 24, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Celia Lewis, Enforcement Bureau, 202-418-7456, or Gregory Haledjian, Enforcement Bureau, 202-418-7440.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Order, DA 16-1453, adopted and released on December 30, 2016. The document is available for download at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db1230/DA-16-1453A1.pdf. The complete text of this document is also available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554.

    On November 2, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which included, as Section 701 thereto, the 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act, which amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410), to improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and maintain their deterrent effect. Under the act, agencies are required to make annual inflationary adjustments by January 15 each year, beginning in 2017. The adjustments are calculated pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance. OMB issued guidance on December 16, 2016, and this Order follows that guidance. We therefore update the civil monetary penalties set forth in the Commission's rules, to reflect an annual inflation adjustment that derives from OMB's cost-of-living multiplier of 1.01636. The cost-of-living adjustment is “the percentage (if any)” by which the “(A) Consumer Price Index for the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment, exceeds (B) the Consumer Price Index for the month of October 1 year before the month of October referred to in subparagraph (A).”

    This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

    The Enforcement Bureau will coordinate with the Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center to report this Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties.

    Federal Communications Commission. Lisa S. Gelb, Chief of Staff, Enforcement Bureau. Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 1 as follows:

    PART 1—PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 79 et seq., 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 303, 309, 301, 332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 1452, and 1455.

    2. Section 1.80 is amended by revising the table in Section III of the note to paragraph (b)(8) and revising paragraph (b)(9) to read as follows:
    § 1.80 Forfeiture proceedings.

    (b) * * *

    (8) * * *

    Note to paragraph (b)(8) * * *

    Section III. Non-Section 503 Forfeitures That Are Affected by the Downward Adjustment Factors

    Violation Statutory amount
  • ($)
  • Sec. 202(c) Common Carrier Discrimination $11,548, $577/day. Sec. 203(e) Common Carrier Tariffs $11,548, $577/day. Sec. 205(b) Common Carrier Prescriptions $23,095. Sec. 214(d) Common Carrier Line Extensions $2,309/day. Sec. 219(b) Common Carrier Reports $2,309/day. Sec. 220(d) Common Carrier Records & Accounts $11,548/day. Sec. 223(b) Dial-a-Porn $119,668/day. Sec. 227(e) Caller Identification $11,052/violation. $33,156/day for each day of continuing violation, up to $1,105,241 for any single act or failure to act. Sec. 364(a) Forfeitures (Ships) $9,623/day (owner). Sec. 364(b) Forfeitures (Ships) $1,925 (vessel master). Sec. 386(a) Forfeitures (Ships) $9,623/day (owner). Sec. 386(b) Forfeitures (Ships) $1,925 (vessel master). Sec. 634 Cable EEO $853/day.

    (9) Inflation adjustments to the maximum forfeiture amount. (i) Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Public Law 114-74 (129 Stat. 599-600), which amends the Federal Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-410 (104 Stat. 890; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note), the statutory maximum amount of a forfeiture penalty assessed under this section shall be adjusted annually for inflation by order published no later than January 15 each year. Annual inflation adjustments will be based on the percentage (if any) by which the CPI-U for October preceding the date of the adjustment exceeds the prior year's CPI-U for October. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will issue adjustment rate guidance no later than December 15 each year to adjust for inflation in the CPI-U as of the most recent October.

    (ii) The application of the annual inflation adjustment required by the foregoing Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 results in the following adjusted statutory maximum forfeitures authorized by the Communications Act:

    U.S. Code citation Maximum
  • penalty after
  • 2017 inflation
  • adjustment
  • 47 U.S.C. 202(c) $11,548 577 47 U.S.C. 203(e) 11,548 577 47 U.S.C. 205(b) 23,095 47 U.S.C. 214(d) 2,309 47 U.S.C. 219(b) 2,309 47 U.S.C. 220(d) 11,548 47 U.S.C. 223(b) 119,668 47 U.S.C. 227(e) 11,052 33,156 1,105,241 47 U.S.C. 362(a) 9,623 47 U.S.C. 362(b) 1,925 47 U.S.C. 386(a) 9,623 47 U.S.C. 386(b) 1,925 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(A) 48,114 481,147 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(B) 192,459 1,924,589 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(C) 389,305 3,593,585 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(D) 19,246 144,344 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(F) 110,524 1,105,241 47 U.S.C. 507(a) 1,906 47 U.S.C. 507(b) 279 47 U.S.C. 554 853
    [FR Doc. 2017-00365 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    82 14 Tuesday, January 24, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 12 CFR Part 30 [Docket ID OCC-2016-0016] RIN 1557-AE06 FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Chapter II [Docket No. R-1550] RIN 7100-AE 61 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 12 CFR Part 364 RIN 3064-AE45 Enhanced Cyber Risk Management Standards AGENCY:

    The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

    ACTION:

    Joint advance notice of proposed rulemaking; re-opening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On October 26, 2016, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (collectively, the agencies) published in the Federal Register an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) regarding enhanced cyber risk management standards (enhanced standards) for large and interconnected entities under their supervision and those entities' service providers. The ANPR addresses five categories of cyber standards: Cyber risk governance; cyber risk management; internal dependency management; external dependency management; and incident response, cyber resilience, and situational awareness. Due to the range and complexity of the issues addressed in the ANPR, the public comment period has been extended until February 17, 2017. This action will allow interested persons additional time to analyze the proposal and prepare their comments.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the advance notice of proposed rulemaking published on October 26, 2016, (81 FR 74315) regarding enhanced cyber risk management standards is extended from January 17, 2017, to February 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the methods identified in the ANPR.1 Please submit your comments using only one method.

    1See 81 FR 74315 (October 26, 2016).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Board: Anna Lee Hewko, Associate Director, (202) 530-6260; or Matthew Hayduk, Manager, (202) 973-6190; or Julia Philipp, Senior Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) 452-3940; or Christopher Olson, Senior Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) 912-4609, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation; or Benjamin W. McDonough, Special Counsel, (202) 452-2036; or Claudia Von Pervieux, Counsel, (202) 452-2552; or Michelle Kidd, Counsel, (202) 736-5554, Legal Division; for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY (202) 263-4869.

    OCC: Bethany Dugan, Deputy Comptroller for Operational Risk, (202) 649-6949; or Kevin Greenfield, Director, Bank Information Technology, (202) 649-6954; or Eric Gott, Risk Team Lead for Governance and Operational Risk, Large Bank Supervision, (202) 649-7181; or Patrick Kelly, Bank Examiner, Critical Infrastructure Protection, (202) 649-5519; or Carl Kaminski, Special Counsel, Beth Knickerbocker, Counsel, or Rima Kundnani, Attorney, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, (202) 649-5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.

    FDIC: Donald Saxinger, Senior Examination Specialist, IT Supervision Branch, Division of Risk Management Supervision, (703) 254-0214; or John Dorsey, Counsel, Supervision & Legislation Branch, Legal Division, (202) 898-3807.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On October 26, 2016, the agencies published in the Federal Register an advance notice of proposed rulemaking regarding enhanced cyber risk management standards (enhanced standards) for large and interconnected entities under their supervision and those entities' service providers.2 The ANPR stated that the public comment period would close on January 17, 2017.3

    2Id.

    3Id.

    The agencies received a number of requests to extend the comment period for the ANPR. Due to the range and complexity of the issues addressed in the ANPR, the agencies believe it is appropriate to extend the public comment period until February 17, 2017. This action will allow interested persons additional time to analyze the proposal and prepare their comments.

    Dated: January 13, 2017. Thomas J. Curry, Comptroller of the Currency. By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, acting through the Secretary of the Board under delegated authority, January 10, 2017. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board. Dated: January 13, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation by, Valerie Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01539 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-33-P; 6210-01-P; 6714-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-135122-16] RIN 1545-BN76 Dividend Equivalents From Sources Within the United States AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains proposed regulations relating to certain financial products providing for payments that are contingent upon or determined by reference to U.S. source dividend payments.

    DATES:

    Written or electronic comments must be received by April 24, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-135122-16), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-135122-16), Courier's desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20044, or sent electronically, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-135122-16). The public hearing will be held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the regulations, D. Peter Merkel or Karen Walny at (202) 317-6938; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing, and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing Regina Johnson at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background and Explanation of Provisions

    Final and temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register contain amendments to the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1), which provide rules relating to dividend equivalents for purposes of section 871(m). The temporary regulations provide guidance relating to when the delta of an option that is listed on a foreign regulated exchange may be calculated based on the delta of that option at the close of business on the business day prior to the date of issuance. The temporary regulations also provide guidance identifying which party to a potential section 871(m) transaction is responsible for determining whether a transaction is a section 871(m) transaction when multiple brokers or dealers are involved in the transaction. The text of those temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. The preamble to the final and temporary regulations explains the temporary regulations and these proposed regulations. The regulations affect nonresident alien individuals, foreign corporations, and withholding agents, as well as certain other parties to section 871(m) transactions and their agents.

    Special Analyses

    Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. Because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f), these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

    Comments and Request for Public Hearing

    Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the “Addresses” heading. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on all aspects of the proposed rules. All comments will be available at www.regulations.gov or upon request. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing will be published in the Federal Register.

    Drafting Information

    The principal authors of these regulations are D. Peter Merkel and Karen Walny of the Office of Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

    Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 1—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    § 1.871-15 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 871(m). * * *

    Par. 2. Section 1.871-15 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1), paragraph (g)(4)(ii)(B), paragraphs (p)(1)(ii) through (p)(1)(iv), and paragraph (p)(5) to read as follows:
    § 1.871-15 Treatment of dividend equivalents.

    (a) * * *

    (1) [The text of the proposed amendments to § 1.871-15(a)(1) is the same as the text of § 1.871-15T(a)(1) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (g) * * *

    (4) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (B) [The text of the proposed amendments to § 1.871-15(g)(4)(ii)(B) is the same as the text of § 1.871-15T(g)(4)(ii)(B) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (p) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (ii) [The text of the proposed amendments to § 1.871-15(p)(1)(ii) is the same as the text of § 1.871-15T(p)(1)(ii) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

    (iii) [The text of the proposed amendments to § 1.871-15(p)(1)(iii) is the same as the text of § 1.871-15T(p)(1)(iii) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (iv) [The text of the proposed amendments to § 1.871-15(p)(1)(iv) is the same as the text of § 1.871-15T(p)(1)(iv) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (5) [The text of the proposed amendments to § 1.871-15(p)(5) is the same as the text of § 1.871-15T(p)(5) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01161 Filed 1-19-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    82 14 Tuesday, January 24, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License AGENCY:

    Research, Education, and Economics, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, is correcting the notice stating it intends to grant to Huvepharma, Inc. of Peachtree City, Georgia, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 15/108,725, “MUTATED SALMONELLA ENTERIACA”, filed on June 28, 2016.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of January 13, 2017 in FR Doc. 9, on page 4279, of the summary section, 3rd and fourth line should read as follows:

    “MUTATED SALMONELLA ENTERICA”, filed on June 28, 2016. Yvette Anderson, Federal Register Liaison Officer for ARS, ERS, and NASS.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01385 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Secretary Visioning of United States, (U.S.) Agricultural Systems for Sustainable Production Stakeholder Listening Session Meeting AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Scientist of the United States Department of Agriculture, OCS, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The OCS, USDA announces a Visioning of U.S. Agriculture Systems for Sustainable Production Listening Session for those interested in the long-term health and viability of U.S. Agriculture and for concurrently improving the economic, environmental, security, and health benefits to the U.S. through agriculture over the next 50 years.

    DATES:

    Listening session: The listening session will be on Thursday, March 2, 2017 will begin at 8:30 a.m. and is scheduled to end by 5:00 p.m.

    Registration: You must register by February 27, 2017, to attend in person and to provide oral comments during the listening session. The number of attendees and oral commenters is limited due to time and space constraints (see below) on a first come, first served basis. All interested, regardless of attending, are welcome to submit written comments.

    Comments: Written comments are due by March 9, 2017. Written comments must be submitted electronically to the Contact Person identified in this notice.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will take place at the Jamie L. Whitten Building, 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW., Washington, DC 20250. All participants are required to enter through the Jefferson Drive entrance to the building. This is the entrance facing the National mall.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Seth Murray, Senior Advisor, Office of the Chief Scientist; telephone: (202) 692-0204; fax: (202) 260-8786; or email: [email protected] .

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The OCS was established in 2011 [FR Doc. 2011-4128] within the Research, Education and Economics (REE) mission area of USDA, to identify the authorities of the Under Secretary for REE (Chief Scientist of the Department) and the Director of the OCS with respect to scientific integrity within USDA and the coordination of agricultural research, education, and extension programs and activities. The Chief Scientist provides leadership and coordination for four agencies of the mission area—the Agricultural Research Service; Economic Research Service; National Institute of Food and Agriculture; and the National Agricultural Statistics Service.

    Agricultural Systems include row crops, horticultural crops, rangeland, livestock, aquaculture, forest, urban agriculture, and alternative agricultural production systems for food, fiber and fuel in addition to the water, landscape and ecosystem services they depend on and affect.

    New technologies and scientific discoveries are creating possibilities for novel agricultural systems that could better meet holistic societal needs beyond existing systems. Researching, designing and implementing these systems requires coordination across extremely diverse stakeholders, recognition of regional differences, and a longer timeline than incremental improvements to existing systems. The listening session will elicit stakeholder input from industry and state representatives, federal representatives from within USDA and other agencies, national organizations and institutions, local producers, and other groups interested in issues facilitating opportunities in the long-term for sustainable agricultural production. Short term (less than seven years) and incremental solutions are outside the scope of this particular listening session.

    On Thursday, March 2, 2017 the listening session will be held from 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. in room 107A of the Jamie L. Whitten building. A consultant may be assisting with coordinating and facilitating the session. The morning session will include brief introductions to relevant USDA agencies, other Federal agencies and invited subject matter experts, relevant to long-term support and visioning of agricultural systems. After this, approximately 10 minute presentations will be given by stakeholders that discuss strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and/or threats of future agricultural production systems. Following lunch, stakeholder presentations will continue. In the afternoon, a summary and discussion session will take place in which participants will be asked to discuss their reactions to the information presented earlier in the day as well as respond to a set of questions presented by the organizers aimed at getting feedback for the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in current and future agricultural systems towards sustainable production. An updated schedule will be available online at least one month before the session from https://www.usda.gov/ocs, or by emailing [email protected]

    All stakeholders are welcome to apply for a 10-minute presentation slot, however, due to time constraints, a limited number will be selected. Selections will be made to maintain a diversity of topics (e.g. animal, aquaculture, grain, fruit, landscape, plant, soil, etc.) and geographies but on a first come, first served basis. To apply for a slot, please email the Contact Person, Dr. Seth Murray, listed above with a one to two sentence topic description. All presentations may be oral and/or in PowerPoint, however, a written transcript of the talk should be submitted no later than one week after the event.

    All parties interested in attending this event must RSVP no later than February 27, 2017 to the Contact Person, Dr. Seth Murray, listed previously. Due to size constraints in the meeting room, only the first 70 responders will be accepted.

    Written comments by attendees or other interested stakeholders will be welcomed before and up to one week following the listening session (March 9, 2017). All statements will become a part of the official record of the OCS and will be kept on file in that office.

    Done at Washington, DC, this 17th day of January 2017. Ann Bartuska, Acting Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01506 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Wisconsin Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Begin Discussion of a Draft Report Resulting From the Committee's Study of Hate Crime in the State AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Wisconsin Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Monday, February 06, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. CST for the purpose of discussing testimony received regarding hate crime in the state, in preparation to issue a civil rights report to the Commission on the topic. This meeting is a reschedule of the Committee's January 13, 2017 meeting which was postponed.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday, February 06, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. CST.

    ADDRESSES:

    Public call information: Dial: 888-256-9128, Conference ID: 3777259.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at [email protected] or 312-353-8311.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-256-9128, conference ID: 3777259. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Wisconsin Advisory Committee link (http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=282). Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Introductions Discussion of civil rights report: Hate Crime in Wisconsin Public Comment Future Plans and Actions Adjournment Dated: January 18, 2016. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01522 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Agenda and Notice of Public Meetings of the West Virginia Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of monthly planning meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the West Virginia Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will convene by conference call on Friday, February 3, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. (EST) on. The purpose of meetings are to continue discussing topics for civil rights project.

    DATES:

    Friday, February 3, 2017. Time: 12:00 p.m. (EST).

    ADDRESSES:

    Public call-in information: Conference call-in number: 1-888-601-3861 and password: 636552.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ivy L. Davis, at [email protected] or by phone at 202-376-7533

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-601-3861 and password: 636552. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.

    Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-601-3861 and password: 636552.

    Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Eastern Regional Office at (202) 376-7533.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=281; click the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone numbers, email or street address.

    Agenda I. Welcome and Introductions —Rollcall Planning Meeting —Discuss Civil Rights Topics for Civil Rights Project II. Other Business III. Open Comment IV. Adjournment Dated: January 18, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01519 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Illinois Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Finalize Preparations for a Public Hearing on Civil Rights and Voter Participation in the State AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Illinois Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Monday, March 06, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. CST for the purpose of finalizing preparations to host a public hearing on civil rights and voter participation in the state.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday, March 06, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. CST

    ADDRESSES:

    Public call information: Dial: 888-428-9473, Conference ID: 2751216

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at [email protected] or 312-353-8311

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-428-9473, conference ID: 2751216. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Illinois Advisory Committee link (http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=246). Select “meeting details” and then “documents” to download. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Roll Call Discussion of Project Preparation: Voting Rights in Illinois Public Comment Future Plans and Actions Adjournment Dated: January 18, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01521 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Illinois Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Finalize Preparations for a Public Hearing on Civil Rights and Voter Participation in the State AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Illinois Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Wednesday, February 08, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. CST for the purpose of finalizing preparations to host a public hearing on civil rights and voter participation in the state.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 08, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. CST.

    ADDRESSES:

    Public call information: Dial: 888-428-9473, Conference ID: 2751216.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at [email protected] or 312-353-8311

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-428-9473, conference ID: 2751216. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Illinois Advisory Committee link (http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=246). Select “meeting details” and then “documents” to download. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Roll Call Discussion of Project Preparation: Voting Rights in Illinois Public Comment Future Plans and Actions Adjournment Dated: January 18, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01520 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Violations of the Export Administration Regulations

    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 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: Bureau of Industry and Security.

    Title: Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Violations of the Export Administration Regulations.

    Form Number(s): N/A.

    OMB Control Number: 0694-0058.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,880.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 388.

    Estimated Time per Response: 10 hours.

    Needs and Uses: This collection of information is needed to detect violations of the Export Administration Act and Regulations, and determine if an investigation or prosecution is necessary and to reach a settlement with violators.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov http://www.reginfo.gov/public/. 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].

    Sheleen Dumas, PRA Departmental Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01498 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance AGENCY:

    Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice and opportunity for public comment.

    Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341 et seq.), the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of these firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.

    List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance [1/13/2017 through 1/17/2017] Firm name Firm address Date accepted for investigation Product(s) Belden Tools, Inc., d/b/a Belden Universal 2500 Braga Drive; Broadview, IL 60155 1/13/2017 The firm manufactures machined metal mechanical power transmission components and universal joints. Sharn Enterprises, Inc 22749 Citation Road; Frankfort, IL 60423 1/17/2017 The firm manufactures custom store fixtures and display equipment. Northstar Attachments, LLC Post Office Box 1937; Yakima, WA 98907 1/17/2017 The firm manufactures hay rakes, bucket forks, pallet forks, and implements.

    Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.

    Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.

    Miriam Kearse, Lead Program Analyst.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01472 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF178 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Herring Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 10 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Harborside, 250 Market Street, Portsmouth, NH 03801; telephone: (603) 431-2300.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda

    The Herring Committee will continue development of measures related to localized depletion and potential user conflicts in Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan. The Committee will also address other business as necessary.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: January 18, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01563 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF176 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) will convene a work session via webinar for the Scientific and Statistical Committee's (SSC) Economics Subcommittee, which is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The webinar meeting will be held Thursday, February 9, 2017, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. (Pacific Daylight Time) or when business for the day has been completed.

    ADDRESSES:

    To attend the webinar, visit: http://www.gotomeeting.com/online/webinar/join-webinar. Enter the Webinar ID, which is 480-960-155, and your name and email address (required). After logging into the webinar, dial this TOLL number 1+ (562) 247-8321 (not a toll-free number), then enter the Attendee phone audio access code: 943-128-623, then enter your audio phone pin (shown after joining the webinar). Note: We have disabled Mic/Speakers as on option and require all participants to use a telephone or cell phone to participate. You may send an email to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at [email protected] or contact him at 503-820-2280, extension 425 for technical assistance. A public listening station will be available at the Pacific Council office.

    Council address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Brett Wiedoff, Staff Officer, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2280.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The primary purpose of the work session is to discuss a methodology for examining socioeconomic impacts of the Pacific Council's policies for the modification of essential fish habitat designations and rockfish conservation areas under Amendment 28 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan.

    Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent of the SSC subcommittee to take final action to address the emergency.

    Technical Information and System Requirements

    PC-based attendees: Windows® 7, Vista, or XP operating system required. Mac®-based attendees: Mac OS® X 10.5 or newer required. Mobile attendees: iPhone®, iPad®, AndroidTM phone or Android tablet required (use GoToMeeting Webinar Apps).

    Special Accommodations

    The public listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (503) 820-2280 at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: January 17, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01478 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF175 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting via webinar.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will hold a Post Council Meeting Briefing for the public via webinar.

    DATES:

    The meeting will convene on Wednesday, February 8, 2017; starting at 6 p.m. EDT and ending no later than 9 p.m. EDT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will take place via webinar at: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6877778762909006595.

    Council address: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Emily Muehlstein, Public Information Officer, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; [email protected], telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Review of Council actions taken during the January, 2017 Council Meeting 3. Questions and Answers 4. Adjourn

    You may register for the Post October Council Meeting Briefing Webinar at: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6877778762909006595.

    After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

    Dated: January 17, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01447 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID USA-2015-0018] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by February 23, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Recreation Use and Expenditure Survey; OMB Control Number 0710-XXXX.

    Type of Request: New.

    Number of Respondents: 19,050.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.11.

    Annual Responses: 21,100.

    Average Burden per Response: 6 minutes (0.1 hours).

    Recreation Use Survey—5 minutes per response.

    Abbreviated Bus/Bike Survey—2 minutes per response.

    Web-Based Follow-up Economic Survey—11 minutes per response.

    Annual Burden Hours: 1,941 hours.

    Needs and Uses: This survey estimates the number and type of recreation visits to Corps of Engineers lands and related expenditures. The data collected is used to identify, quantify and evaluate recreation use and expenditures for planning, feasibility studies, environmental assessments, environmental impact statements, development of visitation models, and estimates of economic impacts for both existing water resources projects and proposed water resource development. The survey provides load-factor statistics that can be applied to monthly vehicle traffic meter tallies to estimate use levels.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Stuart Levenbach.

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Mr. Stuart Levenbach, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: January 17, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01432 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID: USA-2017-HQ-0002] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to alter a System of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 notice is hereby given that the Department of the Army proposes to alter a system of records, A0350-1b TRADOC, entitled “Army Career Tracker (ACT),” last published at 76 FR 26714 on May 9, 2011. The Army Career Tracker (ACT) exists to enable Soldiers and Army civilians world-wide with career development and transition resources. ACT provides users with a more efficient and effective way to monitor their career development while allowing leaders to track and advise subordinates on personalized leadership development. As a leader development tool, it integrates data on training, education, and experiential learning from a number of source systems into one personalized and easy-to-use interface. ACT allows supervisors to track and advise employees on their leadership development and allows career program managers the ability to reach their geographically dispersed careerists. The Total Army Sponsorship Program is also administered through ACT. The sponsorship program provides Soldiers and Army civilians and their families with resources to facilitate their transition and/or relocation between commands and duty assignments.

    This alteration to the system of records notice incorporates the applicable DoD Routine Uses in the notice to provide clarity for the public. The categories of individuals has been updated to reflect the inclusion of Army Reserve, Guard, and Reserve Officer Training Corps personnel. The category of records was expanded to cover data that is collected and used in support of the Total Army Sponsorship Program. Further, the authorities were updated to cite the specific sections of the United States Code and identify the DoD issuances that implement the program. The purpose has been revised to clarify the use and description of these records. The systems that are data sources or interface with ACT have been denoted in the records source categories. Lastly, administrative corrections were made to the system location, retrievability, safeguards, system manager and address, notification and record access procedures, and contesting records procedures.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before February 23, 2017. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

    * Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    * Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Advisory Committee Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09B, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Tracy Rogers, Department of the Army, Privacy Office, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Suite 144, Alexandria, VA 22325-3905 or by calling (703) 428-7499.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of the Army's notices for system of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency Division Web site http://dpcld.defense.gov/.

    The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, as amended, were submitted on January 5, 2017, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4 of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” revised November 28, 2000 (December 12, 2000 65 FR 77677).

    Dated: January 17, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. A0350-1b TRADOC System name:

    Army Career Tracker (ACT) (May 9, 2011, 76 FR 26714)

    Changes: System location:

    Delete entry and replace with “Army commands, installations, and activities. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Army's compilation of systems of records notices.”

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Department of the Army military personnel (active duty, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve), Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps contracted cadets, and Army civilian employees.”

    Categories of records in the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Demographic data to include name, grade/rank/series, Social Security Number (SSN); DoD ID Number; Army Knowledge Online User Identification; primary email address; personal and duty phone numbers; service component, branch, personnel classification, military status, military occupational specialty; and unit of assignment. Sponsorship data to include family members' name, age, gender, relationship, identification of exceptional family member, spouse's employment and driver's license information.

    Course and training data to include credit hours accumulated; examination and course completion status; professional development model; assignment history; student academic status; curricula, course descriptions and schedules; graduation dates; and individual goals.”

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “5 U.S.C. 4103, Establishment of training programs; 10 U.S.C. 3013, Secretary of the Army; Department of Defense Directive 1322.18, Military Training; Army Regulation (AR) 350-1, Army Training and Leader Development; AR 600-20, Army Command Policy; AR 600-8-8, The Total Army Sponsorship Program; AR 690-950, Career Management; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.”

    Purpose(s):

    Delete entry and replace with “Army Career Tracker (ACT) is a leadership development tool that integrates training and education into one personalized, easy-to-use Web site. ACT receives training, education, experiential learning, personnel, and biographical data from several Army information systems and presents a comprehensive and personalized view of Noncommissioned Officer, Officer, and Army civilian career history, course enrollment, course completion, course catalog, and professional development model information. Users can search multiple education and training resources, monitor their career development and receive personalized advice. The system allows civilian and military supervisors, and mentors to monitor the individual's goals and provide them developmental recommendations, notifications and career advice. Supervisors can view records for both their civilian and military employees.

    ACT is also used to administer the Total Army Sponsorship Program which helps Soldiers, civilian employees, and families successfully relocate into and out of their commands. Soldiers in the ranks of private through colonel (excluding Soldiers arriving at Initial Military Training (IMT) and Soldiers making PCS moves to student detachments at long-term schools) and civilian employees through grade GS-15, undergoing a PCS move, are offered the opportunity to participate in the advance arrival sponsorship program.”

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act if 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    Law Enforcement Routine Use: If a system of records maintained by a DoD Component to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the agency concerned, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.

    Congressional Inquiries Disclosure Routine Use: Disclosure from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.

    Disclosure to the Department of Justice for Litigation Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the Department of Defense, or any officer, employee or member of the Department in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.

    Data Breach Remediation Purposes Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a Component may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) The Component suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of the information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Component has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Component or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Components efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.”

    Retrievability:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individual's name, SSN, DoD ID Number, or Army Knowledge Online User Identification.”

    Safeguards:

    Delete entry and replace with “Access to the system is restricted to authorized personnel only with Army Knowledge Online authorization using sign-on and password, or a Common Access Card (CAC). Records are maintained within secured buildings in areas accessible only to persons having an official need-to-know and who are properly trained and screened.”

    System manager(s) and address:

    Delete entry and replace with “Commander, Headquarters, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Institute of Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Office (ATCG-NCN), 950 Jefferson Ave., Fort Eustis, VA 23604-5704.”

    Notification procedure:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Commander, Headquarters, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Institute of Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Office (ATCG-NCN), 950 Jefferson Ave., Fort Eustis, VA 23604-5704.

    Individuals should provide full name, SSN, military status, or other information verifiable from the record itself.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.”

    Record access procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Commander, Headquarters, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Institute of Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Office (ATCG-NCN), 950 Jefferson Ave, Fort Eustis, VA 23604-5704.

    Individual should provide full name, SSN, military status, or other information verifiable from the record itself.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.”

    Contesting record procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “The Army's rules for accessing records, contesting contents, and appealing initial agency determinations are contained in 32 CFR part 505, the Army Privacy Program, or may be obtained from the system manager.”

    Record source categories:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individual, DoD personnel (supervisors, mentors, training and human resources staff), Army Knowledge Online (AKO), Integrated Total Army Personnel Database (ITAPDB), Headquarters Army Civilian Personnel System (HQ ACPERS), Defense Civilian Personnel Data System for National Guard (NG-DCPDS), Reserve Component Management System (RCMS), Army Training Requirements & Resources System (ATRRS), Army Learning Management System (ALMS), GoArmyEd, Force Management System Web site (FMSWEB), Credentialing Opportunities On-Line (COOL), Partnership for Youth Success (PaYS), Soldier Fitness Training (SFT), and Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF).”

    [FR Doc. 2017-01477 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Science Board; Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The 2017 Defense Science Board (DSB) Summer Study Task Force on Countering Anti-access Systems with Longer Range and Standoff Capabilities (“the Long Range Effects Summer Study Task Force”) will meet in closed session on Thursday, January 26, 2017, from 8:15 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 12:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Friday, January 27, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the Strategic Analysis Inc. Executive Conference Center, 4075 Wilson Blvd., Suite 350, Arlington, VA.

    DATES:

    January 26, 2017, from 8:15 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and January 27, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Strategic Analysis Inc. Executive Conference Center, 4075 Wilson Blvd., Suite 350, Arlington, VA (January 26-27, 2017).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Debra Rose, Executive Officer, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B888A, Washington, DC 20301-3140, via email at [email protected], or via phone at (703) 571-0084 or the Defense Science Board's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) Ms. Karen D.H. Saunders, Executive Director, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B888A, Washington, DC 20301, via email at [email protected] or via phone at (703) 571-0079.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer and the Department of Defense, the 2017 Defense Science Board Summer Study Task Force on Countering Anti-access Systems with Longer Range and Standoff Capabilities (“the Long Range Effects Summer Study Task Force”) was unable to provide public notification of its meetings on January 26-27, 2017, as required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a). Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

    These meetings are being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to provide independent advice and recommendations on matters relating to the Department of Defense's (DoD) scientific and technical enterprise. The objective of the Long Range Effects Summer Study Task Force is to explore new defense systems and technology that will enable cost effective power projection that relies on the use of longer stand-off distances than current capabilities. System components may be deployed on manned or unmanned platforms with a range of potential autonomous capabilities. Use of cost reducing technology and advanced production practices from defense and commercial industry may be a major part of the strategy for deploying adequate numbers of weapons. The study should investigate and analyze all of these areas and recommend preferred system options. This two-day session will focus on providing general threat briefings, to include country briefings and respective threat system capabilities. United States capabilities will also be briefed by the Joint Staff and the military services. The organizations briefing include the Defense Intelligence Agency, Missile Defense Agency, U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force. Additionally the DSB will present recently completed studies to include: Air Dominance, Next Generation Unmanned Undersea Systems and Ballistic Missile and Cruise Missile Defense.

    In accordance with section 10(d) of the FACA and 41 CFR 102-2.155, the DoD has determined that the Long Range Effects Summer Study Task Force meeting will be closed to the public. Specifically, the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), in consultation with the DoD Office of General Counsel, has determined in writing that the meeting will be closed to the public because matters covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) will be considered. The determination is based on the consideration that it is expected that discussions throughout will involve classified matters of national security concern. Such classified material is so intertwined with the unclassified material that it cannot reasonably be segregated into separate discussions without defeating the effectiveness and meaning of the overall meetings. To permit the meetings to be open to the public would preclude discussion of such matters and would greatly diminish the ultimate utility of the DSB's findings or recommendations to the Secretary of Defense and to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.

    In accordance with section 10(a)(3) of the FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration by the Long Range Effects Summer Study Task Force members at any time regarding its mission or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. Individuals submitting a written statement must submit their statement to the DSB's DFO—Ms. Karen D.H. Saunders, Executive Director, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B888A, Washington, DC 20301, via email at [email protected] or via phone at (703) 571-0079 at any point, however, if a written statement is not received at least 3 calendar days prior to the meeting, which is the subject of this notice, then it may not be provided to or considered by the Long Range Effects Summer Study Task Force. The DFO will review all submissions with the Long Range Effects Summer Study Task Force Co-Chairs and ensure they are provided to Long Range Effects Summer Study Task Force members prior to the end of the two-day meeting on January 27, 2017.

    Dated: January 18, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01516 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID DOD-2017-OS-0005] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to alter a System of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-130, notice is hereby given that the Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to alter a system of records, DPR 45 DoD, entitled “Military OneSource (MOS) Case Management System (CMS)”. Military OneSource (MOS) is an Outreach Web site for the purpose of providing comprehensive information to members of the Armed Forces and their families about the benefits and services that are available to them. The covered benefits and services that are relevant to Military OneSource include information regarding financial compensation including financial counseling, educational assistance and benefits, relocation planning and preparation, quality of life programs, and family and community programs. The MOS is a Department of Defense-funded program (non-personal services contract) providing comprehensive information on every aspect of military life at no cost to Active Duty, Guard and Reserve Service members, and their families. These services are available 24 hours a day by telephone and online from any location in the world.

    This update reflects considerable administrative changes that in sum warrant an alteration to the systems of records notice. The applicable DoD Routine Uses have been incorporated in the notice to provide clarity for the public. Additionally, the categories records, authority for maintenance of the system, the purpose, retrievability, safeguards, retention and disposal, notification and record access procedures, and the contesting procedures.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before February 23, 2017. This proposed action will be effective the day following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

    * Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    * Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Advisory Committee Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09B, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mrs. Luz D. Ortiz, Chief, Records, Privacy and Declassification Division (RPD2), 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or by phone at (571) 372-0478.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties and Transparency Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/.

    The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on January 5, 2017, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4 of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” revised November 28, 2000 (December 12, 2000 65 FR 77677).

    Dated: January 17, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. DPR 45 DoD System Name:

    Military OneSource (MOS) Case Management System (CMS) (February 11, 2015, 80 FR 7579)

    Changes: Categories of Records in the System:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individual's full name, date of birth, gender, marital status, relationship to service member, rank, unit, branch of military service, military status, current address and mailing address, telephone numbers (work/home/cell/DSN) and participant authorization or refusal to allow incoming/outgoing text messages between participant and Military OneSource, email address, participant ID and case number (automatically generated internal numbers not provided to the participant), presenting issue/information requested, handoff type to contractor, handoff notes, if interpretation is requested and the language, referrals, and feedback from quality assurance follow-up with participants.

    Learning Management System: User account name, course history (attempted dates/times, grades), member type, agency, installation, unit, and service provider affiliation.

    Non-medical counseling information: Psychosocial history, assessment of personal concerns, provider name, phone number, and location, authorization number, and outcome summary.”

    Authority for Maintenance of the System:

    Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C. 136, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; 10 U.S.C. 1781 note, Establishment of Online Resources To Provide Information About Benefits and Services Available to Members of the Armed Forces and Their Families; DoD Directive 1404.10, DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce; DoD Directive 1322.18, Military Training; DoD Instruction (DoDI) 1342.22, Military Family Readiness; DoDI 6490.06, Counseling Services for DoD Military, Guard and Reserve, Certain Affiliated Personnel, and Their Family Members; and DoDI 1322.26, Development, Management, and Delivery of Distributed Learning.”

    Purpose:

    Delete entry and replace with “MOS CMS allows the documentation of an individual's eligibility; identification of the caller's inquiry or issue to provide a warm hand-off, referral and/or requested information; the development towards a final solution and referral information. The system also processes training registration, enrollment requests, and self-motivated education/training for its Learning Management System. Records may be used as a management tool for statistical analysis, tracking, reporting, and evaluating program effectiveness and conducting research. Information about individuals indicating a threat to self or others will be reported to the appropriate authorities in accordance with DoD/Military Branch of Service and Component regulations and established protocols.”

    Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System, Including Categories of Users and the Purposes of Such Uses:

    Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, these records may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    To authorized DoD MOS contractors for the purpose of responding to Service member or family member need.

    To contractors and grantees for the purpose of supporting research studies concerned with the effectiveness of non-medical counseling interventions.

    To local law enforcement entities for the purpose of intervention to prevent harm to the individual (self) in accordance with DoD/Military Branch of Service and Component regulations and established protocols.

    Law Enforcement Routine Use: If a system of records maintained by a DoD Component to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the agency concerned, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.

    Congressional Inquiries Disclosure Routine Use: Disclosure from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.

    Disclosure to the Department of Justice for Litigation Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the Department of Defense, or any officer, employee or member of the Department in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.

    Disclosure of Information to the National Archives and Records Administration Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    Data Breach Remediation Purposes Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a Component may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) The Component suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of the information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Component has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Component or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Components efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.”

    Retrievability:

    Delete entry and replace with “Information is retrieved by the participant's full name, or user account name (for the Learning Management System).”

    Safeguards:

    Delete entry and replace with “MOS CMS is hosted on a certified and accredited infrastructure. Records are maintained in a secure building in a controlled area accessible only to authorized personnel. Physical entry is restricted by the use of locks and passwords and administrative procedures which are changed periodically. The system is designed with access controls, comprehensive intrusion detection, and virus protection. Access to personally identifiable information in this system is role based and restricted to those who require the data in the performance of their official duties and have completed annual information assurance and privacy training. Records are encrypted during transmission to protect session information, and while not in use (data at rest).”

    Retention and Disposal:

    Delete entry and replace with “Master database files: Close after 3 years of continuous inactivity or notification of discharge, retirement or separation of the service member, then destroy 10 years after closed.

    Non-medical counseling records: Close after 3 years of continuous inactivity or notification of discharge, retirement or separation of the service member, then destroy 15 years after closed.

    Training records: Close annually upon completion of training, then destroy 5 years after closed.

    Call center recordings: Close after referral to non-medical counseling, employee assistance program support, information and referral, then destroy after 90 days.”

    Notification Procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine if information about themselves is contained in this record system should address inquiries to the appropriate system manager.

    Signed, written requests should include the individual's full name, current address, and telephone number.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on [date]. [Signature].’

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on [date]. [Signature]’.”

    Record Access Procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine if information about themselves is contained in this record system should address inquiries to the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff Freedom of Information Act Requester Service Center, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington DC 20301-1155.

    Signed, written requests should include the individual's full name, current address, and telephone number, and the name and number of this system of records notice.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on [date]. [Signature].’

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on [date]. [Signature]’.”

    Contesting Record Procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) rules for accessing records, for contesting contents, and appealing initial agency determinations are published in OSD Administrative Instruction 81; 32 CFR part 311, or may be obtained from the system manager.”

    [FR Doc. 2017-01450 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2014-OS-0039] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by February 23, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Military Spouse Employment Partnership (MSEP) Career Portal; OMB Control Number 0704-XXXX.

    Type of Request: New collection.

    Number of Respondents: 22,450.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 22,450.

    Average Burden per Response: 28.33 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 16,663.

    Needs and Uses: The Military Spouse Employment Partnership (MSEP) Career Portal is the sole web platform utilized to connect military spouses with companies seeking to hire military spouse employees. Participating companies, called MSEP Partners, are vetted and approved participants in the MSEP Program and have pledged to recruit, hire, promote and retain military spouses in portable careers.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; individuals or households; not-for-profit institutions; federal government.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: January 17, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01444 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Meeting notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing.

    DATES:

    Thursday, February 23, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and Friday, February 24, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Pine Inn, Ocean Avenue, between Lincoln and Monte Verde Street, Carmel, California.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Jane M. Arabian, Assistant Director, Accession Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Room 3D1066, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000, telephone (703) 697-9271.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.), Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and title 41, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is to review planned changes and progress in developing computerized tests for military enlistment screening.

    Agenda: The agenda includes an overview of current enlistment test development timelines, test development strategies, and planned research for the next 3 years.

    Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public.

    Committee's Designated Federal Officer or Point of Contact: Dr. Jane M. Arabian, Assistant Director, Accession Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Room 3D1066, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000, telephone (703) 697-9271.

    Persons desiring to make oral presentations or submit written statements for consideration at the committee meeting must contact Dr. Jane M. Arabian at the address or telephone number in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than January 27, 2017.

    Dated: January 17, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01433 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Extension of Public Comment Period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for EA-18G “Growler” Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island Complex, Washington AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    A notice of availability was published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Federal Register on November 10, 2016 (81 FR 79019) for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for EA-18G “Growler” Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island Complex, Washington. At that time, the Department of the Navy (DoN) offered a 75-day extended public comment period which is will end on January 25, 2017. This notice confirms a 30-day extension of the public comment period through February 24, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    EA-18G EIS Project Manager, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Atlantic, Attention: Code EV21/SS; 6506 Hampton Boulevard, Norfolk, Virginia 23508.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The public comment period for the Draft EIS for EA-18G “Growler” Airfield Operations at NAS Whidbey Island Complex, Washington, will be extended until February 24, 2017. Comments may be submitted in writing to the address identified above. In addition, comments may be submitted online at http://www.whidbeyeis.com. All written comments must be postmarked or received online by February 24, 2017 to ensure they become part of the official record. All comments submitted to the DoN during the public comment period will be addressed in the Final EIS.

    Those commenters submitting written comments should indicate whether they authorize release of personally identifiable information. The DoN may release the city, state, and 5-digit zip code of individuals who provide comments during the Draft EIS public review period. However, the names, street addresses, email addresses and screen names, telephone numbers, or other personally identifiable information of those individuals will not be released by the DoN unless required by law.

    The Draft EIS is available for public electronic viewing or download at the project Web site. A paper copy of the Draft EIS may be reviewed at 22 public libraries in the northern Puget Sound region. The full list of and addresses for each of the libraries may be found at the project Web site.

    Dated: January 12, 2017. A.M. Nichols, Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01513 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Submission for OMB Review AGENCY:

    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final Notice of Submission for OMB Review—Extension Without Change: Local Union Report (EEO-3).

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) announces that it is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for a three-year extension without change of the Local Union Report (EEO-3) (Form 274).

    DATES:

    Written comments on this notice must be submitted on or before February 23, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on this notice must be submitted to Joseph B. Nye, Policy Analyst, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, email [email protected] Commenters are also encouraged to send comments to the EEOC online at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions on the Web site for submitting comments. In addition, the EEOC's Executive Secretariat will accept comments in hard copy. Hard copy comments should be sent to Bernadette Wilson, Acting Executive Officer, EEOC, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507. Finally, the Executive Secretariat will accept comments totaling six or fewer pages by facsimile (“fax”) machine before the same deadline at (202) 663-4114. (This is not a toll-free number.) Receipt of fax transmittals will not be acknowledged, except that the sender may request confirmation of receipt by calling the Executive Secretariat staff at (202) 663-4070 (voice) or (202) 663-4074 (TTY). (These are not toll-free telephone numbers.) The EEOC will post online at http://www.regulations.gov all comments submitted via this Web site, in hard copy, or by fax to the Executive Secretariat. These comments will be posted without change, including any personal information you provide. However, the EEOC reserves the right to refrain from posting libelous or otherwise inappropriate comments including those that contain obscene, indecent, or profane language; that contain threats or defamatory statements; that contain hate speech directed at race, color, sex, national origin, age, religion, disability, or genetic information; or that promote or endorse services or products. All comments received, including any personal information provided, also will be available for public inspection during normal business hours by appointment only at the EEOC Headquarters Library, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507. Upon request, individuals who require assistance viewing comments will be provided appropriate aids such as readers or print magnifiers. To schedule an appointment, contact EEOC Library staff at (202) 663-4630 (voice) or (202) 663-4641 (TTY). (These are not toll-free numbers.)

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ronald Edwards, Director, Program Research and Surveys Division, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Room 4SW30F, Washington, DC 20507; (202) 663-4949 (voice) or (202) 663-7063 (TTY). Requests for this notice in an alternative format should be made to the Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs at (202) 663-4191 (voice) or (202) 663-4494 (TTY).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The EEOC has collected information from local unions on the EEO-3 form since 1967. A notice that EEOC would be submitting this request was published in the Federal Register on September 13, 2016 allowing for a 60-day public comment period. There were no comments received from the public.

    Overview of Information Collection

    Collection Title: Local Union Report (EEO-3).

    OMB Number: 3046-0006.

    Frequency of Report: Biennial.

    Type of Respondent: Referral local unions with 100 or more members.

    Description of Affected Public: Referral local unions and independent or unaffiliated referral unions and similar labor organizations.

    Responses: 1,075.1

    1 This figure differs from the estimated number of respondents provided in the September 13, 2016 Federal Register notice. The figure was changed to reflect the most current information on the number of EEO-3 filers.

    Biennial Reporting Hours: 2203.75.

    Biennial Cost Burden: $90,885.34.

    Biennial Federal Cost: $81,935.

    Number of Forms: 1.

    Form Number: EEOC Form 274.

    Abstract: Section 709(c) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-8(c), requires labor organizations to make and keep records relevant to a determination of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed and to produce reports from the data. The EEOC issued regulations requiring referral local unions with 100 or more members to submit EEO-3 reports. The individual reports are confidential. The EEOC uses EEO-3 data to investigate charges of discrimination and for research.

    Burden Statement: The EEOC has updated its methodology for calculating annual burden to reflect the different staff that are responsible for preparing and filing the EEO-3. The EEOC now accounts for time to be spent biennially on EEO-3 reporting by business agents and administrative staff, as well as time spent by attorneys who, in a few cases, may consult briefly during the reporting process. As shown in Table 1 below, we estimate that Secretaries/Administrative Assistants and Business Agents will each spend 1 hour per report, and Legal Counsel will spend .05 hour per report. The estimated number of respondents included in the biennial EEO-3 survey is 1,075 referral unions, as this is the number of filers from the 2014 reporting cycle. Table 1, below, was utilized to quantify estimates of the annual burden of EEO-3 survey respondents. Burden hour cost was calculated using median hourly wage rates for administrative staff and legal counsel, and average hourly wage rates for labor union business agents.2 The estimated hour burden per report will be 2.05 hours, and the estimated total biennial respondent burden hours will be 2,203.75. The burden hour cost per respondent will be $84.54, and the estimated total biennial burden hour cost for all respondents will be $90,885.34. (See Table 1 for calculations.)

    2 Median hourly wage rates for administrative staff and legal counsel were obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (see U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, http://www/bls.gov/ooh/) and the average hourly wage rate for a labor union business agent was obtained from salaryexpert.com (see https://www.salaryexpert.com/salarysurveydata/job=labor-union-business-agent/salary).

    Table 1—Estimate of Burden for EEO-3 Report Local referral union staff Hourly wage
  • rate
  • Hours
  • per local
  • Cost per local 3 Total
  • burden hours 4
  • Total
  • burden hour
  • cost 5
  • Number of Local Unions = 1075 Secretaries and Administrative Assistants $17.55 1 $17.55 1075 $18866.25 Business Agent 64.21 1 64.21 1075 69025.75 Legal Counsel 55.69 0.05 2.7845 53.75 2993.3375 Total 137.45 2.05 84.5445 2203.75 90885.3375

    Estimated burden hours were calculated by multiplying the number of reports expected to be filed biennially (1,075 in 2014) by the estimated average time to complete and submit each report (2.05 hours). These estimates are based on an assumption of paper reporting. However, the EEOC has made electronic filing much easier for respondents required to file the EEO-3 Report. As a result, more jurisdictions are using this filing method. This development, along with the greater availability of human resource information software, is expected to have significantly reduced the actual burden of reporting, but empirical data in this area is lacking. The Commission continues to develop more reliable estimates of reporting burdens given the significant increase in electronic filing and explore new approaches to make such reporting even less burdensome. In order to help reduce survey burden, respondents are encouraged to report data electronically whenever possible.

    3 The figures in this column were calculated by multiplying the figures in the Hourly Wage Rate column by those in the Hours Per Local Column.

    4 The figures in this column were calculated by multiplying the figures in the Hours Per Local column by 1075, the total number of respondents.

    5 The figures in this column were calculated by multiplying the figures in the Cost Per Local column by 1075, the total number of respondents.

    Dated: January 13, 2017.

    For the Commission.

    Jenny R. Yang, Chair.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01558 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Granting of Request for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the Premerger Notification Rules

    Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, requires persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such plans. Section 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and requires that notice of this action be published in the Federal Register.

    The following transactions were granted early termination—on the dates indicated—of the waiting period provided by law and the premerger notification rules. The listing for each transaction includes the transaction number and the parties to the transaction. The grants were made by the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Neither agency intends to take any action with respect to these proposed acquisitions during the applicable waiting period. 

    Early Terminations Granted December 1, 2016 Thru December 31, 2016 12/01/2016 20170262 G GTCR Fund X/A LP; Inteliquent, Inc.; GTCR Fund X/A LP. 12/02/2016 20170204 G Bertelsmann Ver.; Advanced Practice Strategies, Inc.; Bertelsmann Ver. 20170248 G Hainan Cihang Charitable Foundation c/o HNA Group Co., Ltd.; Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc.; Hainan Cihang Charitable Foundation c/o HNA Group Co., Ltd. 20170259 G Federated Mutual Insurance Company; RRRF, L.L.C.; Federated Mutual Insurance Company. 20170293 G SpartanNash Company; Joseph A. Caito; SpartanNash Company. 20170295 G SpartanNash Company; Philip J. Caito IV; SpartanNash Company. 20170302 G dormakaba Holding AG; Mesker Holdings, LLC; dormakaba Holding AG. 20170304 G CenterPoint Energy, Inc.; Atmos Energy Corporation; CenterPoint Energy, Inc. 20170311 G Tesoro Corporation; George B. Kaiser; Tesoro Corporation. 20170312 G Tesoro Corporation; MDU Resources Group, Inc.; Tesoro Corporation. 20170315 G Tesoro Corporation; Whiting Petroleum Corporation; Tesoro Corporation. 20170324 G Charoen Pokphand Foods Public Company Limited; Centre Capital Investors V, L.P.; Charoen Pokphand Foods Public Company Limited. 20170325 G Riverside Micro-Cap Fund IV-A, L.P.; Brendan Weaver; Riverside Micro-Cap Fund IV-A, L.P. 20170326 G Riverside Micro-Cap Fund IV-A, L.P.; Damon Weaver; Riverside Micro-Cap Fund IV-A, L.P. 20170329 Y KKR Asian Fund II Japan AIV L.P.; Calsonic Kansei Corporation; KKR Asian Fund II Japan AIV L.P. 20170331 G Cressey & Company Fund V, LP; Beecken Petty O'Keefe Fund III, L.P.; Cressey & Company Fund V, LP. 12/05/2016 20170278 G BDT Capital Partners Fund II, L.P.; Athletico Management Holdings, LLC; BDT Capital Partners Fund II, L.P. 20170309 G PepsiCo, Inc.; KeVita, Inc.; PepsiCo, Inc. 12/06/2016 20170333 G Carlyle Partners VI, L.P.; NVLX Holdings, LLC; Carlyle Partners VI, L.P. 12/07/2016 20161136 G Boyd Gaming Corporation; Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC; Boyd Gaming Corporation. 20170244 G Letterone Investment Holdings S.A.; Carter Burden III; Letterone Investment Holdings S.A. 20170249 G Spectrum Equity Investors VI, L.P.; CBOE Holdings, Inc. ; Spectrum Equity Investors VI, L.P. 20170290 G Cortec Group Fund VI, L.P.; ICON Eye Care LLC; Cortec Group Fund VI, L.P. 12/08/2016 20170224 G Advent OT (Cayman) Ltd.; SAFRAN; Advent OT (Cayman) Ltd. 20170265 G Arrowhead Holdco Company; Daniel Ariens; Arrowhead Holdco Company. 20170291 G Rodger O. Riney Family Voting Trust U/A/D 12/31/2012; TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation; Rodger O. Riney Family Voting Trust U/A/D 12/31/2012. 20170292 G TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation; Rodger O. Riney Family Voting Trust U/A/D 12/31/2012; TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation. 12/09/2016 20170230 G Eugenie Patri Sabastien EPS, SA; BBH/Fun, LLC; Eugenie Patri Sabastien EPS, SA 20170231 G Jorge Paulo Lemann; BBH/Fun, LLC; Jorge Paulo Lemann. 20170305 G Wang Jianlin; Todd L. Boehly; Wang Jianlin. 20170318 G Beijing Shareco Technologies Co., Ltd.; Global Eagle Entertainment Inc.; Beijing Shareco Technologies Co., Ltd. 20170335 G OZRE Holdings XVI LLC; CNL Lifestyle Properties, Inc.; OZRE Holdings XVI LLC. 20170336 G Acasta Enterprises Inc.; Richard Wachsberg; Acasta Enterprises Inc. 20170337 G Acasta Enterprises Inc.; Charles Wachsberg; Acasta Enterprises Inc. 20170348 G Lear Corporation; MVC Private Equity Fund, L.P.; Lear Corporation. 20170355 G Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.; Bai Brands LLC; Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. 20170356 G Lully Jersey Holding Limited; JPMorgan & Chase & Co.; Lully Jersey Holding Limited. 20170363 G Clayton, Dubilier & Rice Fund IX, L.P.; Moelis Capital Partners Opportunity Fund I, L.P.; Clayton, Dubilier & Rice Fund IX, L.P. 20170364 G Carlyle Global Partners, L.P.; FCOF III UST LLC; Carlyle Global Partners, L.P. 20170377 G WPP plc; Promotion Execution Partners, LLC; WPP plc. 20170379 G Palladium Equity Partners IV, L.P.; Trampoline Acquisition Parent Holdings, LLC; Palladium Equity Partners IV, L.P. 20170388 G JX Holdings, Inc.; TonenGeneral Sekiyu K.K.; JX Holdings, Inc. 20170395 G 1818 Acquisition LLC; Alinda Infrastructure Fund II, L.P.; 1818 Acquisition LLC. 12/10/2016 20160314 G Elliott International Limited; CenterPoint Energy, Inc.; Elliott International Limited. 12/12/2016 20161016 G Alaska Air Group, Inc.; Virgin America Inc.; Alaska Air Group, Inc. 20170301 G Insight Enterprises, Inc.; Datalink Corporation; Insight Enterprises, Inc. 20170383 G Colowide Co., Ltd.; Tomoyoshi Nishiyama; Colowide Co., Ltd. 20170386 G Coloplast A/S; Liberty Medical Holdings, LLC; Coloplast A/S. 20170392 G QUIKRETE Holdings, Inc.; CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V.; QUIKRETE Holdings, Inc. 20170400 G MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc.; Applied Micro Circuits Corporation; MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. 12/13/2016 20170245 G Providence Equity Partners VII USRPHC L.P.; EdgeConnex, Inc.; Providence Equity Partners VII USRPHC L.P. 20170345 G The Allstate Corporation; Bain Capital Fund X, L.P.; The Allstate Corporation. 12/14/2016 20170277 G FFL Capital Partners IV, L.P.; Brockway Moran & Partners Fund III, L.P.; FFL Capital Partners IV, L.P. 20170338 G Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.; Mitsubishi Nichiyu Forklift Co., Ltd.; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. 20170393 G Clearlake Capital Partners IV, L.P.; Harte Hanks, Inc.; Clearlake Capital Partners IV, L.P. 12/15/2016 20170358 G Ivanti Investment Holdings, LLC; Clearlake Capital Partners II, L.P.; Ivanti Investment Holdings, LLC. 12/16/2016 20170297 G Warburg Pincus Private Equity XII, L.P.; United Internet AG; Warburg Pincus Private Equity XII, L.P. 20170303 G Crown Castle International Corp.; NextEra Energy, Inc.; Crown Castle International Corp. 20170327 G Elliott Associates, L.P.; Marathon Petroleum Corporation; Elliott Associates, L.P. 20170328 G Elliott International Limited; Marathon Petroleum Corporation; Elliott International Limited. 20170349 G Glanbia Co-operative Society Limited; Brandon A. Bert & Audra J. Bert; Glanbia Co-operative Society Limited. 20170350 G Glanbia Co-operative Society Limited; Todd R. Habermehl & Brandy L. Habermehl; Glanbia Co-operative Society Limited. 20170354 G New Residential Investment Corp.; Walter Capital Opportunity, LP; New Residential Investment Corp. 20170396 G J&F Investimentos S.A.; David W. Maschhoff Family GST Trust; J&F Investimentos S.A. 20170398 G Vossloh AG; Altus Capital Management II, LLC; Vossloh AG. 20170401 G Odyssey Investment Partners Fund V, L.P.; Trilantic Capital Partners V (North America) L.P.; Odyssey Investment Partners Fund V, L.P. 20170406 G Comvest Investment Partners V, L.P.; IMC Group, LLC; Comvest Investment Partners V, L.P. 20170407 G Roger S. Penske; Christopher W. Turner; Roger S. Penske. 20170410 G Mr. Zhiqiang Lu; Genworth Financial, Inc.; Mr. Zhiqiang Lu. 20170421 G Platinum Equity Capital Partners IV, L.P.; Cox Family Voting Trust u/a/d 7/26/13; Platinum Equity Capital Partners IV, L.P. 20170423 G PSI Enterprises, LLC; Spire Capital Partners II, L.P.; PSI Enterprises, LLC. 12/19/2016 20170275 G Windstream Holdings, Inc.; EarthLink Holdings Corp.; Windstream Holdings, Inc. 20170332 G Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Harman International Industries, Incorporated; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. 20170382 G ArcLight Energy Partners Fund VI, L.P.; TransCanada Corporation; ArcLight Energy Partners Fund VI, L.P. 20170387 G Bayview MSR Opportunity Master Fund, L.P.; PHH Corporation; Bayview MSR Opportunity Master Fund, L.P. 20170429 G Charlesbank Equity Fund VIII, Limited Partnership; Clearview Capital Fund II, L.P.; Charlesbank Equity Fund VIII, Limited Partnership. 12/20/2016 20160997 G Wang Jianlin; Carmike Cinemas, Inc.; Wang Jianlin. 20161550 G McKesson Corporation; PF2 NewCo LLC; McKesson Corporation. 12/21/2016 20170313 G London Stock Exchange Group plc; Carousel Capital Partners III L.P.; London Stock Exchange Group plc. 20170322 G Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation; Bruce E. Toll; Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation. 20170323 G Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation; Mark Kozak; Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation. 20170380 G Tencent Holdings Limited; Pocket Gems, Inc.; Tencent Holdings Limited. 20170384 G Sanofi; C.H. Boehringer Sohn AG & Co. KG; Sanofi. 20170404 G Symantec Corporation; LifeLock, Inc.; Symantec Corporation. 12/22/2016 20170321 G Francisco Partners IV, L.P.; Operative Media, Inc.; Francisco Partners IV, L.P. 20170339 G Siemens Aktiengesellschaft; Mentor Graphics Corporation; Siemens Aktiengesellschaft. 20170428 G Community Bank System, Inc.; Northeast Retirement Services, Inc.; Community Bank System, Inc. 12/23/2016 20160876 G GTCR Fund XI/B LP; Thomas H. Lee Equity Fund VI, L.P.; GTCR Fund XI/B LP. 20160877 G GTCR Fund XI/B LP; Bain Capital CC Investors, L.P.; GTCR Fund XI/B LP. 20170342 G Elliott Associates, L.P.; Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation; Elliott Associates, L.P. 20170343 G Elliott International Limited; Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation; Elliott International Limited. 20170434 G Vista Equity Partners Fund VI, L.P.; Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.; Vista Equity Partners Fund VI, L.P. 20170435 G Vista Equity Partners Fund V, L.P.; Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.; Vista Equity Partners Fund V, L.P. 20170443 G WWEX UNI Topco Holdings, LLC; Quad-C Partners VIII, L.P.; WWEX UNI Topco Holdings, LLC. 20170444 G WWEX UNI Topco Holdings, LLC; REP UNI I-B Feeder, L.P.; WWEX UNI Topco Holdings, LLC. 20170447 G Bain Capital Fund XI, L.P.; Sun Capital Partners V, L.P.; Bain Capital Fund XI, L.P. 20170457 G Baseline Industries, L.P.; Stitch Fix, Inc.; Baseline Industries, L.P. 12/27/2016 20161298 G ABBOTT LABORATORIES; St. Jude Medical, Inc; ABBOTT LABORATORIES. 12/28/2016 20160766 G C.H. Boehringer Sohn AG & Co. KG; Sanofi; C.H. Boehringer Sohn AG & Co. KG. 20170365 G CSL Completions Co-Invest, LLC; BJ Services, LLC; CSL Completions Co-Invest, LLC. 20170374 G Trident V, L.P.; American Capital, Ltd.; Trident V, L.P. 20170412 G Zayo Group Holdings, Inc.; Electric Lightwave Parent, Inc.; Zayo Group Holdings, Inc. 12/29/2016 20170375 G BCEC-SIS Holdings (Guernsey) LP; Medina Capital Fund, LP; BCEC-SIS Holdings (Guernsey) LP. 20170376 G BCEC-SIS Holdings (Guernsey) LP; CenturyLink, Inc.; BCEC-SIS Holdings (Guernsey) LP. 20170452 G Marcato International Ltd.; Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc.; Marcato International Ltd. 12/30/2016 20170372 G WellCare Health Plans, Inc.; Universal American Corp.; WellCare Health Plans, Inc. 20170389 G AT&T Inc.; Invidi Technologies Corporation; AT&T Inc. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Theresa Kingsberry Program Support Specialist, Federal Trade Commission Premerger Notification Office Bureau of Competition, Room CC-5301, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 326-3100.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01491 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Proposed Collection; Comment Request for a Modified OGE Form 278e Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report AGENCY:

    Office of Government Ethics (OGE).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for agency and public comments.

    SUMMARY:

    After publication of this second round notice, OGE intends to submit a modified OGE Form 278e Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval of a three-year extension under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments by the public and the agencies on this proposed extension are invited and must be received by February 23, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this paperwork notice to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for OGE, via fax at 202-395-6974 or email at [email protected] (Include reference to “OGE Form 278e paperwork comment” in the subject line of the message.)

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brandon Steele at the U.S. Office of Government Ethics; telephone: 202-482-9209; TTY: 800-877-8339; FAX: 202-482-9237; Email: [email protected] An electronic copy of the OGE Form 278e is available in the Forms Library section of OGE's Web site at http://www.oge.gov. A paper copy may also be obtained, without charge, by contacting Mr. Steele.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report.

    Form Number: OGE Form 278e.

    OMB Control Number: 3209-0001.

    Type of Information Collection: Extension with modifications of a currently approved collection.

    Type of Review Request: Regular.

    Respondents: Private citizen Presidential nominees to executive branch positions subject to Senate confirmation; other private citizens who are potential (incoming) Federal employees whose positions are designated for public disclosure filing; those who file termination reports from such positions after their Government service ends; and Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates.

    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 4,884.

    Estimated Time per Response: 3 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 14,652 hours.

    Abstract: The OGE Form 278 collects information from certain officers and high-level employees in the executive branch for conflicts of interest review and public disclosure. The form is also completed by individuals who are nominated by the President for high-level executive branch positions requiring Senate confirmation and new entrants to other public reporting positions in the executive branch. The financial information collected relates to: Assets and income; transactions; gifts, reimbursements and travel expenses; liabilities; agreements or arrangements; outside positions; and compensation over $5,000 paid by a source—all subject to various reporting thresholds and exclusions. The information is collected in accordance with section 102 of the Ethics in Government Act, 5 U.S.C. app. section 102, as amended by the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-105) (STOCK Act) and OGE's implementing financial disclosure regulations at 5 CFR part 2634.

    OGE published a first round notice of its intent to request paperwork clearance for a modified OGE Form 278e Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report. See 81 FR 71503 (October 17, 2016). OGE received two responses, one of which did not actually address the information collection. The other response suggested that the form require additional information and opposes the changes on the grounds that they would “streamline” the form and reduce transparency. OGE declined to adopt these recommendations. The information required on the form is dictated by the Ethics in Government Act, as amended, and OGE's implementing regulations. With regard to the changes made to the form, OGE believes that they make the form more user-friendly and more clear and therefore improve, not impede, transparency.

    Request for Comments: Agency and public comment is again invited specifically on the need for and practical utility of this information collection, the accuracy of OGE's burden estimate, the enhancement of quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected, and the minimization of burden (including the use of information technology). Comments received in response to this notice will be summarized for, and may be included with, the OGE request for extension of OMB paperwork approval. The comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Approved: January 17, 2017. Walter M. Shaub, Jr., Director, Office of Government Ethics.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01483 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6345-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Community Living Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request; Revised Annual and Final Reports for Performance Reporting Data From NIDILRR Grantees AGENCY:

    National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research NIDILRR, Administration for Community Living, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration for Community Living (ACL/NIDILRR) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on ACL's intention to obtain annual and final performance data from NIDILRR grantees. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish a notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information (including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information) and to allow 60 days for public comment on the proposed action. This notice collects comments on the information collection requirements relating to the reinstatement with change of a previously approved data collection covering ten NIDILRR programs.

    DATES:

    Submit written comments on the collection of information by March 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to: [email protected] Submit written comments on the collection of information to Mary Darnell, U.S. Administration for Community Living, 330 C Street SW., Room 2510-D Washington, DC 20416.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Darnell, 202-795-7337.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, ACL is publishing a notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    Proposed Collection: Annual and Final Performance Reporting (APR) Forms for NIDILRR Grantees.

    The forms included in this package are revised versions of those used by grantees in the following 10 programs to submit their Annual and Final Performance Reports for Reporting Year 2016 under OMB collection number 1820-0675:

    • Rehabilitation Research Training Centers (RRTCs) • Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs) • Field Initiated Research Projects (FIPs) • Advanced Rehabilitation Research Training Projects (ARRTs) • Model Systems (including spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, and burn centers) • Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRPs) • Knowledge Translation (KT) Projects • ADA National Network Centers (ADAs) • Small Business Innovation Research Projects (SBIR) grantees (Phase 2 only) • Research Fellowships Program (RFP)

    The APR includes common information and information specific to individual programs. The final report is a subset of items from the annual report and provides a summary of progress and outcomes for the full project period. OMB's approval of the forms used in Reporting Year 2016 expired December 31, 2016.

    Need and Use of Information Collection: The National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) Administration for Community Living (ACL) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requests clearance of revised Annual Performance Reporting (APR) and Final Report forms to be completed by all NIDILRR grantees. (Previously housed in the Department of Education and known as the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research [NIDRR], NIDILRR was renamed and relocated to HHS by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014.)

    Changes in the Reporting Forms: The Web-based system used for Reporting Year 2016 reporting incorporate a number of features to meet NIDILRR's information needs while minimizing burden. The reporting form and system currently in use were designed so that information provided by grantees each year is automatically carried forward to the next. Under this design, grantees need only review and, if necessary, edit their previous year's entries in order to complete subsequent annual reports. To further reduce burden, the proposed form is designed so that, instead of describing their accomplishments, grantees simply select their most important accomplishments from among the outputs they report. Data from grant applications, such as contact and budget information, are preloaded for efficiency. To facilitate grantee and NIDILRR staff review of information submitted, the system includes system-generated tables that summarize information entered in specific sections. The Web-based system also carries forward information from one section of the form to the next; for example, information on outcome-oriented goals is carried forward for convenient linkage with projects/activities and publications. New mandates promoting public-access to government-sponsored information and products have led to new requirements for NIDILRR's grantees. NIDILRR and the Administration for Community Living have recently published our public access plan to operationalize these requirements related to public access to publications that result from work we sponsor. Specifically the Type 1 Outputs: Publications section has been modified to meet these requirements. NIDILRR took time to build these requirements into its annual performance report (APR) so that we can systematically monitor grantee compliance with the public access plan. The current reporting section will remain for all grants funded prior to 10/1/16 and continue to be used until such grants have ended. Grants funded after this date will see the section meeting the new reporting requirements. Minor changes to the currently approved reporting form were necessary to reflect NIDILRR's new name and its move from ED to HHS. These include:

    • Replacing references to ED's statutory requirements, forms, systems, and CFDA numbers with appropriate HHS references.

    • Changes necessary to accommodate the assignment of new HHS grant numbers (in a different format) to existing and new grants. The addition of one response option in the Indirect Costs section of the reporting form.

    Changes in the Burden Statement, reflecting the agency's move from ED to HHS, have been previously approved by OMB.

    Other changes include:

    Changes were made in the instructions for grantees' reporting on technology transfer plans (RERC grantees only).

    Insertion of one item about the stages of research in the Research Projects section and one item about the stages of development in the Development Projects section.

    Regulatory changes required minor changes to the response section for development projects and the addition of a question regarding commercialization.

    Reporting forms for all 10 programs are Web-based; that is, all grantees will complete their annual reports via the Internet. Data collected through these forms will be used to:

    (a) Facilitate program planning and management;

    (b) respond to Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Grants Policy Administration Manual (GPAM) requirements; and

    (c) respond to the reporting requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-62).1

    1 The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 are available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/mgmt-gpra/index-gpra.

    OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The average annual burden associated with these activities over a three-year period is summarized below.

    NIDILRR and HHS will use the information gathered annually from these data collection efforts to provide Congress with the information mandated in GPRA, provide OMB information required for assessment of performance on GPRA indicators, and support its evaluation activities. Data collected from the 10 grant programs will provide a national description of the research activities of approximately 275 NIDILRR grantees per year in fiscal years 2017-2019.

    While the number of grantees will vary from year to year, all grantees will be required to submit an annual performance report and a final report at the completion of the project. Based on our experience with reporting burden, we estimate that it will take an average of 52 hours to complete the reporting form in a grantee's first year of award. In subsequent years, the estimated response burden is approximately 22 hours. The estimated response burden includes time to review the instructions, gather existing data, and complete and review the form. The number of respondents is based on the average number of grants administered by NIDILRR over time. The proposed NIDILRR Annual Performance Report (APR) and final report forms can be found on the ACL Web site at:

    https://acl.gov/Programs/NIDILRR/docs/NIDILRR-AnnualPerfReport-2016.pdf. https://acl.gov/Programs/NIDILRR/docs/NIDILRR-APR-FinalForm-2016.pdf.

    ACL estimates the burden hours for this collection of information as follows:

    Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours per response
  • Total burden hours
    New Grantees 75 1 52 3,900 Continuations and Final Reports 200 1 22 4.400 Total 8,300
    Date: January 17, 2017. Edwin Walker, Acting Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Aging.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01537 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Announcement of Meeting of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030 AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the next federal advisory committee meeting regarding the development of national health promotion and disease prevention objectives for 2030. This meeting will be held online via webinar and is open to the public. The Committee will discuss the nation's health promotion and disease prevention objectives and will provide recommendations to improve health status and reduce health risks for the nation by the year 2030. The Committee will advise the Secretary on the Healthy People 2030 mission, vision, framework, and organizational structure. The Committee will provide advice regarding criteria for identifying a more focused set of measurable, nationally representative objectives. The Committee's advice must assist the Secretary in reducing the number of objectives while ensuring that the selection criteria identifies the most critical public health issues that are high-impact priorities supported by current national data.

    DATES:

    The Committee will meet on February 13, 2017 from 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET).

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held online, via the WebEx platform. To register to attend the meeting, please visit the Healthy People Web site at http://www.healthypeople.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Emmeline Ochiai, Designated Federal Officer, Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Room LL-100, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8280 (telephone), (240) 453-8281 (fax). Additional information is available on the Healthy People Web site at http://www.healthypeople.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The names of the Committee members are available at https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/about/history-development/healthy-people-2030-advisory-committee.

    Purpose of Meeting: Through the Healthy People initiative, HHS leverages scientific insights and lessons from the past decade, along with new knowledge of current data, trends, and innovations, to develop the next iteration of national health promotion and disease prevention objectives. Healthy People provides science-based, 10-year national objectives for promoting health and preventing disease. Since 1979, Healthy People has set and monitored national health objectives that meet a broad range of health needs, encourage collaboration across sectors, guide individuals toward making informed health decisions, and measure the impact of our prevention and health promotion activities. Healthy People 2030 health objectives will reflect assessments of major risks to health and wellness, changing public health priorities, and emerging technologies related to our nation's health preparedness and prevention.

    Public Participation at Meeting: Members of the public are invited to join the online Committee meeting. There will be no opportunity for oral public comments during this online Committee meeting. However, written comments are welcome throughout the entire development process of the national health promotion and disease prevention objectives for 2030 and may be emailed to [email protected]

    To join the Committee meeting, individuals must pre-register at the Healthy People Web site at http://www.healthypeople.gov. Participation in the meeting is limited. Registrations will be accepted until maximum webinar capacity is reached, and must be completed by 9:00 a.m. ET on February 13, 2017. A waiting list will be maintained should registrations exceed capacity, and those individuals will be contacted as additional space for the meeting becomes available. Registration questions may be directed to: Jim Nakayama at [email protected], or (240) 672-4011.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 217a. The Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030 is governed by provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C., App.) which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees.

    Dated: January 12, 2017. Don Wright, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health, Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01541 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-32-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Meeting Announcement for the Technical Advisory Panel on Medicare Trustee Reports ACTION:

    Notice of Public Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the meeting dates for the Technical Advisory Panel on Medicare Trustee Reports on Tuesday, February 7, 2017 and Wednesday February 8, 2017 in Washington, DC.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 7, 2017 from 9:15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Wednesday February 8, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time and it is open to the public.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Hubert Humphrey Building 200 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC, 20201 Room 738G.3.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Donald Oellerich, Designated Federal Officer, at the Office of Human Services Policy, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20201, (202) 690-8410.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Purpose: The Panel will discuss the long-term rate of change in health spending and may make recommendations to the Secretary on how the Medicare Trustees might more accurately estimate health spending in the short and long run. The Panel's discussion is expected to be very technical in nature and will focus on the actuarial and economic assumptions and methods by which Trustees might more accurately measure health spending. This Committee is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a)(1) and (a)(2)). The Committee is composed of nine members appointed by the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.

    II. Agenda. The Panel will likely hear presentations from two outside experts; one on prescription drugs spending and a second on spillover effects. In addition the HHS Office of the Actuary will present on issues the panel may wish to address. Additional presentations regarding long range growth, sustainability of provider payments under Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Medicare Access and Chip Reauthorization Act (MACRA), methods for transitioning from short term (10 year) to long term (75 year) projections and methods and the presentation of uncertainty in the report may follow. After any presentations, the Panel will deliberate openly on the topics. Interested persons may observe the deliberations, but the Panel will not hear public comments during this time. The Panel will also allow an open public session for any attendee to address issues specific to the topic.

    III. Meeting Attendance. The Tuesday, February 7, 2017 and Wednesday February 8, 2017 meetings are open to the public; however, in-person attendance is limited to space available.

    Meeting Registration

    The public may attend the meeting in-person. Space is limited and registration is required in order to attend in-person. Registration may be completed by emailing or faxing all the following information to Dr. Donald Oellerich at [email protected] or fax 202-690-6562:

    Name. Company name. Postal address. Email address.

    If sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodation for a disability is needed, please contact Dr. Oellerich, no later than January 31, 2017 by sending an email message to [email protected] or calling 202-690-8410.

    A confirmation email will be sent to the registrants shortly after completing the registration process.

    IV. Special Accommodations. Individuals requiring special accommodations must include the request for these services during registration.

    V. Copies of the Charter. The Secretary's Charter for the Technical Advisory Panel on Medicare Trustee Reports is available upon request from Dr. Donald Oellerich at [email protected] or by calling 202-690-8410.

    Dated: January 12, 2017. Kathryn E. Martin, Acting Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01479 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Peer Review Meeting.

    Date: February 21, 2017.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Susana Mendez, DVM, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room 3G53B, National Institutes of Health, NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane Dr. MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5077, [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: January 17, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01453 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Nursing Research; 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 Nursing Research Initial Review Group.

    Date: February 16-17, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda Marriott Suites, 6711 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Weiqun Li, M.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 703, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-5807, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Nursing Research Special Emphasis Panel; Loan Repayment.

    Date: March 8, 2017.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Office of Review, Division of Extramural Activities, National Inst of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 703, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Mario Rinaudo, M.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Review, Division of Extramural Activities, National Inst of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 703, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-5807, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.361, Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: January 13, 2017. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01457 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; 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 Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Emphasis Panel; NIDCR Secondary Data Analysis.

    Date: February 22, 2017.

    Time: Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: GUO HE ZHANG, MPH, Ph.D., SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OFFICER, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 672, Bethesda, MD 20892, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Emphasis Panel; NIDCR DSR Member Conflict SEP.

    Date: March 1, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Latarsha J. Carithers, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, NIDCR, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 672, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-4859, [email protected].

    Name of Committee:National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Emphasis Panel; Oral HIVacc SEP.

    Date: March 6, 2017.

    Time: 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Latarsha J. Carithers, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer Division of Extramural Activities, NIDCR, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 672, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-4859, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: January 17, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01454 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; 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: Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research Committee.

    Date: February 16-17, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: James T. Snyder, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities/Room 3G31B, National Institutes of Health, NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9834, Bethesda, MD 20892-9834, (240) 669-5060, [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: January 17, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01452 Filed 1-23-17; 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 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: NIGMS Initial Review Group, Training and Workforce Development Subcommittee—B, REVIEW OF T32 APPLICATIONS.

    Date: March 3, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Cambria Suites Rockville, 1 Helen Heneghan Way, Rockville, MD 20850.

    Contact Person: Lisa A. Newman, SCD, Scientific Review Officer, OFFICE OF SCIENTIFIC REVIEW, National Institutes of General Medical Sciences, 45 CENTER DR RM 3AN18A, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301)435-0965, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: NIGMS Initial Review Group, Training and Workforce Development Subcommittee—D,

    Date: March 9-10, 2017,

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Marriott Wardman Park Washington DC Hotel, 2660 Woodley Road, NW., Washington, DC 20008.

    Contact Person: Rebecca H. Johnson, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 3AN18C, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-2771, [email protected].

    Name of Committee:NIGMS Initial Review Group, Training and Workforce Development Subcommittee—A: REVIEW OF T32 APPLICATIONS.

    Date: March 20, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Cambria Suites Rockville, 1 Helen Heneghan Way, Rockville, MD 20850.

    Contact Person: John J. Laffan, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 3AN18J, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-2773, [email protected].

    (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: January 17, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01455 Filed 1-23-17; 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 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 on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Alzheimer's Disease in the Post Genomics Era (RFA) M2.

    Date: February 16, 2017.

    Time: 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2W200, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Nijaguna Prasad, MS, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute of Aging, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301.496.9667, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Alzheimer's Disease in the Post Genomics Era (RFA) M1.

    Date: February 16, 2017.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2W200, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Nijaguna Prasad, MS, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute of Aging, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301.496.9667, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: January 17, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01451 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Special Topic in Nephrology.

    Date: January 26, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Jonathan K. Ivins, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4040A, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-1245, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: Biobehavioral and Behavioral Processes Integrated Review Group; Motor Function, Speech and Rehabilitation Study Section.

    Date: February 16-17, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: JW Marriott New Orleans, 614 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA 70130.

    Contact Person: Biao Tian, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3166, MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-4411, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Oncology 2—Translational Clinical Integrated Review Group; Cancer Biomarkers Study Section.

    Date: February 16-17, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: DoubleTree by Hilton Los Angeles Westside, 6161 W. Centinela Ave., Culver City, CA 90230.

    Contact Person: Lawrence Ka-Yun Ng, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6152, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-357-9318, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Risk, Prevention, and Health Behavior AREA (R15) Review.

    Date: February 17, 2017.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: John H. Newman, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3222, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-0628, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: January 17, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01488 Filed 1-23-17; 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 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 General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; COBRE Phase II.

    Date: March 8, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Nina Sidorova, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3An.22, Bethesda, MD 20892-6200, 301-594-3663, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; To Review K99/R00 Applications.

    Date: March 17, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda Downtown, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Tracy Koretsky, Scientific Review Officer, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3An.12F, Bethesda, MD 20892-6200, 301-594-2886, [email protected]

    (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: January 17, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01456 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.

    Project: Evaluation of the Cooperative Agreements To Benefit Homeless Individuals (CABHI) Program (OMB No. 0930-0339)—REVISION

    SAMHSA is conducting a cross-site evaluation of the FY2016 cohort of the CABHI grant program. The CABHI Evaluation builds on a previous evaluation of SAMHSA's 2009-2012 homeless services grant programs (i.e., Grants for the Benefit of Homeless Individuals, Services in Supportive Housing, and CABHI), under which the approved data collection tools were developed and implemented. SAMHSA is requesting approval from OMB to revise the burden inventory, which has been calculated based on the number of FY2016 CABHI grantees, and to modify the data collection mode of a project director interview.

    In 2016, SAMHSA awarded 30 CABHI grants across three levels: States (up to $1.5 million per year), Local Governments (up to $800,000 per year), and Communities (up to $400,000 per year). The grantees are united by the goal of enhancing and expanding infrastructure and capacity for mental health and substance abuse treatment and related support services for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness or veterans, families, or youth experiencing homelessness as a result of these conditions. This is accomplished through the provision of permanent supportive housing, behavioral health treatment, and recovery support services, and enrollment in health insurance, Medicaid, or other mainstream benefit programs.

    The primary task of the CABHI evaluation is to conduct a comprehensive process and outcome evaluation, addressing questions related to the implementation of the CABHI grant projects and the extent to which they were able to meet the program's goals. Process evaluation primarily represents what is done to and for the client (e.g., services provided); this aspect of the evaluation will also include a focus on structure, or the resources available in the service delivery system, which represent the capacity to deliver quality care, but not the care itself. The outcome evaluation will focus on outputs, which are the most immediate or proximal results of project activities (e.g., changes in partner collaboration, the number of clients enrolled in mainstream benefits), and client outcomes, particularly those related to behavioral health and homelessness and housing instability. The data collection tools included in this request collect a wide range of quantitative and qualitative data on characteristics of the grantee organization and its partnerships; the system within which the project is embedded; relationships with stakeholders; characteristics of the target population; services received, including implementation of EBPs; staffing patterns; costs of services; barriers and facilitators of project implementation; and project sustainability efforts. Data collection efforts that will support the evaluation are described below.

    The Project Director (PD) Phone Interview/Web Survey is designed to systematically collect key grant project characteristics which will directly inform the process evaluation component and will also provide essential data by documenting the partnerships and services each grantee includes in their project. The interview includes two components, a semi-structured telephone interview and a Web survey, which represents a change from the original approval. The interview was developed to be conducted as a telephone interview; however, some sections are better suited for self-administration through a Web-based survey (e.g., reporting which services the project is providing to clients) and the instrument has been modified accordingly. The PD Phone Interview/Web Survey is composed of the following sections: Grantee Agency and Project Characteristics, Target Population, Stakeholders/Partners, Services, Evidence-Based Practices (EBPs), Housing, Project Organization and Implementation, Sustainability, Local Evaluation, Technical Assistance, and Lessons Learned. A total of 39 respondents are expected to complete the PD Phone Interview/Web Survey; this includes one respondent from all of the CABHI grantees (n=30) and the State sub-recipients (n=9). This data collection will occur one time during Year 1 and one time during Year 3 of the evaluation.

    Site Visits will consist of in-person, semi-structured discussions with grant project directors, State sub-recipient coordinators, project evaluators, financial staff, behavioral health treatment staff, case managers, housing providers, other support services staff, primary partner staff and other key stakeholders, and project client participants. The purpose of the Site Visits is to collect detailed qualitative information and economic data on project activities conducted by the grantees and their partners, which will directly inform the process evaluation. The qualitative data will also provide essential information for the outcome evaluation component by documenting the interventions provided to clients and the implementation, barriers, facilitators, challenges and successes for each grant project visited. Each CABHI grant project (n=30) will be visited once during Year 2 and once during Year 3 of the evaluation. No changes have been made to the Site Visit instruments.

    The EBP Self-Assessment is a Web-based survey designed to collect information on the services implemented in CABHI grant projects that have a demonstrable evidence base, providing a description of the EBP interventions received by project clients. The EBP Self-Assessment tool is divided into two parts. Part 1 collects information on general implementation of the projects' primary EBPs (i.e., those received by the most project clients). Thirty-six respondents (9 State sub-recipients, 12 Local Governments, and 15 Communities) are expected to complete Part 1 of the EBP Self-Assessment, which may be completed up to 3 times based on the number of primary EBPs being implemented by the project. Part 2 collects detailed implementation data on a selected group of EBPs (i.e., Assertive Community Treatment, Integrated Dual Disorders Treatment, Illness Management and Recovery, Supported Employment, Critical Time Intervention, and Supplemental Security Income [SSI]/Social Security Disability Insurance [SSDI] Outreach, Access, and Recovery) and will be administered only to projects using the selected EBPs and only for the EBPs they are implementing. Thirty-six respondents (9 State sub-recipients, 12 Local Governments, and 15 Communities) are expected to complete Part 2 of the EBP Self-Assessment, which may be completed up to 3 times based on the number of Part 2 EBPs being implemented by the project. Respondents for both Part 1 and 2 may include grant project directors, State sub-recipient coordinators, or other staff knowledgeable about the project's EBPs. The EBP Self-Assessment will be administered in Year 2 of the evaluation. No changes have been made to the EBP Self-Assessment instrument.

    The Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) Self-Assessment is a Web-based survey completed by the CABHI grant projects to understand the extent to which they are implementing key dimensions of PSH and capture the variability of the PSH model among the projects. Information is collected on the following dimensions: Choice of housing, separation of housing and services; decent, safe, and affordable housing; housing integration; tenancy rights; access to housing; flexible, voluntary services; service philosophy; and team-based behavioral health. Thirty-six respondents (9 State sub-recipients, 12 Local Governments, and 15 Communities) are expected to complete the PSH Self-Assessment one time, and may include grant project directors, State sub-recipient coordinators, or other staff knowledgeable about the project's PSH model. The PSH Self-Assessment will be administered in Year 2 of the evaluation. No changes have been made to the PSH Self-Assessment instrument.

    Annualized Burden Hours Instrument/Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number of responses Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden hours
    PD Phone Interview/Web Survey 39 1 39 2.1 82 Site Visits: Opening Session/Project Director Interview a 300 1 300 2.5 750 Case Manager, Treatment, Housing Staff/Provider Interview b 540 1 540 2 1,080 Stakeholder Interview c 270 1 270 1.5 405 Evaluator Interview d 60 1 60 1 60 Client Focus Group e 450 1 450 1.5 675 Cost Interview f 60 1 60 2 120 Evidence-Based Practice Self-Assessment Part 1 36 3 108 0.58 63 Evidence-Based Practice Self-Assessment Part 2 36 3 108 0.25 27 Permanent Supportive Housing Self-Assessment 36 1 36 0.67 24 Total g 1,650 1,971 3,286 a 10 respondents × 30 site visits = 300 respondents. b 18 respondents × 30 site visits = 540 respondents. c 9 respondents × 30 site visits = 270 respondents. d 2 respondents × 30 site visits = 60 respondents. e 15 respondents × 30 site visits = 450 respondents. f 2 respondents × 30 site visits = 60 respondents. g This is an unduplicated count of total respondents.

    Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by February 23, 2017 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] Although commenters are encouraged to send their comments via email, commenters may also fax their comments to: 202-395-7285. Commenters may also mail them to: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, Washington, DC 20503.

    Summer King, Statistician.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01430 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5997-N-01] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Public Comment Request: Notice on Equal Access Regardless of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, or Marital Status for HUD's Community Planning and Development Programs AGENCY:

    Office of Community Planning and Development, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: February 23, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806, Email: OIRA [email protected]

    Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-5535 (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.

    1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500.

    2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments allows the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, ensures timely receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make them immediately available to the public. Comments submitted electronically through the www.regulations.gov Web site can be viewed by other commenters and interested members of the public. Commenters should follow the instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically.

    Note: To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the notice.

    No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (FAX) comments are not acceptable.

    Public Inspection of Public Comments. All properly submitted comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing or have speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-5535. This is not a toll-free number. Person with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Guido.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on September 21, 2016 at 81 FR 64930.

    I. Background

    As noted in the Summary, elsewhere in today's Federal Register, HUD is publishing its final rule entitled “Equal Access in Accordance with an Individual's Gender Identity in Community Planning and Development Programs.” Through this final rule, HUD ensures equal access to individuals in accordance with their gender identity in programs and shelter funded under programs administered by HUD's Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD). This rule builds upon HUD's February 2012 final rule entitled “Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs Regardless of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity” (2012 Equal Access Rule), which aimed to ensure that HUD's housing programs would be open to all eligible individuals and families regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. The 2012 Equal Access Rule, however, did not address how transgender and gender non-conforming individuals should be accommodated in temporary, emergency shelters and other buildings and facilities used for shelter that have physical limitations or configurations that require and that are permitted to have shared sleeping quarters or shared bathing facilities.1 This final rule published in today's Federal Register follows HUD's November 20, 2015 proposed rule, which addressed this issue after soliciting public comment. The final rule requires that recipients and subrecipients of CPD funding, as well as owners, operators, and managers of shelters, and other buildings and facilities and providers of services funded in whole or in part by any CPD program to grant equal access to such facilities, and other buildings and facilities, benefits, accommodations and services to individuals in accordance with the individual's gender identity, and in a manner that affords equal access to the individual's family.

    1 Shared sleeping quarters and shared bathing facilities are those for simultaneous use by more than one person.

    The notice set out in the appendix presents an additional measure by HUD to ensure that individuals seeking placement or accommodation in a shelter or other building or facility and housing funded under a program administered by CPD are aware of HUD's equal access policy, as established in HUD's 2012 Equal Access Rule, and elaborated upon in the final rule published in today's Federal Register. Through this PRA notice, HUD proposes to require owners and operators of CPD-funded shelters, housing, buildings and other facilities to post this notice on bulletin boards and in other public places where individuals staying in the shelter, building, housing or facility or seeking placement or accommodation in the shelter, building, housing, or facility would see this information. HUD strives to reduce burden by providing the content of the notice to be posted and estimates it will take about six minutes for owners and operators to print and post this notice. All existing and new owners would be required to post the notice only once, and ensure that it remains visible to those accessing the shelter, housing, or facility.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Notice on Equal Access Regardless of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, or Marital Status for HUD's Community Planning and Development Programs.

    OMB Approval Number: 2506-New.

    Type of Request: New collection of information.

    Form Number: None.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: As noted above, the purposeof the notice set out in the appendix to this PRA notice is to ensure that individuals seeking placement or accommodation in a shelter, building, housing or facility funded under a program administered by CPD are aware of HUD's equal access requirements, as established in HUD's 2012 Equal Access Rule, and elaborated upon in the final rule published in today's Federal Register.

    Members of affected public: Owners and operators of a shelter, building, housing or facility funded under programs administered by CPD.

    Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response:

    Please see table below.

    Information collection Number of
  • respondents *
  • Response
  • frequency
  • (average)
  • Total **
  • responses
  • Burden hours per response Total annual hours Hourly rate *** Burden cost per instrument
    A B C D E F HOME Investment Partnerships program 25,350 1 25,350 .10 2,535 $21.73 $55,085.55 Community Development Block Grant program (State and Entitlement) 2430 1 2430 .10 243 21.73 5,280.39 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program 100 1 100 .10 10 21.73 217.30 Emergency Solutions Grants program & Continuum of Care 6,750 1 6,750 .10 675 21.73 14,667.75 Total 34,630 34,630 3,463 75,250.99
    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.

    C. Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: January 13, 2017. Anna P. Guido, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01556 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-6001-N-02] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: FHA-Insured Mortgage Loan Servicing Involving the Claims and Conveyance Process, Property Inspection/Preservation AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, 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: March 27, 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:

    Ivery W. Himes, Director, Office of Single Family Asset Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Ivery W. Himes at [email protected] or telephone 202-708-1672, option 3. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Himes.

    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: FHA-Insured Mortgage Loan Servicing Involving the Claims and Conveyance Process, Property Inspection/Preservation.

    OMB Approval Number: 2502-0429.

    Type of Request: Revision of currently approved collection.

    Form Numbers: HUD-27011, HUD-50002, HUD-50012, HUD-9519a, HUD-9539.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: This information collection consists of the claims and conveyance process involving mortgage loan servicers; mortgagees, who service Federal Housing Administration “FHA” insured mortgage loans and the mortgagors, who are the homeowners.

    Respondents (i.e. affected public): Servicers of FHA-insured mortgages.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 357.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 1,198,168.

    Frequency of Response: Monthly.

    Average Hours per Response: 30 minutes.

    Total Estimated Burdens: 1,086,582.

    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.

    C. Authority

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: January 17, 2017. Janet M. Golrick, Associate General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing Associate Deputy Federal Housing Commissioner.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01550 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-6015-N-01] Mortgage and Loan Insurance Programs Under the National Housing Act—Debenture Interest Rates AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice announces changes in the interest rates to be paid on debentures issued with respect to a loan or mortgage insured by the Federal Housing Administration under the provisions of the National Housing Act (the Act). The interest rate for debentures issued under Section 221(g)(4) of the Act during the 6-month period beginning January 1, 2017, is 21/8 percent. The interest rate for debentures issued under any other provision of the Act is the rate in effect on the date that the commitment to insure the loan or mortgage was issued, or the date that the loan or mortgage was endorsed (or initially endorsed if there are two or more endorsements) for insurance, whichever rate is higher. The interest rate for debentures issued under these other provisions with respect to a loan or mortgage committed or endorsed during the 6-month period beginning January 1, 2017, is 23/4 percent. However, as a result of an amendment to Section 224 of the Act, if an insurance claim relating to a mortgage insured under Sections 203 or 234 of the Act and endorsed for insurance after January 23, 2004, is paid in cash, the debenture interest rate for purposes of calculating a claim shall be the monthly average yield, for the month in which the default on the mortgage occurred, on United States Treasury Securities adjusted to a constant maturity of 10 years.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Yong Sun, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 5148, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone (202) 402-4778 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 224 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715o) provides that debentures issued under the Act with respect to an insured loan or mortgage (except for debentures issued pursuant to Section 221(g)(4) of the Act) will bear interest at the rate in effect on the date the commitment to insure the loan or mortgage was issued, or the date the loan or mortgage was endorsed (or initially endorsed if there are two or more endorsements) for insurance, whichever rate is higher. This provision is implemented in HUD's regulations at 24 CFR 203.405, 203.479, 207.259(e)(6), and 220.830. These regulatory provisions state that the applicable rates of interest will be published twice each year as a notice in the Federal Register.

    Section 224 further provides that the interest rate on these debentures will be set from time to time by the Secretary of HUD, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, in an amount not in excess of the annual interest rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to a statutory formula based on the average yield of all outstanding marketable Treasury obligations of maturities of 15 or more years.

    The Secretary of the Treasury (1) has determined, in accordance with the provisions of Section 224, that the statutory maximum interest rate for the period beginning January 1, 2017, is 23/4 percent; and (2) has approved the establishment of the debenture interest rate by the Secretary of HUD at 23/4 percent for the 6-month period beginning January 1, 2017. This interest rate will be the rate borne by debentures issued with respect to any insured loan or mortgage (except for debentures issued pursuant to Section 221(g)(4)) with insurance commitment or endorsement date (as applicable) within the first 6 months of 2017.

    For convenience of reference, HUD is publishing the following chart of debenture interest rates applicable to mortgages committed or endorsed since January 1, 1980:

    Effective
  • interest rate
  • On or after Prior to
    91/2 Jan. 1, 1980 July 1, 1980. 97/8 July 1, 1980 Jan. 1, 1981. 113/4 Jan. 1, 1981 July 1, 1981. 127/8 July 1, 1981 Jan. 1, 1982. 123/4 Jan. 1, 1982 Jan. 1, 1983. 101/4 Jan. 1, 1983 July 1, 1983. 103/8 July 1, 1983 Jan. 1, 1984. 111/2 Jan. 1, 1984 July 1, 1984. 133/8 July 1, 1984 Jan. 1, 1985. 115/8 Jan. 1, 1985 July 1, 1985. 111/8 July 1, 1985 Jan. 1, 1986. 101/4 Jan. 1, 1986 July 1, 1986. 81/4 July 1, 1986 Jan. 1. 1987. 8 Jan. 1, 1987 July 1, 1987. 9 July 1, 1987 Jan. 1, 1988. 91/8 Jan. 1, 1988 July 1, 1988. 93/8 July 1, 1988 Jan. 1, 1989. 91/4 Jan. 1, 1989 July 1, 1989. 9 July 1, 1989 Jan. 1, 1990. 81/8 Jan. 1, 1990 July 1, 1990. 9 July 1, 1990 Jan. 1, 1991. 83/4 Jan. 1, 1991 July 1, 1991. 81/2 July 1, 1991 Jan. 1, 1992. 8 Jan. 1, 1992 July 1, 1992. 8 July 1, 1992 Jan. 1, 1993. 73/4 Jan. 1, 1993 July 1, 1993. 7 July 1, 1993 Jan. 1, 1994. 65/8 Jan. 1, 1994 July 1, 1994. 73/4 July 1, 1994 Jan. 1, 1995. 83/8 Jan. 1, 1995 July 1, 1995. 71/4 July 1, 1995 Jan. 1, 1996. 61/2 Jan. 1, 1996 July 1, 1996. 71/4 July 1, 1996 Jan. 1, 1997. 63/4 Jan. 1, 1997 July 1, 1997. 71/8 July 1, 1997 Jan. 1, 1998. 63/8 Jan. 1, 1998 July 1, 1998. 61/8 July 1, 1998 Jan. 1, 1999. 51/2 Jan. 1, 1999 July 1, 1999. 61/8 July 1, 1999 Jan. 1, 2000. 61/2 Jan. 1, 2000 July 1, 2000. 61/2 July 1, 2000 Jan. 1, 2001. 6 Jan. 1, 2001 July 1, 2001. 57/8 July 1, 2001 Jan. 1, 2002. 51/4 Jan. 1, 2002 July 1, 2002. 53/4 July 1, 2002 Jan. 1, 2003. 5 Jan. 1, 2003 July 1, 2003. 41/2 July 1, 2003 Jan. 1, 2004. 51/8 Jan. 1, 2004 July 1, 2004. 51/2 July 1, 2004 Jan. 1, 2005. 47/8 Jan. 1, 2005 July 1, 2005. 41/2 July 1, 2005 Jan. 1, 2006. 47/8 Jan. 1, 2006 July 1, 2006. 53/8 July 1, 2006 Jan. 1, 2007. 43/4 Jan. 1, 2007 July 1, 2007. 5 July 1, 2007 Jan. 1, 2008. 41/2 Jan. 1, 2008 July 1, 2008. 45/8 July 1, 2008 Jan. 1, 2009. 41/8 Jan. 1, 2009 July 1, 2009. 41/8 July 1, 2009 Jan. 1, 2010. 41/4 Jan. 1, 2010 July 1, 2010. 41/8 July 1, 2010 Jan. 1, 2011. 37/8 Jan. 1, 2011 July 1, 2011. 41/8 July 1, 2011 Jan. 1, 2012. 27/8 Jan. 1, 2012 July 1, 2012. 23/4 July 1, 2012 Jan. 1, 2013. 21/2 Jan. 1, 2013 July 1, 2013. 27/8 July 1, 2013 Jan. 1, 2014. 35/8 Jan. 1, 2014 July 1, 2014. 31/4 July 1, 2014 Jan. 1, 2015. 3 Jan. 1, 2015 July 1, 2015. 27/8 July 1, 2015 Jan. 1, 2016. 27/8 Jan. 1, 2016 July 1, 2016. 21/2 July 1, 2016 Jan. 1, 2017. 23/4 Jan. 1, 2017 July 1, 2017.

    Section 215 of Division G, Title II of Public Law 108-199, enacted January 23, 2004 (HUD's 2004 Appropriations Act) amended Section 224 of the Act, to change the debenture interest rate for purposes of calculating certain insurance claim payments made in cash. Therefore, for all claims paid in cash on mortgages insured under Section 203 or 234 of the National Housing Act and endorsed for insurance after January 23, 2004, the debenture interest rate will be the monthly average yield, for the month in which the default on the mortgage occurred, on United States Treasury Securities adjusted to a constant maturity of 10 years, as found in Federal Reserve Statistical Release H-15. The Federal Housing Administration has codified this provision in HUD regulations at 24 CFR 203.405(b) and 24 CFR 203.479(b).

    Section 221(g)(4) of the Act provides that debentures issued pursuant to that paragraph (with respect to the assignment of an insured mortgage to the Secretary) will bear interest at the “going Federal rate” in effect at the time the debentures are issued. The term “going Federal rate” is defined to mean the interest rate that the Secretary of the Treasury determines, pursuant to a statutory formula based on the average yield on all outstanding marketable Treasury obligations of 8 to 12 year maturities, for the 6-month periods of January through June and July through December of each year. Section 221(g)(4) is implemented in the HUD regulations at 24 CFR 221.255 and 24 CFR 221.790.

    The Secretary of the Treasury has determined that the interest rate to be borne by debentures issued pursuant to Section 221(g)(4) during the 6-month period beginning January 1, 2017, is 21/8 percent.

    The subject matter of this Notice falls within the categorical exemption from HUD's environmental clearance procedures set forth in 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6). For that reason, no environmental finding has been prepared for this notice.

    (Authority: Sections 211, 221, 224, National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1715b, 1715l, 1715o; Section 7(d), Department of HUD Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).) Dated: January 17, 2017. Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for - Housing.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01547 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-6003-N-01] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Survey of Market Absorption of New Multifamily Units AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (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: March 27, 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: Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-5534 (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:

    Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-5535. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Guido.

    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: Survey of Market Absorption of New Multifamily Units.

    OMB Approval Number: 2528-0013 (Expires March 31, 2017).

    Type of Request: Extension of currently approved collection.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The Survey of Market Absorption (SOMA) provides the data necessary to measure the rate at which new rental apartments and new condominium apartments are absorbed; that is, taken off the market, usually by being rented or sold, over the course of the first twelve months following completion of a building. The data are collected at quarterly intervals until the twelve months conclude, or until the units in a building are completely absorbed. The survey also provides estimates of certain characteristics, including asking rent/price, number of units, and number of bedrooms. The survey provides a basis for analyzing the degree to which new apartment construction is meeting the present and future needs of the public.

    Members of affected public: Rental Agents/Builders.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 12,000 yearly (maximum).

    Estimated Time per Response: 15 minutes/initial interview and 5 minutes for any subsequent interviews (up to three additional, if necessary).

    Frequency of Response: Four times (maximum).

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 6,000 (12,000 buildings × 30 minutes).

    Estimated Total Annual Cost: The only cost to respondents is that of their time. The total estimated cost to HUD in FY 2017 is $1,120,000.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Legal Authority: The survey is conducted under Title 12, United States Code, Section 1701Z.

    Information
  • collection
  • Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of
  • response
  • Responses
  • per annum
  • Burden hour per
  • response
  • Annual
  • burden
  • hours
  • Hourly cost per
  • response
  • Cost
    SOMA 12,000 4 48,000 .125 (30 minutes total divided by 4 interviews) 6000 $0 $0 Total 12,000 4 48,000 .125 6000 0 0
    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.

    C. Authority

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: January 10, 2017. Matthew Ammon, General Deputy Secretary for Policy Development and Research.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01552 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R2-R-2016-N168; FXRS12650200000-178-FF02R04000] Little Sandy National Wildlife Refuge, Wood County, Texas; Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Draft Environmental Assessment AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (dCCP) and the draft Environmental Assessment (dEA) for Little Sandy National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), located approximately 80 miles east of Dallas, Texas, for public review and comment. The dCCP/dEA describes our proposal for managing the refuge for the next 15 years.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by February 23, 2017. We will announce any potential upcoming public meetings in local news media.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments or requests for copies or more information by any of the following methods. You may request hard copies or a CD-ROM of the documents. Please contact David Weaver, Refuge Manager, or Joseph Lujan, Natural Resource Planner.

    Email: [email protected] Include “Little Sandy NWR draft CCP and draft EA” in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: Attn: Joseph Lujan, 505-248-6803.

    U.S. Mail: Joseph Lujan, Natural Resource Planner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NWRS, Division of Planning, P.O. Box 1306 Room 4335, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103.

    In-Person Drop-off, Viewing, or Pickup: In-Person Drop-off: You may drop off comments during regular business hours of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at 500 Gold Avenue SW; 4th Floor, Room 4335; Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102. Little Sandy NWR, CCP Project, P.O. Box 340, Broken Bow, Oklahoma 74728

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Weaver, Refuge Manager, Little Sandy NWR, CCP Project, P.O. Box 340, Broken Bow, Oklahoma 74728; phone: 580-584-6211.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Introduction

    With this notice, we continue the Comprehensive Conservation Planning (CCP) process for the Little Sandy NWR. We started this process through a notice in the Federal Register (72 FR 46095; August 16, 2007).

    The primary purpose of Little Sandy NWR is to protect a remnant of the bottomland hardwood forest ecosystem along the Sabine River in East Texas. The Little Sandy NWR was established in December 1986 as a permanent non-development easement with the Little Sandy Hunting and Fishing Club (LSHFC). It is managed as a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) out of the Little River NWR Complex headquarters in Broken Bow Oklahoma.

    Background The CCP Process

    The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Refuge Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15 year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the NWRS, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and FWS policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Refuge Administration Act.

    Public Outreach

    Formal scoping began when we published a notice of intent to prepare a CCP and EA in the Federal Register on August 16, 2007, and formally invited the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) to participate in the development of the document. TPWD has provided constant input and the Service has continued to involve them throughout the planning process. Information sheets were sent to the public, and news releases were sent to a variety of media outlets. A public open house meeting was held on September 9, 2009, at Jarvis Christian College in Hawkins, Texas. Additional written comments were received prior to the open house. A variety of stakeholders contributed feedback at the open house meeting and via written comments and we used the feedback in development of the dCCP.

    CCP Alternatives We Are Considering

    The public raised multiple issues during the public scoping process that initiated this dCCP. Our dCCP addresses them in detail. A full description of each alternative is in the dEA. To address these issues, we developed and evaluated the following alternatives, summarized below.

    Comparison of Alternatives Issues and topics Alternative A: Current management Alternative B: Proposed action I. Habitat Management • Climate Change The Service has limited activities at Little Sandy NWR; as such, the Refuge attempts to limit carbon footprints by consolidating trips from Caddo Lake NWR; what few trips are made to the Refuge are offset by the conservation of the bottomland hardwood habitat found on the Refuge. There are no Service facilities present on the Refuge; therefore, there is no effort to utilize green products commonly associated with such facilities The Refuge would establish a baseline dataset for Refuge resources. To do so, the Refuge would use technologies including historical imagery and tabular data, existing maps and records, LiDAR, contemporary ortho-rectified imagery, ground-truthing and on-screen digitizing. This baseline dataset would enable the Refuge to develop a decision-based research and monitoring program to track potential impacts from climate change on the Refuge. There would be no Service development of facilities on the Refuge. • Land Acquisition The Service would work within the 10 percent rule which allows Refuge expansion to occur up to 10 percent of the total Refuge establishment acres within the Refuge or up to 1 mile of the existing Refuge boundary. This includes fee acquisition and conservation easements from willing sellers or donors The Refuge will participate in a partnership driven Land Protection Planning process that would guide land acquisition efforts and provide the opportunity to acquire any adjacent lands from willing sellers. Both bottomland and upland tracts would be considered in the plan. • Flora Inventory An initial habitat assessment of the refuge was completed by refuge staff when Little Sandy was brought into the Refuge System, and an additional ecological community characterization survey was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey's National Wetland Research Center. Current inventory activities are limited to identification and confirmation of invasive flora species when Little Sandy Hunting and Fishing Club (LSHFC) members report them Same as Alternative A plus the development of a comprehensive species list for the Refuge would be beneficial for determining ecological integrity and habitat diversity as well as providing a baseline dataset from which any changes to habitat as a result of climate change and management activities can be tracked. • Prescribed Burning There is currently no prescribed fire plan or program on Little Sandy NWR. A Fire program would mimic natural fire ecology and be beneficial to upland habitat The completion and implementation of a step-down fire management plan would be focused on mimicking natural fire ecology on the upland portions of the Refuge, controlling invasive flora species, reducing fuel loads from wildfires and promote pine savanna habitat. • Invasive Species Management (Flora) Limited management activities are present in the form of chemical (Garlon 3A and Garlon4) treatments when identified by LSHFC members.
  • In 2011 and 2012, limited funding was available to treat Chinese tallow and privet
  • Same as Alternative A plus increased efforts to locate, map, treat, and monitor these, as well as other invasive species, which may be present on the Refuge. In addition, some stumps may be cut and sprayed to minimize spread of invasive species. This can be conducted in conjunction with the Flora Inventory as described above. Prescribed burning can also be used to treat with the production of a fire management plan.
    • Water Body Management Brumley and Overton Lake levels managed by LSHFC for recreation and hunting purposes; the Refuge serves in an advisory function only Same as Alternative A. II. Wildlife Management • Fauna Inventory Annual aerial waterfowl surveys were conducted between October and March, from 2008-2011, on a monthly basis by the Region 2 pilot and a Refuge staff member. Aerial surveys were halted in 2011 when the Region no longer had a airplane. In addition, annual bird point counts are conducted with assistance from Region 2 migratory bird biologist, Texas Parks and Wildlife biologist and Refuge staff each spring in May and June Same as Alternative A, plus expand current wildlife monitoring on the Refuge and coordinate with the Division of Biological Sciences. This alternative would also provide an opportunity to utilize LiDAR to monitor changes in habitat throughout the Refuge. The alternative includes; expansion of bird point counts and monitoring to meet Service standards, continuation of on the ground waterfowl surveys and the collection of biological data from fauna harvested by the LSHFC. • Nuisance and Invasive Species Management (Fauna) The LSHFC staff identifies and removes beaver dams throughout the year from culverts and small drains to promote drainage and maintain trails. Hunt club members may take hogs during other hunting activities, but these circumstances are opportunistic and relatively rare; there have been coordinated trapping efforts between the Service and LSHFC since 2013 Under this alternative, the Refuge will develop step down management plans focused on nuisance and invasive species management. Step Down Plans would be initiated for an Invasive Species Management Plan, a Feral Hog and Beaver Management Plan. Step Down Management Plans may initiate management practices for nuisance species (beaver, nutria), such as dam removal and trapping, reducing the negative impacts to existing infrastructure. Additionally, the Refuge will utilize their own staff or contract services to conduct hunting and trapping of feral hogs. III. Staff Requirements Under the Two Alternatives Zero (0) Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Staff 2.5 FTE. IV. Budgets Under the Two Alternatives • Refuge Base Operational Budget $0 $612,476.00. • Annual Maintenance $0 $0. • Fire Operations $0 $0. • Tallow/Forest Inventory $18,884.00 $18,884.00. Total Budget $18,884.00 $631,360.00.
    Public Availability of Documents

    In addition to using any methods in ADDRESSES, you can view or obtain documents at the following locations:

    • Little River NWR, P.O. Box 340, Broken Bow, Oklahoma 74728, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Our Web site: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/refuges/texas/little_sandy/CCP.

    • The following public libraries:

    Library Address Phone number Allen Memorial Public Library 121 East Blackbourn Street, Hawkins, Texas 75765 903-769-2241 Tyler Public Library 201 South College Avenue, Tyler, Texas 75702 903-593-7323 Submitting Comments/Issues for Comment

    We consider comments substantive if they:

    • Question, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of the information in the document;

    • Question, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of the dEA;

    • Present reasonable alternatives other than those presented in the dEA; and/or

    • Provide new or additional information relevant to the dEA.

    Next Steps

    After this comment period ends, we will analyze the comments and then address them in the form of a final CCP and The National Environmental Policy Act decision document.

    Public Availability of Comments

    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.

    Dated: January 11, 2017. Benjamin Tuggle, Regional Director, Southwest Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01543 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Geological Survey [GX17LR000F60100] Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments AGENCY:

    U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a renewal of a currently approved information collection (1028-0070).

    SUMMARY:

    We (the U.S. Geological Survey) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. This collection consists of 1 form. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This collection is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    To ensure that your comments are considered, we must receive them on or before March 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this information collection to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 807, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); (703) 648-7197 (fax); or [email protected] (email). Please reference `Information Collection 1028-0070, Consolidated Consumers' Report in all correspondence.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth S. Sangine, National Minerals Information Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 989, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); 703-648-7720 (phone); or [email protected] (email). You may also find information about this ICR at www.reginfo.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    Respondents to this form supply the USGS with domestic consumption data for 12 metals and ferroalloys, some of which are considered strategic and critical to assist in determining stockpile goals. These data and derived information will be published as chapters in Minerals Yearbooks, monthly Mineral Industry Surveys, annual Mineral Commodity Summaries, and special publications, for use by Government agencies, industry education programs, and the general public.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1028-0070.

    Form Number: USGS Form 9-4117-MA.

    Title: Consolidated Consumers' Report.

    Type of Request: Renewal of existing information collection.

    Affected Public: Business or Other-For-Profit Institutions: U.S. nonfuel minerals producers.

    Respondent's Obligation: None. Participation is voluntary.

    Frequency of Collection: Monthly and Annually.

    Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses: 1,407.

    Estimated Time per Response: 45 minutes.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 1,055 hours.

    Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: There are no “non-hour cost” burdens associated with this IC.

    Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number and current expiration date.

    III. Request for Comments

    We are soliciting comments as to: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) how to minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Please note that the comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your personal mailing address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Michael J. Magyar, Associate Director, National Minerals Information Center, U.S. Geological Survey.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01445 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4338-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-PWR-PWRO-22324; PPPWGO6AP0/PPMPSAS1Z.YP0000] Final Environmental Impact Statement for Alcatraz Ferry Embarkation, Counties of Marin and San Francisco, California AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Park Service (NPS) has prepared the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) for the Alcatraz Ferry Embarkation project. The Final EIS evaluates four alternatives for establishing a long-term ferry embarkation site for passenger service between the northern San Francisco waterfront and Alcatraz Island, and additional occasional ferry service between the Alcatraz ferry embarkation site and the existing Fort Baker pier, as well as other excursions within the San Francisco Bay.

    DATES:

    The NPS will execute a Record of Decision no sooner than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) notice of filing and availability of the Final EIS.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Please contact Golden Gate National Recreation Area at (415) 561-4930 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    After operating out of Pier 41 for many years, the Alcatraz Island ferry embarkation site moved to Pier 311/2 in 2006 when a new ferry service concessioner was selected, which led to inconsistencies in the delivery of visitor services and impacts on surrounding communities, business interests, and transit providers. Federal law generally limits the term of concession contracts to 10 years or fewer, and requires that a competitive process be used to select new concessioners.

    The NPS seeks to secure a site that will provide a long-term orientation and ferry embarkation facility for service to Alcatraz Island from the northern San Francisco waterfront. The NPS desires an identifiable and well-functioning facility that will provide a quality welcome and support program for visitors, orient visitors to the history of Alcatraz Island, and provide a connection to other Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) parklands and orientation to the national park system in general. The NPS also seeks to establish additional occasional ferry service between the primary Alcatraz ferry embarkation site and the existing Fort Baker pier, as well as other excursions within the Bay departing from the primary embarkation site. The Final EIS evaluated additional service to and from Fort Mason, but this activity is not included in the preferred alternative. These elements would improve cross-Bay connectivity and accommodate existing and future visitor demand for recreational travel to Fort Baker and the Marin Headlands, thereby enhancing GGNRA's operational effectiveness. Many potential visitors are unable to obtain tickets to Alcatraz Island due to the high demand. Enhanced on-shore visitor facilities would provide those visitors with interpretive information about the island and options for visiting other GGNRA destinations from San Francisco.

    Public scoping was initiated in the late spring of 2012. The Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on June 1, 2012. Scoping meetings were held on June 26 and 28, 2012, at Fort Mason Building 201 in San Francisco and the City Hall in Sausalito, respectively. Over the comment period, approximately 90 correspondences were collected from interested stakeholders.

    The Draft EIS was released on March 20, 2015 with comments accepted through June 4, 2015. During the comment period, one public meeting was held on March 31, 2015 at Pier 1 in San Francisco. Approximately 277 pieces of correspondence were received. Some plan content was modified based on public comments, but there have been very few substantial changes to the alternatives under consideration. Changes include adding additional specificity on the number of planned trips for special ferry service to Fort Baker and identifying the preferred alternative to include developing the primary embarkation site as Pier 311/2 as well as providing occasional ferry service to Fort Baker.

    Range of Alternatives: The Final EIS describes and analyzes four alternatives.

    No-Action Alternative: Ferry service to Alcatraz Island would continue from Pier 311/2, controlled by the Port of San Francisco, with no changes to management or site operations and infrastructure. This alternative serves as the environmental baseline from which potential effects of the three “action” alternatives were compared.

    Pier 311/2 Alternative: Retrofit existing structures (parts of piers 31, 33 and associated bulkhead buildings) and establish long-term ferry service and embarkation site operations at Pier 311/2 along the Embarcadero. A third berth would be constructed to support ferry travel to other GGNRA sites. This is the “agency-preferred” alternative for the Alcatraz Ferry Embarkation site. This alternative also includes consideration of limited ferry service to/from Fort Baker.

    Pier 41 Alternative: Retrofit and expand existing structures and establish long-term embarkation at Pier 41, controlled by the Port of San Francisco in Fisherman's Wharf. A third berth would be constructed to support ferry travel to other GGNRA sites.

    Pier 3 Alternative: Retrofit existing structures and establish a long-term embarkation site at Pier 3 in Fort Mason, a federal property managed by GGNRA. A third berth between Piers 1 and 2 would also be constructed.

    In the future, the selected embarkation site would include additional ferry services from the primary embarkation site to provide recreational ferry service to other destinations in the Bay, as well as Bay excursions, which would enhance the connectivity and accommodation of visitor demands to other GGNRA destinations. The details associated with providing any such potential ferry service to particular locations other than Alcatraz Island and Fort Baker would be analyzed in future environmental documents.

    The NPS will execute a Record of Decision no sooner than 30 days following EPA's notice published in the Federal Register announcing filing and release of the Final EIS. The official responsible for approval of the Alcatraz Ferry Embarkation project is the Regional Director of the Pacific West Region, and subsequently the General Superintendent, GGNRA, will be responsible for implementation.

    Dated: November 4, 2016. Laura E. Joss, Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01469 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1037] Certain Graphics Processors, DDR Memory Controllers, and Products Containing the Same 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 December 16, 2016, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of ZiiLabs Inc., Ltd. of Bermuda. 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 graphics processors, DDR memory controllers, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,677,952 ('952 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,950,350 ('350 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,518,616 ('616 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 8,643,659 ('659 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.

    The complainant requests 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:

    The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.

    Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2016).

    Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on January 17, 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 graphics processors, DDR memory controllers, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-8 of the '952 patent; claims 1-16 of the '350 patent; claims 1-8 of the '616 patent; and claims 1-20 of the '659 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

    (2) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding Administrative Law Judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties or other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1);

    (3) 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 complainant is:

    ZiiLabs Inc., Ltd., Clarendon House, 2 Church Street, Hamilton, HM11, Bermuda

    (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:

    Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., One AMD Place, P.O. Box 3453, Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3453 Lenovo Group Ltd., Shangdi Information Industry Base, No. 6 Chuang Ye Road, Haidan District, 10085 Beijing, China Lenovo Holding Co., Inc., 1009 Think Place, Morrisville, NC 27650 Lenovo (United States) Inc., 1009 Think Place, Morrisville, NC 27650 LG Electronics, Inc., LG Twin Towers, 20, Yeouido-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul 150-721, Republic of Korea LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., 1000 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc., 10101 Old Grove Road, San Diego, CA 92131 MediaTek, Inc., No. 1, Dusing Rd. 1, Hsinchu Science Park, Hsinchu City 30078, Taiwan MediaTek USA Inc., 2860 Junction Ave., San Jose, CA 95134 Motorola Mobility LLC, 600 N. U.S. Highway 45, Libertyville, IL 60048 Qualcomm Inc., 5775 Morehouse Drive, San Diego, CA 92121 Sony Corporation, 1-7-1 Konan, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-0075, Japan Sony Corporation of America, 25 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022-33211 Sony Electronics, Inc., 16535 Via Esprillo Building 1, San Diego, CA 97127 Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., 2207 Bridgepoint Parkway, San Mateo, CA 94404 Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., 1-7-1 Konan, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-0075, Japan Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, 2207 Bridgepoint Parkway, San Mateo, CA 94404

    (c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and

    (4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

    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: January 18, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01530 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-1091 (Second Review)] Artists' Canvas From China; Scheduling of an Expedited Five-Year Review AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on artists' canvas from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: January 6, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher Cassise (708-5408), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter 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 (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this review may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background.—On January 6, 2017, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (81 FR 68049, October 3, 2016) of the subject five-year review was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)).

    1 A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Web site.

    For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

    Staff report.—A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the review will be placed in the nonpublic record on February 1, 2017, and made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for this review. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission's rules.

    Written submissions.—As provided in section 207.62(d) of the Commission's rules, interested parties that are parties to the review and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution,2 and any party other than an interested party to the review may file written comments with the Secretary on what determination the Commission should reach in the review. Comments are due on or before February 6, 2017 and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year review nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the review by February 6, 2017. However, should the Department of Commerce extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its review, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce's final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce's results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules with respect to filing were revised effective July 25, 2014. See 79 FR 35920 (June 25, 2014), and the revised Commission Handbook on E-filing, available from the Commission's Web site at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    2 The Commission has found the response submitted by Tara Materials, Inc. to be individually adequate. Comments from other interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)).

    In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

    Authority:

    This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: January 17, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01446 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1018] Certain Athletic Footwear; Commission's Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation; Issuance of Consent Order; Termination of the Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 11) terminating the respondents based on consent order stipulations and a joint proposed consent order. The Commission has terminated the investigation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amanda Pitcher Fisherow, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2737. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server 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. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission instituted this investigation on September 13, 2016, based on a complaint, including supplements, filed on behalf of Reebok International Ltd. of Canton, Massachusetts and Reebok International Limited of England. (“complainants”). 81 FR 62920 (Sept. 13, 2016). The complaint as supplemented 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 athletic footwear by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,637,035 and U.S. Patent No. 8,505,221. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The Commission's notice of investigation named the following respondents: TRB Acquisitions LLC (“TRB”) of New York, New York; RBX Active 01 LLC, RBX Direct LLC, and RBX.COM LLC (collectively, “RBX”) all of New York, New York; and Elite Performance Footwear, LLC (“Elite”) of New York, New York.

    On November 14, 2016, respondent TRB filed a motion to terminate the investigation as to TRB based on a consent order stipulation and proposed consent order. On November 25, 2016, the RBX respondents filed a motion to terminate the investigation as to the RBX respondents based on a consent order stipulation and proposed consent order. Finally, on December 1, 2016, respondent Elite filed a motion to terminate the investigation as to Elite based on a consent order stipulation and proposed consent order. Complainants originally opposed TRB's motion but later complainants and respondents filed a joint notice on December 12, 2016, that complainants now join respondents' motions to terminate. This filing included a joint proposed consent order,

    On December 20, 2016, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 11) terminating the investigation based on the consent order stipulations and a joint proposed consent order. The ALJ found that the consent order stipulations complied with the rules and that the respondents represented that “there are no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied between the parties concerning the subject matter of the investigation.” The ALJ also found that the joint proposed consent order complies with Commission Rule 210.21(c)(4). Finally, the ALJ found termination of the investigation “does not impose any undue burdens on the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.”

    The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID and has issued the joint consent order. The Commission has terminated the investigation.

    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: January 17, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01482 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1036] Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges 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 December 15, 2016, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Sony Corporation of Japan; Sony Storage Media and Devices Corporation of Japan; Sony DADC US Inc. of Terre Haute, Indiana; and Sony Latin America Inc. of Miami, Florida. Supplements to the complaint were filed on January 5, 2017. The complaint, as supplemented, 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 magnetic tape cartridges and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,345,779 (“the '779 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,896,959 (“the '959 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,016,137 (“the '137 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 7,115,331 (“the '331 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.

    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:

    The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.

    Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2016).

    Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on January 17, 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 magnetic tape cartridges and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-6 of the '779 patent; claims 1, 2, 4-9, 13, 16, and 17 of the '959 patent; claims 1-5 of the '137 patent; and claims 1-3, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 of the '331 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

    (2) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties and other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(l), (f)(1), (g)(1).

    (3) 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:

    Sony Corporation, 1-7-1 Konan, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-0075, Japan Sony Storage Media and Devices Corporation, 3-4-1 Sakuragi, Tagajo, Miyagi 985-0842, Japan Sony DADC US Inc., 1800 North Fruitridge Avenue, Terre Haute, IN 47804 Sony Latin America Inc., 5201 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 400, Miami, FL 33126

    (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:

    Fujifilm Holdings Corporation, 7-3 Akasaka 9-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo 107-0052, Japan Fujifilm Corporation, 7-3 Akasaka 9-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo 107-0052, Japan Fujifilm Holdings America Corporation, 200 Summit Lake Drive, Valhalla, NY 10595 Fujifilm Recording Media U.S.A., Inc., 45 Crosby Drive, Bedford, MA 01730-1401

    (c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and

    (4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

    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: January 18, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01531 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1027] Certain Food Supplements and Vitamins, Including Ocular Antioxidants and Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same; Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation Based on Settlement; Termination of the Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 8) terminating the investigation based on settlement.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amanda P. Fisherow, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2737. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission instituted this investigation on November 8, 2016, based on a complaint filed by Kemin Industries, Inc. and Kemin Foods, L.C. both of Des Moines, Iowa (collectively, “complainants”). 81 FR 78634-35 (Nov. 8, 2016). The complaint alleges violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,815,955 and 9,226,940. The complaint further alleges the existence of a domestic industry. The notice of investigation named as respondents OmniActive Health Technologies of Mumbai, India and OmniActive Health Technologies, Inc. of Morristown, New Jersey (collectively, “respondents”). Id. at 78635. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was not named as a party.

    On December 13, 2016, complainants and respondents filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation based on settlement. The parties represent that the settlement agreement reflects the entire and only agreement between the parties regarding the subject matter of the investigation and that there are no other agreement, written or oral, express or implied between the parties concerning the subject matter of the investigation.

    On December 28, 2016, the ALJ granted the joint motion to terminate the investigation based on settlement. The ALJ found that the parties' submissions, including a modified public version of the settlement agreement submitted on December 22, 2016, satisfy the Commission's rules. The ALJ found that the termination of this investigation based on settlement does not pose any public interest concerns. The ALJ also found that it is in the interest of the public and administrative economy to grant the motion.

    No petitions for review of the subject ID were filed, and the Commission has determined not to review the ID. The investigation is terminated.

    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: January 17, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01481 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation Liability Act (“CERCLA”)

    On January 17, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree (“Decree”) with the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in the lawsuit entitled United States v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Company and Western Nuclear, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-00140.

    In this action, the United States and the Navajo Nation filed complaints against Cyprus Amax Minerals Company and Western Nuclear, Inc. (“Defendants”) seeking past and future response costs and injunctive relief under Sections 106 and 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607. The United States and the Navajo Nation concurrently lodged a Consent Decree resolving the claims alleged in the complaint. The Defendants, through either their corporate predecessors or past activities, operated mine sites on the Navajo Nation. There are Navajo Nation communities located close to the mine sites, on and near the Navajo Nation Reservation, and downstream and down-wind from the waste piles on the mine sites. There have been or may be releases and/or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the mine sites formerly operated by the Defendants into the environment at each of the mine sites. More specifically, there have been or may be releases and/or threatened releases of uranium and radium-226, each of which constitutes a hazardous substance. The Decree requires the Settling Defendants to pay past and future response costs to EPA and implement injunctive relief to abate releases or threatened releases from the mine sites.

    The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to United States v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Company and Western Nuclear, Inc., D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-2-10823/1. 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 Consent Decree 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 Consent Decree 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 $15.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.

    Commenters should be aware that comments received are submitted to the Court as a public filing, and may be submitted to counsel and other parties associated with the litigation.

    Henry Friedman, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01565 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Third Partial Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act

    On January 11, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Third Partial Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the lawsuit entitled In re: Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, Case No: MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC), partially resolving Clean Air Act claims against Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., and others, concerning certain noncompliant 2.0 and 3.0 liter diesel vehicles.

    On January 4, 2016, the United States, on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), filed a complaint against Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC, and Audi AG (the “VW Defendants”), and Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, and Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (the “Porsche Defendants”) alleging that the defendants violated Sections 203(a)(1), (2), (3)(A), and (3)(B) of the Clean Air Act (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(1), (2), (3)(A), and (3)(B), with regard to approximately 500,000 model year 2009 to 2015 motor vehicles containing 2.0 liter diesel engines (2.0 Liter Subject Vehicles) and approximately 80,000 model year 2009 to 2016 motor vehicles containing 3.0 liter diesel engines (3.0 Liter Subject Vehicles). An amended complaint was filed on October 7, 2016. The United States' complaint (initial and as amended) alleges that each 2.0 and 3.0 Liter Subject Vehicle contains computer algorithms that are prohibited defeat devices that cause the emissions control system of those vehicles to perform differently during normal vehicle operation and use than during emissions testing. The complaint alleges that the defeat devices cause the vehicles, during normal vehicle operation and use, to emit levels of oxides of nitrogen (“NOX”) significantly in excess of EPA-compliant levels. The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief to remedy the violations, including mitigation of excess NOX emissions, and civil penalties.

    The proposed Third Partial Consent Decree (“Decree”) is entered into between the United States and all defendants. This Decree addresses defendants' liability under the Clean Air Act for civil penalties and injunctive relief to prevent similar violations in the future. Under the Decree, the Defendants must pay a civil penalty of $1,450,000,000, with interest running from the date of lodging, which resolves the civil penalty claims of both EPA and, pursuant to a separate agreement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

    The VW Defendants and the Porsche Defendants are also each required to undertake a number of specific corporate governance reforms and to perform in-use testing of their vehicles using a portable emissions measurement system. In addition, the VW Defendants must retain an independent compliance auditor for a three-year period to review the VW Defendants' compliance with the Decree.

    The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Third Partial Consent Decree. Comments concerning the Decree should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division and should refer to In re: Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, Case No: MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC), and D.J. Ref. No. 90-5-2-1-11386.

    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 e-mail [email protected]. By mail Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    The Third Partial Consent Decree may be viewed and downloaded from http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/crb/vwmdl. During the public comment period, the Decree may also 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 Third Partial Consent Decree 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 $20.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.

    Karen S. Dworkin, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01471 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1121-0314] Bureau of Justice Statistics; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension Without Change, of a Previously Approved Collection Firearm Inquiry Statistics (FIST) Program AGENCY:

    Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 27, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Allina D. Lee, Statistical Policy Advisor, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20531 (phone: 202-305-2696).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: 2016 Firearm Inquiry Statistics Program: Annual Survey of Background Checks for Firearm Transfers and Permits.

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: There is no agency form number at this time. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the Office of Justice Programs.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Through the Firearm Inquiry Statistics (FIST) Program, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) obtains information from state and local checking agencies responsible for maintaining records on the number of background checks for firearm transfers or permits that were issued, processed, tracked, or conducted during the calendar year. Specifically, state and local checking agencies are asked to provide information on the number of applications and denials for firearm transfers received or tracked by the agency, and reasons why an application was denied. BJS combines these data with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System transaction data to produce comprehensive national statistics on firearm application and denial activities resulting from the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (the Brady Act) and similar state laws governing background checks and firearm transfers. BJS also collects information from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) on FBI denials screened and referred to ATF field offices for investigation and possible prosecution. BJS began the FIST program in 1995 and collects FIST data annually. BJS publishes FIST data on the BJS Web site in statistical tables and uses the information to respond to inquiries from Congress, federal, state, and local government officials, researchers, students, the media, and other members of the general public interested in in criminal justice statistics.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 1,044 checking agencies will take part in the 2016 FIST survey, including the 34 state agency reporters that provide complete statewide counts of applications of firearm transfers or permits and denials, a full census of local checking agencies in 9 states where the local agencies are the FIST points-of-contact, and a sample of agencies in 3 states where local checking agencies are responsible for conducting background checks. Based on testing of the current survey form and BJS's extensive history conducting the FIST collection, BJS estimates that the burden will vary depending on the number of permit or transfer types the respondent agency conducts background checks: 20 minutes for agencies that conduct background checks for 1 type; 30 minutes for agencies that conduct background checks for 2 types; and 30 minutes for state reporting agencies. The overall estimated burden is 25 minutes, which is consistent with the burden associated with the 3 most recent collections (2012, 2014, and 2015).

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated public burden associated with this collection is 435 hours annually. It is estimated that respondents will take 25 minutes to complete a questionnaire. The burden hours for collecting respondent data sum to 435 hours (1,044 respondents × 25 minutes = 435 hours).

    If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: January 18, 2017. Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01570 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1110-0056] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Previously Approved Collection AGENCY:

    Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Critical Incident Response Group, Investigative and Operational Support Section, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC).

    ACTION:

    30-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Critical Incident Response Group has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with established review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register allowing for a 60 day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until February 23, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Lesa Marcolini, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Critical Incident Response Group, FBI Academy, Quantico, Virginia 22135.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: FBI-NCAVC Satisfaction Survey.

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: There is no agency form number applicable to this survey.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Primary: Federal, state, local, and tribal government law enforcement agencies to which the NCAVC has provided investigative assistance.

    Abstract: The mission of the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC) combines investigative and operational support functions, research, and training in order to provide assistance, without charge, to law enforcement agencies investigating unusual or repetitive violent crimes. The NCAVC also provides support through expertise and consultation in non-violent matters such as national security, corruption, and white-collar crime investigations.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 100 respondents per calendar year will be contacted to complete a survey consisting of 11 questions. An approximate non-response rate of 50% is anticipated. It is estimated that a burden of approximately three to five minutes, or .05 to .08 hours, will be cast upon each respondent to complete the survey, with a total estimate of five to 8.3 hours in a calendar year for all respondents combined, if all respondents complete a survey. If the expected non-response rate of 50% holds true, then the combined burden estimate drops to approximately 2.5 to 4.2 hours per calendar year. The NCAVC estimates little to no variability within this time estimate based upon on individualized data retrieval systems, availability of requested data, and other variables, because this survey is intended to assess customer satisfaction rather than generate empirical data.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: 20-32 annual burden hours.

    If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: September 30, 2016. Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01495 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Parole Commission Sunshine Act Meeting TIME AND DATE:

    11:00 a.m., January 25, 2017.

    PLACE:

    U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC.

    STATUS:

    Open.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    Approval of October 26, 2016 minutes; Reports from the Vice Chairman, Commissioners and Senior Staff; Hearings by Video Conference; Transfer Treaty; Medical Parole-Federal Population.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Jacqueline Graham, Staff Assistant to the Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 346-7010.

    Dated: January 19, 2017. J. Patricia W. Smoot, Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01693 Filed 1-19-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4410-31-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Parole Commission Sunshine Act Meeting TIME AND DATE:

    12:00 p.m., Wednesday, January 25, 2017.

    PLACE:

    U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC.

    STATUS:

    Closed.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    Determination on three original jurisdiction cases.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Jacqueline Graham, Staff Assistant to the Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 346-7010.

    Dated: January 19, 2017. J. Patricia W. Smoot, Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01691 Filed 1-19-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4410-31-P
    LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION Sunshine Act Meeting DATE AND TIME:

    The Legal Services Corporation's Board of Directors and its six committees will meet January 26-28, 2017. On Thursday, January 26, the first meeting will commence at 1:15 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST), with the meeting thereafter commencing promptly upon adjournment of the immediately preceding meeting. On Friday, January 27, the first meeting will commence at 2:00 p.m., EST, with the next meeting commencing promptly upon adjournment of the immediately preceding meeting. On Saturday, January 28, the first meeting will commence at 9:30 a.m., EST and will be followed by the closed session meeting of the Board of Directors that will commence promptly upon adjournment of the prior meeting.

    LOCATION:

    The Hyatt Regency Atlanta, 265 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

    PUBLIC OBSERVATION:

    Unless otherwise noted herein, the Board and all committee meetings will be open to public observation. Members of the public who are unable to attend in person but wish to listen to the public proceedings may do so by following the telephone call-in directions provided below.

    CALL-IN DIRECTIONS FOR OPEN SESSIONS:

    • Call toll-free number: 1-866-451-4981;

    • When prompted, enter the following numeric pass code: 5907707348

    • Once connected to the call, your telephone line will be automatically “MUTED”.

    • To participate in the meeting during public comment press #6 to “UNMUTE” your telephone line, once you have concluded your comments please press *6 to “MUTE” your line.

    Members of the public are asked to keep their telephones muted to eliminate background noises. To avoid disrupting the meeting, please refrain from placing the call on hold if doing so will trigger recorded music or other sound. From time to time, the presiding Chair may solicit comments from the public.

    Meeting Schedule Time * Thursday, January 26, 2017: 1. Operations & Regulations Committee 1:15 p.m. 2. Governance and Performance Review Committee Friday, January 27, 2017: 1. Delivery of Legal Services Committee 2:00 p.m. 2. Institutional Advancement Committee 3. Communications Subcommittee of the Institutional Advancement Committee 4. Combined Audit and Finance Committee 5. Finance Committee 6. Audit Committee Saturday, January 28, 2017: 1. Board of Directors 9:30 a.m. STATUS OF MEETING:

    Open, except as noted below.

    Board of Directors—Open, except that, upon a vote of the Board of Directors, a portion of the meeting may be closed to the public to hear briefings by management and LSC's Inspector General, and to consider and act on the General Counsel's report on potential and pending litigation involving LSC, and on a list of prospective funders.**

    * Please note that all times in this notice are in Eastern Standard Time.

    ** Any portion of the closed session consisting solely of briefings does not fall within the Sunshine Act's definition of the term “meeting” and, therefore, the requirements of the Sunshine Act do not apply to such portion of the closed session. 5 U.S.C. 552b(a)(2) and (b). See also 45 CFR 1622.2 & 1622.3.

    Institutional Advancement Committee—Open, except that, upon a vote of the Board of Directors, the meeting may be closed to the public to consider and act on recommendation of new prospective donors and to receive a briefing on the donor report.**

    Audit Committee—Open, except that the meeting may be closed to the public to hear a briefing on the Office of Compliance and Enforcement's active enforcement matters.**

    Combined Audit and Finance Committee—Open, except that the meeting may be closed to the public to hear a briefing from the Corporation's Auditor.**

    A verbatim written transcript will be made of the closed session of the Board, Institutional Advancement Committee, Audit Committee, and Combined Audit and Finance Committee meetings. The transcript of any portions of the closed sessions falling within the relevant provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (10), will not be available for public inspection. A copy of the General Counsel's Certification that, in his opinion, the closing is authorized by law will be available upon request.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    January 26, 2017 OPERATIONS & REGULATIONS COMMITTEE Open Session 1. Approval of agenda 2. Approval of minutes of the Committee's Open Session meeting of October 16, 2016 3. Approval of minutes of the Committee's telephonic Open Session meeting of November 22, 2016 4. Consider and act on Resolution #2017-XXX, Revisions to the Operations and Regulations Committee Charter 5. Discussion of Committee's evaluations for 2016 and goals for 2017 6. Discussion of Management's report on implementation of the Strategic Plan 2012-2016 as provided by Section VI (3) of the Committee Charter • Jim Sandman, President 7. Consider and act on Final Rule for 45 CFR Parts1610—Use of Non-LSC Funds, Transfers of LSC Funds, Program Integrity; 1627—Subgrants and Membership Fees or Dues, and 1630—Cost Standards and Procedures • Ron Flagg, General Counsel and Vice President for Legal Affairs • Stefanie Davis, Assistant General Counsel • Mark Freedman, Senior Associate General Counsel 8. Consider and act on Proposed Rule for 45 CFR part 1609—Fee Generating Cases • Ron Flagg, General Counsel and Vice President for Legal Affairs • Stefanie Davis, Assistant General Counsel 9. Other public comment 10. Consider and act on other business 11. Consider and act on adjournment of meeting January 26, 2017 GOVERNANCE AND PERFORMANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Open Session 1. Approval of agenda 2. Approval of minutes of the Committee's Open Session meeting on October 17, 2016 3. Consider and act on Resolution #2017-XXX, Revisions to the Governance and Performance Review Committee Charter 4. Discussion of Board and Committee evaluations Review Committee Charter a. Staff Report on 2016 Board and Committee Evaluations b. Discussion of Governance and Performance Committee evaluations for 2016 and the Committee's goals for 2017 • Carol Bergman, Director of Government Relations & Public Affairs 5. Discussion of President's evaluation 2016 6. Discussion of the Inspector General's FY 2016 activities 7. Update on transition planning • Report on White House transition, Carol Bergman, Vice President for Government Relations & Public Affairs • Report on Board transition, Ron Flagg, General Counsel and Vice President for Legal Affairs 8. Report on foundation grants and LSC's research agenda • Jim Sandman, President 9. Consider and act on other business 10. Public comment 11. Consider and act on adjournment of meeting January 27, 2017 DELIVERY OF LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE Open Session 1. Approval of agenda 2. Approval of minutes of the Committee's Open Session meeting on October 17, 2016 3. Discussion of Committee's evaluations for 2016 and the Committee's goals for 2017 4. Panel presentation and Committee discussion on follow-up of outcomes achieved in limited services • Steve Gottlieb, Executive Director, Atlanta Legal Aid Society • Kristin Verrill, Director of Grants and Innovation, Atlanta Legal Aid Society • Vicky Kimbrell, Family Violence Project Director, Georgia Legal Services Program • Janet LaBella, Director, Office of Program Performance (Moderator) 5. Public comment 6. Consider and act on other business 7. Consider and act on motion to adjourn the meeting January 27, 2017 INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT COMMITTEE Open Session 1. Approval of agenda 2. Approval of minutes of the Committee's Open Session meeting of October 16, 2016 3. Approval of minutes of the Committee's Open Session telephonic meeting of November 2, 2016 4. Consider and act on Resolution #2017-XXX, Revision to the Institutional Advancement Committee Charter 5. Discussion of Committee's evaluations for 2016 and the Committee's goals of 2017 6. Update on Leaders Council • John G. Levi, Chairman of the Board 7. Development report • Jim Sandman, President 8. Public Comment 9. Consider and act on other business 10. Consider and act on motion to adjourn the open session meeting and proceed to a closed session Closed Session 11. Approval of minutes of the Committee's Closed Session meeting of October 16, 2016 12. Development activities report 13. Consider and act on motion to approve Leaders Council invitees 14. Consider and act on other business 15. Consider and act on motion to adjourn the meeting COMMUNICATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT COMMITTEE Open Session 1. Approval of agenda 2. Approval of minutes of the Subcommittee's Open Session meeting of October 16, 2016 3. Consider and act on Resolution #2017-XXX, Adoption of the Communications Subcommittee Charter 4. Discussion of Subcommittee's evaluations for 2016 and the Subcommittee's goals for 2017 5. Communications analytics update • Carl Rauscher, Director of Communications and Media Relations 6. Public comment 7. Consider and act on other business 8. Consider and act on motion to adjourn the meeting January 27, 2017 COMBINED AUDIT & FINANCE COMMITTEE Open Session 1. Approval of agenda 2. Presentation of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Annual Financial Audit • John Seeba, Assistant Inspector General for Audits • Eric Strauss, and David Karakashian, WithumSmith+Brown 3. Consider and act on acceptance of Annual Financial Audit Management Letter for FY 2016, Resolution 2017-XXX 4. Presentation of Financial Report for FY 2016 5. Review of LSC's Form 990 for FY 2016 6. Public comment 7. Consider and act on other business 8. Consider and act on motion to adjourn the open session meeting and proceed to a closed session Closed Session 9. Communication by Corporate Auditor with those charged with governance under Statement on Auditing Standard 114 • Jeffrey Schanz, Inspector General • John Seeba, Assistant Inspector General for Audits • Eric Strauss, and David Karakashian, WithumSmith+Brown 10. Consider and act on motion to adjourn the meeting January 27, 2017 FINANCE COMMITTEE Open Session 1. Approval of agenda 2. Approval of minutes of the Committee's Open Session meeting on October 16, 2016 3. Consider and act on Resolution #2017-XXX, Revision to the Finance Committee Charter 4. Discussion of Committee's evaluations for 2016 and the Committee's goals of 2017 5. Presentation of LSC's Financial Report for the first two months of FY 2017 • David Richardson, Treasurer/Comptroller 6. Discussion of LSC's FY 2017 appropriations • Carol Bergman, Vice President for Government Relations & Public Affairs 7. Consider and act on Resolution #2017-XXX, LSC's Revised Operating Budget for FY 2017 • David Richardson, Treasurer/Comptroller 8. Discussion of LSC's FY 2018 appropriations request • Carol Bergman, Director of Government Relations & Public Affairs 9. Report on the Selection of Accounts and Depositories for LSC Funds • David Richardson, Treasurer/Comptroller 10. Public comment 11. Consider and act on other business 12. Consider and act on adjournment of meeting January 27, 2017 AUDIT COMMITTEE Open Session 1. Approval of agenda 2. Approval of minutes of the Committee's Open Session meeting on October 16, 2016 3. Discussion of Committee's evaluations for 2016 and the Committee's Goals for 2017 4. Briefing of Office of Inspector General • Jeffrey Schanz, Inspector General • John Seeba, Assistant Inspector General for Audits 5. Management update regarding risk management • Ron Flagg, General Counsel and Vice President for Legal Affairs 6. Briefing about follow-up by the Office of Compliance and Enforcement on referrals by the Office of Inspector General regarding audit reports and annual Independent Public audits of grantees • Lora Rath, Director of Compliance and Enforcement • John Seeba, Assistant IG for Audits 7. Public comment 8. Consider and act on other business 9. Consider and act on motion to adjourn the open session meeting and proceed to a closed session Closed Session 10. Approval of minutes of the Committee's Closed Session meeting of October 16, 2016 11. Briefing by the Office of Compliance and Enforcement on active enforcement matter(s) and follow-up to open investigation referrals from the Office of Inspector General • Lora Rath, Director of Compliance and Enforcement 12. Consider and act on adjournment of meeting January 28, 2017 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Open Session 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approval of agenda 3. Approval of minutes of the Board's Open Session meeting of October 18, 2016 4. Approval of minutes of the Board's Open Session telephonic meeting of November 22, 2016 5. Consider and act on nomination for the Chairman of the Board Directors 6. Consider and act on nominations for the Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors 7. Chairman's Report 8. Members' Report 9. President's Report 10. Inspector General's Report 11. Consider and act on the report of the Finance Committee 12. Consider and act on the report of the Audit Committee 13. Consider and act on the Combined Audit and Finance Committee 14. Consider and act on the report of the Operations and Regulations Committee 15. Consider and act on the report of the Governance and Performance Review Committee 16. Consider and act on the report of the Institutional Advancement Committee 17. Consider and act on the report of the Delivery of Legal Services Committee 18. Consider and act on Resolution #2017-XXX, In Memoriam Bertrand Thomas 19. Public comment 20. Consider and act on other business 21. Consider and act on whether to authorize an executive session of the Board to address items listed below, under Closed Session Closed Session 22. Approval of minutes of the Board's Closed Session meeting of October 18, 2016 23. Briefing by Management 24. Briefing by Inspector General 25. Consider and act on General Counsel's report on potential and pending litigation Involving LSC 26. Consider and act on list of prospective Leaders Council members 27. Consider and act on motion to adjourn meeting CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION:

    Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President & General Counsel, at (202) 295-1500. Questions may be sent by electronic mail to [email protected]

    NON-CONFIDENTIAL MEETING MATERIALS:

    Non-confidential meeting materials will be made available in electronic format at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting on the LSC Web site, at http://www.lsc.gov/board-directors/meetings/board-meeting-notices/non-confidential-materials-be-considered-open-session.

    ACCESSIBILITY:

    LSC complies with the American's with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. Upon request, meeting notices and materials will be made available in alternative formats to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Individuals who need other accommodations due to disability in order to attend the meeting in person or telephonically should contact Katherine Ward, at (202) 295-1500 or [email protected], at least 2 business days in advance of the meeting. If a request is made without advance notice, LSC will make every effort to accommodate the request but cannot guarantee that all requests can be fulfilled.

    Dated: January 19, 2017. Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President for Legal Affairs, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01721 Filed 1-19-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7050-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Proposal Review Panel for Physics; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub., L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

    Name: Proposal Review Panel for the Division of Physics (1208) (V170894)—Site Visit.

    Date and Time:

    February 16, 2017; 8:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m. February 17, 2017; 8:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.

    Place: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556 (UND).

    Type of Meeting: Part-Open.

    Contact Person: Allena Opper, Program Director for Nuclear Precision Measurements, Division of Physics, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1015, Arlington, VA 22230; Telephone: (703) 292-8958.

    Purpose of Meeting: Site visit to provide an evaluation of the progress of the projects at the host site for the Division of Physics at the National Science Foundation.

    Agenda February 16, 2017; 8:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m. 8:00 a.m. Executive Session—Closed 8:30 a.m. Welcome Dean/VP 8:50 a.m. Introduction (Wiescher) 9:20 a.m. Anna Simon 9:45 a.m. Manoel Couder 10:10 a.m. Coffee Break 10:30 a.m. Dan Bardayan 10:55 a.m. Michael Wiescher 11:20 a.m. Ani Aprahamian 11:45 a.m. Executive Session—Closed 12:15 p.m. Lunch with grad students and post docs 1:30 p.m. Maxime Brodeur 1:55 p.m. Tan Ahn 2:20 p.m. Umesh Garg 2:45 p.m. Lab Tour/Poster Session/Coffee break 4:30 p.m. Phillippe Collon 4:55 p.m. Graham Peaslee 5:20 p.m. Micha Kilburn 5:45 p.m. Executive Session—Closed 7:00 p.m. Dinner February 17, 2017; 8:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. 8:00 a.m. Executive Session—Closed 8:30 a.m. Executive Session—Closed 9:00 a.m. Answer to questions 11:00 p.m. Executive Session—Closed 1:00 p.m. Close Out Session

    Reason for Closing: Topics to be discussed and evaluated during closed portions of the site review will include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information and information on personnel. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: January 18, 2017. Crystal Robinson, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01526 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Proposal Review Panel for Physics; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub., L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

    Name: Proposal Review Panel for the Division of Physics (1208) (V170844)—Site Visit.

    Date and Time:

    February 13, 2017; 8:00 a.m.-6:35 p.m. February 14, 2017; 8:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.

    Place: Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306 (FSU).

    Type of Meeting: Part-Open.

    Contact Person: Allena Opper, Program Director for Nuclear Precision Measurements, Division of Physics, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1015, Arlington, VA 22230; Telephone: (703) 292-8958.

    Purpose of Meeting: Site visit to provide an evaluation of the progress of the projects at the host site for the Division of Physics at the National Science Foundation.

    Agenda February 13, 2017; 8:00 a.m.-6:35 p.m. 8:00 a.m. Executive Session—Closed 8:30 a.m. Overview (Wiedenhoever) 9:00 a.m. Nuclear Astrophysics and Fusion (Almaraz-Calderon) 9:45 a.m. Lab tour and coffee break 11:15 a.m. Relativistic Heavy Ions (Frawley) 12:00 p.m. Executive Session—Closed 12:30 p.m. Lunch with students 1:15 p.m. Exotic Nuclei (Tabor) 2:00 p.m. Nuclei at the extremes (Riley) 2:45 p.m. Evolution of Shell Structure (Cottle) 3:30 p.m. Education, Broader Impacts 4:00 p.m. Executive Session—Closed 4:30 p.m. Executive Session with Dean A&S Sam Huckaba—Closed 5:00 p.m. V.P. for Research (G. Ostrander) or Assoc. V.P. for Research (R. Ellington) 5:20 p.m. Executive Session—Closed 6:20 p.m. Questions to the PI's 6:35 p.m. Dinner February 14, 2017; 8:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. 8:00 a.m. Executive Session—Closed 8:30 a.m. Response to questions 9:00 a.m. Committee discussion/writing 12:00 p.m. Lunch 1:00 p.m. Closeout

    Reason for Closing: Topics to be discussed and evaluated during closed portions of the site review will include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information and information on personnel. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: .January 18, 2017. Crystal Robinson, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01525 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Proposal Review Panel for Ocean Sciences Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub., L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:

    NAME:

    Proposal Review Panel for Ocean Sciences—Site Visit (#10752).

    DATE AND TIME:

    March 1-3, 2017; 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

    PLACE:

    JOIDES Resolution Science Operator (JRSO), Texas A&M University, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M University West Campus, College Station, TX 77845, Conference Room C126.

    TYPE OF MEETING:

    Part Open.

    CONTACT PERSON:

    James F. Allan, Program Director, Ocean Drilling, Division of Ocean Sciences; National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-8144

    PURPOSE OF MEETING:

    To provide advice and recommendations concerning the performance of the International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP) drillship facility JOIDES Resolution during FY 2016.

    AGENDA:

    Wednesday, March 1, 2017; 9 a.m.-5 p.m. 9:00 a.m.-9:15 a.m. NSF and panel introduction (Open) 9:15 a.m.-11:00 a.m. Initial Report of the JOIDES Resolution Science Operator (JRSO) (Open) 11:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Co-Chief Review Report (Open) 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. Lunch (Open) 1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. JRSO response to Co-Chief Review Report (Open) 3:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Site Visit Panel discussion of presentations and overnight questions to JRSO (Closed) Thursday, March 2, 2017; 9 a.m.-5 p.m. 9:00 a.m.-10:00 a.m. Response of JRSO to Panel questions (Open) 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. JRSO discussion of major challenges in operational context, and how they are responding (Open and Closed) 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. Lunch (Open) 1:00 p.m.-2:00 p.m. Meet with JRSO Staff (Closed) 2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. JRSO discussion of major challenges in providing services and innovation to IODP science community, and how they are responding (Open) 3:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. Site Visit team discussion, work on report (Closed) 4:00 p.m.-4:30 p.m. Break 4:30 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Site Visit Panel discussion of major challenges and overnight questions to JRSO (Closed) Friday, March 3, 2017; 9 a.m.-5 p.m. 9:00 a.m.-10:00 a.m. Response of JRSO to Panel questions (Open) 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Site Visit Panel discussion; work on report (Closed) 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. Lunch (Closed) 1:00 p.m.-3:30 p.m. Site Visit Panel discussion; work on report (Closed) 3:30 p.m.-4:00 p.m. Break 4:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Site Visit Panel presents report and recommendations to JRSO (Closed) REASON FOR CLOSING:

    During closed sessions the review will include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: January 18, 2017. Crystal Robinson, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01486 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2017-0001] Sunshine Act Meeting Notice DATES:

    January 23, 30, February 6, 13, 20, 27, 2017

    PLACE:

    Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

    STATUS:

    Public and Closed.

    Week of January 23, 2017 Monday, January 23, 2017

    10:00 a.m. Discussion of Management and Personnel Issues (Closed Ex. 2, 6 & 9)

    ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

    The meeting scheduled for January 23, 2017 was previously noticed as, “Discussion of Management and Personnel Issues (Closed Ex. 2 & 6).”

    Week of January 30, 2017—Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 30, 2017.

    Week of February 6, 2017—Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 6, 2017.

    February 13, 2017—Tentative Thursday, February 16, 2017

    9:00 a.m. Briefing on Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident (Public Meeting), (Contact: Andrew Proffitt: 301-415-1418).

    This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/.

    Friday, February 17, 2017

    9:30 a.m. Briefing on Project Aim (Public Meeting) (Contact: Tammy Bloomer: 301-415-1785).

    This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/.

    Week of February 20, 2017—Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 20, 2017.

    Week of February 27, 2017—Tentative Wednesday, March 1, 2017

    10:00 a.m. Briefing on NRC International Activities (Closed Ex. 1 & 9)

    Thursday, March 2, 2017

    9:00 a.m. Strategic Programmatic Overview of the Fuel Facilities and the Nuclear Materials Users Business Lines (Public Meeting) (Contact: Soly Soto; 301-415-7528)

    The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0981 or via email at [email protected]

    The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/schedule.html.

    The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g., braille, large print), please notify Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability Program Manager, at 301-287-0739, by videophone at 240-428-3217, or by email at [email protected] Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email [email protected] or [email protected]

    Dated: January 19, 2017. Denise L. McGovern, Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01663 Filed 1-19-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026; NRC-2008-0252] Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Piping Line Number Additions, Deletions and Functional Capability Re-Designation AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Exemption and combined license amendment; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption to allow a departure from the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic design control document (DCD) and issuing License Amendment No. 41 to Combined Licenses (COL), NPF-91 and NPF-92. The COLs were issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC., MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC., MEAG Power SPVP, LLC., and the City of Dalton, Georgia (together “the licensees”), for construction and operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.

    The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information requested in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.

    DATES:

    January 24, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0252. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced. The request for the amendment and exemption was submitted by the letter dated October 16, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14290A139). The licensee supplemented this request by letters dated May 14 and August 24, 2015 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML15134A147 and ML15236A335, respectively).

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chandu Patel, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3025; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Introduction

    The NRC is granting an exemption from Tier 1 information in the certified DCD incorporated by reference in part 52 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design,” and issuing License Amendment No. 41 to COLs, NPF-91 and NPF-92, to the licensee. The exemption is required by Paragraph A.4 of Section VIII, “Processes for Changes and Departures,” Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 to allow the licensee to depart from Tier 1 information. With the requested amendment, the licensee sought proposed changes to add or delete line numbers of existing piping lines, as well as update the functional capability classification of existing process flow lines, to provide consistency with the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Tier 2 information.

    Part of the justification for granting the exemption was provided by the review of the amendment. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemption and issued the amendment concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing the NRC staff's review of both the exemption request and the license amendment. The exemption met all applicable regulatory criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 52.7, and 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1). The license amendment was found to be acceptable as well. The combined safety evaluation is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15237A391.

    Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for VEGP, Units 3 and 4 (COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92). These documents can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15237A373 and ML15237A384, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15237A366 and ML15237A370, respectively. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this document.

    II. Exemption

    Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to VEGP, Units 3 and 4. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:

    1. In a letter dated October 16, 2014, and as supplemented by letters dated May 14 and August 24, 2015, the licensee requested from the NRC an exemption to allow departures from Tier 1 information in the certified DCD incorporated by reference in 10 CFR part 52, appendix D as part of license amendment request 13-031, “Piping Line Number Additions, Deletions and Functional Capability Re-Designation.”

    For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation that supports this license amendment, which can be found at ADAMS Accession No. ML15237A391, the Commission finds that:

    A. The exemption is authorized by law;

    B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;

    C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;

    D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule;

    E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption, and

    F. the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.

    2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption to the provisions of 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, Section III.B, to allow deviations from the certified DCD Tier 1 Tables 2.1.2-2, 2.2.1-2, 2.2.2-2, 2.2.3-2, 2.3.6-2, 2.3.7-2, and 2.7.1-2, as described in the licensee's request dated October 16, 2014, and supplemented by letters dated May 14, 2015 and August 24, 2015. This exemption is related to, and necessary for the granting of License Amendment No. 41, which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.

    3. As explained in Section 5 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation that supports this license amendment (ADAMS Accession No. ML15237A391), this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.

    4. This exemption is effective as of the date of its issuance.

    III. License Amendment Request

    The request for the amendment and exemption was submitted by the letter dated October 16, 2014. The licensee supplemented this request by the letters dated May 14 and August 24, 2015. The proposed amendment is described in Section I, above.

    The Commission has determined for these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.

    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal Register on December 9, 2014 (79 FR 73112). The May 14 and August 24, 2015, supplements had no effect on the no significant hazards consideration determination, and no comments were received during the 30-day comment period.

    The NRC staff has found that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments.

    IV. Conclusion

    Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemption and issued the amendment that the licensee requested on October 16, 2014, and supplemented by the letters dated May 14 and August 24, 2015. The exemption and amendment were issued on November 9, 2015, as part of a combined package to the licensee (ADAMS Accession No. ML15237A355).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of January 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Jennifer Dixon-Herrity, Chief, Licensing Branch 4, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01549 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 052-00027 and 052-00028; NRC-2008-0441] South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service Authority; Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, In-Containment Refueling Water Storage Tank (IRWST) Volume Changes AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    License amendment application; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment and exemption to Combined Licenses (NPF-93 and NPF-94), issued to South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) and South Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper) (the licensee); for construction and operation of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3, located in Fairfield County, South Carolina.

    DATES:

    Submit comments by February 23, 2017. Requests for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by March 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0441. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William (Billy) Gleaves, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-000; telephone: 301-415-5848; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0441 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0441.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The application for amendment, dated December 6, 2016, is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16342B712.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2008-0441 in your comment submission.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

    II. Introduction

    The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94, issued to SCE&G and Santee Cooper for operation of the VCSNS, Units 2 and 3, located in Fairfield County, South Carolina.

    The proposed changes would revise the Combined Licenses, Tier 1 information as reflected in COL Appendix C, certain COL Appendix A, Technical Specifications information, and the Tier 2 information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to ensure the consistency of these sections with the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) IRWST minimum volume value in the locations previously mentioned. Because, this proposed change requires a departure from Tier 1 information in the Westinghouse AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD), the licensee also requested an exemption from the requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance with section 52.63(b)(1) of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR).

    Before any issuance of the proposed license amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and NRC's regulations.

    The NRC has made a proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any structure, system, or component (SSC) accident initiator or initiating sequence of events. The proposed changes do not affect the physical design and operation of the IRWST, including as-installed inspections, testing, and maintenance requirements, as described in the UFSAR. Therefore, the operation of the IRWST is not affected. There are no inadvertent operations or failures of the IRWST considered as accident initiators or part of an initiating sequence of events for an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.

    The proposed changes do not adversely affect the ability of the IRWST to perform its design functions. The design of the IRWST continues to meet the same regulatory acceptance criteria, codes, and standards as required by the UFSAR. In addition, the proposed changes maintain the capabilities of the IRWST to mitigate the consequences of an accident and to meet the applicable regulatory acceptance criteria. The proposed changes do not affect the prevention and mitigation of other abnormal events, e.g., anticipated operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine missiles, or their safety or design analyses. Therefore, the consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident, or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events is created. The proposed changes do not affect the physical design and operation of the IRWST, including as-installed inspections, testing, and maintenance requirements, as described in the UFSAR. Therefore, the operation of the IRWST is not affected. These proposed changes do not adversely affect any other SSC design functions or methods of operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or nonsafety-related equipment. Therefore, this activity does not allow for a new fission product release path, result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that results in significant fuel cladding failures.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes maintain existing safety margins. The proposed changes maintain the capabilities of the IRWST to perform its design functions. The proposed changes maintain existing safety margin through continued application of the existing requirements of the UFSAR, while updating the acceptance criteria for verifying the design features necessary to ensure the IRWST performs the design functions required to meet the existing safety margins in the safety analyses. Therefore, the proposed changes satisfy the same design functions in accordance with the same codes and standards as stated in the UFSAR. These changes do not adversely affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and no margin of safety is reduced.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the license amendment request involves a no significant hazards consideration.

    The NRC is seeking public comments on this proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.

    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day notice period if the Commission concludes the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, the Commission will publish a notice of issuance in the Federal Register. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.

    III. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.

    As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.

    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.

    Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.

    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.

    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by March 27, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).

    If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

    IV. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing system.

    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.

    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. For example, in some instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

    For further details with respect to this action, see the application for license amendment dated December 6, 2016.

    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of January 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Jennifer Dixon-Herrity, Chief, Licensing Branch 4, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01555 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026; NRC-2008-0252] Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 CA04 Structural Module ITAAC Dimensions Change AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Exemption and combined license amendment; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption to allow a departure from the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic design control document (DCD) and issuing License Amendment No. 42 to Combined Licenses (COL), NPF-91 and NPF-92. The COLs were issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC., MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC., MEAG Power SPVP, LLC., and the City of Dalton, Georgia (together “the licensees”), for construction and operation of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.

    The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information requested in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.

    DATES:

    January 24, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0252. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced. The request for the amendment and exemption was submitted by the letter dated September 18, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15261A757).

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chandu Patel, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3025; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Introduction

    The NRC is granting an exemption from Tier 1 information in the certified DCD incorporated by reference in part 52 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design,” and issuing License Amendment No. 42 to COLs, NPF-91 and NPF-92, to the licensee. The exemption is required by Paragraph A.4 of Section VIII, “Processes for Changes and Departures,” appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 to allow the licensee to depart from Tier 1 information. With the requested amendment, the licensee sought proposed changes related to the design details of the containment internal structural wall modules (CA04, CA01, and CB65). The proposed changes to Tier 2 information in the VEGP Units 3 and 4 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), plant-specific Tier 1 information, and corresponding COL Appendix C information would allow an increase of the concrete wall thickness tolerances. The proposed changes would allow:

    (1) A change to Tier 2 information in UFSAR Subsection 3.8.3.6.1, “Fabrication, Erection, and Construction of Structural Modules,” to allow an increase in wall thickness tolerance beyond the American Concrete Institute (ACI) 117, “Standard Specifications for Tolerance for Concrete Construction and Material,” specified tolerance for some Containment Internal Structure (CIS) walls, and

    (2) the addition of Note 10 to Tier 1 Table 3.3-1, which provides the wall thickness tolerance deviations.

    Part of the justification for granting the exemption was provided by the review of the amendment. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemption and issued the amendment concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing the NRC staff's review of both the exemption request and the license amendment. The exemption met all applicable regulatory criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 52.7, and 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1). The license amendment was found to be acceptable as well. The combined safety evaluation is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15302A473.

    Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for VEGP Units 3 and 4 (COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92). These documents are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15302A418 and ML15302A443, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15302A406 and ML15302A413, respectively. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this document.

    II. Exemption

    Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to VEGP, Units 3 and 4. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:

    1. In a letter dated September 18, 2015, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (licensee) requested from the NRC an exemption to allow departures from Tier 1 information in the certified Design Control Document (DCD) incorporated by reference in 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design,” as part of license amendment request (LAR) 15-015, “CA04 Structural Module Inspection, Test, Analysis, and Acceptance Criteria Dimensions Change.”

    For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation, which can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15302A473, the Commission finds that:

    A. The exemption is authorized by law;

    B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;

    C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;

    D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule;

    E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption, and

    F. the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.

    2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption from the certified DCD Tier 1 Table: 3.3-1, as described in the licensee's request dated September 18, 2015. This exemption is related to, and necessary for the granting of License Amendment No. 42, which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.

    3. As explained in Section 5.0 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. ML15302A473), this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.

    4. This exemption is effective as of the date of its issuance.

    III. License Amendment Request

    The request for the amendment and exemption was submitted by the letter dated September 18, 2015. The proposed amendment is described in Section I, above.

    The Commission has determined for these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.

    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal Register on October 8, 2015 (80 FR 60937). Comments were received during the 30-day comment period.

    IV. Public Comments

    On November 9, 2015, the staff received a public comment from the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and its Chapter Concerned Citizens of Shell Bluff (BREDL), regarding the proposed amendment request for the VEGP, Units 3 and 4. This document can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15320A016. On December 7, 2015, BREDL filed its Petition and on December 23, 2015, BREDL filed a corrected petition (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML15341A348 and ML15357A000, respectively). On January 4, 2016, NRC and SNC filed their respective answers to the Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Hearing (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML16004A471 and ML16004A479, respectively). The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued a ruling on the VEGP Units 3 and 4 license amendment request contention admissibility proceeding on April 29, 2016. This document can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16120A508.

    The NRC staff has found that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments.

    V. Conclusion

    Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemption and issued the amendment that the licensee requested on September 18, 2015. The exemption and amendment were issued on December 16, 2015, as part of a combined package to the licensee (ADAMS Accession No. ML15302A398).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of January 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Jennifer Dixon-Herrity, Chief, Licensing Branch 4, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01548 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028; NRC-2008-0441] South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service Authority; Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3; Tier 1 Editorial and Consistency Changes AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Exemption and combined license amendment; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption to allow a departure from the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic design control document (DCD) and is issuing License Amendment No. 55 to Combined Licenses (COLs), NPF-93 and NPF-94. The COLs were issued to South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, (the licensee); for construction and operation of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3, located in Fairfield County, South Carolina.

    The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information asked for in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.

    DATES:

    The exemption and amendment were issued on November 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0441 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0441. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this document. The request for the amendment and exemption was submitted by letter dated May 16, 2016, and available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16137A169.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William (Billy) Gleaves, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5848; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Introduction

    The NRC is granting an exemption from Paragraph B of Section III, “Scope and Contents,” of appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,” to part 52 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), and issuing License Amendment No. 55 to COLs, NPF-93 and NPF-94, to the licensee. The exemption is required by Paragraph A.4 of Section VIII, “Processes for Changes and Departures,” appendix D, to 10 CFR part 52 to allow the licensee to depart from Tier 1 information. With the requested amendment, the licensee sought proposed changes that would correct editorial errors in plant-specific Tier 1 information, with corresponding changes to the associated COL Appendix C information, to promote consistency with the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Tier 2 information. One of the proposed changes to plant-specific Tier 1 information also involves a change to Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Tier 2 information. The proposed amendment also involves a proposed editorial correction to COL Paragraph 2.D.(12)(f)1.

    Part of the justification for granting the exemption was provided by the review of the amendment. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemption and issued the amendment concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing the NRC staff's review of both the exemption request and the license amendment. The exemption met all applicable regulatory criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 52.7, and Section VIII.A.4 of appendix D to 10 CFR part 52. The license amendment was found to be acceptable as well. The combined safety evaluation is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16288A818.

    Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (COLs NPF-93 and NPF-94). The exemption documents for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16288A806 and ML16288A813, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COLs NPF-93 and NPF-94 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16288A795 and ML16288A798, respectively. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this document.

    II. Exemption

    Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to Summer Units 2 and Unit 3. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:

    1. In an application dated May 16, 2016, the licensee requested from the Commission an exemption to allow departures from Tier 1 information in the certified DCD incorporated by reference in 10 CFR part 52, appendix D as part of license amendment request 15-05, “Tier 1 Editorial and Consistency Changes.”

    For the reasons set forth in Section 3 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation, which can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16288A818, the Commission finds that:

    A. The exemption is authorized by law;

    B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;

    C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;

    D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule;

    E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption; and

    F. the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.

    2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption from the certified DCD Tier 1 information, with corresponding information in Appendix C of the Facility Combined License as described in the licensee's request dated May 16, 2016. This exemption is related to, and necessary for the granting of License Amendment No. 55, which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.

    3. As explained in Section 5.0 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. ML16288A818), this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.

    4. This exemption is effective as of the date of its issuance.

    III. License Amendment Request

    By letter dated May 16, 2016, the licensee requested that the NRC amend the COLs for VCSNS, Units 2 and 3, COLs NPF-93 and NPF-94. The proposed amendment is described in Section I of this Federal Register notice.

    The Commission has determined for these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.

    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal Register on July 5, 2016 (81 FR 43646). No comments were received during the 30-day comment period.

    The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments.

    IV. Conclusion

    Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemption and issued the amendment that the licensee requested on May 16, 2016.

    The exemption and amendment were issued on November 25, 2016 as part of a combined package to the licensee (ADAMS Accession No. ML16288A775).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of January 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Jennifer Dixon-Herrity, Chief, Licensing Branch 4, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01551 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2016-0190] Program-Specific Guidance About Commercial Radiopharmacy Licenses AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Draft NUREG; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is revising its licensing guidance for licenses authorizing commercial nuclear pharmacy use of byproduct material. The NRC is requesting public comment on draft NUREG-1556, Volume 13, Revision 2, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses: Program-Specific Guidance About Commercial Radiopharmacy Licenses.” The document has been updated from the previous revision to include information on safety culture, security of radioactive materials, protection of sensitive information, and changes in regulatory policies and practices. This document is intended for use by applicants, licensees, and the NRC staff.

    DATES:

    Submit comments by March 24, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is only able to assure consideration of comments received on or before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0190. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H8, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Said Daibes, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6863; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0190 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0190.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The draft NUREG-1556, Volume 13, Revision 2, is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16356A040.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    The draft NUREG-1556, Volume 13, Revision 2, is also available on the NRC's public Web site on the: (1) “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses (NUREG-1556)” page at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1556; and the (2) “Draft NUREG-Series Publications for Comment” page at http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment.html#nuregs.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0190 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS, and the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

    II. Further Information

    NUREG-1556, Volume 13, Revision 2 provides program-specific guidance to assist applicants and licensees in preparing applications for materials licenses for commercial radiopharmacies. In particular, it describes the types of information needed to complete NRC Form 313, “Application for Materials License.” It also provides the NRC with criteria for evaluating a license application. The purpose of this notice is to provide the public with an opportunity to review and provide comments on draft NUREG-1556, Volume 13, Revision 2, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses: Program-Specific Guidance About Commercial Radiopharmacy Licenses.” These comments will be considered in the final version or subsequent revisions.

    This draft NUREG-1556, Volume 13, Revision 2 does not include any revisions associated with the proposed rule “Medical Use of Byproduct Material-Medical Event Definitions, Training and Experience, and Clarifying Amendments.” That proposed rule would amend the following requirements in parts 30, 32, and 35 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations related to commercial nuclear pharmacies:

    • Removal of the requirement for the board certified nuclear pharmacist to have an attestation statement in addition to the board certificate;

    • measuring molybdenum contamination and reporting of failed technetium generators;

    • labeling requirements for radioactive drugs; and

    • clarifying other revisions to the regulations.

    This draft NUREG-1556, Volume 13, Revision 2 does not include any guidance for the proposed rule revisions because that rule is not final at this time.

    The proposed rule, “Medical Use of Byproduct Material-Medical Event Definitions, Training and Experience, and Clarifying Amendments,” and proposed changes to NUREG-1556 commercial radiopharmacy licenses associated with the proposed rule were published for public comment in the Federal Register (79 FR 42409 and 79 FR 42224) on July 21, 2014. Comments received on those changes in the proposed rule and guidance are being considered by the NRC staff separately. If the proposed rule becomes final, the proposed revisions to NUREG-1556, Volume 13 addressing the implementation of the proposed rule will be incorporated into NUREG-1556, Volume 13, Revision 2 before its final publication.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of January, 2017.

    For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Pamela J. Henderson, Deputy Director, Division of Material Safety, State, Tribal and Rulemaking Programs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01546 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Submission for Review: Revision of an Existing Information Collection, USAJOBS®, OMB Control No. 3206-0219 AGENCY:

    U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

    ACTION:

    60-Day Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a revised information collection request (ICR), OMB Control No. 3206-0219, USAJOBS.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until March 27, 2017. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.

    ADDRESS:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Chief Information Officer, Employee Services IT PMO, USAJOBS, 1900 E. Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: John Still or send them via electronic mail to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Chief Information Officer, Employee Services IT PMO, USAJOBS, 1900 E. Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: John Still, or by sending a request via electronic mail to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. USAJOBS is the Federal Government's centralized source for most Federal jobs and employment information, including both positions that are required by law to be posted at that location and positions that can be posted there at an agency's discretion. The Applicant Profile and Resume Builder are two components of the USAJOBS application system.

    USAJOBS reflects the minimal critical elements collected across the Federal Government to begin an application for Federal jobs under the authority of sections 1104, 1302, 3301, 3304, 3320, 3361, 3393, and 3394 of title 5, United States Code. This revision proposes to renew a currently approved collection. Therefore, we invite comments that:

    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 submissions of responses.

    Analysis:

    Agency: Office of Personnel Management.

    Title: USAJOBS.

    OMB Number: 3206-0219.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Affected Public: Individuals.

    Number of Respondents: 4,196,336.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 43 minutes.

    Total Burden Hours: 3,007,374.

    U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Beth F. Cobert, Acting Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01475 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-38-P
    OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Excepted Service AGENCY:

    U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice identifies Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency that were established or revoked from September 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Senior Executive Resources Services, Senior Executive Service and Performance Management, Employee Services, 202-606-2246.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with 5 CFR 213.103, Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities available for use by all agencies are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency are not codified in the CFR, but the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) publishes a notice of agency-specific authorities established or revoked each month in the Federal Register at www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/. OPM also publishes an annual notice of the consolidated listing of all Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities, current as of June 30, in the Federal Register.

    Schedule A

    No schedule A authorities to report during September 2016.

    Schedule B

    No schedule B authorities to report during September 2016.

    The following Schedule C appointing authorities were approved during September 2016.

    Agency name Organization name Position title Request No. Effective date DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of Communications Press Assistant
  • Deputy Press Secretary
  • DA160166
  • DA160176
  • 09/06/2016
  • 09/26/2016
  • Foreign Agricultural Service Speechwriter & Communications Advisor DA160169 09/06/2016 Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education & Economics Confidential Assistant DA160173 09/14/2016 Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs Confidential Assistant DA160175 09/14/2016 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Office of the Deputy Secretary Special Advisor DC160199 09/12/2016 Office of Scheduling and Advance Scheduling and Advance Assistant DC160203 09/29/2016 COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Office of the Director Executive Assistant EQ160002 09/08/2016 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary of Defense Special Assistant DD160177 09/01/2016 Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) Special Assistant DD160184 09/08/2016 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Elementary and Secondary Education Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Strategic Initiatives DB160127 09/14/2016 Office of the Secretary Deputy Director of Scheduling and Advance DB160130 09/30/2016 Office of the Under Secretary Director of Operations DB160131 09/30/2016 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis Special Advisor DE160151 09/08/2016 Office of the Deputy Secretary Special Advisor DE160156 09/23/2016 Office of Scheduling and Advance Special Advisor DE160158 09/23/2016 Office of Management Senior Advisor and Director of Special Projects DE160159 09/29/2016 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of the Administrator Special Assistant EP160058 09/14/2016 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Special Advisor DH160177 09/01/2016 Office of the Secretary Senior Advisor DH160180 09/01/2016 Special Assistant DH160181 09/12/2016 Senior Regulatory Advisor DH160197 09/22/2016 Office of Intergovernmental and External Affairs Special Advisor DH160183 09/02/2016 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Special Advisor for Engagement DH160192 09/13/2016 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Legislation Chief of Staff DH160195 09/15/2016 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health Associate Director for Operations and Engagement DH160198 09/29/2016 Special Assistant DH160196 09/15/2016 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Office of the Executive Secretariat Briefing Book Coordinator DM160310 09/01/2016 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Special Assistant (2) DM160307
  • DM160296
  • 09/02/2016
  • 09/15/2016
  • Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Director of Strategic Communications DM160305 09/07/2016 Assistant Press Secretary DM160311 09/08/2016 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Special Assistant DM160306 09/07/2016 Office of the Assistant Secretary for International Affairs—Policy Special Assistant, Office of International Affairs DM160313 09/12/2016 Office of the Chief of Staff Counselor DM160315 09/30/2016 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Office of the Administration Special Assistant and Briefing Book Coordinator DU160048 09/07/2016 Deputy Executive Secretary DU160050 09/29/2016 Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations Congressional Relations Specialist Assistant DU160049 09/15/2016 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Secretary's Immediate Office Deputy Communications Director and Press Secretary DI160094 09/16/2016 Office of the Assistant Secretary—Fish and Wildlife and Parks Special Assistant DI160093 09/23/2016 OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Office of Legislative Affairs
  • Office of Federal Procurement Policy
  • Confidential Assistant
  • Confidential Assistant
  • BO160049
  • BO160050
  • 09/16/2016
  • 09/23/2016
  • PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON WHITE HOUSE FELLOWSHIPS Office of the Director Special Assistant WH160004 09/01/2016 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs Deputy Assistant Administrator for Congressional and Legislative Affairs SB160036 09/16/2016 Office of Capital Access Special Advisor SB160037 09/23/2016 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Assistant Secretary (Public Affairs) Senior Digital Strategy Specialist
  • Spokesperson
  • DY160124
  • DY160125
  • 09/14/2016
  • 09/14/2016
  • DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Office of the Secretary and Deputy Special Advisor and White House Liaison DV160079 09/20/2016 Office of Planning and Evaluation Chief Design Officer DV160080 09/20/2016

    The following Schedule C appointing authorities were revoked during September 2016.

    Agency name Organization name Position title Request No. Date vacated DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service State Director—Virginia DA140054 09/02/2016 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) Special Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East DD150002 09/03/2016 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Office of the Secretary Deputy White House Liaison DU150031 09/17/2016 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS Office of the Chairman Senior Advisor to the Chairman and Director of Strategic Partnerships NA110005 09/09/2016 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Office of Communications and Public Liaison Deputy Press Secretary SB150046 09/03/2016 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Office of Public Affairs Special Advisor DV160033 09/20/2016 Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218.

    U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Beth F. Cobert, Acting Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01470 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Product Change—Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

    DATES:

    Effective date: January 24, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on January 18, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 288 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-79, CP2017-106.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01557 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-79809; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2017-001] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Transaction Fees To Implement New Incentive January 17, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on January 3, 2017, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction fees at Chapter XV, Section 2, entitled “NASDAQ Options Market—Fees and Rebates,” which governs pricing for Nasdaq members using the NASDAQ Options Market (“NOM”), Nasdaq's facility for executing and routing standardized equity and index options. Nasdaq proposes to implement a new incentive for NOM Participants that add liquidity for Customer and Professional orders in Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Options as described further below.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to create an alternative method for earning a rebate for adding liquidity for both Customers 3 and Professionals 4 in Penny Pilot 5 and Non-Penny Pilot Options. For Customers and Professionals transacting in Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange currently pays a volume-based tiered rebate to add liquidity. That rebate consists of 8 tiers, ranging from $0.20 per contract to $0.48 per contract, with the volume requirements increasing with each tier. Thus, a NOM Participant would qualify for a rebate of $0.20 per contract in Tier 1 for Customers and Professionals if it added Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options of up to 0.10% of total industry customer equity and ETF option average daily volume (“ADV”) contracts per day in a month. In comparison, a Participant would qualify for a rebate of $0.48 in Tier 8 for Customers and Professionals if it adds Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.75% or more of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, or if the Participant adds: (1) Customer and/or Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options of 0.25% or more of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, and (2) has added liquidity in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent 1.00% or more of Consolidated Volume in a month or qualifies for MARS.6

    3 The term “Customer” or (“C”) applies to any transaction that is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Customer range at The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) which is not for the account of broker or dealer or for the account of a “Professional” (as that term is defined in Chapter I, Section 1(a)(48)).

    4 The term “Professional” or (“P”) means any person or entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s) pursuant to Chapter I, Section 1(a)(48). All Professional orders shall be appropriately marked by Participants.

    5 The Penny Pilot was established in March 2008. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57579 (March 28, 2008), 73 FR 18587 (April 4, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-026) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness establishing Penny Pilot). Since that date, the Penny Pilot has been expanded and is currently extended through December 31, 2016 or the date of permanent approval, if earlier. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78037 (June 10, 2016), 81 FR 39299 (June 16, 2016) (SR-NASDAQ-2016-052).

    6 MARS refers to the Market Access and Routing Subsidy, which is set forth in Chapter XV, Section 6 [sic]. The MARS payment comprises four volume-based tiers, and is paid to NOM Participants that route eligible contracts to NOM through a participating NOM Participant's System. The MARS Payment will be paid on all executed Eligible Contracts that add liquidity. See NOM Rules at Chapter XV, Section 6 [sic].

    Currently, Customers and Professionals transacting in Non-Penny Pilot Options on NOM receive a $0.80 per contract Rebate to Add Liquidity. In addition, a Participant that qualifies for a Customer or Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity in Tiers 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 in a month will receive an additional $0.10 per contract Non-Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity for each transaction which adds liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options in that month. A Participant that qualifies for a Customer or Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity in Tiers 7 or 8 in a month will receive an additional $0.20 per contract Non-Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity for each transaction which adds liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options in that month.

    Furthermore, a Participant that may receive a $0.53 per contract Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options as a Customer or Professional, and $1.00 per contract Rebate to Add Liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options as a Customer or Professional, if that NOM Participant transacts on the NASDAQ Stock Market through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs in the same month, and such transactions in all securities on the NASDAQ Stock Market that month through all of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs represent 3.00% or more of Consolidated Volume.7 Participants that qualify for this rebate would not be eligible for any other rebates in Tiers 1 through 8 or other rebate incentives on NOM for Customer and Professional order flow in Chapter XV, Section 2(1) of NOM Rules.8

    7 Consolidated Volume would be determined as set forth in Nasdaq Rule 7018(a).

    8 In calculating total volume, the Exchange will add the NOM Participant's total volume transacted on the NASDAQ Stock Market in a given month across its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs, and will divide this number by the total industry Consolidated Volume.

    The Exchange proposes an additional incentive to a Participant that adds Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 1.45% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, (b) executes greater than 0.04% of Consolidated Volume (“CV”) 9 via Market-on-Close/Limit-on-Close (“MOC/LOC”) 10 volume within the NASDAQ Stock Market Closing Cross within a month, and (c) adds greater than 1.5 million shares per day of non-displayed volume within the NASDAQ Stock Market within a month. The Participant would receive a $0.55 per contract rebate to add liquidity in Penny Pilot Options as Customer or Professional and $1.05 per contract rebate to add liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options as Customer or Professional. Participants that qualify for this rebate would not be eligible for any other rebates in Tiers 1-8 or other rebate incentives on NOM for Customer and Professional order flow in Chapter XV, Section 2(1). The Exchange believes that the new incentives will attract a greater amount of order flow on NOM by offering a discounted rate.

    9See note 7 above.

    10 MOC/LOC, as set forth in NASDAQ Rule 4754, represents the volume in the NASDAQ Stock Market Closing Cross that allows market participants to contribute order flow that will result in executions at the official closing price for the day in the NASDAQ listed security. A “MOC Order” is an order type entered without a price that may be executed only during the NASDAQ Closing Cross, which refers to the equity closing cross. A “LOC Order” is an order type entered with a price that may be executed only in the NASDAQ Closing Cross.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,11 in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,12 in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.

    11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.” 13

    13 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (“Regulation NMS Adopting Release”).

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission14 (“NetCoalition”) the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based approach.15 As the court emphasized, the Commission “intended in Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be made available to investors and at what cost.” 16

    14NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

    15See NetCoalition, at 534-535.

    16Id. at 537.

    Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers' . . . . ” 17 Although the court and the SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the Exchange believes that these views apply with equal force to the options markets.

    17Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).

    The Exchange notes that the purpose of the proposed rebates is to incentivize NOM Participants to transact greater volume on NOM and the NASDAQ Stock Market in order to qualify for a higher rebate on NOM. The Exchange believes that the amount of the rebate ($0.55 per contract for Penny Pilot Options and $1.05 per contract for Non-Penny Pilot Options) along with the various criteria for qualifying for the rebate ((a) add Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 1.45% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, (b) execute greater than 0.04% of Consolidated Volume (“CV”) via Market-on-Close/Limit-on-Close (“MOC/LOC”) volume within the NASDAQ Stock Market Closing Cross within a month, and (c) add greater than 1.5 million shares per day of non-displayed within the NASDAQ Stock Market within a month) are reasonable. With respect to the rebate for Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange notes that the proposed $0.55 per contract rebate is higher than the currently highest rebate available ($0.53 per contract) to Customers and Professionals for adding liquidity in Penny Pilot Options.18 The Exchange believes the proposed rebate of $0.55 per contract is reasonable because the proposed rebate requires three components ((a) add Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 1.45% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, (b) execute greater than 0.04% of Consolidated Volume (“CV”) via Market-on-Close/Limit-on-Close (“MOC/LOC”) volume within the NASDAQ Stock Market Closing Cross within a month, and (c) add greater than 1.5 million shares per day of non-displayed volume within the NASDAQ Stock Market within a month) to be met by NOM Participants in order to qualify for that rebate. These requirements require more volume to be submitted on NOM than the current highest rebate requires today. Similarly, the Exchange believes the proposed $1.05 rebate per contract for Non-Penny Pilot Options is reasonable for similar reasons. The requirements to obtain this rebate require more volume to be submitted on NOM.

    18 As noted above, a NOM Participant will receive a rebate of $0.48 per contract for adding liquidity as a Customer or Professional in Penny Pilot Options if it qualifies for Tier 8. In addition, as noted in footnote c of Chapter XV, Section 2, a NOM Participant may receive an additional rebate of up to $0.05 per contract in Penny Pilot Options, for a total rebate of $0.53 per contract. Specifically, Participants that: (1) Add Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non- Penny Pilot Options of 1.15% or more of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month will receive an additional $0.02 per contract Penny Pilot Options Customer and/or Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity for each transaction which adds liquidity in Penny Pilot Options in that month; or (2) add Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options of 1.30% or more of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month will receive an additional $0.05 per contract Penny Pilot Options Customer and/or Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity for each transaction which adds liquidity in Penny Pilot Options in that month; or (3) (a) add Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.80% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, (b) add Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.15% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, and (c) execute greater than 0.04% of Consolidated Volume (“CV”) via Market-on-Close/Limit-on-Close (“MOC/LOC”) volume within the NASDAQ Stock Market Closing Cross within a month will receive an additional $0.05 per contract Penny Pilot Options Customer and/or Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity for each transaction which adds liquidity in Penny Pilot Options in a month. Consolidated Volume shall mean the total consolidated volume reported to all consolidated transaction reporting plans by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities during a month in equity securities, excluding executed orders with a size of less than one round lot. For purposes of calculating Consolidated Volume and the extent of an equity member's trading activity, expressed as a percentage of or ratio to Consolidated Volume, the date of the annual reconstitution of the Russell Investments Indexes shall be excluded from both total Consolidated Volume and the member's trading activity.

    The Exchange believes that the requirement that a NOM Participant add Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 1.45% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, execute greater than 0.04% of Consolidated Volume (“CV”) via Market-on-Close/Limit-on-Close (“MOC/LOC”) volume within the NASDAQ Stock Market Closing Cross within a month, and add greater than 1.5 million shares per day of non-displayed volume within the NASDAQ Stock Market within a month is reasonable because the Exchange is offering to pay a rebate of $0.55 per contract, the highest rebate. These more stringent volume-based requirements bring a greater amount of volume to both NOM and the NASDAQ Stock Market. The first volume requirement, which requires volume to be added to NOM, is reasonable because it is similar to that required to qualify for certain NOM Market Maker discounted remove fees.19 The second volume requirement to execute greater than 0.04% of Consolidated Volume (“CV”) via Market-on-Close/Limit-on-Close (“MOC/LOC”) volume within the NASDAQ Stock Market Closing Cross within a month is reasonable because it is one of the same requirements to qualify for note “c” in Chapter XV, Section 2 of NOM Rules.20 The third volume requirement to add greater than 1.5 million shares per day of non-displayed volume within the NASDAQ Stock Market within a month is a new requirement, which must be met in addition to the first and second volume requirements. The Exchange believes that this requirement is reasonable because linking rebates on NOM to activity on the NASDAQ Stock Market is not novel. The Exchange believes that requiring Participants to add non-displayed volume within the NASDAQ Stock Market is reasonable because this type of liquidity benefits all market participants by way of interacting with that liquidity on the equity market.21 By encouraging market participants to increase their participation on the equities market by delivering non-displayed volume, the Exchange is rewarding Participants with an opportunity to earn an additional options incentive, provided all requirements are met. The Exchange notes that previous and current rebates offered by NOM relate to activity on the NASDAQ Stock Market.22 Similarly, the NASDAQ Stock Market offers enhanced rebates that are based on activity on NOM.23 Moreover, the Exchange notes that any NOM Options Participant may trade equities on the NASDAQ Stock Market because they are approved members.24

    19See note “2” of Chapter XV, Section 2 of NOM Rules. The note “2 “rebate is offered to Non-NOM Market Makers and NOM Market Makers that add 1.30% of Customer, Professional, Firm, Broker-Dealer or Non-NOM Market Maker liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month will be subject to the following pricing applicable to executions: A $0.48 per contract Penny Pilot Options Fee for Removing Liquidity when the Participant is (i) both the buyer and the seller or (ii) the Participant removes liquidity from another Participant under Common Ownership. In the alternative, Participants that add 1.50% of Customer, Professional, Firm, Broker-Dealer or Non-NOM Market Maker liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month and meet or exceed the cap for the NASDAQ Stock Market Opening Cross during the month will be subject to the following pricing applicable to executions less than 10,000 contracts: A $0.32 per contract Penny Pilot Options Fee for Removing Liquidity when the Participant is (i) both the buyer and seller or (ii) the Participant removes liquidity from another Participant under Common Ownership. Finally, Participants that add 1.75% of Customer, Professional, Firm, Broker-Dealer or Non-NOM Market Maker liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month will be subject to the following pricing applicable to executions less than 10,000 contracts: A $0.32 per contract Penny Pilot Options Fee for Removing Liquidity when the Participant is (i) both the buyer and seller or (ii) the Participant removes liquidity from another Participant under Common Ownership.

    20 Note “c” of Chapter XV, Section 2 pays an additional $0.05 per contract Penny Pilot Options Customer and/or Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity, in addition to the Tier 8 rebate of $0.48 per contract if a Participant: (1) Adds Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options of 1.15% or more of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month will receive an additional $0.02 per contract Penny Pilot Options Customer and/or Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity for each transaction which adds liquidity in Penny Pilot Options in that month; or (2) adds Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options of 1.30% or more of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month will receive an additional $0.05 per contract Penny Pilot Options Customer and/or Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity for each transaction which adds liquidity in Penny Pilot Options in that month; or (3) (a) adds Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.80% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, (b) adds Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.15% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, and (c) executes greater than 0.04% of Consolidated Volume (“CV”) via Market-on-Close/Limit-on-Close (“MOC/LOC”) volume within the NASDAQ Stock Market Closing Cross within a month.

    21 Orders that are non-displayed would not be disseminated on the NASDAQ Stock Market Order Book feed. A Participant may be incentivized to increase their participation on the NASDAQ Stock Market, which may result in interacting with such non-displayed volume. Increased order interaction benefits all market participants.

    22See current note “e” of Chapter XV, Section IV [sic] of NOM Rules which provides a rebate to NOM Participants that transact in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent 3.00% or more of Consolidated Volume in the same month on the NASDAQ Stock Market.

    23 For example, Nasdaq provides an enhanced rebate on the NASDAQ Stock Market of $0.00295 if the member adds Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options of 1.15% or more of total industry ADV in the customer clearing range for Equity and ETF option contracts per day in a month on NOM. See Nasdaq Rule 7018.

    24 Although a NOM Participant may incur additional labor and/or costs to establish connectivity to the NASDAQ Stock Market, there are no additional membership fees for NOM Participants that want to transact on the NASDAQ Stock Market.

    Further, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to make this rebate exclusive of any other rebates in Tiers 1 through 8 or other rebate incentives on NOM for Customer and Professional order flow in Chapter XV, Section 2(1) of NOM Rules. As noted above, the proposed rebates are higher, and in some cases significantly higher, than the rebates that a NOM Participant may currently receive for adding liquidity in Penny Pilot and Non-Penny Pilot Options as a Customer or Professional. Given the size of the proposed rebates, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to make these rebates exclusive of other rebates on NOM for Customer and Professional order flow. Finally, the Exchange also believes the proposal is reasonable because the proposed rebates apply to both transactions in Penny Pilot and Non-Penny Pilot Options.

    The Exchange believes that the amount of the rebate ($0.55 per contract for Penny Pilot Options and $1.05 per contract for Non-Penny Pilot Options) along with the various criteria for qualifying for the rebate ((a) add Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 1.45% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, (b) execute greater than 0.04% of Consolidated Volume (“CV”) via Market-on-Close/Limit-on-Close (“MOC/LOC”) volume within the NASDAQ Stock Market Closing Cross within a month, and (c) add greater than 1.5 million shares per day of non-displayed within the NASDAQ Stock Market within a month) is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because any Participant that qualifies for this rebate will be uniformly paid $0.55 per contract for Penny Pilot Options and $1.05 per contract for Non-Penny Pilot Options. The requirements for earning this rebate will be applied uniformly to all market participants. The Exchange believes that requiring Participants to add non-displayed volume is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will pay the incentive, in a uniform manner, to Participants that have met all criteria required for the rebate.

    The Exchange believes that the requirement that a NOM Participant add Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 1.45% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, execute greater than 0.04% of Consolidated Volume (“CV”) via Market-on-Close/Limit-on-Close (“MOC/LOC”) volume within the NASDAQ Stock Market Closing Cross within a month, and add greater than 1.5 million shares per day of non-displayed volume within the NASDAQ Stock Market within a month is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because while the requirements for qualifying for the proposed rebates may be more stringent than other requirements for qualifying for other rebates currently offered by NOM, the Exchange believes that these requirements are proportionate to the amount of the proposed rebates and equitably reflect the purpose of the proposed rebates, which is to incentivize NOM Participants to transact greater volume on NOM and the NASDAQ Stock Market. Moreover, all similarly-situated NOM Participants, e.g., those that add liquidity in either Penny Pilot or Non-Penny Pilot Options as either Customers or Professionals and also transact on the NASDAQ Stock Market, are equally capable of qualifying for the proposed rebates, and the same rebates will be paid to all NOM Participants that qualify for them. Further, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to offer this rebate to NOM Participants that add liquidity as Customers or Professionals, and not to offer this rebate to NOM Participants that add liquidity as Firms,25 NOM Market Makers,26 Non-NOM Market Makers, or Broker-Dealers.27 Nasdaq notes that Customer liquidity offers unique benefits to the market which benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. The Exchange believes that encouraging Participants to add Professional liquidity is similarly beneficial, as the rebates may cause market participants to select NOM as a venue to send Professional order flow, increasing competition among the exchanges. As with Customer liquidity, the Exchange believes that increased Professional additional order flow should benefit other market participants.

    25 The term “Firm” or (“F”) applies to any transaction that is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Firm range at OCC.

    26 The term “NOM Market Maker” or (“M”) is a Participant that has registered as a Market Maker on NOM pursuant to Chapter VII, Section 2, and must also remain in good standing pursuant to Chapter VII, Section 4. In order to receive NOM Market Maker pricing in all securities, the Participant must be registered as a NOM Market Maker in at least one security.

    27 The term “Broker-Dealer” or (“B”) applies to any transaction which is not subject to any of the other transaction fees applicable within a particular category.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rebates will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate. The Exchange notes that the purpose of the proposed rebate is to incentivize NOM Participants to transact on NOM and the NASDAQ Stock Market. All similarly-situated NOM Participants, e.g., those that add liquidity in either Penny Pilot or Non-Penny Pilot Options as either Customers or Professionals and also transact the requisite volumes on the NASDAQ Stock Market, are equally capable of qualifying for the proposed rebates. Additionally, the Exchange will pay the same rebates, in a uniform manner, to all NOM Participants that qualify for them. The Exchange believes that Customer and Professional order flow provides unique benefits to all participants on the Exchange and may even facilitate inter-market competition, and is therefore offering the proposed rebates to NOM Participants that add liquidity as either a Customer or a Professional accordingly. With respect to linking the proposed rebates to a participant's activity on the NASDAQ Stock Market, NOM currently offers rebates that are based on activity on the NASDAQ Stock Market.28 Similarly, the NASDAQ Stock Market currently offers reduced transaction fees that are based on activity on NOM.29 Finally, because they are approved members, any NOM Options Participant may trade equities on the NASDAQ Stock Market and therefore attempt to qualify for the proposed rebates.30

    28See note 22 above.

    29See note 23 above.

    30See note 24 above.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.31

    31 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-001 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-001. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-001 and should be submitted on or before February 14, 2017.

    32 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.32

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01464 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-79812; File No. SR-BX-2016-063] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the PRISM Price Improvement Auction in BX Chapter VI, Section 9 and To Make Pilot Program Permanent January 17, 2017. I. Introduction

    On November 21, 2016, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (“BX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to amend the eligibility requirements for its Price Improvement Auction mechanism (“PRISM” or “Auction”) and make permanent those aspects of the PRISM auction that are currently operating on a pilot basis. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on December 9, 2016.3 The Commission received no comments regarding the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79465 (December 5, 2016), 81 FR 89167 (“Notice”).

    II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange established PRISM in November 2015 as a price improvement mechanism.4 Pursuant to Chapter VI, Section 9 of the BX Options Rules, a Participant (an “Initiating Participant”) may electronically submit for execution an order it represents as agent on behalf of a Public Customer,5 Professional customer, broker dealer, or any other entity (“PRISM Order”) against principal interest or against any other order it represents as agent (an “Initiating Order”), provided it submits the PRISM Order for electronic execution into the Auction. Parts of PRISM are currently operating on a pilot basis (“Pilot”),6 which is set to expire on January 18, 2017.7 The Exchange proposes to make the Pilot permanent, and also proposes to amend the Auction eligibility requirements for certain PRISM Orders of less than 50 option contracts.

    4See Securities Exchange Release No. 76301 (October 29, 2015), 80 FR 68347 (November 4, 2015) (SR-BX-2015-032) (“PRISM Approval Order”).

    5 A Public Customer means a person that is not a broker or dealer in securities. See Chapter I, Section 1(a)(50) of the BX Options Rules. A “Professional” means any person or entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). A Participant or a Public Customer may, without limitation, be a Professional. All Professional orders shall be appropriately marked by Participants. See Chapter I, Section 1(a)(49) of the BX Options Rules. For purposes of PRISM rule, a Public Customer order does not include a Professional order. See Chapter VI, Section 9 of the BX Options Rules.

    6 Three components of PRISM were approved by the Commission on a pilot basis: (1) The early conclusion of the PRISM Auction; (2) the provision that an unrelated market or marketable limit order (against the BX BBO) on the opposite side of the market from the PRISM Order received during the Auction will not cause the Auction to end early and will execute against interest outside of the Auction; and (3) no minimum size requirement of orders.

    7See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78249 (July 7, 2016), 81 FR 45334 (July 13, 2016) (SR-BX-2016-038).

    A. PRISM Eligibility Requirements for PRISM Orders of Fewer Than 50 Contracts

    Currently, a PRISM Auction may be initiated if certain conditions are met. If the PRISM Order is for the account of a Public Customer, the Initiating Participant must stop the entire PRISM Order at a price that is equal to or better than the National Best Bid/Offer (“NBBO”) on the opposite side of the market from the PRISM Order, provided that such price must be at least one minimum trading increment (specified in Chapter VI, Section 5 of the BX Options Rules) better than any limit order on the limit order book on the same side of the market as the PRISM Order.8 If the PRISM Order is for the account of a broker dealer or any other person or entity that is not a Public Customer, the Initiating Participant must stop the entire PRISM Order at a price that is the better of: (i) The BX BBO price improved by at least the minimum trading increment on the same side of the market as the PRISM Order, or (ii) the PRISM Order's limit price (if the order is a limit order), provided in either case that such price is at or better than the NBBO.9

    8See Chapter VI, Section 9(i)(A) of the BX Options Rules.

    9See Chapter VI, Section 9(i)(B) of the BX Options Rules.

    BX proposes to amend the Auction eligibility requirements to require that, if the PRISM Order is for less than 50 option contracts, and if the difference between the NBBO is $0.01, the Initiating Participant must stop the entire PRISM Order at one minimum price improvement increment better than the NBBO on the opposite side of the market from the PRISM Order, and better than any limit order on the limit order book on the same side of the market as the PRISM Order. Thus, BX would require that the PRISM Order receive at least $0.01 price improvement if that PRISM Order is for less than 50 contracts and if the difference between the NBBO is $0.01. This requirement will apply regardless of whether the PRISM Order is for the account of a Public Customer, or where the PRISM Order is for the account of a broker dealer or any other person or entity that is not a Public Customer.

    The Exchange will retain the current requirements for Auction eligibility in all other instances. Accordingly, if the PRISM Order is for the account of a Public Customer and such order is for 50 option contracts or more or if the difference between the NBBO is greater than $0.01, the Initiating Participant must stop the entire PRISM Order at a price that is equal to or better than the NBBO on the opposite side of the market from the PRISM Order, provided that such price must be at least one minimum trading increment better than any limit order on the limit order book on the same side of the market as the PRISM Order. If the PRISM Order is for the account of a broker dealer or any other person or entity that is not a Public Customer and such order is for 50 option contracts or more, or if the difference between the NBBO is greater than $0.01, the Initiating Participant must stop the entire PRISM Order at a price that is the better of: (i) The BX BBO price improved by at least the Minimum Increment on the same side of the market as the PRISM Order, or (ii) the PRISM Order's limit price (if the order is a limit order), provided in either case that such price is at or better than the NBBO.10

    10 The Exchange also proposes to add language to Chapter VI, Section 9(i) of the BX Options Rules to clarify that, if any of the auction eligibility criteria are not met, the PRISM Order will be rejected. The Exchange will also add language to Chapter VI, Section 9(i) to clarify the treatment of paired Public Customer-to-Public Customer orders pursuant to subparagraph (vi) as a result of these proposed changes. Specifically, Exchange will allow a PRISM Order to trade on either the bid or offer, pursuant to subparagraph (vi), if the NBBO is $0.01 wide, provided (1) the execution price is equal to or within the NBBO, (2) there is no resting customer at the execution price, and (3) $0.01 is the Minimum Price Variation (MPV) of the option. The Exchange also proposes to add language that it will continue to reject a PRISM Order to buy (sell) if the NBBO is only $0.01 wide and the Agency order is stopped on the bid (offer) if there is a resting order on the bid (offer). These requirements are unchanged from the Exchange's current handling practices of paired Public Customer-to-Public Customer PRISM Orders per subparagraph (vi), and the Exchange's current practice of rejecting PRISM Orders to buy (sell) if the NBBO is only $0.01 wide and the Agency order is stopped on the bid (offer) if there is a resting order on the bid (offer).

    The Exchange believes that these changes to PRISM may provide additional opportunities for PRISM Orders of fewer than 50 option contracts to receive price improvement over the NBBO where the difference in the NBBO is $0.01 and therefore encourage the increased submission of orders of fewer than 50 option contracts.11 The Exchange notes that the statistics for the current pilot, which include, among other things, price improvement for orders of fewer than 50 option contracts under the current auction eligibility requirements, show relatively small amounts of price improvement for such orders.12 BX believes that the proposed requirements will therefore increase the price improvement that orders of fewer than 50 option contracts may receive in PRISM.13 The Exchange also notes that NASDAQ PHLX LLC (“Phlx”) operates a similar price improvement mechanism, PIXL, which has been operating for a longer period of time and has generated similar pilot data.14 Given the similarly between the two mechanisms, the Exchange expects that PRISM, if operated on a pilot basis over a longer period of time, would continue to generate data that is comparable to PIXL.15

    11See Notice, supra note 3, at 89169.

    12See id.

    13See id.

    14See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63027 (October 1, 2010), 75 FR 62160 (October 7, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-108).

    15See Notice, supra note 3, at 89169.

    B. Pilot Program

    Three components of PRISM were approved by the Commission on a pilot basis: (1) The early conclusion of the PRISM Auction; 16 (2) the provision that an unrelated market or marketable limit order (against the BX BBO) on the opposite side of the market from the PRISM Order received during the Auction will not cause the Auction to end early and will execute against interest outside of the Auction; 17 and (3) no minimum size requirement of orders. The provisions were approved for a pilot period that currently expires on January 18, 2017.18 The Exchange proposes to have the Pilot approved on a permanent basis.

    16See Chapter VI, Section 9(ii)(B)(4) of the BX Options Rules.

    17See Chapter VI, Section 9(ii)(D) of the BX Options Rules.

    18See PRISM Approval Order, supra note 4.

    During the Pilot period, the Exchange submitted certain data periodically as required by the Commission, to provide supporting evidence that, among other things, there is meaningful competition for all size orders, there is significant price improvement available through PRISM, and that there is an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the Auction mechanism.19

    19See Chapter VI, Section 9(vii).

    1. No Minimum Size Requirement

    Chapter VI, Section 9(vii) provides that, as part of the current Pilot, there will be no minimum size requirement for orders to be eligible for the Auction. The Exchange believes that the data gathered since the approval of the Pilot, which it discussed in the Notice, establishes that there is liquidity and competition both within PRISM and outside of PRISM, and that there are opportunities for significant price improvement within PRISM.20

    20See Notice, supra note 3, at 89169. See also Exhibit 3 to SR-BX-2016-063.

    The Exchange also has gathered information about activity in orders for less than 50 and 50 contracts or greater for PRISM auctions between January and June 2016. For auctions occurring during that period, 87.8% of auctions were for orders for less than 50 contracts, a percentage that remained stable over that time period. Auctions for orders of less than 50 contracts accounted for 30.0% of the contract volume traded in PRISM. Auctions of 50 contracts or more made up 12.2% of all PRISM auctions and accounted for 70.0% of contracts traded in PRISM.21

    21See Notice, supra note 3, at 89369.

    With respect to price improvement, 60.5% of PRISM auctions between January and June 2016 executed at a price that was better than the NBBO at the time the auction began.22 For auctions of less than 50 contracts, 64.7% received price improvement, while 30.5% of auctions for 50 contracts or more received price improvement.23

    22See id.

    23See Notice, supra note 3, at 89170.

    BX believes that the data gathered during the Pilot period indicates that there is meaningful competition in PRISM auctions for all size orders, there is an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the auction mechanism, and that there are opportunities for price improvement for orders executed through PRISM.24 The Exchange therefore has requested that the Commission approve the no minimum size requirement on a permanent basis.

    24See id.

    2. Early Conclusion of the PRISM Auction

    Chapter VI, Section 9(ii)(B)(4) of the BX Options Rules provides that the PRISM Auction shall conclude at the earlier of (1) the end of the Auction period; (2) any time the BX BBO crosses the PRISM Order stop price on the same side of the market as the PRISM Order; or (3) any time there is a trading halt on the Exchange in the affected series.25 The latter two conditions are operating as part of the current Pilot.

    25 If the situations described in either of the two latter conditions occur, the entire PRISM Order will be executed at: (1) In the case of the BX BBO crossing the PRISM Order stop price, the best response price(s) or, if the stop price is the best price in the Auction, at the stop price, unless the best response price is equal to or better than the price of a limit order resting on the Order Book on the same side of the market as the PRISM Order, in which case the PRISM Order will be executed against that response, but at a price that is at least the Minimum Increment better than the price of such limit order at the time of the conclusion of the Auction; or (2) in the case of a trading halt on the Exchange in the affected series, the stop price, in which case the PRISM Order will be executed solely against the Initiating Order. Any unexecuted PAN responses will be cancelled.

    As with the no minimum size requirement, the Exchange has gathered data on these latter two conditions. Between January and June 2016, one auction terminated early because the BX BBO crossed the PRISM Order stop price. No auctions terminated early because of halts. The number of auctions that terminated early was less than 1/100th of 1% of all PRISM auctions over the period. The auctions that terminated early were less than 1/100th of 1% of contracts traded in PRISM auctions.26

    26See Notice, supra note 3, at 89170.

    Based on the data gathered during the pilot, the Exchange does not anticipate that either of these conditions will occur with significant frequency, or will otherwise disrupt the functioning of PRISM auctions.27 The Exchange therefore has requested that the Commission approve this aspect of the Pilot on a permanent basis.

    27See id.

    3. Unrelated Market or Marketable Limit Order

    Chapter VI, Section 9(ii)(D) of the BX Options Rules provides that an unrelated market or marketable limit order (against the BX BBO) on the opposite side of the market from the PRISM Order received during the Auction will not cause the Auction to end early and will execute against interest outside of the Auction. If contracts remain from such unrelated order at the time the auction ends, they will be considered for participation in the order allocation process described elsewhere in the Rule.

    The Exchange states that the provision is based on a similar provision in the Phlx PIXL mechanism.28 In approving this feature on PIXL, also on a pilot basis, the Commission found that “allowing the PIXL auction to continue for the full auction period despite receipt of unrelated orders outside the Auction would allow the auction to run its full course and, in so doing, will provide a full opportunity for price improvement to the PIXL Order. Further, the unrelated order would be available to participate in the PIXL order allocation.” 29 The Exchange does not believe that this provision has had a significant impact on either the unrelated order or the PRISM auction process.30 The Exchange therefore has requested that the Commission approve this aspect of the Pilot on a permanent basis.

    28See Phlx Rule 1080(n)(ii)(D).

    29See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63027 (October 1, 2010), 75 FR 62160 (October 7, 2010) (SR-PHLX-2010-108).

    30See Notice, supra note 3, at 89170.

    III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, with Section 6(b) of the Act.31 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,32 which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.

    31 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    32 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    As part of its proposal, the Exchange provided summary data on Exhibit 3 of its filing for the period January through June 2016, which the Exchange and Commission both publicly posted on their respective Web sites. Among other things, this data is useful in assessing the level of price improvement in the auction, in particular for orders for fewer than 50 contracts; the degree of competition for order flow in such auctions; and a comparison of liquidity in the auctions with liquidity on the Exchange generally.33 Based on the data provided by the Exchange, the Commission believes that the Exchange's price improvement auction generally delivers a meaningful opportunity for price improvement to orders, including orders for fewer than 50 contracts, when the spread in the option is $0.02 or more. At the same time, as the Exchange has recognized, the data do not demonstrate that such orders have realized significant price improvement when the NBBO has a bid/ask differential of $0.01.34 Recognizing this, the Exchange has proposed to amend the auction eligibility requirements to require price improvement of at least one minimum price improvement increment over the NBBO for PRISM Orders of less than 50 option contracts where the difference in the NBBO is $0.01.

    33See Exhibit 3 to SR-BX-2016-063.

    34See Notice, supra note 3, at 89169.

    The Exchange's proposal to modify the auction eligibility requirements for orders of fewer than 50 contracts and seek permanent approval of the Pilot, as amended with the new provision, will, in the Commission's view, promote opportunities for price improvement for such orders when the NBBO is $0.01 wide, while continuing to provide opportunities for price improvement when spreads are wider than $0.01.

    In addition, the Commission has carefully evaluated the PRIME Pilot data and has determined that it would be beneficial to customers and to the options market as a whole to approve on a permanent basis the provisions concerning early conclusion of the PRISM Auction, and the receipt of an unrelated market or marketable limit order (against the BX BBO) on the opposite side of the market from the PRISM Order during the Auction. The Commission notes that there have been few instances of early termination of the PRISM. The Commission further notes that permitting the PRISM Auction to continue despite receipt of unrelated orders outside the Auction would allow the Auction to run its full course and provide a full opportunity for price improvement to the PRISM Order, while allowing the unrelated order to seek an execution, including in the Auction's order allocation.

    The Commission believes that, particularly for auctions for fewer than 50 contracts when the bid/ask differential is wider than $0.01, the data provided by the Exchange support its proposal to make the Pilot permanent. The data demonstrate that the auction generally provides price improvement opportunities to orders, including orders of retail customers and particularly when the bid/ask differential is wider than $0.01, that there is meaningful competition for orders on the Exchange; and that there exists an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the auction.35 The Commission further believes that the proposed revisions to the eligibility requirements for PRISM Orders of fewer than 50 contracts with respect to circumstances when the NBBO is $0.01 wide should help to enhance the operation of the auction by providing meaningful opportunities for price improvement in such circumstances, and should benefit investors and others in a manner that is consistent with the Act. Thus, the Commission has determined to approve the Exchange's proposed revisions to Chapter VI, Section 9(i) of the BX Options Rules and to approve the Pilot, as proposed to be modified, on a permanent basis.

    35See Exhibit 3 to SR-BX-2016-063.

    IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,36 that the proposed rule change (SR-BX-2016-063), be and hereby is approved.

    36 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.37

    37 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01467 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-79807; File No. SR-C2-2017-002] Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule To Amend the Fees Schedule January 17, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on January 3, 2017, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the “Exchange” or “C2”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.c2exchange.com/Legal/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The Exchange is adding fees for functionality related to its PULSe workstation. The Exchange is also making minor formatting updates to organize the footnotes in PULSe workstation section of its Fees Schedule.3 The fees herein will be effective on January 3, 2017.

    3 The footnotes in the PULSe workstation section have been changed from asterisks to numerical footnotes to account for the increased volume of footnotes.

    By way of background, the PULSe workstation is a front-end order entry system designed for use with respect to orders that may be sent to the trading systems of the Exchange. Exchange Trading Permit Holders (“TPHs”) may also make workstations available to their customers, which may include TPHs, non-broker dealer public customers and non-TPH broker dealers.

    Drop Copies

    Financial Information eXchange (“FIX”) language-based connectivity, upon request, provides customers (both TPH and non-TPH) of TPHs that are brokers and PULSe users (“PULSe brokers”) with the ability to receive “drop-copy” order fill messages from their PULSe brokers. These fill messages allow customers to update positions, risk calculations and streamline back-office functions.

    The Exchange is proposing a monthly fee to be assessed on TPHs who are either receiving or sending drop copies via a PULSe workstation. This fee will allow for the recoupment of costs of maintaining and supporting drop copy functionality. Whether the drop copy sender or receiver is assessed the fee is dependent upon whether the customer receiving the drop copies is a TPH or non-TPH.

    If a customer receiving drop copies is a TPH, that TPH customer (the receiving TPH) will be charged a fee of $1000 per month, per PULSe broker from whom it receives drop copies via PULSe. For example, if TPH customer A receives drop copies from each of PULSe broker A, PULSe broker B, and PULSe broker C (all of which are TPHs), TPH A (the receiving TPH) will be charged a fee of $3000 per month for receiving drop copies via PULSe from PULSe brokers A, B and C (the sending TPHs).

    If a customer receiving drop copies is a non-TPH, the PULSe broker (the sending TPH) who sends drop copies via PULSe to that customer will be charged a fee of $500 per month. If that PULSe broker sends drop copies via PULSe to multiple non-TPH customers, the PULSe broker will be charged the fee for each customer. For example, if PULSe broker A sends drop copies via its PULSe workstation to each of non-TPH customer A, non-TPH customer B and non-TPH customer C, PULSe broker A (the sending TPH) will be charged a fee of $1500 per month for drop copies it sends via PULSe to non-TPH customers A, B and C (the receiving non-TPHs).

    Non-PULSe-to-PULSe Routing

    Upon request, the Exchange provides customers, both TPH and non-TPH, of PULSe brokers with the ability to transmit orders electronically to PULSe brokers' PULSe workstations using order management systems other than PULSe (i.e., non-PULSe-to-PULSe).4 These customers utilize the existing infrastructure of such systems to send orders to their PULSe brokers electronically.

    4 Non-PULSe-to-PULSe routing is an “add-on” feature to drop copy connectivity. If a TPH or non-TPH customer of a PULSe brokers elects to send orders through its third-party order management system to its broker's PULSe workstations, it must also elect to have the drop copy connectivity.

    The Exchange is proposing a monthly fee payable by TPH customers who request non-PULSe-to-PULSe functionality. This fee will allow for the recoupment of costs of maintaining and supporting non-PULSe-to-PULSe routing functionality. A TPH customer sending orders electronically to PULSe brokers through these non-PULSe systems will be charged a fee of $500 a month per PULSe broker to which the customer sends orders. For example, if TPH customer A transmits orders electronically through a non-PULSe order management terminal to PULSe workstations of each of PULSe broker A, PULSe broker B, and PULSe broker C, TPH customer A (the sending TPH) will be charged a fee of $1500 per month for the ability to send orders electronically to the PULSe workstations of PULSe brokers A, B and C.5 The Exchange does not assess any fee, to the PULSe broker or otherwise, for a non-TPH customer electing to use non-PULSe-to-PULSe routing functionality.

    5 In addition, the TPH customer would be charged $3,000/month for receiving drop copies from the three PULSe brokers, as discussed above.

    FIX Integration Drop Copy Start-Up/Cancellation Fees

    The Exchange is proposing fees for both the start-up and cancellation of the FIX integration needed to send and receive drop copies from PULSe workstations. The Exchange is proposing a one-time fee of $500 to recoup the costs required to connect a new drop copy customer to workstations of its PULSe broker(s) and add the drop copy functionality for that customer. Additionally, the Exchange is proposing a one-time fee of $500 for cancellation of the drop copy functionality to recoup the costs required to disconnect the cancelling drop copy customer from workstations of its PULSe broker(s) and remove the drop copy functionality for that customer. In the case of both start-up and cancellation, the fees are charged to the TPH who is charged for the drop copy connectivity (in the case of a TPH customer, the TPH customer that receives drop copies from PULSe broker; in the case of a non-TPH customer, the PULSe broker that sends drop copies to the non-TPH customer). If the TPH customer is charged these fees, each fee is $500 for each PULSe broker to which the TPH customer requests to start or cancel drop copy functionality, as applicable. If the PULSe broker is charged these fees, each fee is $500 for each non-TPH customer that requests to start or cancel drop copy functionality from that PULSe broker.

    Routing Intermediary Certification and Inactivity Fees

    Routing intermediaries route orders entered into PULSe to away markets and to route orders from non-TPH PULSe workstations to TPHs for entry and execution on the Exchange. Routing intermediaries are currently charged routing intermediary transactional fees for away market routing from any PULSe workstation for which it serves as the routing intermediary. The Exchange is proposing a $5000 one-time fee for certification of a new PULSe routing intermediary. This fee will allow for the recoupment of costs of adding connectivity for the new routing intermediary, including connectivity to away-market routing technology, and testing necessary to support the new order routing features.

    The Exchange is also proposing a routing intermediary inactivity fee of up to $5000. The fees currently charged to routing intermediaries allow for the recoupment of costs of developing, maintaining, and supporting routing intermediary functionality, including away-market routing technology. If the Exchange is unable to collect sufficient fees in a year from a routing intermediary to cover theses costs, the inactivity fee allows for sufficient recoupment of these costs for that year. The fee will be charged to a routing intermediary each calendar year in which the routing intermediary has been charged Away-Market Routing Intermediary and Exchange Routing fees in the aggregate of less than $5000. The inactivity fee will be reduced by the amount of any of these fees charged to the routing intermediary during a calendar year. For example, if a routing intermediary was charged an aggregate of $4500 in Away-Market Routing Intermediary and Exchange Routing fees in the calendar year 2017, that routing intermediary would be assessed a $500 routing intermediary inactivity fee. The routing intermediary inactivity fee may first be charged in the calendar year following the year in which the routing intermediary was charged the routing intermediary certification fee. A TPH that withdraws as a routing intermediary will not be charged an inactivity fee for the calendar year in which they withdrew.

    OATS Reporting Fees

    The Exchange is proposing a $250 per month Order Audit Trail System (“OATS”) reporting fee. The fee will be charged to any PULSe customer (TPH or non-TPH) who elects to receive daily transmission of OATS reports for its orders submitted through PULSe. This fee will allow for the recoupment of costs of developing, maintaining and supporting OATS reporting functionality.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.6 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 7 requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,8 which requires that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using its facilities.

    6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

    The Exchange believes that assessing a $1000 per month fee on a TPH receiving drop copies from PULSe is reasonable because the Exchange incurs costs to monitor, develop and implement upgrade, maintain and customize PULSe to ensure the TPH customer receives timely and accurate drop copies. The Exchange believes the fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the monthly fee is assessed to any TPH electing to receive drop copies from a PULSe broker. Use of the drop copy functionality by a TPH customer is voluntary.

    The Exchange believes that assessing a $500 per month fee on a TPH sending drop copies from PULSe to a non-TPH customer is reasonable because the Exchange incurs costs to monitor, develop and implement upgrades, maintain and customize PULSe to ensure a non-TPH customer receives timely and accurate drop copies. The Exchange believes the fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the monthly fee is assessed equally to any TPH sending drop copies to its non-TPH customers. The Exchange believes that assessing a TPH sending drop copies to a non-TPH a monthly fee of $500, as opposed to the $1000 per month rate assessed to TPH customers receiving drop copies from PULSe, is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. Specially, the lower rates are designed to encourage non-TPH market participants to interact with the Exchange, which will accordingly attract more volume and liquidity to the Exchange and benefit all Exchange participants through increased opportunities to trade. Use of the drop copy functionality by a non-TPH customer is voluntary.

    The Exchange believes that assessing a $500 per month fee for a TPH customer electing to use non-PULSe-to-PULSe routing functionality (in addition to receiving drop copies) is reasonable because the Exchange incurs costs to monitor, develop and implement upgrades, maintain and customize PULSe to ensure a reliable connection between a TPH customer and its PULSe broker through which the customer's orders reach the PULSe broker in a timely and accurate manner. The Exchange believes the fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the monthly fee is assessed equally to any TPH electing to use the non-PULSe-to-PULSe routing functionality. The Exchange does not assess any fee, to the PULSe broker or otherwise, for a non-TPH customer electing to use non-PULSe-to-PULSe routing functionality. The Exchange believes not assessing a fee for a non-TPH customer electing to use non-PULSe-to-PULSe routing functionality is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory in that it is designed to encourage non-TPH market participants to interact with the Exchange, which will accordingly attract more volume and liquidity to the Exchange and benefit all Exchange participants through increased opportunities to trade. Use of non-PULSe-to-PULSe routing functionality is voluntary.

    The Exchange believes that assessing a TPH sending drop copies to a non-TPH a monthly $500, as opposed to the $1,000 per month rate assessed to TPH customers receiving drop copies from PULSe, is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. The lower rates are designed to encourage non-TPH market participants to interact with the Exchange, which will accordingly attract more volume and liquidity to the Exchange and benefit all Exchange participants through increased opportunities to trade.

    The Exchange believes that assessing a $500 one-time fee for FIX integration necessary to receive or send drop copies from PULSe is reasonable because the Exchange incurs costs in the setup of a new FIX connection to allow the receiving and sending of drop copies via PULSe. The Exchange believes the fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it is assessed equally to any TPH electing to receive drop copies from PULSe brokers or to any TPH electing to send drop copies to a non-TPH customer.

    The Exchange believes that assessing a $500 one-time fee for the cancellation of a FIX connection necessary to receive or send drop copies from PULSe is reasonable because the Exchange incurs costs in the shutting down of a FIX connection. The Exchange believes the fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it is assessed equally to any TPH electing to cancel a FIX connection to a PULSe broker or to a PULSe broker electing to cancel a connection to a non-TPH customer.

    The Exchange believes that assessing a $5000 one-time fee for the certification of a new PULSe routing intermediary is reasonable because the Exchange incurs costs to develop connectivity for the routing intermediary and test the routing functionality to Exchange and away marketplaces. The Exchange believes the fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it is assessed to every TPH who elects to become a routing intermediary on PULSe. Becoming a routing intermediary is voluntary.

    The Exchange believes that assessing a routing intermediary inactivity fee of up to $5000 in years in which a routing intermediary pays less than that amount in fees is reasonable because the Exchange incurs costs to maintain, monitor, upgrade and test routing intermediary connections. The fees are assessed to cover those Exchange costs in the event the costs are not recovered via routing intermediary transaction fees. The Exchange believes the fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it will be assessed to any routing intermediary and only to the extent the TPH's routing intermediary transaction fees are less than $5000 in a calendar year.

    The Exchange believes that assessing a $250 a month fee for the daily transmission of OATS reports from PULSe is reasonable because the Exchange incurs costs to monitor, develop and implement upgrades, maintain and customize PULSe to allow sending and receiving of OATS reports. The Exchange believes the fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it is assessed to all customers electing to receive daily OATS reports.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burdens on competition that are not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed PULSe-related fees relate to optional reports and/or functionality and are assessed equally on PULSe users or TPH electing to use the functionality and/or receive the reports. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will cause any unnecessary burden on intermarket competition because the proposed relate to use of an Exchange-provided order entry system. To the extent that any proposed change makes the Exchange a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become Exchange market participants.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 9 and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 10 thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.

    9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-C2-2017-002 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2017-002. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2017-002 and should be submitted on or before February 14, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.11

    11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01462 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-79805; File No. SR-Phlx-2016-82] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1, and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Adopt a New Exception in Phlx Rule 1000(f) for Sub-MPV Split-Price Orders January 17, 2017. I. Introduction

    On August 3, 2016, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (the “Exchange” or “Phlx”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to provide an additional exception to the mandatory use of the Exchange's Floor Broker Management System (“FBMS”) pursuant to Rule 1000(f)(iii) to permit Floor Brokers to execute certain sub-minimum price variation (“sub-MPV”) split-price orders in the trading crowd. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on August 22, 2016.3 On October 3, 2016, the Commission extended the time period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change to November 20, 2016.4 On November 17, 2016, the Commission instituted proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.5 On December 9, 2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.6 The Commission received no comments on the proposed rule change. This order provides notice of filing of Amendment No. 1 and approves the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78593 (August 16, 2016), 81 FR 56724 (“Notice”).

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79023 (October 3, 2016), 81 FR 69877 (October 7, 2016).

    5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79345 (November 17, 2016), 81 FR 84629 (November 23, 2016).

    6 Amendment No. 1 updated the original filing to: (1) Reflect the implementation of the Exchange's new Floor Broker Management System (“FBMS 3”) on November 3, 2016; (2) modify proposed Rule 1000(f)(iii)(D) to provide additional detail regarding how certain split-price orders will be rounded; and (3) offer three examples to illustrate how split-price orders will be handled pursuant to the proposed exception. Amendment No. 1 replaced the original proposed rule change in its entirety. To promote transparency of its proposed amendment, when Phlx filed Amendment No. 1 with the Commission, it also submitted Amendment No. 1 as a comment letter to the file, which the Commission posted on its Web site and placed in the public comment file for SR-Phlx-2016-82 (available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr=phlx-2016-82/phlx201682-1.pdf https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboe-2016-071/cboe2016071.shtml). The Exchange also posted a copy of its Amendment No. 1 on its Web site (http://nasdaqphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQPHLX/pdf/phlx-filings/2016/SR-Phlx-2016-82_Amendment_1.pdf) when it filed Amendment No.1 with the Commission.

    II. Description of the Proposal 7

    7 A more detailed description of the proposal appears in the Notice and in Amendment No. 1.

    A. Background

    Currently, Phlx Rule 1000(f) requires that all Exchange options transactions be executed in one of the following three ways: “(i) [a]utomatically by the Exchange Trading System pursuant to Rule 1080 and other applicable options rules; (ii) by and among members in the Exchange's options trading crowd none of whom is a Floor Broker; or (iii) through the Options [FBMS] for trades involving at least one Floor Broker.” 8 Although a Floor Broker may represent orders in the trading crowd, a Floor Broker is not permitted to execute an order in the trading crowd unless one of three exceptions applies.9 The exceptions to the mandatory use of the FBMS 10 are set forth in Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii). These exceptions allow a Floor Broker to execute a transaction in the trading crowd (rather than through the FBMS) if: (i) There is a problem with Exchange's systems; (ii) the Floor Broker is executing the trade pursuant to Phlx Rule 1059 (“Accommodation Transactions”) or Phlx Rule 1079 (“Flex Index, Equity and Currency Options”); or (iii) the transaction involves a multi-leg order with more than 15 legs.11

    8See Phlx Rule 1000(f).

    9See Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii).

    10 The original FBMS (“FBMS 1”) began operating in 2005. The Exchange retired FBMS 1 on March 31, 2016 after operating it concurrently with the Exchange's enhanced FBMS (“FBMS 2”), which was made available on March 7, 2014. As of April 1, 2016, the Exchange only operated FBMS 2. See Notice, supra note 3, at 56725. On November 3, 2016, the Exchange implemented FBMS 3 and retired FBMS 2. According to the Exchange, FBMS 3 is currently the sole operating version of FBMS on the Exchange. See Amendment No. 1, supra note 6, at 3 and 8-10. References throughout this Order to “FBMS” refer to FBMS 3.

    11See Notice, supra note 3, at 56726. See also Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii)(A)-(C). According to the Exchange, each time a Floor Broker uses one of the current exceptions to Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii), the Floor Broker is required by Phlx Rule 1063(e)(ii), to record the information required by Phlx Rule 1063(e)(i) on paper trade tickets. The Exchange further represents that a Floor Broker may only represent an order for execution that has been timestamped with the time of entry on the trading floor. In addition, according to the Exchange, once an execution occurs, the trade ticket must be stamped with the time of execution of such order. See Notice, supra note 3, at 56726 and Amendment No. 1, supra note 6, at 11.

    B. Split-Price Order Exception Proposal

    Phlx Rule 1014(g)(i)(B) provides a priority rule regarding open outcry split-price transactions in equity options and options overlying ETFs to permit a member who is responding to an order for at least 100 contracts who buys (sells) at least 50 contracts at a particular price to have priority over all others in purchasing (selling) up to an equivalent number of contracts of the same order at the next lower (higher) price without being required to yield to existing customer interest in the limit order book.12 Absent Phlx Rule 1014(g)(i)(B), such orders would be required to yield priority. The Exchange states that “[t]he purpose behind the split-price priority exception was `to bring about the execution of large orders, which by virtue of their size and the need to execute them at multiple prices may be difficult to execute without a limited exception to the priority rules.' ” 13

    12See Notice, supra note 3, at 56726 (citing Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51820 (June 10, 2005), 70 FR 35759 (June 21, 2005) (SR-Phlx-2005-28)) (approving pilot). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55993 (June 29, 2007), 72 FR 37301 (July 9, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2007-44) (permanent approval)).

    13See Notice, supra note 3, at 56726. Floor Brokers that avail themselves of the split-price priority rule are obligated to ensure compliance with Section 11(a) of the Exchange Act. See Amendment No. 1, supra note 6, at 12.

    According to the Exchange, split-price orders are currently processed using either FBMS or paper tickets. The use of FBMS or paper tickets depends on whether the split-price order can be evenly split using simple calculations or whether the split-price order involves non-even integers and sub-MPV price points, which requires a more complicated computation to determine the number of contracts to trade at two different price points.14 The Exchange represents that FBMS does not have the capability to calculate specific volumes at two different MPV prices for split-price orders placed in a sub-MPV price.15 To compensate for this system limitation, the Exchange is proposing to amend Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii) to add a new exception from the mandatory use of the FBMS that would allow Floor Brokers to execute certain split-price orders in the trading crowd that would be validated by Phlx surveillance staff for compliance with applicable priority and trade-through rules.

    14See Notice, supra note 3, at 56726. Today, when the computation is more complicated, surveillance staff allows a Floor Broker to execute split-price orders involving non-even integers and sub-MPV price points in open outcry using paper tickets pursuant to Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii)(A). See id.

    15See id. at 56727. See Amendment No. 1, supra note 6, at 20.

    Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing in Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii)(D) to allow the following split-price orders to be executed in the trading crowd: (1) Simple orders not expressed in the applicable sub-MPV and that cannot be evenly split into two whole numbers to create a price at the midpoint of the MPV; and (2) complex and multi-leg orders with at least one option leg with an odd-numbered volume that must trade at a sub-MPV price or one leg that qualifies under (1) above.16

    16See Notice, supra note 3, at 56724.

    The Exchange represents that this exception “is anticipated to be implemented infrequently and in the following [three] ways.” 17 Under the first scenario, a Floor Broker knows that, due to a system limitation, a sub-MPV split-price order cannot be handled by FBMS.18 In this case, the Floor Broker would comply with Phlx Rule 1063(e), expose the order in the trading crowd, and request the use of the proposed exception from the Options Exchange Official (“Official”).19 The Official would confirm his or her understanding of the order and the availability of the exemption, and if the Floor Broker's request is determined to be valid based on the split-price calculation, announce to application of the exemption to the Floor Broker and the trading crowd.20 After the Floor Broker negotiates and consummates the trade in the trading crowd, the Floor Broker would timestamp the paper ticket at the time the trade is consummated in the trading crowd, which would become the time of execution for the trade.21 The consummated trade would then be submitted to the Official to validate for compliance with priority and trade-through rules. If compliant, the Official would permit the Floor Broker to submit the manual split-price trade, via paper ticket, for trade reporting.22

    17See Amendment No. 1, supra note 6, at 13.

    18See id.

    19See id.

    20See id. at 13-14.

    21See id. at 14. The Exchange notes that, typically, the Official captures a timestamp reflecting the time the Official observed that the trade was consummated in the trading crowd and may, in its discretion, substitute this timestamp for the timestamp recorded by the Floor Broker at the time of consummation. See id.

    22See Amendment No. 1, supra note 6, at 14-15. According to the Exchange, the paper ticket will reflect the timestamp captured by the Floor Broker or (as described above) the Official, which will reflect the time the trade was consummated in the trading crowd. See id.

    The second scenario involves a situation in which a Floor Broker submits a split-price order to FBMS, but the Floor Broker does not realize that FBMS cannot handle the order because the price is outside the MPV.23 In this case, the Floor Broker would comply with Phlx Rule 1063(e), expose the order in the trading crowd, and, upon consummation of the transaction, submit the order to FBMS for execution. Because FBMS cannot calculate the split-price for the order, FBMS would reject the submission and the Floor Broker would receive a rejection message.24 Upon the receipt of this message, the Floor Broker would inform the Official that FBMS rejected the split-price order. The Official would then review the terms of the consummated trade and, using the timestamp captured by the Floor Broker or Official,25 validate the consummated trade for compliance with priority and trade-through.26 If the consummated trade is compliant, the Official would permit the Floor Broker to submit the manual split-price trade, via paper ticket reflecting the timestamp captured by the Floor Broker (or Official), for trade reporting.27

    23See id. at 15.

    24See id. According to the Exchange, this might occur if the order is not priced in the minimum price increment and consequently FBMS would reject the trade. See id.

    25 According to the Exchange, the Floor Broker captures a timestamp for the time that the Floor Broker submitted the proposed execution in FBMS. The Exchange further represents that, as in scenario 1, the Official also would typically capture a timestamp reflecting the time that the Official observed the Floor Broker's attempt to execute the transaction in FBMS. Surveillance staff may, in its discretion, substitute this timestamp for the timestamp recorded by the Floor Broker as the time that the trade was consummated. See Amendment No. 1, supra note 6, at 15. See also supra note 21.

    26See id. at 15-16.

    27See id. at 16.

    The third scenario is similar to the second scenario; however, neither the Floor Broker nor the Official captures a reliable time that the consummated trade was submitted to FBMS for execution.28 In this case, the Official would require the Floor Broker to “re-trade” the order using a paper ticket in the sequence described in the first scenario above.29

    28See id.

    29See id.

    The Exchange also proposes that, in addition to split-price orders executed pursuant to proposed Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii)(D), Phlx surveillance staff would approve all executions submitted under Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii) to validate that such executions abide by applicable priority and trade-through rules.30 The Exchange also proposes to round prices if necessary to execute the trade at the MPV, but only to the benefit of a customer order, or, where multiple customer orders are involved, for the customer order that is earliest in time.31 Where no customer order is involved, the rounding of prices will be applied to the non-customer order that is earliest in time.32

    30See proposed Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii).

    31See proposed Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii); see also Notice, supra note 3, at 56727.

    32See Amendment No. 1, supra note 6, at 3 and 7.

    III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act 33 and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.34 Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,35 which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest; and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.

    33 15 U.S.C. 78f.

    34 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    35 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Commission notes that the Exchange is proposing a new exception in Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii)(D) that is designed to enable Floor Brokers to execute two types of split-price orders in the trading crowd that cannot be processed by FBMS because of a system limitation.36 The Exchange represents that its surveillance staff will oversee Floor Brokers' use of the proposed Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii)(D) exception, which they do today for current exceptions provided under Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii).37 The Exchange further represents that for each execution pursuant to Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii): (1) Exchange surveillance staff will verify that the conditions of the exception under Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii) are met and will ensure that the proposed exception for split-price orders will be used only rarely; 38 (2) Exchange surveillance staff will approve executions pursuant to Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii) and validate compliance with applicable priority rules of the Exchange and trade-through rules of the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan; 39 and (3) all relevant trade data resulting from executions pursuant to Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii) will be recorded on both paper tickets and in FBMS to ensure a proper audit trail for timely surveillance.40 The Commission notes that the activities of Phlx Surveillance under Rule 1000(f)(iii), including the substitution of timestamps, should be carried out in an objective manner and with due regard to the Exchange's obligations under the Act.41

    36 The Commission notes that the exception for split-price orders is similar in purpose to the current exceptions provided in Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii)(B) and (C). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68960 (February 20, 2013), 78 FR 13132 (February 26, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-09) (recognizing exceptions for certain executions to occur manually in the trading crowd and not through FBMS. “[ ] FLEX orders will continue to be executable by Floor Brokers in the trading crowd pursuant to Rule 1079 and 1079A, rather than through FBMS. This is because FBMS will not be able to accept FLEX orders, which have varied and complicated terms. Similarly, accommodation transactions (also known as cabinet trades) will continue to be executable by Floor Brokers in the trading crowd pursuant to Rule 1059. Neither FLEX nor accommodation transactions are executed through Exchange systems today. Floor Brokers will also be permitted to execute orders in the trading crowd if they are handling an order with more than 15 legs, because the Exchange determined to limit the complexity of FBMS functionality and does not believe that many orders fall into this category or that Floor Brokers will be adversely affected.”).

    37See Notice, supra note 3, at 56726. See also Amendment No. 1, supra note 6, at 17. The Exchange notes its belief that it is “necessary and appropriate for the surveillance Staff to exercise independent judgment with respect to the proper timestamp for the consummation of trades on the floor of the Exchange.” See Amendment No. 1, supra note 6, at 14, n.17. According to the Exchange, “[t]he surveillance Staff is trained to observe objectively the conduct of floor participants, to detect conduct that improperly advantages floor participants, and to enforce Exchange rules.” Id. Finally, the Exchange notes that it believes that “[t]he absence of engaged and empowered surveillance Staff would undermine the integrity of the trading floor on the Exchange.” Id.

    38See Notice, supra note 3, at 56728. See also Amendment No. 1, supra note 6, at 23.

    39See Notice, supra note 3, at 56727. See also Amendment No. 1, supra note 6, at 22. The Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan is available at http://www.optionsclearing.com/components/docs/clearing/services/options_order_protection_plan.pdf.

    40See Notice, supra note 3, at 56727. See also Amendment No. 1, supra note 6, at 22.

    41 The Commission notes that Phlx surveillance staff might substitute the timestamp it captures for the timestamp captured by a Floor Broker if necessary to prevent conduct that would improperly advantage floor participants or to enforce compliance with the Exchange's rules. It is the Commission's understanding that such a substitution would happen only rarely and only if consistent with the authority conferred upon surveillance staff by the Exchange's rules. See Amendment No. 1., supra note 6, at 14, n.17.

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to national securities exchanges.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1 to the Proposed Rule Change

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File No. SR-Phlx-2016-82 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2016-82. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2016-82 and should be submitted on or before February 14, 2017. V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of the amended proposal in the Federal Register. As described above, in Amendment No. 1, Phlx updated its proposal to reflect the implementation of FBMS 3 and the retirement of FBMS 2; clarified how prices may be rounded for non-customer split-price orders; and provided three examples that explain how split-price orders will be handled by the Exchange under the proposed exception.42 The Commission believes that Amendment No. 1 provided additional specificity regarding the operation of the new proposed exception in Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii)(D). Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,43 to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.

    42See Amendment No. 1, supra note 6, at 3-4.

    43 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)

    VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,44 that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2016-82), as modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.

    44See id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.45

    45 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01460 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-79810; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-161] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a New Extended Life Priority Order Attribute Under Rule 4703, and To Make Related Changes to Rules 4702, 4752, 4753, 4754, and 4757 January 17, 2017.

    On November 17, 2016, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to adopt a new Extended Life Priority Order Attribute. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on December 5, 2016.3 The Commission has received six comment letters on the proposal.4

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79428 (November 30, 2016), 81 FR 87628.

    4See Letters to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, from Joseph Saluzzi and Sal Arnuk, Partners, Themis Trading LLC, dated December 19, 2016; Eric Swanson, EVP, General Counsel and Secretary, Bats Global Markets, Inc., dated December 22, 2016; Adam Nunes, Head of Business Development, Hudson River Trading LLC, dated December 22, 2016; Joanna Mallers, Secretary, FIA Principal Traders Group, dated December 23, 2016; Adam C. Cooper, Senior Managing Director and Chief Legal Officer, Citadel Securities, dated December 27, 2016; and Andrew Stevens, General Counsel, IMC Financial Markets, dated December 28, 2016.

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 5 provides that within 45 days of the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The 45th day for this filing is January 19, 2017.

    5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the Exchange's proposal, the comments received, and any response to the comments by the Exchange.

    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 6 and for the reasons stated above, the Commission designates March 5, 2017, as the date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-161).

    6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.7

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.

    7 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    [FR Doc. 2017-01465 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-79811; File No. SR-ISE-2017-01] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees January 17, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on January 3, 2017, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Schedule of Fees as described in more detail below.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.ise.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's Schedule of Fees to eliminate, for all symbols other than FX symbols, the $0.20 per contract fee applicable to Professional Customers 3 for the initiating or contra side of Qualified Contingent Cross (“QCC”) orders or orders executed in the Solicitation Mechanism (“Solicitation” orders). The proposed rule change will lower the rebates that the Exchange provides to members acting as agent when Professional Customers trade with other Professional Customers and when they trade with Priority Customers for QCC and other solicited crossing orders 4 to the same per contract rates and volume tiers that the Exchange presently provides to members acting as agent when Priority Customers 5 trade with other Priority Customers for such orders.

    3 A “Professional Customer” is a person or entity that is not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer. See ISE Rule 100(37C).

    4 As used herein, the phrase “other solicited crossing orders” refers to solicited crossing orders executed in the Solicitation, Facilitation, and Price Improvement Mechanisms.

    5 Under ISE Rule 100(37A), a “Priority Customer” is a person or entity that: (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities; and (ii) does not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). Pursuant to ISE Rule 713, Priority Customer orders are executed before other trading interest at the same price.

    As set forth in ISE Rule 715(j), a QCC is an option order type that allows members to cross at least 1,000 contracts without exposure, as long as: (i) the agency/originating side of the trade consists of an order of at least 1,000 contracts and (ii) the order is part of a Qualified Contingent Trade (“QCT”). As is further set forth in the Supplementary Material to ISE Rule 715, a QCT is a transaction consisting of two or more component orders, executed as agent or principal, where: (a) At least one component is an NMS Stock, as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act of 1934; (b) all the components are effected with a product or price contingency that either has been agreed to by all respective counterparties or arranged for by a broker-dealer as principal or agent; (c) the execution of one component is contingent upon the execution of all other components at or near the same time; (d) the specific relationship between the component orders (e.g., the spread between the prices of the component orders) is determined by the time the contingent order is placed; (e) the component orders bear a derivative relationship to one another, represent different classes of shares of the same issuer, or involve the securities of participants in mergers or with intentions to merge that have been announced or cancelled; and (f) the transaction is fully hedged (without regard to any prior existing position) as a result of other components of the contingent trade. The Commission first approved the QCC order type for ISE on February 24, 2011.6

    6See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63955 (Feb. 24, 2011), 76 FR 11533 (Mar. 2, 2011) (SR-ISE-2010-73).

    Today, the Exchange assesses a fee of $0.20 per contract to Professional Customers for QCC and other solicited crossing orders.7 It does not assess a fee for such orders to Priority Customers.8 The Exchange proposes to eliminate the fee it charges to Professional Customers for QCC and Solicitation orders.

    7See ISE Schedule of Fees, updated Nov. 1, 2016, at 6, available at https://www.ise.com/assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/ISE_fee_schedule.pdf (“ISE Fee Schedule”).

    8See id.

    The Exchange also pays rebates on QCC and other solicited crossing orders once specified volume thresholds are met during each month.9 The existing rebate schedule and corresponding explanatory notes are as follows:

    9See id. at 12.

    A. QCC and Solicitation Rebate

    ➢Members using the Qualified Contingent Cross (QCC) and/or other solicited crossing orders, including solicited orders executed in the Solicitation, Facilitation or Price Improvement Mechanisms, will receive rebates according to the table below for each originating contract side in all symbols traded on the Exchange. Once a Member reaches a certain volume threshold in QCC orders and/or solicited crossing orders during a month, the Exchange will provide rebates to that Member for all of its QCC and solicited crossing order traded contracts for that month. The applicable rebates will be applied on QCC and solicited crossing order traded contracts once the volume threshold is met. Members will receive the Non-“Customer to Customer” rebate for all QCC and/or other solicited crossing orders except for QCC and solicited orders between two Priority Customers. QCC and solicited orders between two Priority Customers will receive the “Customer to Customer” rebate or “Customer to Customer” Rebate PLUS, respectively. The volume threshold and corresponding rebates are as follows:

    ➢Non-“Customer to Customer” and “Customer to Customer” volume will be aggregated in determining the applicable volume tier.

    Originating contract sides Non-“Customer
  • to Customer”
  • rebate
  • “Customer to
  • Customer”
  • rebate
  • “Customer to
  • Customer”
  • rebate PLUS*
  • 0 to 99,999 0.00 0.00 0.00 100,000 to 199,999 (0.05) (0.01) (0.05) 200,000 to 499,999 (0.07) (0.01) (0.05) 500,000 to 699,999 (0.08) (0.03) (0.05) 700,000 to 999,999 (0.09) (0.03) (0.05) 1,000,000+ (0.11) (0.03) (0.05) * PLUS rebate is for Members with total monthly unsolicited originating Facilitation contract side volume of 175,000 or more.

    As set forth in this schedule, the Exchange presently provides rebates to members acting as agents for QCC trades involving Professional Customers (both Professional-to-Professional and Professional-to-Priority trades) in accordance with the “Non-`Customer to Customer' ” schedule for all qualifying executed QCC and solicited crossing orders, while it provides rebates to members acting as agents for such trades involving all Priority Customers (Priority-to-Priority trades) in accordance with the “Customer to Customer” or “Customer to Customer Rebate Plus” schedules.10 The Exchange proposes to modify its rebate schedule to state that QCC and other solicited crossing orders between Professional Customers or between Professional Customers and Priority Customers will qualify for rebates in accordance with the “Customer to Customer” or “Customer to Customer Rebate Plus” schedules.

    10See id.

    The proposed changes would treat Professional Customers and Priority Customers the same with respect to fees for QCC and Solicitation orders. It would also treat QCC and other solicited crossing orders involving all Professional Customers, all Priority Customers, and a mix of Priority and Professional Customers the same with respect to rebates. The Exchange believes that it is not necessary to differentiate Professional Customers and Priority Customers for these purposes because QCC and Solicitation orders are not executed pursuant to a priority scheme.11 Moreover, because of the size of these orders, the sophistication of the investors involved, and the complexity of the transactions, there is little practical difference between Priority Customers and Professional Customers with respect to QCC and Solicitation orders.

    11 ISE Rules provide that if, at the time a QCC or Solicitation order is entered, a Priority Customer order exists on the Exchange's order book, then in certain instances, the QCC or Solicitation order will be cancelled or the order will be executed against the Priority Customer order. See Rules 716(e) & 721. These Rules do not suggest that in this instance, the Priority Customer would receive execution priority because such a trade would be executed outside of the QCC or Solicitation Mechanism. We also note that the transaction fee schedule applicable to QCC and Solicitation orders would not apply to this trade.

    The Exchange also proposes to eliminate transaction fees for Professional Customers engaged in QCC and Solicitation orders as a means of attracting more such orders to the Exchange and to retain the business of Professional Customers vis-à-vis competing exchanges that do not presently charge Professional Customers such fees.12 The Exchange notes that a recent modification to the ISE Rules caused many of its Priority Customers to be re-classified as Professional Customers.13 Whereas these Customers, as Priority Customers, previously incurred no fees for executing QCC and Solicitation orders, they will incur such fees going forward as Professional Customers absent the proposed rule change.

    12See NYSE AMEX Options Fee Schedule, effective Dec. 15, 2016, at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/amex-options/NYSE_Amex_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf; NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges, effective Nov. 3, 2016, at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf; NASDAQ PHLX LLC Pricing Schedule, at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=phlxpricing.

    13See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-78788 (Sept. 8, 2016), 81 FR 63252 (Sept. 14, 2016) (SR-ISE-2016-19).

    To the extent that the Exchange proposes to eliminate fees for its Professional Customers that execute QCC and Solicitation orders, the rationale for providing rebates is diminished for QCC and other solicited crossing orders involving Professional Customers trading with other Professional Customers and with Priority Customers. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to reduce the levels of rebates it provides for QCC and other solicited crossing orders involving Professional Customers trading with other Professional Customers and with Priority Customers to the same levels as it provides to such trades involving two Priority Customers.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,14 in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,15 in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.

    14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.” 16

    16See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37497, 37499 (June 29, 2005).

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission (“NetCoalition”),17 the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based approach.18 As the court emphasized, the Commission “intended in Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be made available to investors and at what cost.” 19

    17See id. at 534-535.

    18See id. at 534.

    19See id. at 537.

    Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . .” 20 Although the court and the SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the Exchange believes that these views apply with equal force to the options markets.

    20See id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21).

    It is reasonable to no longer assess a transaction fee for Professional Customer QCC and Solicitation orders and to pay a reduced rebate on Professional Customer orders because the distinction that necessitated the differentiation as between Priority Customer and Professional Customer orders is not meaningful with respect to QCC and Solicitation orders.

    QCC orders are orders to buy or sell at least 1,000 contracts.21 These large-sized contingent orders are complex in nature and have a stock-tied component, which requires the option leg to be executed at the NBBO or better. The parties to a contingent trade are focused on the spread or ratio between the transaction prices for each of the component instruments (i.e., the net price of the entire contingent trade), rather than on the absolute price of any single component. Also, no Priority Customer priority exists with respect to QCC Orders as with orders transacted within the order book. Permitting Professional Customer orders to be treated similar to Priority Customer orders with respect to this order type may attract more QCC and Solicitation orders to the Exchange because the Exchange would no longer assess a QCC or Solicitation order transaction fee for Professional Customer orders.

    21See ISE Rule 715(j).

    Further, the Exchange recently amended its definition of a Professional Customer to add specificity with respect to the manner in which the volume threshold will be calculated to determine if orders should be treated as Professional Customer.22 Currently, members are required to review their Customers' activity on at least a quarterly basis to determine whether orders that are not for the account of a broker-dealer should be represented as Priority Customer orders or Professional Customer orders.23 The Exchange anticipates that the specificity added to the Professional Customer definition may cause current market participants that mark orders as “Priority Customer” to be required to mark those orders as “Professional Customer” instead as the calendar quarter comes to a close. Thus, orders that these market participants would have marked as “Priority Customer,” and that would not have been subject to a QCC transaction fee, would, in absence of this proposal, be marked “Professional Customer” and incur a QCC transaction fee. With this proposal, such Professional Customer orders would not be assessed a QCC transaction fee.

    22See supra note 13.

    23 Orders for any customer that had an average of more than 390 orders per day during any month of a calendar quarter must be represented as Professional Orders for the next calendar quarter. Members will be required to conduct a quarterly review and make any appropriate changes to the way in which they are representing orders within five days after the end of each calendar quarter. While Members only will be required to review their accounts on a quarterly basis, if during a quarter the Exchange identifies a customer for which orders are being represented as Priority Customer Orders but that has averaged more than 390 orders per day during a month, the Exchange will notify the Member and the Member will be required to change the manner in which it is representing the customer's orders within five days. See 81 FR at 63253, n.4.

    The Exchange believes that no longer assessing a QCC transaction fee for Professional Customer orders and paying a reduced QCC rebate on Professional Customer-to-Professional Customer and Professional Customer-to-Priority Customer orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because QCC and Solicitation orders are distinctive from transactions executed within the order book. Whereas orders executed within the order book grant Priority Customers execution priority over other market participants, QCC and Solicitation orders do not grant execution priority.24 Insofar as the rationale for distinguishing between Priority Customers and Professional Customers was to prevent market professionals, which have access to sophisticated trading systems with functionality unavailable to retail Customers, from taking advantage of retail Customers' execution priority over non-retail Customer orders,25 this rationale does not apply to QCC or Solicitation orders. As the Commission noted when it approved the QCC order type on the Exchange:

    24See supra note 11.

    25See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57254 (Feb. 1, 2008), 73 FR 7345, 7346 n.7 (Feb. 7, 2008).

    The Commission believes that those customers participating in QCC Orders will likely be sophisticated investors who should understand that, without a requirement of exposure for QCC Orders, their order would not be given an opportunity for price improvement on the Exchange. These customers should be able to assess whether the net prices they are receiving for their QCC Order are competitive, and who will have the ability to choose among broker-dealers if they believe the net price one broker-dealer provides is not competitive. Further, broker-dealers are subject to a duty of best execution for their customers' orders, and that duty does not change for QCC Orders.26

    26 See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 63955 (February 24, 2011), 76 FR 11533 (March 2, 2011) (SR-ISE-2010-73).

    Thus, because of the size of the orders, the sophistication of the investors involved, and the complexity of the transactions, pricing differentiation between Priority Customer and Professional Customer orders is unnecessary with respect to QCC and Solicitation orders.

    With respect to distinguishing Professional Customer orders from other Non-Customer participant orders, the Exchange notes that these other market participants are distinct from Professional Customers for purposes of assessing QCC transaction fees. With respect to Firm Proprietary and Non-ISE Market Makers, for example, these market participants are eligible for a Crossing Fee Cap of $75,000 per month.27 These participants are not subject to QCC transaction fees once the Crossing Fee Cap is met in a given month.28 Market Makers are eligible for fee discounts, on a tiered basis, for regular orders in non-select symbols.29

    27See ISE Fee Schedule, supra note 7, at 17.

    28See id.

    29See id. at 6-7, 12-13.

    Insofar as the Exchange proposes to eliminate the fees it charges to Professional Customers for QCC and Solicitation orders, the Exchange believes that it would no longer be equitable to pay rebates at existing levels to members acting as agent when Professional Customers trade with Priority Customers and other Professional Customers for QCC and other solicited crossing orders. Thus, the Exchange proposes to reduce these rebates to the same levels as those it pays for QCC orders involving Priority Customers trading with other Priority Customers.

    Finally, the Exchange notes that the Commission recently approved a similar proposal by Phlx to eliminate its QCC transactions fees and rebates for its professional customers.30

    30See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-77673 (Apr. 14, 2016), 81 FR 249009 (Apr. 21, 2016) (SR-Phlx-2016-51).

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.

    The initial purpose of the distinction between a Priority Customer order and a Professional Customer order was to prevent market professionals, which have access to sophisticated trading systems that contain functionality not available to retail Customers, from taking advantage of Priority Customer priority, where retail Customer orders are given execution priority over Non-Customer orders. Professional Customer orders are identified based upon the average number of orders entered for a beneficial account.31

    31See supra note 25.

    QCC orders are by definition large-sized contingent orders that have a stock-tied component. The parties to a contingent trade are focused on the spread or ratio between the transaction prices for each of the component instruments (i.e., the net price of the entire contingent trade), rather than on the absolute price of any single component. Treating Priority Customer orders and Professional Customer orders in the same manner in terms of pricing with respect to QCC and Solicitation orders does not provide any advantage to a Professional Customer. The distinction does not create an opportunity to burden competition, for the reasons stated herein with respect to execution priority as well as the reasons below.

    With respect to distinguishing Professional Customer orders from other Non-Customer participant orders, the Exchange notes that these other market participants are distinct from Professional Customers for purposes of assessing QCC transaction fees. With respect to Firm Proprietary and Non-ISE Market Makers, for example, these market participants are eligible for a Crossing Fee Cap of $75,000 per month.32 These participants are not subject to QCC transaction fees once the Crossing Fee Cap is met in a given month.33 Market Makers are eligible for fee discounts, on a tiered basis, for regular orders in non-select symbols.34 Also, Priority Customer-to-Professional Customer orders do not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition for the reasons explained herein.

    32See ISE Fee Schedule, supra note 7, at 17.

    33See id.

    34See id. at 6-7, 12-13.

    The Exchange's proposal does not place on undue burden on inter-market competition because the QCC order type is similar on other options exchanges and these exchanges may also file to eliminate the distinction between Priority Customers and Professionals for the QCC order type.35 The Exchange notes that the Commission recently approved a similar proposal by Phlx to eliminate both its QCC transactions fees and its rebates for its professional customers.36

    35See supra note 12.

    36See supra note 30.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, 20 and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder,21 [sic] because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by ISE. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-ISE-2017-01 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2017-01. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2017-01 and should be submitted by February 14, 2017.

    37 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.37

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01466 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [SEC File No. 270-664, OMB Control No. 3235-0740] Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 20549-0213. Revision: Joint Standards for Assessing the Diversity Policies and Practices of Entities Regulated by the Agencies. ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The SEC, 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 a revised information collection, as required by the PRA. The SEC may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The SEC previously received OMB approval for a voluntary information collection in the Joint Standards. The SEC now is soliciting comments on a revised information collection which adds a Diversity Assessment Report as an instrument to facilitate completion of the self-assessment described in the Joint Standards.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before March 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to [email protected], and include “SEC File No. 270-664—OMWI Diversity Assessment Report” in the subject line of the message.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information about the information collection discussed in this revised notice, please contact Pamela A. Gibbs, Director, Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, (202) 551-6046, or Audrey B. Little, Senior Counsel, Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, (202) 551-6086, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), certain Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) (and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) of the PRA implementing regulations) to include agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) directs these Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the SEC is publishing this notice of a proposed revision to the previously approved collection of information.

    Description: The SEC previously received OMB approval for a voluntary information collection with respect to the Joint Standards, pursuant to which entities regulated by the SEC voluntarily self-assess their diversity policies and practices.1 This proposed revision to the previously approved collection would add a form entitled “Diversity Assessment Report for Entities Regulated by the SEC” (Diversity Assessment Report) to assist with collection of information regarding regulated entities' policies and practices relating to diversity and inclusion. The Diversity Assessment Report (1) asks for general information about a respondent; (2) includes a checklist and questions relating to the standards set forth in the Joint Standards; (3) seeks data related to workforce diversity and supplier diversity; and (4) provides an opportunity for comments. The SEC estimates that use of the Diversity Assessment Report would reduce the average response time for this collection per respondent from 12 hours to 10 hours. A draft of this Diversity Assessment Report can be viewed at https://www.sec.gov/omwi/sec-entity-diversity-assessment-report-draft.pdf.

    1 80 FR 33016 (June 10, 2015).

    The SEC may use the information submitted by the entities it regulates to monitor progress and trends in the financial services industry with regard to diversity and inclusion in employment and contracting activities and to identify and highlight those policies and practices that have been successful. The SEC will continue to reach out to the regulated entities and other interested parties to discuss diversity and inclusion in the financial services industry and share leading practices. The SEC may also publish information disclosed by the entity, such as any identified leading practices, in any form that does not identify a particular institution or disclose confidential business information. The SEC will not publish diversity and inclusion information that identifies any particular regulated entity unless the regulated entity consents in writing to such use.

    Type of Review: Revision.

    Frequency of Response: Annually.

    Burden Estimates:

    Revised Number of Respondents: 1,300.2

    2 This number has been modified to account for the ever changing number of entities regulated by the SEC. It still, however, represents about 5% of regulated entities, as set forth in the original PRA notice for the Joint Standards.

    Revised Annual Burden Per Respondent for the Diversity Assessment Report and Joint Standards: 10 hours.

    Revised Total Annual Burden: 13,000 hours.

    Obligation to Respond: Voluntary.

    Request for Comments: The comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:

    (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the SEC, including whether the information has practical utility;

    (b) The accuracy of the SEC's estimate of the information collection burden, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used;

    (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information proposed to be collected;

    (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

    (e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

    Dated: January 18, 2017. Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01566 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-79806; File No. SR-NSX-2017-01] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 11.26 Regarding the Data Collection Requirements of the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program January 17, 2017

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on January 6, 2017, National Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NSX” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) a proposed rule change, as described in Items I, and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as a non-controversial proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 4 thereunder, which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend NSX Rule 11.26(b) and Rule 11.26, Interpretations and Policies .08 to modify certain data collection requirements of the Regulation NMS Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program (the “Plan”). The proposed rule change is the same as proposed rule changes recently approved or published by the Commission for Bats BZX Exchange f/k/a BATS Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”) to amend BZX Rule 11.27 which also sets forth amendments to the requirements for the Web site data publication requirements pursuant to Appendices B and C of the Plan.5

    5 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79533 (December 13, 2016), 81 FR 91990 (December 19, 2016) (SR-BatsBZX-2016-82).

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nsx.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and statutory basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

    A. Self -Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    On August 25, 2014, NYSE Group, Inc., on behalf of BZX, Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., f/k/a BATS-Y Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”), NYSE MKT LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc. (collectively “Participants”), filed with the Commission, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act 6 and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS thereunder,7 the Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program (“Pilot”).8 The Participants filed the Plan to comply with an order issued by the Commission on June 24, 2014.9 The Plan 10 was published for comment in the Federal Register on November 7, 2014 and was thereafter approved by the Commission, as modified, on May 6, 2015.11 On November 6, 2015, the Commission granted the Participants an exemption from implementing the Plan until October 3, 2016.12 On March 3, 2016, the Commission published an amendment to the Plan adding NSX as a Participant.13 On September 13, 2016, the Commission exempted the Plan Participants from the requirement to fully implement the Pilot on October 3, 2016, to permit the Plan Participants to implement the pilot on a phased-in basis, as described in the Plan Participants' exemptive request.14

    6 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.

    7 17 CFR 242.608.

    8See Letter from Brendon J. Weiss, Vice President, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., to Secretary, Commission, dated August 25, 2014.

    9See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72460 (June 24, 2014), 79 FR 36840 (June 30, 2014).

    10 Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this rule filing are based on the defined terms of the Plan.

    11See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74892 (May 6, 2015), 80 FR 27513 (May 13, 2015) (File No. 4-657) (“Approval Order”).

    12See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76382 (November 6, 2015), 80 FR 70284 (November 13, 2015) (File No. 4-657) (Order Granting Exemption From Compliance With the National Market System Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program).

    13See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77277 (March 3, 2016), 81 FR 12162 (March 8, 2016).

    14See Letter from David S. Shillman, Associate Director, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, to Eric Swanson, EVP, General Counsel and Secretary, Bats Global Markets, Inc., dated September 13, 2016; see also Letter from Eric Swanson, EVP, General Counsel and Secretary, Bats Global Markets, Inc., to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated September 9, 2016.

    The Plan is designed to allow the Commission, market participants, and the public to study and assess the impact of increment conventions on the liquidity and trading of the common stocks of small-capitalization companies. Each Participant is required to comply, and to enforce compliance by its member organizations, as applicable, with the provisions of the Plan.

    The Exchange adopted rule amendments to implement the requirements of the Plan, including relating to the Plan's data collection requirements and requirements relating to Web site data publication.15 Specifically, with respect to the Web site data publication requirements pursuant to Section VII and Appendices B and C to the Plan, Exchange Rule 11.26(b)(2)(B) provides, among other things, that the Exchange shall make the data required by Items I and II of Appendix B to the Plan, and collected pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of Rule 11.26, publicly available on the Exchange's Web site on a monthly basis at no charge and shall not identify the Trading Center that generated the data. Exchange Rule 11.26(b)(3)(C), provides, among other things, that the Exchange shall make the data required by Item IV of Appendix B to the Plan, and collected pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(A) of Rule 11.26, publicly available on the Exchange Web site on a monthly basis at no charge and shall not identify the Trading Center [sic] that generated the data. Exchange Rule 11.26(b)(5) provides, among other things, that the Exchange shall collect and transmit to the Commission data described in Item III of Appendix B of the Plan relating to daily Market Maker registration statistics, but does not currently include a provision requiring the Exchange to publish such data to its Web site. Rule 11.26, Interpretation and Policy .08 provides, among other things, that the requirement that the Exchange or the Designated Examining Authority (“DEA”) make certain data publicly available on the Exchange's or the DEA's Web site pursuant to Appendix B and C to the Plan shall commence at the beginning of the Pilot Period.

    15See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77483 (March 31, 2016), 81 FR 20040 (April 6, 2016) (File No. SR-NSX-2016-01); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78960 (September 28, 2016), 81 FR 68476 (October 4, 2016) (File No. SR-NSX-2016-12).

    The Exchange is proposing amendments to Rule 11.26(b)(2)(B) (regarding Appendix B.I and B.II data) and Rule 11.26(b)(3)(C) (regarding Appendix B.IV data) to provide that data required to be made available on the Exchange's Web site be published within 120 calendar days following month end. The Exchange also proposes to add a provision to Rule 11.26(b)(5) to state that the Exchange shall make data collected under Appendix B.III publicly available on the Exchange's Web site within 120 calendar days following month end at no charge.16 In addition, the proposed amendments to Rule 11.26, Interpretations and Policies .08 would provide that, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (b)(2)(B), (b)(3)(C), and (b)(5), the Exchange or the DEA shall make data for the Pre-Pilot period publicly available on the Exchange's or the DEA's Web site pursuant to Appendix B and C to the Plan by February 28, 2017.17 The purpose of delaying the publication of the Web site data is to address confidentiality concerns by providing for the passage of additional time between the market information reflected in the data and the public availability of such information.18

    16 The Exchange notes that it does not currently have any Market Makers and, therefore, does not currently collect Market Maker registration statistics.

    17 With respect to data for the Pilot Period, the requirement that the Exchange or the DEA make data publicly available on the Exchange's or the DEA's Web site pursuant to Appendix B and C to the Plan shall continue to commence at the beginning of the Pilot Period. Thus, the first Web site publication date for Pilot Period data (covering October 2016) would be published on the Exchange's or the DEA's Web site by February 28, 2017, which is 120 days following the end of October 2016.

    18 On November 30, 2016, the Commission granted each Participant a limited exemption from the requirement to publish certain Pilot data on a monthly basis. For each Participants that is the DEA of a Market Maker, the Commission granted a limited exemption to allow FINRA to aggregate and publish certain data on the FINRA Web site, rather than each Participant that is a DEA of a Market Maker publishing such data on its respective Web site. The exemptions were granted to the Participants so long as each Participant submits proposed rule changes to reflect the exemptions. See Letter dated November 30, 2016 from David S. Shillman, Associate Directors, Division of Trading and Markets to Ms. Marcia E. Asquith, Senior Vice President and Corporate Secretary, FINRA.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 19 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 20 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

    19 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    20 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it is designed to assist the Participants in meeting their regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan and is in furtherance of the objectives of the Plan, as identified by the SEC. The Exchange further believes that the instant proposal is consistent with the Act in that it is designed to address confidentiality concerns by permitting the Exchange to delay Web site publication to provide for passage of additional time between the market information reflected in the data and the public availability of such information.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change implements the provisions of the Plan, and is designed to assist the Participants in meeting their regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan.

    The proposal is intended to address confidentiality concerns that may adversely impact competition by permitting the Exchange to delay Web site publication to provide for passage of additional time between the market information reflected in the data and the public availability of such information. The proposal also does not alter the information required to be submitted to the Commission.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From ETP Holders, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 21 of the Exchange Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.22

    21 15 U.S.C. 78(s)(b)(3)(A).

    22 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58092 (July 3, 2008), 73 FR 40144 (July 11, 2008) (“Commission Guidance and Amendment to the Rule Relating to Organization and Program Management Concerning Proposed Rule Changes by Self-Regulatory Organizations”) (the “Streamlining Release”). As set forth in the Streamlining Release, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) permits a proposed rule change to become immediately effective to the extent such proposal is a proposed rule change to implement provisions of an approved national market system plan or a Commission rule. Id. at 40148.

    A proposed rule change filed under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 23 normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),24 the Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness and has requested that the Commission waive the requirement that the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing so that it may become operative immediately.

    23 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    24 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change implements the provisions of the Plan, and is designed to assist the Participants in meeting their regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. The proposal is intended to address confidentiality concerns by permitting the Exchange to delay Web site publication to provide for passage of additional time between the market information reflected in the data and the public availability of such information. The proposal does not alter the information required to be submitted to the SEC.

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will allow the Exchange to implement proposed changes that are intended to address confidentiality concerns. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change to be operative as of 6 January, 2017.25

    25 For purposes of only waiving the operative delay for this rule proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.26 If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    26 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-NSX-2017-01 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NSX-2017-01. This file number should be included in the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions.

    You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to file number SR-NSX-2017-01 and should be submitted on or before February 14, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.27

    27 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01461 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-79808; File No. SR-CBOE-2017-004] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule January 17, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on January 3, 2017, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the “Exchange” or “CBOE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The Exchange is adding fees for functionality related to its PULSe workstation. The fees herein will be effective on January 3, 2017.

    By way of background, the PULSe workstation is a front-end order entry system designed for use with respect to orders that may be sent to the trading systems of the Exchange. Exchange Trading Permit Holders (“TPHs”) may also make workstations available to their customers, which may include TPHs, non-broker dealer public customers and non-TPH broker dealers.

    Drop Copies

    Financial Information eXchange (“FIX”) language-based connectivity, upon request, provides customers (both TPH and non-TPH) of TPHs that are brokers and PULSe users (“PULSe brokers”) with the ability to receive “drop-copy” order fill messages from their PULSe brokers. These fill messages allow customers to update positions, risk calculations and streamline back-office functions.

    The Exchange is proposing a monthly fee to be assessed on TPHs who are either receiving or sending drop copies via a PULSe workstation. This fee will allow for the recoupment of costs of maintaining and supporting drop copy functionality. Whether the drop copy sender or receiver is assessed the fee is dependent upon whether the customer receiving the drop copies is a TPH or non-TPH.

    If a customer receiving drop copies is a TPH, that TPH customer (the receiving TPH) will be charged a fee of $1000 per month, per PULSe broker from whom it receives drop copies via PULSe. For example, if TPH customer A receives drop copies from each of PULSe broker A, PULSe broker B, and PULSe broker C (all of which are TPHs), TPH A (the receiving TPH) will be charged a fee of $3000 per month for receiving drop copies via PULSe from PULSe brokers A, B and C (the sending TPHs).

    If a customer receiving drop copies is a non-TPH, the PULSe broker (the sending TPH) who sends drop copies via PULSe to that customer will be charged a fee of $500 per month. If that PULSe broker sends drop copies via PULSe to multiple non-TPH customers, the PULSe broker will be charged the fee for each customer. For example, if PULSe broker A sends drop copies via its PULSe workstation to each of non-TPH customer A, non-TPH customer B and non-TPH customer C, PULSe broker A (the sending TPH) will be charged a fee of $1500 per month for drop copies it sends via PULSe to non-TPH customers A, B and C (the receiving non-TPHs).

    Non-PULSe-to-PULSe Routing

    Upon request, the Exchange provides customers, both TPH and non-TPH, of PULSe brokers with the ability to transmit orders electronically to PULSe brokers' PULSe workstations using order management systems other than PULSe (i.e., non-PULSe-to-PULSe).3 These customers utilize the existing infrastructure of such systems to send orders to their PULSe brokers electronically.

    3 Non-PULSe-to-PULSe routing is an “add-on” feature to drop copy connectivity. If a TPH or non-TPH customer of a PULSe brokers elects to send orders through its third-party order management system to its broker's PULSe workstations, it must also elect to have the drop copy connectivity.

    The Exchange is proposing a monthly fee payable by TPH customers who request non-PULSe-to-PULSe functionality. This fee will allow for the recoupment of costs of maintaining and supporting non-PULSe-to-PULSe routing functionality. A TPH customer sending orders electronically to PULSe brokers through these non-PULSe systems will be charged a fee of $500 a month per PULSe broker to which the customer sends orders. For example, if TPH customer A transmits orders electronically through a non-PULSe order management terminal to PULSe workstations of each of PULSe broker A, PULSe broker B, and PULSe broker C, TPH customer A (the sending TPH) will be charged a fee of $1500 per month for the ability to send orders electronically to the PULSe workstations of PULSe brokers A, B and C.4 The Exchange does not assess any fee, to the PULSe broker or otherwise, for a non-TPH customer electing to use non-PULSe-to-PULSe routing functionality.

    4 In Addition, the TPH customer would be charged $3,000/month for receiving drop copies from the three PULSe brokers, as discussed above.

    FIX Integration Drop Copy Start-Up/Cancellation Fees

    The Exchange is proposing fees for both the start-up and cancellation of the FIX integration needed to send and receive drop copies from PULSe workstations. The Exchange is proposing a one-time fee of $500 to recoup the costs required to connect a new drop copy customer to workstations of its PULSe broker(s) and add the drop copy functionality for that customer. Additionally, the Exchange is proposing a one-time fee of $500 for cancellation of the drop copy functionality to recoup the costs required to disconnect the cancelling drop copy customer from workstations of its PULSe broker(s) and remove the drop copy functionality for that customer. In the case of both start-up and cancellation, the fees are charged to the TPH who is charged for the drop copy connectivity (in the case of a TPH customer, the TPH customer that receives drop copies from PULSe broker; in the case of a non-TPH customer, the PULSe broker that sends drop copies to the non-TPH customer). If the TPH customer is charged these fees, each fee is $500 for each PULSe broker to which the TPH customer requests to start or cancel drop copy functionality, as applicable. If the PULSe broker is charged these fees, each fee is $500 for each non-TPH customer that requests to start or cancel drop copy functionality from that PULSe broker.

    Routing Intermediary Certification and Inactivity Fees

    Routing intermediaries route orders entered into PULSe to away markets and to route orders from non-TPH PULSe workstations to TPHs for entry and execution on the Exchange. Routing intermediaries are currently charged routing intermediary transactional fees for away market routing from any PULSe workstation for which it serves as the routing intermediary. The Exchange is proposing a $5000 one-time fee for certification of a new PULSe routing intermediary. This fee will allow for the recoupment of costs of adding connectivity for the new routing intermediary, including connectivity to away-market routing technology, and testing necessary to support the new order routing features.

    The Exchange is also proposing a routing intermediary inactivity fee of up to $5000. The fees currently charged to routing intermediaries allow for the recoupment of costs of developing, maintaining, and supporting routing intermediary functionality, including away-market routing technology. If the Exchange is unable to collect sufficient fees in a year from a routing intermediary to cover theses costs, the inactivity fee allows for sufficient recoupment of these costs for that year. The fee will be charged to a routing intermediary each calendar year in which the routing intermediary has been charged Away-Market Routing Intermediary and Exchange Routing fees in the aggregate of less than $5000. The inactivity fee will be reduced by the amount of any of these fees charged to the routing intermediary during a calendar year. For example, if a routing intermediary was charged an aggregate of $4500 in Away-Market Routing Intermediary and Exchange Routing fees in the calendar year 2017, that routing intermediary would be assessed a $500 routing intermediary inactivity fee. The routing intermediary inactivity fee may first be charged in the calendar year following the year in which the routing intermediary was charged the routing intermediary certification fee. A TPH that withdraws as a routing intermediary will not be charged an inactivity fee for the calendar year in which they withdrew.

    OATS Reporting Fees

    The Exchange is proposing a $250 per month Order Audit Trail System (“OATS”) reporting fee. The fee will be charged to any PULSe customer (TPH or non-TPH) who elects to receive daily transmission of OATS reports for its orders submitted through PULSe. This fee will allow for the recoupment of costs of developing, maintaining and supporting OATS reporting functionality.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.5 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 6 requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,7 which requires that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using its facilities.

    5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

    The Exchange believes that assessing a $1000 per month fee on a TPH receiving drop copies from PULSe is reasonable because the Exchange incurs costs to monitor, develop and implement upgrade, maintain and customize PULSe to ensure the TPH customer receives timely and accurate drop copies. The Exchange believes the fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the monthly fee is assessed to any TPH electing to receive drop copies from a PULSe broker. Use of the drop copy functionality by a TPH customer is voluntary.

    The Exchange believes that assessing a $500 per month fee on a TPH sending drop copies from PULSe to a non-TPH customer is reasonable because the Exchange incurs costs to monitor, develop and implement upgrades, maintain and customize PULSe to ensure a non-TPH customer receives timely and accurate drop copies. The Exchange believes the fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the monthly fee is assessed equally to any TPH sending drop copies to its non-TPH customers. The Exchange believes that assessing a TPH sending drop copies to a non-TPH a monthly fee of $500, as opposed to the $1000 per month rate assessed to TPH customers receiving drop copies from PULSe, is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. Specially, the lower rates are designed to encourage non-TPH market participants to interact with the Exchange, which will accordingly attract more volume and liquidity to the Exchange and benefit all Exchange participants through increased opportunities to trade. Use of the drop copy functionality by a non-TPH customer is voluntary.

    The Exchange believes that assessing a $500 per month fee for a TPH customer electing to use non-PULSe-to-PULSe routing functionality (in addition to receiving drop copies) is reasonable because the Exchange incurs costs to monitor, develop and implement upgrades, maintain and customize PULSe to ensure a reliable connection between a TPH customer and its PULSe broker through which the customer's orders reach the PULSe broker in a timely and accurate manner. The Exchange believes the fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the monthly fee is assessed equally to any TPH electing to use the non-PULSe-to-PULSe routing functionality. The Exchange does not assess any fee, to the PULSe broker or otherwise, for a non-TPH customer electing to use non-PULSe-to-PULSe routing functionality. The Exchange believes not assessing a fee for a non-TPH customer electing to use non-PULSe-to-PULSe routing functionality is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory in that it is designed to encourage non-TPH market participants to interact with the Exchange, which will accordingly attract more volume and liquidity to the Exchange and benefit all Exchange participants through increased opportunities to trade. Use of non-PULSe-to-PULSe routing functionality is voluntary.

    The Exchange believes that assessing a TPH sending drop copies to a non-TPH a monthly $500, as opposed to the $1000 per month rate assessed to TPH customers receiving drop copies from PULSe, is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. The lower rates are designed to encourage non-TPH market participants to interact with the Exchange, which will accordingly attract more volume and liquidity to the Exchange and benefit all Exchange participants through increased opportunities to trade.

    The Exchange believes that assessing a $500 one-time fee for FIX integration necessary to receive or send drop copies from PULSe is reasonable because the Exchange incurs costs in the setup of a new FIX connection to allow the receiving and sending of drop copies via PULSe. The Exchange believes the fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it is assessed equally to any TPH electing to receive drop copies from PULSe brokers or to any TPH electing to send drop copies to a non-TPH customer.

    The Exchange believes that assessing a $500 one-time fee for the cancellation of a FIX connection necessary to receive or send drop copies from PULSe is reasonable because the Exchange incurs costs in the shutting down of a FIX connection. The Exchange believes the fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it is assessed equally to any TPH electing to cancel a FIX connection to a PULSe broker or to a PULSe broker electing to cancel a connection to a non-TPH customer.

    The Exchange believes that assessing a $5000 one-time fee for the certification of a new PULSe routing intermediary is reasonable because the Exchange incurs costs to develop connectivity for the routing intermediary and test the routing functionality to Exchange and away marketplaces. The Exchange believes the fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it is assessed to every TPH who elects to become a routing intermediary on PULSe. Becoming a routing intermediary is voluntary.

    The Exchange believes that assessing a routing intermediary inactivity fee of up to $5000 in years in which a routing intermediary pays less than that amount in fees is reasonable because the Exchange incurs costs to maintain, monitor, upgrade and test routing intermediary connections. The fees are assessed to cover those Exchange costs in the event the costs are not recovered via routing intermediary transaction fees. The Exchange believes the fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it will be assessed to any routing intermediary and only to the extent the TPH's routing intermediary transaction fees are less than $5000 in a calendar year.

    The Exchange believes that assessing a $250 a month fee for the daily transmission of OATS reports from PULSe is reasonable because the Exchange incurs costs to monitor, develop and implement upgrades, maintain and customize PULSe to allow sending and receiving of OATS reports. The Exchange believes the fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it is assessed to all customers electing to receive daily OATS reports.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burdens on competition that are not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed PULSe-related fees relate to optional reports and/or functionality and are assessed equally on PULSe users or TPH electing to use the functionality and/or receive the reports. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will cause any unnecessary burden on intermarket competition because the proposed relate to use of an Exchange-provided order entry system. To the extent that any proposed change makes the Exchange a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become Exchange market participants.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 8 and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 9 thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.

    8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2017-004 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2017-004. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2017-004 and should be submitted on or before February 14, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.10

    10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01463 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Notice To Rescind Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement: Lone Star Regional Rail Project, Williamson, Travis, Bastrop, Hays, Caldwell, Comal Guadalupe and Bexar Counties, State of Texas AGENCY:

    Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Rescind Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Lone Star Rail Project in Central Texas.

    SUMMARY:

    The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the proposed Lone Star Rail transportation project to construct and operate a regional passenger rail service system along the IH-35 corridor connecting the greater Austin and San Antonio metropolitan areas is rescinded. The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) will no longer prepare an EIS for the Lone Star Rail Project.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael T. Leary, Director of Planning and Program Development, Federal Highway Administration, 300 E. 8th Street, Room 826, Austin, Texas 78701, by telephone (512)536-5940.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The FHWA, in cooperation with the TxDOT and the Lone Star Rail District (LSRD), published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on October 6, 2014 (Document Number 2014-23711, Pages 60232 to 60323) to prepare an EIS for the proposed project to construct and operate the Lone Star Rail Project, a regional passenger rail service system along the IH-35 corridor connecting the greater Austin and San Antonio metropolitan areas anticipated to be operated by the LSRD. The proposed EIS was to evaluate the reasonable corridor alternatives.

    The LSRD conducted numerous studies and held public meetings to gather input from the public and other stakeholders to consider in the development of the DEIS. A Notice of Availability (NOA) for a DEIS was never published in the Federal Register. In October 2016, TxDOT requested preparation of the EIS be stopped and the Notice of Intent be rescinded. In January 2017 TxDOT provided information supporting their request to rescind the NOI.

    The request is based on a number of issues first being the decision by Union Pacific Railroad Company to cancel the UP/LSRD agreement for the possible use MOPAC corridor (the locally preferred alternative) which renders the alternate using of UP right of way nonviable. This action caused a cascade of additional actions by other entities. One of which was the removal the proposed project from the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO—Austin MPO) metropolitan transportation plan (MTP) and an ongoing effort to remove the project in the Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (AAMPO—San Antonio MPO) MTP. As per current transportation planning regulations 23 CFR450 the project could not advance to a NEPA decision without being in both MPO's metropolitan transportation plans. Further, TxDOT analyzed the other remaining initially reasonable alternatives and determined that:

    —the use of I 35 corridor would not be financial feasible due to ROW constraints and ongoing I-35 improvements . —the use of the State Highway 130 corridor as per LSRD 2008 fatal flaw analysis concluded the corridor would not support a commuter rail line and ridership and connectivity would make the corridor nonviable. —other alternative combinations such as I 35 and UP rail line and a hybrid option lack viability.

    Further with an estimated cost of between $2 to $3 billion, funding anticipated by LSRD such as the State's Rail Relocation and Improvement Fund, Federal Railroad Administration grants and private investment have not been capitalized or funded at levels necessary needed to complete the project.

    Due to the request made by the lead State sponsor (TxDOT) and based on the above information with the UP rail line alternative no longer feasible, lack of viability of other reasonable alternatives, removal of the project from the CAMPO transportation plan and a lack of a capitalized financial plan to move the project forward, the further development of the DEIS is not warranted at this time. As a result, the above mentioned original Notice of Intent is rescinded.

    The FHWA concurs with the TxDOT that the information gathered during the LSRD EIS project can be used in future efforts to determine viable transportation options for the Austin San Antonio corridor.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway research, Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) Authority:

    23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48.

    Issued on January 13, 2017. Michael T. Leary, Director Planning and Program Development, FHWA, Texas Division.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01544 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration [Docket Number FRA-2016-0110] Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated November 8, 2016, Nevada Northern Railway Foundation d.b.a. Nevada Northern Railway Museum (NN) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 215. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2016-0110.

    Specifically, NN requests waiver from the requirements of 49 CFR 215.303, Stenciling of restricted cars, and § 224.101, Reflectorization of Rolling Stock, for five freight cars. These five freight cars are one caboose (car number NN 3) and four box cars (car numbers NN 2021, NN 1023, NN 1024, and NN 1025).

    NN states in its petition that these cars are used in tourist, historic, and/or excursion operations. The cars always remain on NN track. NN is a non-insular tourist railroad that is not connected to the general system. The purpose of this waiver petition is to maintain the historic integrity of this railroad, which has been recognized by the Secretary of the Interior as a national Historic Landmark.

    NN further states that the subject cars will not carry freight but rather will be photographed by photographers from around the world. The cars will be operated at no more than 25 mph. The cars would be operated over 30 miles of track. Each car will be inspected to ensure safe operation of the car. These cars will not and cannot leave NN property.

    As information, NN concurrently requests to continue in service these 5 cars in accordance with 49 CFR 215.203(c), as they are all over 50 years of age, measured from the date of original construction.

    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.

    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

    Communications received by March 10, 2017 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Robert C. Lauby, Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-01504 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration Limitation on Claims Against Proposed Public Transportation Projects AGENCY:

    Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces final environmental actions taken by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for projects in Phoenix, Arizona and New York, New York. The purpose of this notice is to announce publicly the environmental decisions by FTA on the subject projects and to activate the limitation on any claims that may challenge these final environmental actions.

    DATES:

    By this notice, FTA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to Section 139(l) of Title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.). A claim seeking judicial review of FTA actions announced herein for the listed public transportation projects will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before June 23, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nancy-Ellen Zusman, Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, (312) 353-2577 or Meghan Kelley, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Environmental Programs, (202) 366-6098. FTA is located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that FTA has taken final agency actions by issuing certain approvals for the public transportation projects listed below. The actions on the projects, as well as the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the documentation issued in connection with the projects to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in other documents in the FTA administrative record for the projects. Interested parties may contact either the project sponsor or the relevant FTA Regional Office for more information. Contact information for FTA's Regional Offices may be found at https://www.fta.dot.gov.

    This notice applies to all FTA decisions on the listed projects as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including, but not limited to, NEPA [42 U.S.C. 4321-4375], Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303], Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 470f], and the