Federal Register Vol. 82, No.140,

In the April 17, 2017, Federal Register (82 FR 18101), GIPSA asked persons interested in providing official services in the Georgia Area to submit an application for designation.

There were two applicants for the Georgia Area, comprised of the entire State of Georgia that was open for designation: GDA applied for the entire area currently assigned to them. Schaal applied for the entire State or the following 13 counties within the State of Georgia: Bryan, Bulloch, Burke, Candler, Chatham, Effingham, Emanuel, Evans, Jefferson, Jenkins, Johnson, Screven, and Washington.

GIPSA is publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to submit comments about the applicants. Commenters are encouraged to submit reasons and pertinent data for support or objection to the designation of the applicants. All comments must be submitted to QACD at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov. GIPSA will consider all comments received timely along with other available information when making a final decision. GIPSA will then publish a notice of the final decision in the Federal Register, and will send the applicants written notification of its decision.

On June 27, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received antidumping duty (AD) Petitions concerning imports of low melt polyester staple fiber (low melt PSF) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) and Taiwan, filed in proper form on behalf of Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America (the petitioner).1 The petitioner is a domestic producer of low melt PSF.2 On June 30, 2017, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petitions.3 The petitioner filed responses to these requests on July 6, 2017, and revised scope language on July 7, 2017.4

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

The Department finds that the petitioner filed these Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that the petitioner is requesting.5

Because the Petitions were filed on June 27, 2017, the period of investigation (POI) for both investigations is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

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

During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued a questionnaire to, and received a response from, the petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.6

As part of this review, we determined that the scope language of these Petitions overlaps in certain respects with the scope language of the recently-initiated less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF) from Korea and Taiwan and the existing AD orders on polyester staple fiber (PSF) from Korea and Taiwan.7 Specifically, the scope of these Petitions covers all bi-component polyester fiber, where one component melts at a lower temperature than the other component; the scope, as currently written, does not limit the two fiber components to any specific configuration. Further, the scopes of both the fine denier PSF LTFV investigations and the existing PSF AD orders include certain low melt PSF products and exclude others (i.e., they only exclude low melt PSF in “sheath-and-core” configurations). As a result, low melt PSF in other configurations (such as “side-by-side”) is currently covered by the scopes of these investigations, as well as the on-going LTFV investigations on fine denier PSF from Korea and Taiwan, and the existing AD orders on PSF from Korea and Taiwan.

Where the Department has faced the possibility of administering two proceedings covering identical merchandise, we have chosen to craft the scope of the subsequent proceedings to eliminate the potential overlap.8 Although we have provisionally accepted the scope as defined by the petitioner for purposes of initiation, we are currently evaluating how to address the overlap in product coverage, noted above. If this question is not resolved prior to the preliminary determinations of these proceedings, we intend to include provisionally the following language in the scope:

As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).9 The Department will consider all comments received from parties and, if necessary, will consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual information,10 all such factual information should be limited to public information. In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Monday, August 7, 2017, which is the next business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, August 17, 2017, which is 10 calendar days from the deadline for initial comments.11

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

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

The Department will provide interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of low melt PSF to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant costs of production accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria. Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics; and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics used by manufacturers to describe low melt PSF, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially-meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.

In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on July 31, 2017. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on August 7, 2017. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of both the Taiwan and Korea less-than-fair-value investigations.

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

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

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

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

In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the Appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2016.16 In addition, the petitioner provided a letter of support from Fiber Innovation Technology, stating that the company supports the Petitions and providing its own production of the domestic like product in 2016.17 The petitioner identifies itself and Fiber Innovation Technology as the companies constituting the U.S. low melt PSF industry and states that there are no other known producers of low melt PSF in the United States; therefore, the Petitions are supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.18

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

The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that it is requesting that the Department initiate.23

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

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

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

The following is a description of the allegations of sales at LTFV upon which the Department based its decision to initiate AD investigations of imports of low melt PSF from Korea and Taiwan. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.

For Korea and Taiwan, the petitioner based the U.S. price on export price (EP) using: (1) Average unit values of publicly available import data; 27 and (2) price quotes for sales of low melt PSF produced in, and exported from, the subject country and offered for sale in the United States.28 Where applicable, the petitioner made deductions from U.S. price for movement expenses, consistent with the terms of sale.29

For Korea and Taiwan, the petitioner provided home market price information for low melt PSF produced in, and offered for sale in, both of these countries that was obtained through market research.30 For both of these countries, the petitioner provided a declaration from a market researcher to support the price information.31 Where applicable, the petitioner made deductions for movement expenses and credit expenses, consistent with the terms of sale.32

The petitioner also provided information that sales of low melt PSF in both Korea and Taiwan were made at prices below the cost of production (COP). Therefore, the petitioner calculated NV based on home market prices and constructed value (CV).33 For further discussion of COP and NV based on CV, see the section “Normal Value Based on Constructed Value,” below.34

Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM), selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, financial expenses, and packing expenses. For Korea and Taiwan, the petitioner calculated the COM based on the input factors of production from a U.S. producer of low melt PSF, adjusted for known differences between the U.S. low melt PSF industry and those of Korea and Taiwan during the POI. The input factors of production were valued using publicly available data on costs specific to Korea and Taiwan.35

The petitioner determined the usage of raw material inputs based on the average usage rates incurred by the U.S. producer. The prices for raw material inputs were based on Korean and Taiwan import and export data from publicly available data. Labor and energy rates were derived from publicly available sources multiplied by the product-specific usage rates. The petitioner calculated a factory overhead, SG&A, financial expenses, and packing rates based on the experience of Korean and Taiwan producers of comparable merchandise.36

Because certain home market prices fell below the COP for both countries, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, as noted above, the petitioner calculated NV based on CV.37 Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the COM, SG&A, financial expenses, packing expenses, and profit. The petitioner calculated CV using the same average COM, SG&A, financial expenses, and packing expenses to calculate the COP.38 The petitioner relied on the financial statements of the same producer that it used for calculating manufacturing overhead, SG&A, and financial expenses to calculate the profit rate.39

Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of low melt PSF from Korea and Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for low melt PSF from Korea and Taiwan range from 39.24 to 52.23 percent,40 and 28.47 to 73.21 percent, respectively.41

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

Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous amendments to the AD and countervailing duty (CVD) law were made.42 The 2015 law does not specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.43 The amendments to sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to these AD investigations.44

The petitioner named six companies in Korea,45 and two companies in Taiwan,46 as producers/exporters of low melt denier PSF. Following standard practice in AD investigations involving market economy countries, in the event the Department determines that the number of companies in Korea or Taiwan is large, the Department intends to review U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of low melt PSF during the POI under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States subheading listed within the scope in the Appendix, below, and if it determines that it cannot individually examine each company based upon the Department's resources, then the Department will select respondents based on those data. We also intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO within five business days of the announcement of the initiation of these investigations. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo. Interested parties may submit comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection by 5:00 p.m. ET seven calendar days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of that investigation. Interested parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five calendar days after the deadline for initial comments.

Comments for the above-referenced investigations must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET by the dates noted above. We intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection in the Korea and Taiwan investigations within 20 days of publication of this notice.

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

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

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

Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 47 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.48 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

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

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.49 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 50 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

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

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

The following items are on the agenda; though agenda items may be addressed out of order (changes will be noted on the Council's Web site when possible.)

Review scoping comments for excessive shares alternatives to the Excessive Shares Amendment and discuss next steps for amendment development and discuss Surfclam overfishing limit (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC).

Initiate framework and review risk policy and ABC framework alternatives.

Review SSC, Monitoring Committee, Advisory Panel, and staff recommendations for 2018 specifications, recommend any changes if necessary and review the ASMFC Bluefish Fishery Management Plan.

Review SSC, Monitoring Committee, Advisory Panel, and staff recommendations for 2018-19 specifications, recommend any changes to 2018 specifications if necessary and consider setting specifications for 2019.

Approve Demersal Committee and ASMFC Board recommendations regarding alternatives.

Review SSC, Monitoring Committee, Advisory Panel, and staff recommendations regarding previously implemented 2018 specifications and recommend any changes if necessary.

Report from the Board's Summer Flounder Recreational Working Group on work toward short- and long-term improvements to recreational specifications process.

Review SSC, Monitoring Committee, Advisory Panel, and staff recommendations regarding previously implemented 2018 specifications and recommend any changes if necessary.

Discuss potential opening of black sea bass wave 1 fishery in 2018, report from Board on addendum for 2018 black sea bass recreational management, report from Board on potential reconsideration of northern state's wave 6 measures and review initiation of black sea bass amendment (December 2015 motion).

Reports will be received from the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement and the U.S. Coast Guard.

Review and approve draft risk elements for risk matrix.

Committee Reports (SSC); Executive Director's Report on chub mackerel amendment update, MAFMC involvement in NEFMC Groundfish Framework 57 (southern windowpane flounder accountability measures) and review timing of the Nantucket/Martha's Vineyard Squid Buffer Framework Action; Science Report; Organization Reports; Liaison Reports; and Continuing and New Business.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

GMRI submitted a complete application for an EFP on April 27, 2017, in support of research associated with a 2016 Saltonstall-Kennedy Program project titled “Complementary testing of off-bottom trawls to target Georges Bank haddock.” The EFP requests the ability to use two sub-legal sized codends to target and haddock.

The overall goal of this project is to test the efficacy of an off-bottom trawl fitted with a small-mesh codend to access healthy haddock and redfish stocks while avoiding other groundfish stocks. Additional objectives include the development of a fuel-efficient trawl that also reduces disruption to benthic habitat. One vessel, the F/V Teresa Marie IV, would conduct a three-phase research plan to test the off-bottom trawl with two different codends: A 4.5-inch (11.43-cm) diamond mesh when targeting redfish, and a 5.1-inch (12.954-cm) square mesh when targeting haddock. The proposed off-bottom trawl would require an exemption from the Northeast multispecies minimum mesh size requirements at § 648.80(a)(3)(ii), because the codend and extension mesh size would be less than the minimum regulated mesh.

The 4.5-inch (11.43-cm) diamond mesh codend was previously authorized for use in the redfish exempted fishery, through a regulatory exemption to sectors, based on the results of previous redfish selectivity research (REDNET). This exemption has been modified a number of times in order to balance the conservation requirements, and economic goals of the fishery. In fishing year 2017, a 5.5-inch (14.0-cm) mesh was authorized within the redfish exemption area. During the REDNET study, substantial catches of redfish with low levels of incidental catch or bycatch of regulated species were observed when using a 4.5-inch (11.43-cm) mesh codend.

The square-mesh 5.1-inch (12.954-cm) codend was selected based on the Canadian haddock fishery, which uses a 5-inch (12.7-cm) square-mesh codend. The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans has also conducted studies on the selectivity of various mesh sizes. This codend mesh size has been approved for use in a previous EFP issued to Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, Inc. Only a small number of trips were taken under that EFP, which limited the ability to produce statistically reliable results, but there were indications that haddock selectivity between the 5.1-inch (12.954-cm) square mesh codend and 6.5-inch (16.51-cm) diamond mesh codend were similar.

During Phase 1, the captain and crew of the F/V Teresa Marie IV would familiarize themselves with the operation of the off-bottom trawl. Testing would include how to deploy the trawl to a desired operating depth, maintain depth, adjust depth, and haul back. This phase would be carried out in August or September 2017 (Table 1). Five days-at-sea would be required for testing. Tow duration could be as short as 30 minutes or as long as 3 to 4 hours, depending on the outcome of the gear testing. Testing of the net, outfitted with the square-mesh 5.1-inch (12.954-cm) codend, would occur in open areas of Georges Bank (Statistical Areas 512, 513, and 515) for three days. Testing of the net, outfitted with the 4.5-inch (11.43-cm) codend, would occur in the redfish exemption area for two days. The off-bottom trawl would be equipped with Simrad and NOTUS sensors to provide acoustic images of the fishing circle, trawl geometry and height above the seabed, and fish entering the trawl. A GMRI research technician would be on board to conduct catch sampling and collect data on the performance of the net. The primary purpose of the trip is to demonstrate the ability to control net position within the water column and net geometry. Catch is likely to be minimal in this phase; many tows will be conducted in areas where limited catch is expected, as the purpose of this phase to optimize gear performance, not demonstrate catch composition. However, any legal-size groundfish catch would be retained for sale, consistent with the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP), and all catch would be attributed against the applicable sector Annual Catch Entitlement (ACE), consistent with standard catch accounting procedures.

In Phase 2, the off-bottom trawl would be evaluated during a 5-day controlled study on-board the F/V Teresa Marie IV conducted in August or September 2017 (Table 1). The off-bottom trawl would be tested at two towing speeds (3 and 4 kts) while actively fishing in order to represent normal working conditions. Testing of the net outfitted with the 5.1-inch (12.954-cm) square-mesh codend would occur in open areas of Georges Bank (Statistical Areas 512, 513, and 515) for 3 days-at-sea (DAS). Testing of the net outfitted with the 4.5-inch (11.43-cm) diamond codend would occur in the redfish exemption area for 2 days. Underwater cameras would be used to film the off-bottom trawl in operation, in conjunction with net mensuration equipment to examine the trawl geometry and clearance over the seabed, as well as the catch as it enters the trawl and reaches the codend. Catch would be retained for sale. Catch would be attributed against the applicable sector ACE, consistent with standard catch accounting procedures.

Phase 3 would test the off-bottom trawl using both codends under a wide range of commercial conditions to broadly characterize the fishing performance of the net. The off-bottom trawl would be fished from the F/V Teresa Marie IV. Phase 3 would include ten 8-day trips occurring from August through December 2017. Trips would be split between Georges Bank and the Gulf of Maine targeting haddock and redfish, respectively. Targeted redfish fishing, with the 4.5-inch (11.43-cm) codend, would only occur within the sector redfish exemption area (Table 1).

The applicant has stated that estimating anticipated catch for this project using the off-bottom trawl is a challenging exercise given a lack of historical evidence using a trawl of this design. Subsequently, catch from the Teresa Marie IV using a haddock separator trawl in fishing year 2016 was used to estimate anticipated catch using the off-bottom trawl. The average catch of haddock per trip was 5,500 pounds (2,495-kg) in the Gulf of Maine, 6,400 pounds (2,903-kg) in the Eastern U.S./Canada management area of Georges Bank, and 22,300 pounds (10,115-kg) in Georges Bank West. The average catch of redfish in the Gulf of Maine was 2,000 pounds (907-kg) per trip. The average catch of cod per trip was 180 pounds (82-kg) in the Gulf of Maine, 70 pounds (32-kg) in the Eastern U.S./Canada management area of Georges Bank, and 530 pounds (240-kg) in Georges Bank West. The off-bottom trawl is expected to catch at least as much haddock as a bottom trawl, with substantial reductions in cod catch, and the complete elimination of flatfish catch. If these ratios are not realized the applicant has indicated that the off-bottom trawl would be deemed unsuccessful and the project may be abandoned.

All trips would carry a GMRI sampler, an assigned at-sea observer, or an independently contracted data collection technician. In Phases 1 and 2, a GMRI sampler would be onboard to document the operational performance of the off-bottom trawl, and sample catch. In Phase 3, a GMRI sampler would be onboard the F/V Teresa Marie IV during at least two fishing trips. An assigned at-sea observer or independent contracted data collection technician would collect data during remaining trips with the off-bottom trawl. The volume of the catch is anticipated to be large, so subsampling protocols have been developed. The dimensions of the boats' checker pens would be measured. Catches emptied into these pens would be estimated by recording the depth of the catch in each pen. Efforts would be made to spread the catch evenly in these pens, and up to 10 measurements of catch depth would be recorded in each pen in random locations. This would provide an estimate of total catch volume. Legal-sized haddock are placed on a conveyor belt and then filleted. A subsample of the total catch would be taken from the checker pens to estimate total catch, including cod and other non-target species by weight. All fish in the subsample would be weighed, and length measurements would be taken for cod and other non-target catch. All bycatch would be returned to the sea as soon as practicable following data collection. Exemption from minimum sizes would support catch sampling activities, and ensure the vessel is not in conflict with possession regulations while collecting catch data. All trips would otherwise be conducted in a manner consistent with normal commercial fishing conditions and catch consistent with the Northeast Multispecies FMP would be retained for sale. Trips not accompanied by GMRI researchers would be required to carry an At-Sea Monitor (ASM), Northeast Fishery Observer Program (NEFOP) observer, or privately contracted data collection technician. On trips assigned to carry an ASM or observer by NEFOP, normal sampling protocols would be carried out. The vessel is responsible for notifying its monitoring provider of upcoming research trips and ensuring a research technician is present on all EFP trips not selected for observer coverage through Pre-trip Notification System (PTNS).

GMRI needs this exemption to allow them to conduct testing of a net configuration that is prohibited by the current regulations. If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.

Agenda Monday, August 7, 2017; 10:30 a.m.-5 p.m.

The Administrative/Budget Committee will review and approve the Final 2017 Budget Funding Report, and review of SOPPS guidance on Advisory Panel Appointments; and, the Education and Outreach Committee will review and discuss the technical committee report from their August 2017 meeting. After the lunch break, the Gulf SEDAR Committee will hold a discussion on the 2017 Extended Recreational Red Snapper Season; and review the SEDAR Assessment Schedule. The Sustainable Fisheries Committee will receive a presentation on the protocol for authorizing Sea Turtle Release Gear and review a discussion paper. This Committee will also receive updates on Lionfish Research, Actions and Efforts by Federal and State Agencies.

The Reef Fish Management Committee will review and discuss taking final action on Framework Action—Greater Amberjack Annual Catch Limit (ACL) and Management Measures; discuss draft Amendment 42—Federal Reef Fish Headboard Survey Vessels and Final Action on Referendum Eligibility Requirements, and draft Amendment 41—Federal Charter-For-Hire Reef Fish Management Discussion and Final Action on Referendum Eligibility Requirements. The committee will receive a Review of the For-Hire Permit Moratorium and Transfers; discuss draft Framework Action to modify the Annual Catch Target (ACT) for Red Snapper Federal For-Hire and Private Angler Components; and receive a presentation on the Grouper-Tilefish Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program 5-year review. The committee will end the day reviewing a revised options paper for Amendment 36B—Modifications to Commercial IFQ Programs and NMFS' response regarding referendum requirements for auctions and discuss the next steps for the Ad Hoc Red Snapper IFQ Advisory Panel.

The Reef Fish Management Committee will reconvene and review options papers for Status Determination Criteria and Optimum Yield (OY) for Reef Fish Stocks, and draft documents on State Management of Recreational Red Snapper for Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

The Full Council will convene mid-morning (approximately 10:45 a.m.) with a call to order, announcements, introductions; adoption of agenda; and approval of minutes. The Council will review Exempted Fishing Permit (EFPs) Applications, and a summary of public comments; and, receive a presentation from Texas Law Enforcement. After lunch, the Council will receive public testimony from 1:30 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. on the following agenda items: Final Action on Framework Action—Greater Amberjack ACL and Management Measures; Final Action on Referendum Eligibility Requirements for Reef Fish Amendment 42—Reef Fish Management for Headboat Survey Vessels; and Final Action on Referendum Eligibility Requirements for Reef Fish Amendment 41—Allocation-Based Management for Federally Permitted Charter Vessels; and, open testimony on any other fishery issues or concerns.

The Council will receive reports from the following Management Committees: Reef Fish, Gulf SEDAR, Administrative/Budget, Sustainable Fisheries, and Outreach and Education. Upon returning from lunch, the Council will review and vote on Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) Applications, if any; and receive updates from the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of State. Under Other Business, the Council will receive an update and next steps for the Generic For-Hire Electronic Reporting Amendment.

You may listen in to the August 2017 Council Meeting via webinar by registering at https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/2332013968662616323. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

The timing and order in which agenda items are addressed may change as required to effectively address the issue. The latest version will be posted on the Council's file server, which can be accessed by going to the Council's Web site at http://www.gulfcouncil.org and clicking on FTP Server under Quick Links. For meeting materials, select the “Briefing Books/Briefing Book 2017-08” folder on Gulf Council file server. The username and password are both “gulfguest”. The meetings will be webcast over the internet. A link to the webcast will be available on the Council's Web site, http://www.gulfcouncil.org.

Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal action during this meeting. Council 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 Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-08 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

(i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of India.

(ii) Total Estimated Value:

(iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

Major Defense Equipment (MDE): None

Non-MDE include: Thirty-eight thousand thirty-four (38,034) M50 General Purpose Masks. Joint Service Lightweight Integrated Suit Technology (JSLIST) consisting of:

Also included is training, technical data, U.S. Government technical assistance, staging/consolidation, and transportation line.

(iv) Military Department: Army

(v) Prior Related Cases, if any: None

(vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Annex Attached.

(viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: May 10, 2017

* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

The Government of India (GoI) has requested a possible sale of 38,034 M50 general purpose masks; Joint Service Lightweight Integrated Suit Technology (JSLIST), which consists of 38,034 each: suits, pairs of trousers, pairs of gloves, pairs of boots and NBC bags; 854 aprons; 854 alternative aprons; 9,509 Quick Doff Hoods; and 114,102 M61 filters. Also included in the potential sale is training; technical data; U.S. Government technical assistance; staging/consolidation; transportation; and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $75 million.

This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States, by helping to improve the security of a friendly country which has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic progress in South Asia.

The GoI intends to use these defense articles and services to modernize its armed forces. This will contribute to the Indian military's goal to update its capability while enhancing the relationship between India and the United States. The GoI will have no difficulty absorbing these defense articles into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The principal contractor involved in this program is Avon Protection Systems, Inc., Cadillac, MI. At this time, there are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

1. The Joint Service Lightweight Integrated Suit Technology (JSLIST) is a chemical and biological protective garment meant to be worn over the operational uniform of the user. It has an outer shell made up of a 50% nylon and 50% cotton poplin blend material with a water repellant finish. The liner layer consists of a nonwoven front laminated to activated carbon spheres and bonded to a tricot knit back that absorbs chemical agents. When the JSLIST coat and trousers are combined with boots, gloves, and a chemical protective mask, JSLIST provides protection against chemical and biological agents, radioactive fallout particles, and battlefield contaminants. The highest level of information that could be disclosed by the transfer of the JSLIST. Suit is UNCLASSIFIED. JSLIST is considered a U.S. military uniform item, and as such, any unit being sold to Foreign Military Sales customers will not utilize an actively-used U.S. military camouflage pattern in accordance with the Security Assistance Management Manual (SAMM), Chapter 4, paragraph 4.5.6. and 10 U.S.C. 771.

2. The M50 Joint Service General Purpose Mask is the U.S. Armed Forces' field protective mask. The system used two M61 filters integrated into the air inlet system to protect against nuclear, biological and chemical threats including select toxic industrial chemicals. The highest level of information that could be disclosed by the transfer of the M50 is UNCLASSIFIED.

3. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of India.

This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 16-70 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-21 with attached Policy Justification.

(i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE)

(ii) Total Estimated Value:

(iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

Sixty (60) Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) Missiles with canisters

One hundred (100) Patriot Guidance Enhanced Missile-Tactical (GEM-T) Missiles

Non-MDE includes:

Also included are canisters, tools and test equipment, support equipment, publications and technical documentation, spare and repair parts, U.S. Government and contractor technical, engineering and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support.

(iv) Military Department: Army (AE-B-ZUG, Amendment 8)

(v) Prior Related Cases, if any: AE-B-ZUG

(vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex

(viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: May 10, 2017

*As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

The Government of the United Arab Emirates has requested the possible sale of sixty (60) Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) missiles with canisters and one hundred (100) Patriot Guidance Enhanced Missile-Tactical (GEM-T) missiles. Also included are canisters, tools and test equipment, support equipment, publications and technical documentation, spare and repair parts, U.S. Government and contractor technical, engineering and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $2 billion.

This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of an important ally which has been, and continues to be, a force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East. This sale is consistent with U.S. initiatives to provide key allies in the region with modern systems that will enhance interoperability with U.S. forces and increase security.

The proposed sale will enhance the UAE's capability to meet current and future aircraft and missile threats. The UAE will use the capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen its homeland defense. The UAE has fielded the Patriot system since 2009 and will have no difficulty absorbing these additional missiles into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of these missiles will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The prime contractor for the PAC-3 Missile is Lockheed-Martin in Dallas, Texas. The prime contractor for the GEM-T missile is Raytheon Company in Andover, Massachusetts. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

Implementation of this proposed sale will require additional contractor representatives to the UAE. It is not expected additional U.S. Government personnel will be required in country for an extended period of time. U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Life Cycle Management Command (AMCOM) currently maintains a field office in UAE in support of UAE Patriot systems.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

1. The Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancement/Configuration-3 Ground Support Equipment (PAC-3 MSE/C-3) Air Defense System. The Patriot Advanced Capability-3/Configuration-3 Ground Support Equipment (PAC-3/C-3) Air Defense System contains classified CONFIDENTIAL hardware components, SECRET tactical software, and critical/sensitive technology. The PAC-3 Missile Four-Pack and Guidance Enhanced Missile (GEM-T) hardware is classified CONFIDENTIAL and the associated launcher hardware is UNCLASSIFIED. The items requested represent significant technological advances for UAE. The PAC-3/C-3 Air Defense System continues to hold a significant technology lead over other surface-to-air missile systems in the world.

2. The PAC-3/C-3 sensitive/critical technology is primarily in the area of design and production know-how and primarily inherent in the design, development and/or manufacturing data related to the following components:

a. Radar Enhancement Phase III (REP-3) Exciter Assemblies

b. Radar Digital Processor

c. Modern Adjunct Processor

d. REP-3 Traveling Wave Tube

e. Classification, Discrimination, and Identification-3 (CDI-3) Digital Signal Processor

f. CDI-3 Analog/Digital Converters

g. Hardware-in-the-Loop and Digital Simulations

h. Surface Acoustic Wave (SAW) Oscillators

i. PAC-3 Missile Guidance Processor Unit

j. PAC-3 Seeker

k. PAC-3 Missile Software

l. PAC-3 MSE Software

m. GEM-T Fuze

n. GEM-T SAW Oscillator

o. Selected areas of the Patriot Ground Equipment software

p. Multiband Radio Frequency Datalink (MRFDL)

3. Information on vulnerability to electronic countermeasures and counter-countermeasures, system performance capabilities and effectiveness, survivability and vulnerability data, PAC-3 and GEM-T Missile seeker capabilities, non-cooperative target recognition, low observable technologies, select software/software documentation and test data are classified up to and including SECRET.

4. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapons systems effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

5. A determination has been made that the Government of the UAE can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This proposed sustainment program is necessary to the furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the policy justification.

6. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of the UAE.

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Consolidated State Plan.

OMB Control Number: 1810-0576.

Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 52.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 108,155.

Abstract: Section 8302 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), permits each SEA, in consultation with the Governor, to apply for program funds through submission of a consolidated State plan or a consolidated State application (in lieu of individual program State plans). The purpose of consolidated State plans as defined in ESEA is to improve teaching and learning by encouraging greater cross-program coordination, planning, and service delivery; to enhance program integration; and to provide greater flexibility and less burden for State educational agencies.

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who are Blind.

OMB Control Number: 1820-0608.

Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 56.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 336.

Abstract: Section 752(h)(2) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and the corresponding regulations in 34 CFR 367.31(c) require each grantee under the Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind (IL-OIB) program to submit an annual report to the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) on essential demographic, service, and outcome information. There is no difference between this and the previously approved data collection instrument which will expire on August 31, 2017. RSA therefore requests an extension of the approval to use this data collection instrument.

Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

On May 22, 2017, DOE received an application from the Applicant for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities.

In its application, the Applicant states that it does not own or control any electric generation or transmission facilities, and it does not have a franchised service area. The electric energy that the Applicant proposes to export to Mexico would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have previously been authorized by Presidential Permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.

Procedural matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five copies of such comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be sent to the address provided above on or before the date listed above.

Comments and other filings concerning the Applicant's application to export electric energy to Mexico should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-437. An additional copy is to be provided to Fernando Miller, EnerTime Energy Resources, LLC, 700 Milam, Suite 1300, Houston, TX 77002.

A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at http://energy.gov/node/11845, or by emailing Angela Troy at [email protected].

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Nevada, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Barbara Ulmer at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral presentations pertaining to agenda items should contact Barbara Ulmer at the telephone number listed above. The request must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments can do so during the 15 minutes allotted for public comments.

Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing to Barbara Ulmer at the address listed above or at the following Web site: http://www.nnss.gov/NSSAB/pages/MM_FY17.html.

This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. 1910-5159; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Energy Priorities and Allocations System; (3) Type of Request: Extension; (4) Purpose: To meet requirements of the Defense Production Act (DPA) priorities and allocations authority with respect to all forms of energy necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense. Data supplied will be used to evaluate applicants requesting special priorities assistance to fill a rate order issued pursuant to the DPA and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 217. This data will also be used to conduct audits and for enforcement purposes. This collection will only be used if the Secretary of Energy determines that his authority under the DPA is necessary to maximize domestic energy supplies or to address an energy shortage. The last collection by DOE under this authority was in 2001; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 10 or more as this collection is addressed to a substantial majority of the energy industry; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 10 or more as this collection is addressed to a substantial majority of the energy industry; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 32 minutes per response; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.

The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:

a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;

b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Federal Reserve should modify the proposed revisions prior to giving final approval.

Report title: Application for Exemption from Prohibited Service at Savings and Loan Holding Companies.

Agency form number: FR LL-12.

OMB control number: 7100-0337.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondents: Individuals and savings and loan holding companies.

Estimated number of respondents: 15.

Estimated average hours per response: 16.

Estimated annual burden hours: 240.

General Description of Report: The Federal Deposit Insurance (FDI) Act and Regulation LL (12 CFR part 238) prohibit individuals who have been convicted of certain criminal offenses or who have agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with a prosecution for such criminal offenses from participating in the affairs of a savings and loan holding company (SLHC) or any of its subsidiaries without the written consent of the Board. In order for such a person to participate in the conduct of the affairs of any SLHC, the SLHC or the individual must file an application seeking to obtain an exemption from the Board. The Board will use any information provided by the applicant when considering an exemption request concerning a prohibited person. Such considerations will include, but are not limited to, whether the prohibited person would participate in the major policymaking functions of the SLHC or would threaten the safety and soundness of any subsidiary insured depository institution of the SLHC or the public confidence in the insured depository institution.

Legal authorization and confidentiality: The Board has determined that this information collection is authorized by section 19(e)(2) of the FDI Act, which states that the “Board . . . may provide exemptions [from the prohibition] by regulation or order . . . if the exemption is consistent with the purposes of this subsection” (12 U.S.C. 1829(e)(2)). The Board exercises general supervision over SLHCs, which includes examination authority and the imposition of reporting and recordkeeping requirements (12 U.S.C. 1467a(b)(2)). This information collection is required in order for prohibited persons to obtain the benefit of becoming, or continuing service as, an institution-affiliated party of an SLHC, and for an SLHC to permit that prohibited person to engage in any conduct or continue any relationship prohibited by section 19(e) of the FDI Act.

As required information, the information submitted can be withheld pursuant to sections (b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(8) of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), (b)(6), (b)(8)). The applicability of these exemptions would need to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier 0990-new-30D for reference.

Information Collection Request Title: Evaluation of the Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic Demonstration.

OMB No.: 0990-NEW.

Abstract: The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is requesting Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for data collection activities to support the evaluation of the Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic (CCBHC) demonstration program.

In April 2014, Section 223 of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act (PAMA) mandated the CCBHC demonstration to address some of the challenges of access, coordination, financing, and quality facing community mental health centers (CMHCs) across the country. The CCBHC demonstration is intended to improve the availability, quality, and outcomes of CMHC ambulatory care by establishing a standard definition and criteria for CCBHCs, and developing a new payment system that accounts for the total cost of providing comprehensive services to all individuals who seek care. The demonstration also aims to more fully integrate primary and behavioral health care services; ensure more consistent use of evidence-based practices; and, through enhanced standardized reporting requirements, offer an opportunity to assess the quality of care provided by CCBHCs across the country. The demonstration and its evaluation offer an opportunity to examine the implementation and outcomes of CCBHCs. The evaluation will provide critical information to Congress and the larger behavioral health community about innovative ways CCBHCs are attempting to improve care and the effects of a well-defined, comprehensive service array on client outcomes and costs.

Need and Proposed Use of the Information: Section 223 of PAMA requires the Secretary of HHS to provide annual reports to Congress that include an assessment of access to community-based mental health services under Medicaid, the quality and scope of CCBHC services, and the impact of the demonstration on federal and state costs of a full range of mental health services. In addition, PAMA requires the Secretary to provide recommendations regarding continuation, expansion, modifications, or termination of the demonstration no later than December 31, 2021. The data collected under this submission will help ASPE address research questions for the evaluation, and inform the required reports to Congress.

Likely Respondents:

The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.

Public Participation and Request for Comments

This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.

The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2016-0934], and must be received by August 23, 2017.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0007.

This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard has published the 60-day notice (81 FR 95156, December 27, 2016) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.

Title: Characteristics of Liquid Chemicals Proposed for Bulk Water Movement.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0007.

Summary: Chemical manufacturers submit chemical data to the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard evaluates the information for hazardous properties of the chemical to be shipped via tank vessel. A determination is made as to the kind and degree of precaution which must be taken to protect the vessel and its contents.

Need: Title 46 CFR parts 30 to 40, 151, 153, and 154 govern the transportation of hazardous materials. The chemical industry constantly produces new materials that must be moved by water. Each of these new materials has unique characteristics that require special attention to their mode of shipment.

Forms: None.

Respondents: Manufacturers of chemicals.

Frequency: On occasion.

Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated annual burden of 600 hours a year remains unchanged.

Public Participation and Request for Comments

This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2016-0926], and must be received by August 23, 2017.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0008.

This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard has published the 60-day notice (81 FR 95158, December 27, 2016) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.

Title: Regattas and Marine Parades.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0008.

Summary: 46 U.S.C. 1233 authorizes the Coast Guard to issue rules to promote the safety of life on navigable waters during regattas or marine parades. Title 33 CFR 100.15 promulgates the rules for providing notice of, and additional information for permitting regattas and marine parades (marine events) to the Coast Guard.

Need: The Coast Guard needs to determine whether a marine event may present a substantial threat to the safety of human life on navigable waters and determine which measures are necessary to ensure the safety of life during the events. Sponsors must notify the Coast Guard in order for the Coast Guard to learn of the events and address environmental impacts.

Forms: CG-4423, Application for Marine Event.

Respondents: Sponsors of marine events.

Frequency: On occasion.

Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 5,500 hours to 5,271 hours a year due to the decrease in the number of respondents submitting applications online.

This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) the practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2016-0801], and must be received by August 23, 2017.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0086.

This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard has published the 60-day notice (81 FR 85984, November 29, 2016) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.

Title: Great Lakes Pilotage.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0086.

Summary:The Office of Great Lakes Pilotage is seeking a revision of OMB's current approval for Great Lakes Pilotage data collection requirements for the three U.S. pilot associations it regulate. This revision would require continued submission of data to an electronic collection system. This system is identified as the Great Lakes Electronic Pilot Management System which will eventually replace the manual paper submissions currently used to collect data on bridge hours, vessel delay, vessel detention, vessel cancellation, vessel movement, pilot travel, revenues, pilot availability, and related data. This revision ensures the required data is available in a timely manner and allows immediate accessibility to data crucial from both an operational and rate-making standpoint.

Need: To comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements respecting the rate-making and oversight functions imposed upon the agency.

Forms: CG-4509, Application for Registration as United States Registered Pilot.

Respondents: The three U.S. pilot associations regulated by the Office of Great Lakes Pilotage and members of the public applying to become Great lakes Registered Pilots.

Frequency: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, Semi-annually, Annually, On occasion; Frequency dictated by marine traffic levels and association staffing.

Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 18 hours to 19 hours a year.

On October 24, 2012, CBP published a general notice in the Federal Register (77 FR 65006, corrected in 77 FR 653951 ) that announced the formalization and expansion of the ACAS pilot. The notice provided a description of the ACAS pilot, set forth eligibility requirements for participation, and invited public comments on any aspect of the test. In brief, the ACAS pilot revises the time frame for pilot participants to transmit a subset of mandatory advance electronic information for air cargo. CBP regulations implementing the Trade Act of 2002 specify the required data elements and the time frame for submitting them to CBP. Pursuant to title 19, Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR) 122.48a, the required advance information for air cargo must be submitted no later than the time of departure of the aircraft for the United States (from specified locations) or four hours prior to arrival in the United States for all other locations.

The ACAS pilot is a voluntary test in which participants agree to submit a subset of the required 19 CFR 122.48a data elements (ACAS data) at the earliest point practicable prior to loading of the cargo onto the aircraft destined to or transiting through the United States. The ACAS data is used to target high-risk air cargo. CBP intends to amend the CBP regulations to incorporate ACAS as an ongoing regulatory program. The results of the ACAS pilot will help determine the relevant data elements, the time frame within which data must be submitted to permit CBP to effectively target, identify and mitigate any risk with the least practicable impact on trade operations, and any other related procedures and policies.

The October 2012 notice announced that the ACAS pilot would run for six months. The notice provided that if CBP determined that the pilot period should be extended, CBP would publish another notice in the Federal Register. The October 2012 notice also stated that applications for new ACAS pilot participants would be accepted until November 23, 2012. CBP subsequently published several notices extending the pilot period and/or reopening the application period to new participants for limited periods. On December 26, 2012, CBP published a notice in the Federal Register (77 FR 76064) reopening the application period for new participants until January 8, 2013. On January 3, 2013, the Federal Register published a correction (78 FR 315) stating that the correct date of the close of the reopened application period was January 10, 2013. On April 23, 2013, CBP published a notice in the Federal Register (78 FR 23946) extending the ACAS pilot period through October 26, 2013, and reopening the application period through May 23, 2013. On October 23, 2013, CBP published a notice in the Federal Register (78 FR 63237) extending the ACAS pilot period through July 26, 2014, and reopening the application period through December 23, 2013. On July 28, 2014, CBP published a notice in the Federal Register (79 FR 43766) extending the ACAS pilot period through July 26, 2015, and reopening the application period through September 26, 2014. On July 27, 2015, CBP published a notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 44360) extending the ACAS pilot period through July 26, 2016, and reopening the application period through October 26, 2015. Finally, on July 22, 2016, CBP published a notice in the Federal Register (81 FR 47812) extending the ACAS pilot period through July 26, 2017, without reopening the application period.

Each extension of the pilot period and reopening of the application period allowed for a significant increase in the diversity and number of pilot participants. The current pilot participants now represent a strong sample size of the air cargo community and new pilot participants are not being accepted.

To address air cargo security vulnerabilities, CBP intends to amend the CBP regulations to incorporate ACAS as an ongoing regulatory program. The regulation will take into account the results of the pilot and the concerns of industry. CBP would like the pilot to continue during the rulemaking process to provide continuity in the flow of advance air cargo security information and serve as a partial stop-gap security measure. CBP would also like to continue to provide pilot participants with the additional opportunity to adjust and test business procedures and operations in preparation for the forthcoming rule.

For these reasons, CBP is extending the ACAS pilot period through July 26, 2018.

FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.

The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.

The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

I. Non-watershed-based studies:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Arkansas is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 15, 2017.

FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.

The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

I. Non-Watershed-Based Studies:

The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.

Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.

The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

Comments Invited

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The ICR documentation will be available at http://www.reginfo.gov upon its submission to OMB. Therefore, in preparation for OMB review and approval of the following information collection, TSA is soliciting comments to—

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;

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

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Title: Security Appointment Center (SAC) Visitor Request Form and Foreign National Vetting Request.

Type of Request: New collection.

OMB Control Number: 1652-XXXX.

Form(s): TSA Form 2802.

Affected Public: Visitors to TSA facilities in the National Capital Region.

Abstract: The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is authorized to protect property owned, occupied, or secured by the Federal Government. See 40 U.S.C. 1315. See also 41 CFR 102-81.15 (requires Federal agencies to be responsible for maintaining security at their own or leased facilities). DHS Instruction Manual 121-01-011-01 (Visitor Management for DHS Headquarters and DHS Component Headquarters Facilities (April 19, 2014)) requires all DHS components to vet visitors using the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) system before allowing them access to agency facilities. The Security Appointment Center (SAC) Visitor Request Form and Foreign National Vetting Request process manages risks posed by individuals entering the building who have not been subject to a criminal history records check. TSA will use the collected information (social security number, date of birth and, if a foreign visitor, passport information) to vet visitors via the NCIC system.

Number of Respondents: 24,702.

Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 412 hours annually.

The Service intends to prepare a draft EIS in accordance with the requirements of NEPA to evaluate the potential impacts on the human environment caused by alternatives to the Deschutes River Basin HCP. The Deschutes River Basin HCP is being prepared in support of a request for an ESA ITP or ITPs authorizing incidental take of listed species caused by covered activities. The potential applicants for the ITP(s) include the City of Prineville, the Arnold Irrigation District, Central Oregon Irrigation District, North Unit Irrigation District, Ochoco Irrigation District, Swalley Irrigation District, Three Sisters Irrigation District, Tumalo Irrigation District, and the Lone Pine Irrigation District in Oregon. These eight irrigation districts (Districts) comprise the DBBC.

We are also announcing the initiation of a public scoping period to engage Federal, Tribal, State, and local governments and the public in the identification of issues and concerns, potential impacts, and possible alternatives to the proposed action for consideration in the draft EIS. The conservation measures in the Deschutes River Basin HCP would be designed to minimize and mitigate impacts caused by the take of covered listed species that may result from the storage, release, diversion and return of irrigation water by the Districts and the City of Prineville.

This notice was prepared pursuant to pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the requirements of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and its implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR 1506.6. The primary purpose of the scoping process is for the public and other agencies to assist in developing the draft EIS by identifying important issues and identifying alternatives that should be considered.

The NMFS is a cooperating agency in the draft EIS process, and intends to adopt the draft EIS to address the impacts of issuing an ITP addressing listed species under its jurisdiction.

Section 9 of the ESA prohibits “take” of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered under section 4 (16 U.S.C. 1538 and 16 U.S.C. 1533, respectively). The ESA implementing regulations extend, under certain circumstances, the prohibition of take to threatened species (50 CFR 17.31). Under section 3 of the ESA, the term “take” means to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). The term “harm” is defined by regulation as “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such acts may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering” (50 CFR 17.3). The term “harass” is defined in the regulations as “an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering” (50 CFR 17.3).

Under section 10(a) of the ESA, the Service may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed fish and wildlife species. “Incidental take” is defined by the ESA as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA contains provisions for issuing ITPs to non-Federal entities for the take of endangered and threatened species, provided the following criteria are met:

• The taking will be incidental;

• The applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impact of such taking;

• The applicant will develop a proposed HCP and ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided;

• The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and

• The applicant will carry out any other measures that the Service may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the HCP.

Regulations governing permits for endangered and threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32.

The Plan Area for the Deschutes River Basin HCP covers approximately 10,700 square miles of land in central Oregon. Bounded by the Cascades Mountains on the west, the Ochoco Mountains on the east, and the Columbia River to the north, the Deschutes River Basin includes six major tributaries above Lake Billy Chinook. Tributaries to the Deschutes River above the lake include the Crooked River, Metolius River, Little Deschutes River, Crescent Creek, Tumalo Creek, and Whychus Creek. Major tributaries of the lower Deschutes River include Shitike Creek, Trout Creek, Warm Springs River, and the White River. The first water diversions in the Deschutes River Basin started in the late 1860s, however, irrigation districts did not start to form until circa 1900.

The eight irrigation districts (Districts) are quasi-municipal corporations formed and operated under Oregon State law to distribute water to irrigators within designated district boundaries. The Districts span Crook, Deschutes, Jefferson, Klamath, and Wasco counties in Oregon. The Districts lie along and utilize the waters of the Deschutes River and its tributaries, including the Little Deschutes River, Crescent Creek, Crooked River, Ochoco Creek, Tumalo Creek, Whychus Creek, and a number of smaller tributaries within the greater Deschutes River Basin. The City of Prineville (City), located in Crook County, is a municipality of about 7,350 residents. The City lies at the confluence of the Crooked River and Ochoco Creek, and has an economy based on agriculture and light industry.

The goals of the proposed Deschutes River Basin HCP are to avoid and minimize incidental take of the covered species associated with the Districts' and the City's activities, and to mitigate the impacts of unavoidable take, primarily by modifying irrigation water storage, release, and diversion operations in the Deschutes River Basin, including the mainstem Deschutes River and its tributaries. The Deschutes River Basin HCP would provide a district-wide permitting approach for the Districts and the City. The proposed term for the Deschutes River Basin HCP and ITP(s) is from 20 to 40 years.

The Districts and the City are seeking incidental take authorization under the ESA for activities that they conduct, permit, or otherwise authorize. The proposed covered activities may include, but are not limited to: Operation and maintenance of storage dams and reservoirs; operation and maintenance of diversions, pumps, and intakes; operation and maintenance of water conveyance and delivery systems; diversion of water; return flow; and conservation measures and associated construction activities.

Covered species under the proposed Deschutes River Basin HCP include threatened and endangered species listed under the ESA, and currently unlisted species that have the potential to become listed during the life of the HCP. The Districts and the City are proposing to seek incidental take coverage for three federally listed species, and two non-listed species. The Deschutes River Basin HCP would provide long-term conservation and management of these species, which are discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs.

The Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) is a native aquatic species endemic to the Pacific Northwest. It was federally listed as threatened under the ESA on September 29, 2014 (79 FR 51658).

The bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) is a member of the genus Char, and is native to Oregon. The bull trout has specific habitat requirements that influence its abundance and distribution. The bull trout is seldom found in waters where temperatures exceed 59 to 64 degrees Fahrenheit. The final listing determination of threatened status for the bull trout in the coterminous United States was made on November 1, 1999 (64 FR 58910).

The steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the Deschutes River Basin is part of the Middle Columbia River Distinct Population Segment that was listed by NMFS as threatened, effective on February 6, 2006 (71 FR 834). However, on January 15, 2013, NMFS issued a final rule that designated the steelhead upstream of the Pelton Round Butte Hydroelectric Project on the Deschutes River as a nonessential experimental population (78 FR 2893). This designation has an expiration date of 12 years from the effective date of the rule. Unlike other anadromous members of the family Salmonidae, steelhead do not necessarily die after spawning and sometimes spawn more than once.

The Districts and the City also propose to cover the following non-listed species under NMFS jurisdiction under the Deschutes River Basin HCP: The sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), and the Middle Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).

For purposes of NEPA compliance, preparation of an EIS is required for actions that are expected or have the potential to significantly impact the human environment (40 CFR 1500-1508).

To determine whether a proposed Federal action would require the preparation of an EIS, the Service must consider two distinct factors: Context and intensity (40 CFR 1508.27, Service and National Marine Fisheries Service HCP Handbook 2016). Context refers to the geographic scale (local, regional, or national) of significance of short and/or long-term effects/impacts of a proposed action. Intensity refers to the severity of the effects/impacts relative to the affected settings, including the degree to which the proposed action affects: an endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat; public health or safety; scientific, historic or cultural resources; or other aspects of the human environment.

In determining whether the preparation of an EIS is warranted, we must also consider the ten components of intensity, as set forth under 40 CFR 1508.27(b):

1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant impact may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial.

2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas.

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial.

5. The degree to which the potential impacts are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.

6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts.

8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the ESA.

10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, state, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.

In this case, and after considering the above factors, the Service has determined that the Deschutes River Basin HCP-ITP action has the potential to significantly impact the human environment for the following reasons:

The Deschutes River Basin encompasses 10,500 square miles in Central Oregon and the Deschutes River is a major tributary to the Columbia River. On that basis, the covered area is of local, regional, and national significance.

The Applicants store, manage, and release water from the Deschutes River and its reservoirs for irrigation and municipal purposes. Hundreds of miles of irrigation conveyance systems are managed by the Applicants. Under the Deschutes River Basin HCP, modernization of these conveyance systems, which is already underway, is a covered activity that is likely to result in water conservation for farmers and listed species, and take decades to complete. Some portions of the conveyance systems have been listed on the National Historic Register, and will require additional analysis under NEPA. The covered activities may affect four ESA-listed species (the Oregon spotted frog, steelhead, spring chinook and the bull trout) and their critical habitat that by virtue of their listings and designations are of local, regional, and national significance. Given the geographic scale of the HCP and the nature and scope of the covered activities and species, the context and intensity of potential adverse and beneficial impacts of implementing the HCP on the human environment are likely to be of local, regional, and national significance.

The Service performed internal NEPA scoping for the Deschutes River Basin HCP-ITP action in close coordination with NMFS as a cooperating agency. During that internal scoping process, Service and NMFS staff reviewed the proposed ITP action and the purpose and need for taking the action, and identified the environmental issues requiring detailed analysis as well as identified connected, similar, and cumulative actions. The internal scoping analysis concluded that the proposed ITP action:

• Involves instream flow and habitat restoration decisions that significantly affect biodiversity and ecosystem functions across a large geographic area;

• Involves management decisions that are significantly controversial;

• Has highly uncertain effects or involve unique or unknown risks to biological, physical or other factors;

• Establishes precedents for future actions with significant effects;

• Will contribute to other individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts;

• Will have positive effects on wetlands, rivers, and ecologically critical areas but may have adverse effects on historic resources (canals) and farmlands;

• May affect some areas covered by the National Historic Preservation Act;

• Will adversely affect endangered or threatened species, their critical habitat, or other non-target species; and

• Will have social or economic impacts interrelated with significant natural or physical environmental effects.

The Service also determined with NMFS that the proposed Deschutes River Basin HCP-ITP action: Is of sufficient size and complexity to warrant an EIS; is similar to previous HCP's issued in the Pacific Northwest that likewise required the preparation of an EIS; and may have significant effects on the human environment. On that basis and in accordance with regulations at 40 CFR 1501.4, 1507.3, and 1508.27, the Service believes preparation of an EIS is warranted. As such, we do not intend to prepare an environmental assessment for this action.

Therefore, before deciding whether to issue an ITP(s) for the Deschutes River Basin HCP, we will prepare a draft EIS to analyze the environmental impacts associated with this action. As noted above, NMFS is a cooperating agency in the draft EIS process, and intends to adopt the draft EIS to address the impacts on the human environment of issuing an ITP(s) addressing listed species under its jurisdiction.

Under NEPA, a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed project is developed and considered in the Service's environmental review document. In the draft EIS, the Service will consider the following alternatives: (1) No action (no ITP issuance); (2) the proposed action, which includes the issuance of take authorizations as described in the proposed Deschutes River Basin HCP; and (3) a range of additional reasonable alternatives. Alternatives considered for analysis in a draft EIS for an HCP may include: Variations in the permit term or permit structure; the level of take allowed; the level, location, or type of minimization, mitigation, or monitoring provided under the HCP; the scope of covered activities; the list of covered species; or a combination of these factors.

The draft EIS will identify and analyze the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of Service authorization of incidental take under permit issuance and of implementing the proposed Deschutes River Basin HCP on biological resources, land uses, utilities, air quality, water resources, cultural resources, socioeconomics and environmental justice, recreation, aesthetics, and other environmental issues that could occur with implementation of each alternative. The Service will also identify measures, consistent with NEPA and other relevant considerations of national policy, to avoid or minimize any significant impacts of the proposed action on the quality of the human environment. Following completion of the draft EIS, the Service will publish a notice of availability and a request for comment on the draft EIS and the applicants' permit application(s), which will include a draft of the proposed Deschutes River Basin HCP.

The primary purpose of the scoping process is for the public to assist the Service, Districts, and the City in developing a draft EIS by identifying important issues and alternatives related to the applicants' proposed action. The scoping meetings will include presentations by the Service, Districts, and the City followed by informal questions and discussions. The Service welcomes written comments from all interested parties in order to ensure we identify a full range of issues and alternatives related to the proposed permit request. The Service requests that comments be specific. In particular, we seek comments on the following:

1. Management issues and goals to be considered in the development of the HCP;

2. Existing environmental conditions in the Districts and the City;

3. Other plans or projects that might be relevant to this proposed project;

4. Permit duration;

5. Areas and specific landforms that should or should not be covered;

6. Biological information concerning species in the proposed plan area;

7. Relevant data concerning these species;

8. Additional information concerning the range, distribution, population size, and population trends of the covered species;

9. Current or planned activities in the Plan Area and their possible impacts on the covered species;

10. Species that should or should not be covered;

11. Covered activities including potential avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures;

12. Monitoring and adaptive management provisions;

13. Funding suggestions; and

14. Alternatives for analysis.

We will accept written comments at the public meetings. You may also submit written comments to the Service at our U.S. mail address, by email, or by fax (see ADDRESSES above). Once the draft EIS and draft HCP are prepared, there will be further opportunity for public comment on the content of these documents through an additional 90-day public comment period.

Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we use in preparing the draft EIS, will become part of the public record and will be available for public inspection by appointment, during regular business hours, at the Service's Bend Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment(s), you should be aware that your entire comment(s)—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment(s) to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Persons needing reasonable accommodations to attend and participate in the public meeting should contact Peter Lickwar (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). To allow sufficient time to process requests, please call no later than August 1, 2017. Information regarding the applicants' proposed action is available in alternative formats upon request.

The environmental review of this project will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the NEPA of 1969 as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), other applicable Federal laws and regulations, and applicable policies and procedures of the Service. This notice is furnished in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.7 of the NEPA regulations to obtain suggestions and information from other agencies and the public on the scope of issues and alternatives to be addressed in the draft EIS.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Cincinnati Art Museum, Cincinnati, OH, that meet the definition of sacred objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

At some time between the mid-1920s and mid-1930s, two cultural items were removed from the Lac du Flambeau Chippewa Reservation in Vilas County, WI. The two cultural items are two wooden pipe stems. The upper section of the first pipe stem (CAM accession number 1988.253) is carved into a spiral shape and trimmed with loom-woven beadwork. The lower section is flat, with a strip of beaver fur at each end. The upper section of the second pipe stem (CAM accession number 1988.256) is carved with spool and ovoid shapes that are decorated with brass tacks. The pipe is trimmed with beaver fur at its center. The lower section is flat with incised, linear abstract designs on one side. At an unknown date, the two pipe stems were acquired by Dr. Bernard S. Mason, along with other objects originating from the Lac du Flambeau Chippewa Reservation. Upon Dr. Mason's death in 1953, ownership of his collection of Native American objects was transferred to John L. Holden. In 1988, Mr. Holden donated a portion of this collection that included the two pipe stems to the Cincinnati Art Museum.

Museum accession, catalogue, and documentary records, as well as consultation with representatives from the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, indicate that the two cultural items are Chippewa, and are from the Lac du Flambeau Chippewa Reservation of Wisconsin. The two objects are illustrated as line drawings in Dr. Mason's book, Crafts of the Woods, South Brunswick and New York: A. S. Barnes and Co, 1973 (originally published in 1939), page 20, Figure 202C and Figure 202D. The pipes, combined with a ceremonial Warrior Drum, comprise an ensemble of sacred objects that are needed by traditional Lac du Flambeau Chippewa religious leaders for the practice of Native American religions by their present-day adherents.

Officials of the Cincinnati Art Museum have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C), the two cultural items described above are specific ceremonial objects needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the two pipe stems and the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Jay Pattison, Chief Registrar, Cincinnati Art Museum, Cincinnati, OH 45202, telephone (513) 639-2909, email [email protected], by August 23, 2017. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the two pipe stems to the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin may proceed.

The Cincinnati Art Museum is responsible for notifying the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the State Historical Society of North Dakota, Bismarck, ND, that meet the definition of sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

On an unknown date, an unknown number of cultural items were removed from an unknown site in an unknown location. In August of 2016, a bison skull was found in the Museum Division storage space. The cultural item was found in a box dating to the 1950s that was used for storage of items in the possession of the State Historical Society of North Dakota (SHSND), but never formally accessioned or cataloged into the museum collection. Museum opinion is that the bison skull was placed in the storage box in the 1950s, but no other provenance is available. There is a label in the box that reads: “Fragments of buffalo skull found on the site of the final Sun Dance held by the Teton Sioux, and believed to be the skull used in that ceremony as the red paint applied to the buffalo skull in the Sun Dance is discernable on the specimen.” The sacred object/object of cultural patrimony is the broken partial skull of an old bison.

The buffalo skull was identified by Standing Rock Sioux of North & South Dakota tribal archeologist Kelly Morgan as belonging to the Teton Sioux and/or Lakota Sioux of the Oceti Sakowin (Seven Council Fires) that make up what is often referred to as the “Sioux Nation.” Their first reservation land was negotiated under the Treaty of Traverse des Sioux in 1851, and then initially reduced under the Treaty of 1858. These treaties were unilaterally abrogated by the United States Government after the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862, and Dakota people were force-marched and ethnically-cleansed from their Minnesota homeland in 1863. In 1873, the Standing Rock Indian reservation was established. The distinctive Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota identity is still pervasive at Standing Rock. The Standing Rock Sioux, as well as all other members of the Oceti Sakowin, practiced the seven sacred rites of the Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota nations. The Sun Dance is the third of the sacred rites, and is still practiced today. Skulls in the Sun Dance are used in the “Dragging of the Skulls” ceremony and as an altar in the dance. The red spot on the top of this bison's skull signifies that the skull was used in a Sun Dance ceremony.

Officials of the State Historical Society of North Dakota have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C), the one cultural item described above is a specific ceremonial object needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(D), the one cultural item described above has ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself, rather than property owned by an individual.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the sacred object/object of cultural patrimony and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Melissa Thompson, State Historical Society of North Dakota, 612 East Boulevard Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58505, telephone (701) 328-2691, email [email protected], by August 23, 2017. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the sacred object/object of cultural patrimony to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota may proceed.

The State Historical Society of North Dakota is responsible for notifying the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota and the Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Museum of Anthropology at Washington State University, Pullman, WA, that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

In 1970, an unknown number of human remains and cultural items were removed from site 45AS8 in Asotin County, WA. Thirteen historic era burials were archeologically excavated from site 45AS8 as part of a highway relocation project. At that time, most of the human remains and associated funerary objects were reburied on the Nez Perce Reservation at the Old Spalding Cemetery in Spalding, ID. In 2013, the remaining 47 (unassociated) funerary objects that were determined to be from 45AS8 were located in storage at the Museum of Anthropology at Washington State University. The 47 unassociated funerary objects are 8 lots of flakes; 2 nails; 3 lots of small unidentifiable bone fragments; 4 lots of glass beads; 23 lots of coffin fragments; 3 lots of metal fragments; and 4 lots of buttons.

Officials of the Museum of Anthropology at Washington State University have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 47 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and Nez Perce Tribe (previously listed as the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho).

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Mary Collins, Director Emeritus, the Museum of Anthropology at Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-4910 telephone (509) 592-6929, email [email protected], by August 23, 2017. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated funerary objects to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and Nez Perce Tribe (previously listed as the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho) may proceed.

The Museum of Anthropology at Washington State University is responsible for notifying the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and Nez Perce Tribe (previously listed as the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho) that this notice has been published.

The purpose of the Plan/DEIS is to allow the NPS to reduce or eliminate impacts to park resources from exotic mountain goats, while reducing potential public safety issues associated with the presence of mountain goats in the Park. Management direction is needed to address resource management and human safety issues resulting from the presence of exotic mountain goats in the Park. This Plan/DEIS evaluates the impacts of the no-action alternative (Alternative A) and three action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, and D). Alternative D is identified as the agency's preferred alternative in the DEIS. Alternative A would involve full implementation of the 2011 Mountain Goat Action Plan, including management of individual mountain goats in visitor use areas according to a continuum of mountain goat-human interactions. Specific management actions could range from hazing to lethal removal of hazardous mountain goats. Alternative B would focus exclusively on the capture of mountain goats within the park and on adjacent Olympic National Forest lands followed by transfer of ownership to Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW). Subsequent translocation would be conducted at the discretion of WDFW to other areas, including portions of the Cascade Mountain Range where mountain goats are native and supplementation of the existing population would further mountain goat conservation efforts. Alternative C would use lethal removal to significantly reduce or eliminate mountain goats from the park and adjacent Olympic National Forest lands. Alternative D would utilize a combination of capture and translocation and lethal removal tools to reduce or eliminate mountain goats from the Park. Capture and translocation would occur in most areas prior to direct reduction activities. Once a point of diminishing returns for capture operations is reached, management would continue using lethal removal activities. The U.S. Forest Service and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife are cooperating agencies on this plan.

How to Comment: You are encouraged to comment on the draft Mountain Goat Management Plan/EIS online at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/olymgoat. You may also mail or hand-deliver your comments to Olympic National Park, Attn: Mountain Goat Management Plan, 600 East Park Ave., Port Angeles, WA 98362. Written comments will also be accepted during scheduled public meetings discussed above. Comments will not be accepted by email or in any other method than those specified above. Comments in any format (hard copy or electronic) submitted on behalf of others will not be accepted. 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.

Abstract: The Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior is responsible for collecting royalties from lessees who produce minerals from leased Federal and Indian lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Under various laws, the Secretary's responsibility is to manage mineral resources production on Federal and Indian lands and the OCS, collect the royalties and other mineral revenues due, and distribute the funds collected. ONRR performs the royalty management functions and assists the Secretary in carrying out the Department's responsibilities. We have posted those laws pertaining to mineral leases on Federal and Indian lands and the OCS at http://www.onrr.gov/Laws_R_D/PubLaws/default.htm.

When a company or an individual enters into a lease to explore, develop, produce, and dispose of minerals from Federal or Indian lands, that company or individual agrees to pay the lessor a share in an amount or value of production from the leased lands. The lessee is required to report various kinds of information to the lessor relative to the disposition of the minerals. Such information is generally available within the records of the lessee or others involved in developing, transporting, processing, purchasing, or selling such minerals. The information collected includes data necessary to ensure that production is accurately valued and that royalties are appropriately paid.

This ICR covers unique reporting circumstances, including (1) cross-lease netting in calculation of late-payment interest; (2) a lessee's designation of a designee; and (3) Tribal permission for recoupment on Indian oil and gas leases.

Regulations at § 1218.54 require ONRR to assess interest on unpaid or underpaid amounts. ONRR distributes these interest revenues to States, Indian Tribes, and the U.S. Treasury based on financial lease distribution information. Current regulations at § 1218.42 provide that an overpayment on a lease or leases may be offset against an underpayment on a different lease or leases to determine the net payment subject to interest when certain conditions are met. This process is called cross-lease netting. The payor must demonstrate that a cross-lease netting exception exists by submitting production reports, pipeline allocation reports, or other similar documentary evidence. This information is necessary in order for ONRR to determine the correct amount of interest that the lessee owes and to ensure that we collect in full all monies owed to the Federal government.

The Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act (RSFA) defines a “lessee” to include both the owner of operating rights and the owner of record title. Under RSFA, owners of operating rights are primarily liable, and owners of lease record title secondarily liable for making royalty and related payments on Federal oil and gas leases (see 30 CFR 1218.52). It is common however, for a payor other than a lessee to make these payments. When a payor makes payments on behalf of a lessee, RSFA section 6(g) requires that the lessee designate the payor as its designee and notify ONRR of its designation in writing. We designed form ONRR-4425, Designation Form for Royalty Payment Responsibility, to request all the information necessary for lessees to comply with these RSFA requirements when choosing to designate an agent to pay for them. We require this information to ensure proper mineral revenue collection.

Overpayments on Tribal Indian leases may be recouped against royalties or other revenues owed in a month under other leases for which that Tribe is a lessor. To do so, lessees must comply with regulations at 30 CFR 12l8.53(b), allowing only lessees with written permission from the Tribe to recoup overpayments on one lease against a different lease for which the Tribe is the lessor. The payor must provide ONRR with a copy of the Tribe's written permission.

We are requesting OMB's approval to continue to collect this information. Not collecting this information would limit the Secretary's ability to discharge the duties of the office and may also result in the loss of royalty payments. Proprietary information submitted is protected, and there are no questions of a sensitive nature included in this information collection.

Title: Collection of Monies Due the Federal Government—30 CFR part 1218.

OMB Control Number: 1012-0008.

Bureau Form Number: Form ONRR-4425.

Frequency: On occasion.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: 35 Federal and Indian lessees.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: 59 hours.

We have not included in our estimates certain requirements performed in the normal course of business, which are considered usual and customary. The following table shows the estimated burden hours by CFR section and paragraph:

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-hour” Cost Burden: We have identified no “non-hour cost” burden associated with this collection of information.

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires each agency to “* * * provide 60-day notice in the Federal Register * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *.” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to (a) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information that ONRR collects; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

The PRA also requires agencies to estimate the total annual reporting “non-hour cost” burden to respondents or record-keepers resulting from the collection of information. If you have costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. You should describe the methods that you use to estimate (1) major cost factors, including system and technology acquisition, (2) expected useful life of capital equipment, (3) discount rate(s), and (4) the period over which you incur costs. Capital and startup costs include, among other items, computers and software that you purchase to prepare for collecting information and monitoring, sampling, and testing equipment, and record-storage facilities. Generally, your estimates should not include equipment or services purchased (i) before October 1, 1995; (ii) to comply with requirements not associated with the information collection; (iii) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the Federal government; or (iv) as part of customary and usual business, or private practices.

We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our ICR submission for OMB approval, including appropriate adjustments to the estimated burden. We will provide a copy of the ICR to you, without charge, upon request. We also will post the ICR at http://www.onrr.gov/Laws_R_D/FRNotices/FRInfColl.htm.

Public Comment Policy: ONRR will post all comments, including names and addresses of respondents at http://www.regulations.gov. Before including Personally Identifiable Information (PII), such as your address, phone number, email address, or other personal information in your comment(s), you should be aware that your entire comment (including PII) may be made available to the public at any time. While you may ask us, in your comment, to withhold PII from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

ONRR Information Collection Coordinator: Armand Southall (303) 231-3221.

The authorities for this action are the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 192), Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1353), Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-382—Dec. 22, 1982), and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Foundation, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Foundation's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Title of Collection: Graduate Research Fellowship Application.

OMB Approval Number: 3145-0023.

Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to extend with revision an information collection for three years.

Abstract: Section 10 of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.), as amended, states that “The Foundation is authorized to award, within the limits of funds made available * * * scholarships and graduate fellowships for scientific study or scientific work in the mathematical, physical, biological, engineering, social, and other sciences at accredited U.S. institutions selected by the recipient of such aid, for stated periods of time.”

The Graduate Research Fellowship Program has two goals:

• To select, recognize, and financially support, early in their careers, individuals with the demonstrated potential to be high achieving scientists and engineers;

• To broaden participation in science and engineering of underrepresented groups, including women, minorities, persons with disabilities, and veterans.

The list of GRFP Awardees recognized by the Foundation may be found via FastLane through the NSF Web site: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/grfp/AwardeeList.do?method=loadAwardeeList. The GRF Program is described in the Solicitation available at: https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2016/nsf16588/nsf16588.pdf.

Estimate of Burden: This is an annual application program providing three years of support to individuals, usable over a five-year fellowship period. The application deadlines are in late October. It is estimated that each submission is averaged to be 12 hours per respondent, which includes three references (on average) for each application. It is estimated that it takes two hours per reference for each applicant.

Respondents: Individuals.

Estimated Number of Responses: 15,000.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 180,000 hours.

Frequency of Responses: Annually.

The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling (202) 551-8090.

1. Each Fund is an open-end or closed-end management investment company registered under the Act and is organized as a business trust under the laws of Massachusetts, or as a series thereof. The Funds have a variety of investment objectives, but each may invest some or all of its assets in fixed-income securities.

2. The Barings Adviser, a member of the MassMutual Financial Group, is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of MassMutual and is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”). The Barings Adviser acts as investment adviser to each of the Barings Funds and as an investment sub-adviser to certain of the MML Funds. BGA serves as a sub-adviser with respect to certain of the Barings Funds, subject to the supervision of the Barings Adviser.

3. The MML Adviser, a member of the MassMutual Financial Group, is a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of MassMutual and is registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. The MML Adviser acts as investment adviser to each of the MML Funds and supervises 32 affiliated or unaffiliated sub-advisers (including the Barings Adviser) with respect to certain MML Funds.

4. Each Jeffries Trading Entity is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Jeffries. Jeffries is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Leucadia National Corporation, a diversified holding company. JEFLLC is a broker-dealer registered with the Commission pursuant to section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and JIL is authorized and regulated by the UK Financial Conduct Authority. Each of JEFLLC and JIL conducts a diversified, full service securities business, including (but not limited to) as a dealer and underwriter for fixed-income securities. JEFLLC is a primary dealer in U.S. government securities and JIL is a primary dealer in government securities of Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and the United Kingdom. JLCP is a loan trading entity active in the loan trading market.

5. JFIN, the MassMutual/Jeffries joint venture, structures, underwrites and syndicates senior secured loans to corporate borrowers. JFIN also purchases syndicated loans in the secondary market. JFIN operates separately from the “Jeffries Entities” (defined as Jeffries or any other entity that is under common control with JFIN that is not controlled by or under common control with MassMutual) and the “MassMutual Entities” (defined as MassMutual, the Advisers, or any other MassMutual entity that is not JFIN). Jeffries has no interest in, and will not control (within the meaning of Section 2(a)(9) of the Act) directly or indirectly, the MassMutual Entities. MassMutual has no interest in, and will not control (within the meaning of Section 2(a)(9) of the Act) directly or indirectly the Jeffries Entities.

6. The Jeffries Trading Entities and the Advisers operate as separate, independent businesses. The Jeffries Trading Entities, on the one hand, and the Advisers, on the other, have separate ownership, and each has its own separate officers and employees, is separately capitalized and maintains its own separate books and records and physically separate offices. No director, officer, or employee of the Funds or the Advisers is or will be a director, officer or employee of the Jeffries Trading Entities. Officers and employees of each Adviser may not communicate confidential and non-public investment-related information outside of the Adviser, except in connection with a conflicts clearing process set up for that purpose. There is not, and will not be, any express or implied understanding between any Jeffries Trading Entity and any Adviser that an Adviser will cause a Fund to enter into Securities Transactions or give preference to the Jeffries Trading Entity in effecting such transactions between the Fund and the Jeffries Trading Entity. All decisions by the Funds to enter into portfolio transactions are determined solely by their respective Advisers in accordance with the investment objectives of the Fund.

7. As more fully described in the application, the Securities Transactions include: (i) The purchase of fixed-income securities by a Fund in underwritten offerings in which a Jeffries Trading Entity is a manager or member of the underwriting syndicate, and where a Fund purchases underwritten fixed-income securities from the Jeffries Trading Entity; (ii) the purchase by a Fund of fixed-income securities from, or the sale of fixed-income securities to, a Jeffries Trading Entity, in transactions in which the Jeffries Trading Entity is acting as a principal; and (iii) participation in certain specific arrangements or transactions that a Fund may participate in with a Jeffries Trading Entity (including tender option bond trust structures (“TOBs”), certain asset-backed or mortgage-backed securitization structures, loan syndicates, and investments in the same company.

8. If the Jeffries Trading Entities were considered to be second-tier affiliates of the Funds, a Securities Transaction would potentially violate one or more of section 17(a) or section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 thereunder. Applicants assert that the inability of the Funds to execute Securities Transactions involving the Jeffries Trading Entities imposes a hardship on the Funds by prohibiting the Funds from engaging in Securities Transactions with a dealer or trader with a substantial market share in certain fixed income markets and by preventing the Funds from purchasing or selling securities that the Funds would have purchased or sold in transactions in which a Jeffries Trading Entity has some involvement.

1. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) and section 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption from section 17(a) of the Act and under section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 thereunder permitting certain joint transactions. Section 6(c) of the Act, in relevant part, authorizes the Commission to exempt any person or transaction, or any class or classes of persons or transactions, from any provision or provisions of the Act, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provision of the Act. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to issue an exemptive order if the Commission finds that the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any persons concerned, and the proposed transaction is consistent with the policy of each registered investment company and the general purposes of the Act.

2. Section 17(a) of the Act generally prohibits an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of such a person, acting as principal, from selling to or purchasing from such registered company any security or other property and from borrowing money or other property from such investment company. Due to their second-tier affiliation, any Securities Transaction by the Funds involving Jeffries Trading Entities would be subject to section 17(a) of the Act where it constitutes a principal transaction between them. Applicants note that the primary purpose of section 17(a) is to prevent a person with the power to control an investment company from engaging in self-dealing to the detriment of the investment company's shareholders, and contend that when the person acting on behalf of an investment company has no direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a party to a principal transaction, then the abuse that section 17(a) is designed to prevent is not present. Applicants submit that no risk of self-dealing would present itself in any Securities Transaction because the Jeffries Trading Entities will have no influence over portfolio decisions by the Advisers, and the Advisers would receive no unfair pecuniary advantage from engaging in the Securities Transactions with the Jeffries Trading Entities.

3. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 thereunder prohibit any affiliated person of or principal underwriter for a registered investment company or any second-tier affiliate, acting as principal, from effecting any transaction in connection with any joint enterprise or other joint arrangement or profit sharing plan in which the investment company participates, unless an application regarding the joint transaction has been filed with the Commission and granted by order. Rule 17d-1 provides that, in passing upon applications for such an order, the Commission will consider whether the participation of a registered investment company in a joint transaction is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of the other applicants. Due to their second-tier affiliation, any Securities Transaction by the Funds involving Jeffries Trading Entities would be subject to section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 thereunder where it constitutes a joint transaction between them. Applicants note that section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 thereunder were intended to prohibit abuses arising from conflicts of interest where rather than being on opposite sides of a transaction, an investment company and its affiliates share “some element of combination” in a transaction. Applicants submit that in no event will the Jeffries Trading Entities have the ability to influence the decisions of the Advisers on behalf of the Funds, and that participation by the Funds in such transactions with the Jeffries Trading Entities would be on a basis similar to the Jeffries Trading Entities, unless any difference is related to the differing nature of their participation in the transaction.JY3.

4. Applicants submit that the circumstances under which the Securities Transactions would be conducted, including in particular the proposed conditions for the order (detailed below) satisfy the statutory standards for relief. Applicants contend that the “structural” conditions are intended to assure that the Advisers and the Funds continue to operate independently of, and free of any undue influence by, Jeffries and the Jeffries Trading Entities, while the “transactional” conditions are designed to assure that the terms of the individual transactions are fair from the perspective of the Funds. Applicants further contend that: (i) The Securities Transactions are reasonable and fair and do not involve the risk of overreaching due to the independence of the Jeffries Trading Entities from the Advisers; (ii) the Fund's participation in Joint Transactions will be on a basis no less advantageous than that of similarly situated trading entities due to the complete separation of the Advisers from the Jeffries Trading Entities and the inability of the Jeffries Trading Entities to influence the Advisers; (iii) the order would be appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the policies of the Funds, and that prohibiting the Funds from engaging in Securities Transactions involving the Jeffries Trading Entities would harm the interests of shareholders of the Funds by preventing the Adviser from investing in a way which is most beneficial to the shareholders; and (iv) the Securities Transactions are consistent with the purposes of the Act and the protection of investors, as evidenced by the independence of the businesses of MassMutual and Jeffries and the adoption of procedures designed to ensure that the terms of particular Securities Transactions involving the Jeffries Trading Entities are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching.

Applicants agree that the order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:

1. Jeffries will control none of the Advisers or the Funds or any principal underwriter for the Funds, directly or indirectly, within the meaning of Section 2(a)(9) of the Act and Jeffries will not exercise, or attempt to exercise, control over any Fund. The order will remain in effect only so long as MassMutual, or such other entity no controlling, controlled by or under common control with Jeffries, primarily controls the Advisers.

2. The Jeffries Trading Entities will not directly or indirectly consult with MassMutual, the Advisers or any portfolio manager of the Advisers concerning securities purchases or sales or the selection of a broker or dealer for any Securities Transaction placed or to be placed on behalf of a Fund, or otherwise seek to influence the choice of broker or dealer for any Securities Transaction by a Fund other than in the normal course of sales activities of the same nature that are being carried out during the same time period with respect to unaffiliated institutional clients of the Jeffries Trading Entity.

3. No officer, director or employee of JFIN will directly or indirectly seek to influence in any way the terms of any Securities Transaction covered by the order.

4. The Advisers and the Jeffries Trading Entities will operate as separate organizations, with separate capitalization, separate books and records, separate officers and employees, and physically separate offices. The Jeffries Trading Entities will adopt, and implement, policies and that prohibit the Jeffries Trading Entities from (i) linking any approval or action relating to JFIN to any action by any Fund or by any Adviser relating to any Fund or (ii) using the existence of JFIN as a basis for seeking to persuade any Fund or Adviser to engage in business with the Jeffries Trading Entity. The Funds have adopted policies designed to keep information about their holdings and transactions on a confidential basis, prior to any public disclosures, except in connection with the ordinary course of business as permitted by the portfolio holdings disclosure policies approved by the Funds' directors and involving communications of the same nature as are being made during the same period to unaffiliated trading partners of the Funds. Pursuant to these policies, the Advisers will designate information regarding investment advisory and portfolio execution matters relating to the Funds as information that may or may not be communicated between JFIN, on one hand, and the Advisers, on the other hand, prior to any public disclosure.

5. The Jeffries Trading Entities will not adopt any compensation scheme any component of which is based on (i) a factor that treats the Funds differently than unaffiliated counterparties or (ii) the amount of business done by the Funds with the Jeffries Trading Entities, except to the extent such business might affect indirectly the profits or losses of the Jeffries Trading Entities.

6. The respective legal/compliance departments of the Advisers and the Jeffries Trading Entities will prepare guidelines for their respective personnel to make certain that Securities Transactions effected pursuant to the order comply with its conditions, and that the respective Advisers and Jeffries Trading Entities maintain an arms-length relationship. The respective compliance departments of the Advisers and Jeffries Trading Entities will monitor periodically the activities of the Advisers and Jeffries Trading Entities, respectively, to make certain that the conditions to the order are met.

With respect to each Securities Transaction entered into or effected pursuant to the order:

1. Each Fund's Board, including a majority of its disinterested directors/trustees (the “Necessary Majority”), shall approve, and the Fund shall implement, procedures governing all transactions pursuant to the order and the Fund's Board shall no less frequently than quarterly review all such transactions and receive and review a report of those transactions. Such report, which will be prepared by the Fund's Adviser, and reviewed and approved by the Fund's Chief Compliance Officer, will indicate for each transaction that the conditions of the order have been satisfied, and will include a discussion of any significant changes in the volume, type or terms of transactions between the relevant Fund and the relevant Jeffries Trading Entity, the reasons for these changes, and a determination that such changes are appropriate. In addition, annually and prior to entering into a Securities Transaction with a Jeffries Trading Entity that no Fund has previously traded with, the Board will consider (i) whether the level of Securities Transactions with Jeffries Trading Entities is appropriate and (ii) whether continued reliance on the order in any applicable category of fixed-income instruments is appropriate in light of the need of the Funds to have the Jeffries Trading Entities available as trading counterparties, as evidenced by, among other things, the aggregate market share of the Jeffries Trading Entities in each such category.

2. For each transaction, the Advisers will adhere to a “best execution” standard and will consider only the interests of the Funds and will not take into account the impact of a Fund's investment decision on the Jeffries Trading Entities or their affiliates. Before entering into any such transaction, the Adviser will determine that the transaction is consistent with the investment objectives and policies of the Fund and is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders.

3. Each Fund will (i) for so long as the order is relied upon, maintain and preserve in an easily accessible place a written copy of the procedures and conditions (and any modifications thereto) that are described herein, and (ii) maintain and preserve for a period of not less than six years form the end of the fiscal year in which any Securities Transaction in which the Fund's Adviser knows that both a Jeffries Trading Entity and the Fund directly or indirectly have an interest occurs, the first two years in an easily accessible place, a written record of each such transaction setting forth a description of the security purchased or sold by the Fund, a description of the Jeffries Trading Entity's interest or role in the transaction, the terms of the transaction, and the information or materials upon which the determination was made that each such transaction was made in accordance with the procedures and conditions set forth in the application.

4. Except for Securities Transactions involving repurchase agreements and variable rate demand notes, before any secondary market principal transaction in fixed income securities is entered into between a Fund and a Jeffries Trading Entity, the Fund's Adviser will obtain a competitive quotation for the same securities (or in the case of securities for which quotations for the same securities are not available, a competitive quotation for securities with substantially identical maturities, credit risk and repayment terms (including floating or fixed-rate coupons, attached options, or any other provisions that affect the expected size or timing of the payments from the securities) as the securities to be purchases or sold) from at least two unaffiliated market counter-parties that are in a position to quote favorable market prices. For each such transaction, the Adviser will determine, based upon the quotations and such other relevant information (such as available transaction prices and any other information regarding the value of securities) as is reasonably available to the Adviser, that the price available from the Jeffries Trading Entity is at least as favorable as that available from other sources.

a. With respect to each such transaction involving repurchase agreements, a Fund will enter into such agreements only where the Adviser has determined, based upon relevant information reasonably available to the Adviser, that the income to be earned from the repurchase agreement is at least equal to that available from other sources. Before any repurchase agreements are entered into pursuant to the exemption, the Fund or the Adviser must obtain competitive quotations from at least two unaffiliated dealers with respect to repurchase agreements comparable to the type of repurchase agreement involved, except that if quotations are unavailable from two such dealers, only one other competitive quotations is required.

b. With respect to each such transaction involving variable rate demand notes for which dealer quotes are not ordinarily available, a Fund will only undertake purchases and sales where the Adviser has determined, based on relevant information reasonably available to the Adviser, that the income earned from the variable rate demand note is at least equal to that of variable rate demand notes of comparable quality that are available from other sources.

5. With respect to securities offered in a primary market underwritten transaction, a Fund will undertake such purchase from a Jeffries Trading Entity only where the Adviser has determined, based upon relevant information reasonably available to the Adviser, that the securities were purchased at a price that is no more than the price paid by each other purchaser of securities from the Jeffries Trading Entity or other members of the underwriting syndicate in that offering or in any concurrent offering of the securities, and on the same terms as such other purchasers (except in the case of an offering conducted under the laws of a country other than the United States, for any rights to purchase that are required by law to be granted to existing securities holders of the issuer).

6. In the case of an arrangement regarding a tender option bond trust for which a Jeffries Trading Entity acts as a liquidity provider or remarketing agent and owns an interest (or may own an interest as a result of such capacity):

a. (i) The Necessary Majority of the Fund's Board will adopt procedures designed to assure that it is in the best interests of the Fund to participate in any such arrangements. Such procedures will take into consideration, among other things, the terms of the arrangement, the nature of the respective interests in the trusts that may be held by the Jeffries Trading Entity and the Funds, and the circumstances under which the Jeffries Trading Entity may cause termination of the trust and the transfer of the underlying bonds back to the Fund; and (ii) where the Jeffries Trading Entity owns the residual interest and a Fund owns a floating rate interest: (1) The Fund must be eligible to participate in any discretionary tender on the same basis as any similarly situated holder of floating rate interests; (2) the Fund must participate in any mandatory tender on the same basis as each similarly situated holder; and (3) less than 50% of the floating rate interests must be owned by Funds (and other discretionary accounts) managed by the Fund's Adviser.

b. Before any such arrangements are entered into pursuant to the exemption, where the Fund holds the residual interest, the Fund or the Adviser must obtain competitive quotations from at least two unaffiliated institutions with respect to fees charged by such institutions for acting as liquidity provider or remarketing agent, except that if quotations are unavailable from two such institutions, only one other competitive quotation is required. Any fees paid to the Jeffries Trading Entity as liquidity provider or remarketing agent will be no greater than the lowest of such quotations, unless the Board finds that such difference is justified by a corresponding difference in the nature of the services provided.

7. With respect to asset-backed securities or mortgage-backed securities that are newly issued by special purpose entities sponsored by a Jeffries Trading Entity (or an affiliate) under circumstances in which both the following are true: (i) The residual interest in the special purpose entity is owned directly or indirectly by the Jeffries Trading Entity (or an affiliate), and (ii) the Jeffries Trading Entity (or an affiliate) acts as the servicer of assets, purchases of such securities will be made by a Fund only where, based on relevant information that is reasonably available to the Adviser, the Adviser believes that, upon the close of the transaction, Funds (and other discretionary advisory accounts) managed by the Adviser will purchase less than 50% of the dollar amount of securities of each class acquired by the Fund in the aggregate, and the Fund participates in each such class on the same terms as other purchasers of that class.

8. With respect to a syndicated loan facility in which a Fund and a Jeffries Trading Entity participate in a manner that might otherwise be prohibited by section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 thereunder, (a) the participation by the Fund and the Jeffries Trading Entity will involve no coordination between the Fund and the Jeffries Trading Entity beyond that of a type the Jeffries Trading Entity engages in with other unaffiliated participants in such facility, (b) the terms of the Fund's participation in the facility (to the extent within the knowledge and control of the Jeffries Trading Entity) will be on a basis no less advantageous than that of other similarly situated participants (i.e., the Fund will receive the same priority, security, interest rate and fees as other participants in the same tranche or other portion of the loan in which the Fund is a participant), except to the extent such difference is related to services performed with respect to the facility or their role in the facility and (c) in the case of the primary syndication of a loan facility where the Jeffries Trading Entity is lead agent with primary responsibility for structuring, arranging or placing such facility, the Fund will participate in the facility only where, based on relevant information that is reasonably available to the Adviser, the Adviser believes that, upon conclusion of allocations to holders of record in the primary syndication of the facility, less than 50% of the participants will be held by Funds (and other discretionary advisory accounts) managed by the Adviser.

9. With respect to situations in which a Fund and a Jeffries Trading Entity (or an affiliate) have invested in the same company and that might otherwise be prohibited by section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 thereunder (other than a syndicated loan transaction, which is subject to Transactional Condition (8) above), (a) the Fund's and the Jeffries Trading Entity's (or affiliate's) investment will involve no coordination between the Jeffries Trading Entity (or an affiliate) and the Fund beyond that of a type the Jeffries Trading Entity (or an affiliate) engages in with other unaffiliated investors in such company and (b) the Fund will participate or invest in a type or class of securities (e.g., equity securities) of the company only where, based on relevant information that is reasonably available to the Adviser, the Adviser believes that, upon the close of the investment transaction, less than 50% of the dollar amount of the securities of such type or class will be owned by Funds (and other discretionary advisory accounts) managed by the Adviser.

The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling (202) 551-8090.

1. The Adviser will serve as the investment adviser to the Subadvised Series pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with the Trust (the “Investment Management Agreement”).1 The Adviser will provide the Subadvised Series with continuous and comprehensive investment management services, subject to the supervision of, and policies established by, the board of trustees of the Trust (“Board”). The Investment Management Agreement permits the Adviser, subject to the approval of the Board, to delegate to one or more sub-advisers (each, a “Sub-Adviser” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) the responsibility to provide the day-to-day portfolio investment management of each Subadvised Series, subject to the supervision and direction of the Adviser.2 The primary responsibility for managing each Subadvised Series will remain vested in the Adviser. The Adviser will hire, evaluate, allocate assets to and oversee the Sub-Advisers, including determining whether a Sub-Adviser should be terminated, at all times subject to the authority of the Board.

2. Applicants request an exemption to permit the Adviser, subject to Board approval, to hire certain Sub-Advisers pursuant to Sub-Advisory Agreements and materially amend existing Sub-Advisory Agreements without obtaining the shareholder approval required under section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.3 Applicants also seek an exemption from the Disclosure Requirements to permit a Subadvised Series to disclose (as both a dollar amount and a percentage of the Subadvised Series' net assets): (a) The aggregate fees paid to the Adviser and any Wholly-Owned Sub-Adviser; (b) the aggregate fees paid to Non-Affiliated Sub-Advisers; and (c) the fee paid to each Affiliated Sub-Adviser (collectively, “Aggregate Fee Disclosure”).

3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application. Such terms and conditions provide for, among other safeguards, appropriate disclosure to Subadvised Series shareholders and notification about sub-advisory changes and enhanced Board oversight to protect the interests of the Subadvised Series' shareholders.

4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or any rule thereunder, if such relief is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants believe that the requested relief meets this standard because, as further explained in the application, the Investment Management Agreements will remain subject to shareholder approval while the role of the Sub-Advisers is substantially similar to that of individual portfolio managers, so that requiring shareholder approval of Sub-Advisory Agreements would impose unnecessary delays and expenses on the Subadvised Series. Applicants believe that the requested relief from the Disclosure Requirements meets this standard because it will improve the Adviser's ability to negotiate fees paid to the Sub-Advisers that are more advantageous for the Subadvised Series.

The objective of the debt collection activities is to obtain immediate repayment or arrive at a satisfactory arrangement for future repayment of debts owed to the Government. SBA uses the financial information provided by the debtor on Form 770 in making a determination regarding the compromise of such debts and other liquidation proceedings including litigation by the Agency and/or the Department of Justice.

SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.

(1) Title: Financial Statement of Debtor.

Description of Respondents: SBA Lenders.

Form Number: SBA Form 770.

Total Estimated Annual Responses: 5,000.

Total Estimated Annual Hour Burden: 5,000.

Lenders requesting SBA to purchase the guaranty portion of a loan are required to supply the Agency with a certified transcript of the loan account. This form is uniform and convenient means for lenders to report and certify loan accounts to purchase by SBA. The Agency uses the information to determine date of loan default and whether Lender disbursed and serviced the loan according to Loan Guaranty agreement.

SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.

(1) Title: Lender's Transcript of Account.

Description of Respondents: SBA Lenders.

Form Number: SBA Form 1149.

Total Estimated Annual Responses: 15,000.

Total Estimated Annual Hour Burden: 30,000.

The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being or have been carried-out by UDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated January 17, 2017 and executed by FHWA and UDOT. Notice is hereby given that the UDOT has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the I-80 and State Street Interchange project in the State of Utah. This project proposes to replace the existing I-80 and State Street interchange located in the City of South Salt Lake, Salt Lake County, Utah. The project consists of the following improvements: Construct a Main Street westbound on-ramp with a westbound frontage road between State Street and Main Street (interchange configuration to remain similar to existing configuration on the south side); Widen I-80 structure and add additional lanes on State Street under structure; Construct free-flow right-turn lane on the eastbound off-ramp; Eliminate right-turn on red light for the eastbound on-ramp; and Realign curb so all traffic uses striped lanes (frontage road access allowed from ramp lanes) for the eastbound on-ramp. These improvements were identified in the Final Environmental Impact Statement as Alternative 3N—Split Diamond at Main Street, North Side Only. The actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the project (Final Environmental Impact Statement I-80 and State Street Interchange in South Salt Lake City, Utah, Project No. F-180-3[180]123), approved on July 18, 2017, in the UDOT Record of Decision (ROD) for the project (Utah Department of Transportation Record of Decision for I-80 and State Street Interchange in South Salt Lake City, Utah) issued on July 18, 2017, and in other documents in the UDOT project records. The FEIS, ROD, and other project records are available by contacting UDOT at the address provided above. The UDOT FEIS and ROD can be viewed and downloaded from the project Web site at http://www.udot.utah.gov/i80statestreet/.

This notice applies to the EIS and ROD, the Section 4(f) Determination, the NHPA Section 106 Review, and all other Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:

1. General: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321-4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109 and 23 U.S.C. 128].

2. Air: Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q].

3. Land: Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303; 23 U.S.C. 138]; Landscaping and Scenic Enhancement (Wildflowers) [23 U.S.C. 319].

4. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 and Section 1536]; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661-667d]; Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 U.S.C. 703-712].

5. Historic and Cultural Resources: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470f]; Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1977 [16 U.S.C. 470aa-470mm]; Archeological and Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 469-469c].

6. Noise: Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 [Pub. L. 91-605, 84 Stat. 1713].

7. Executive Orders: E.O. 11593 Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Resources; E.O. 13287 Preserve America.

The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws and regulations for this project are being or have been carried-out by UDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated January 17, 2017 and executed by FHWA and UDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that UDOT has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the US-89; 11400 South to 10600 South project in the State of Utah. This project proposes to improve US-89 (State Street) from 11400 South to 10600 South to address traffic congestion located in the Cities of Sandy and Draper, Salt Lake County, Utah. The project consists of widening State Street from five to seven lanes and adding (1) a second southbound to westbound right-turn lane at the State Street and 11400 South intersection, (2) a traffic signal at the Scheels driveway, and (3) a raised median on select sections of State Street to limit left-turns. These improvements were identified in the Environmental Assessment for the project. The actions by UDOT and the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project (US-89; 11400 South to 10600 South Environmental Assessment in Salt Lake County, Utah, Project No. F-0089(375)364), approved on July 18, 2017, in the UDOT Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the project (Utah Department of Transportation Finding of No Significant Impact for US-89; 11400 South to 10600 South in Salt Lake County, Utah) issued on July 18, 2017, and in other documents in the UDOT project records. The EA, FONSI, and other project records are available by contacting UDOT at the address provided above. The EA and FONSI can be viewed and downloaded from the project Web site at https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:0:::1:T,V:4845.

This notice applies to the EA, the FONSI, the Section 4(f) Determination, the NHPA Section 106 Review, and all other UDOT and Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to the following laws (including their implementing regulations):