Federal Register Vol. 82, No.148,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 148 (August 3, 2017)

Page Range36077-36317
FR Document

82_FR_148
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 36129 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 36176 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 6.1, Days and Hours of Business, To Clarify the Trading Hours for Options on Index-Linked Exchangeable NotesPDF
82 FR 36136 - Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations and/or Amendments To Terminate Uses; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 36132 - Nominations to the Augmented Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC); Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 36184 - Decision That Certain Nonconforming Motor Vehicles Are Eligible for ImportationPDF
82 FR 36137 - Revised Dates for Comment Periods for the November 2017 FIFRA Scientific Advisory PanelPDF
82 FR 36185 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Revision; Comment Request; Comptroller's Licensing ManualPDF
82 FR 36149 - Receipt of Notice That a Patent Infringement Complaint Was Filed Against a Biosimilar ApplicantPDF
82 FR 36148 - Child-Resistant Packaging Statements in Drug Product Labeling; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 36102 - Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; 2017 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for the South Atlantic Other Jacks Complex (Lesser Amberjack, Almaco Jack, and Banded Rudderfish)PDF
82 FR 36150 - B. Braun Medical, Inc.; Withdrawal of Approval of Three New Drug Applications and One Abbreviated New Drug ApplicationPDF
82 FR 36111 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization ProgramPDF
82 FR 36090 - Cyclaniliprole; Pesticide Tolerances and Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
82 FR 36135 - Registration Review; Draft Human Health and/or Ecological Risk Assessments for Benfluralin, Bromuconazole, Carbaryl, Clodinafop-propargyl, Deltamethrin, Diflufenzopyr, Esfenvalerate, Lufenuron, and Mepiquat Chloride/Mepiquat Pentaborate; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 36086 - Ethaboxam; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
82 FR 36138 - Pesticide Maintenance Fee: Notice of Receipt of Requests to Voluntarily Cancel Certain Pesticide RegistrationsPDF
82 FR 36157 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air ActPDF
82 FR 36156 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension Without Change, of a Previously Approved Collection InfraGard Membership Application and ProfilePDF
82 FR 36155 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection Friction Ridge Cards: Arrest and Institution FD-249; Applicant FD-258; Personal Identification FD-353; FBI Standard Palm Print FD-884; Supplemental Finger and Palm Print FD-884aPDF
82 FR 36129 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 36128 - Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 36157 - 187th Meeting of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit PlansPDF
82 FR 36152 - Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC)PDF
82 FR 36182 - Norfolk Southern Railway Company-Abandonment Exemption-in Atlanta, Ga.PDF
82 FR 36308 - Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 2018-19 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals; Notice of MeetingsPDF
82 FR 36124 - Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015PDF
82 FR 36122 - Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016PDF
82 FR 36132 - Chasm Hydro, Inc.; ECOsponsible, LLC; Notice of Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
82 FR 36126 - Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016PDF
82 FR 36162 - New Postal ProductsPDF
82 FR 36131 - WBI Energy Transmission Inc.; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Valley Expansion ProjectPDF
82 FR 36130 - Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Mountaineer Xpress and Gulf Xpress ProjectsPDF
82 FR 36129 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License to VICIS, Inc.; Seattle, WAPDF
82 FR 36180 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Supplemental Questions for Visa ApplicantsPDF
82 FR 36118 - Announcement of Requirements and Registration for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Innovations in Food and Agricultural Science and Technology (I-FAST) Prize CompetitionPDF
82 FR 36143 - Agency Information Collection ActivitiesPDF
82 FR 36182 - Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Hino Motors Manufacturing U.S.A., Inc.PDF
82 FR 36101 - Commercial Driver's License Standards: Regulatory Guidance Concerning the Issuance of Commercial Learner's PermitsPDF
82 FR 36114 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 36161 - Information Collection: NRC Form 536, “Operator Licensing Examination Data”PDF
82 FR 36146 - Vaccines Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) 2.0 FormPDF
82 FR 36144 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
82 FR 36147 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
82 FR 36178 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
82 FR 36155 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Federal Firearms License (FFL) RENEWAL Application-ATF F 8 (5310.11) Part 11PDF
82 FR 36164 - Change in Rates and Classes of General Applicability for Competitive ProductsPDF
82 FR 36130 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 36153 - Certain Motorized Self-Balancing Vehicles; Commission Determination To Review-in-Part an Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; on Review, To Vacate One Portion of the Initial Determination and Take No Position on One Issue; and Affirmance of the Finding of No Violation and Termination of the InvestigationPDF
82 FR 36154 - Furfuryl Alcohol From China; DeterminationPDF
82 FR 36164 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 36159 - Proposed Revision to Existing Approved Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 36188 - Quarterly Publication of Individuals, Who Have Chosen To Expatriate, as Required by Section 6039GPDF
82 FR 36165 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 36125 - Meeting of the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 36163 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 36151 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 36127 - Meeting of the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 36150 - Findings of Research MisconductPDF
82 FR 36117 - Notice of Proposed New Fee SitePDF
82 FR 36163 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 36115 - West Virginia Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 36212 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
82 FR 36116 - Huron-Manistee Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 36117 - West Virginia Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 36116 - Fresno and Madera Counties Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 36115 - Davy Crockett-Sam Houston Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 36168 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Alter the Exchange's Fee Schedule for the Short Interest ReportPDF
82 FR 36165 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees in the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division Clearing Rules and the EPN RulesPDF
82 FR 36172 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a New Type of MIAX Express Interface Port Known as a Purge Port, To Amend MIAX Options Rule 519C, Mass Cancellation of Trading Interest, To Adopt a New Purge Message, and To Amend Its Fee Schedule To Adopt Fees for Purge PortsPDF
82 FR 36214 - Proposed Exemptions From Certain Prohibited Transaction RestrictionsPDF
82 FR 36158 - Comment Request for Information Collection for Form ETA-9035, Labor Condition Application for Nonimmigrant Workers (OMB Control Number 1205-0310), Revision of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
82 FR 36144 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
82 FR 36238 - Medicare Program; Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Prospective Payment System for Federal Fiscal Year 2018PDF
82 FR 36105 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Boothville, LAPDF
82 FR 36078 - Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Mosinee, WIPDF
82 FR 36103 - Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Pueblo, COPDF
82 FR 36077 - Establishment of Class E Airspace, and Amendment of Class E Airspace; St. George, UTPDF
82 FR 36095 - National Priorities ListPDF
82 FR 36106 - National Priorities ListPDF
82 FR 36080 - Schedule for Rating Disabilities; Dental and Oral ConditionsPDF

Issue

82 148 Thursday, August 3, 2017 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Forest Service

See

National Institute of Food and Agriculture

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36114-36115 2017-16334 2017-16337
Alcohol Tobacco Firearms Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Firearms License RENEWAL Application, 36155 2017-16330 Army Army Department NOTICES Exclusive Patent Licenses: VICIS, Inc.; Seattle, WA, 36129-36130 2017-16345 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36144-36148 2017-16332 2017-16333 Vaccines Adverse Event Reporting System 2.0 Form, 36146-36147 2017-16335 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services RULES Medicare Program: Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Prospective Payment System for Federal Fiscal Year 2018, 36238-36305 2017-16291 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 36129 2017-16432 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Comptroller's Licensing Manual, 36185-36188 2017-16381 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

See

Navy Department

Employee Benefits Employee Benefits Security Administration NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans, 36157-36158 2017-16361 Proposed Exemptions from Certain Prohibited Transaction Restrictions, 36214-36235 2017-16295 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36158-36159 2017-16293 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES National Priorities List, 36095-36100 2017-16172 Pesticide Tolerances: Ethaboxam, 36086-36090 2017-16371 Pesticide Tolerances; Exemptions: Cyclaniliprole, 36090-36095 2017-16375 PROPOSED RULES National Priorities List, 36106-36111 2017-16171 NOTICES Meetings: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Scientific Advisory Panel; Correction, 36137-36138 2017-16383 Pesticide Maintenance Fee: Requests to Voluntarily Cancel Certain Registrations, 36138-36143 2017-16370 Pesticide Product Registrations: Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations, 36136-36137 2017-16386 Registration Reviews: Draft Human Health and/or Ecological Risk Assessments for Benfluralin, Bromuconazole, Carbaryl, Clodinafop-propargyl, Deltamethrin, Diflufenzopyr, Esfenvalerate, Lufenuron, and Mepiquat Chloride/Mepiquat Pentaborate, 36135-36136 2017-16372 Requests for Nominations: Augmented Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals, 36132-36134 2017-16385 Equal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36143-36144 2017-16340 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Amendment of Class D and E Airspace: Mosinee, WI, 36078-36080 2017-16284 Establishment and Amendment of Class E Airspace: St. George, UT, 36077-36078 2017-16282 PROPOSED RULES Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace: Pueblo, CO, 36103-36105 2017-16283 Establishment of Class E Airspace: Boothville, LA, 36105-36106 2017-16285 Federal Bureau Federal Bureau of Investigation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36155-36156 2017-16364 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: InfraGard Membership Application and Profile, 36156-36157 2017-16365 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Valley Expansion Project, 36131-36132 2017-16347 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Mountaineer XPress Project; Gulf XPress Project, 36130-36131 2017-16346 License Transfers; Applications: Chasm Hydro, Inc.; ECOsponsible, LLC, 36132 2017-16350 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration RULES Commercial Driver's License Standards: Regulatory Guidance Concerning the Issuance of Commercial Learner's Permits, 36101 2017-16338 NOTICES Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Exemption Applications: Hino Motors Manufacturing U.S.A., Inc., 36182-36184 2017-16339 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 36144 2017-16292 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Migratory Bird Hunting: Proposed 2018-19 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals; Notice of Meetings, 36308-36317 2017-16353 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Guidance: Child-Resistant Packaging Statements in Drug Product Labeling, 36148-36149 2017-16379 Patent Infringement Complaints Filed Against a Biosimilar Applicant, 36149-36150 2017-16380 Withdrawal of New Drug Applications Approvals: B. Braun Medical, Inc., 36150 2017-16377 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Davy Crockett-Sam Houston Resource Advisory Committee, 36115 2017-16302 Fresno and Madera Counties Resource Advisory Committee, 36116-36117 2017-16303 Huron-Manistee Resource Advisory Committee, 36116 2017-16305 West Virginia Resource Advisory Committee, 36115-36117 2017-16304 2017-16308 New Fee Sites, 36117-36118 2017-16310 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Findings of Research Misconduct, 36150-36151 2017-16311
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36212 2017-16306 Quarterly Publication of Individuals, Who Have Chosen to Expatriate, as Required by Section 6039G, 36188-36212 2017-16318 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Pasta from Italy; Preliminary Results of Administrative Review; 2015-2016, 36126-36127 2017-16349 Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India, 36124-36125 2017-16352 Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Taiwan, 36122-36124 2017-16351 Meetings: Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee, 36125-36128 2017-16312 2017-16316 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Motorized Self-Balancing Vehicles, 36153-36154 2017-16325 Furfuryl Alcohol from China, 36154-36155 2017-16324 Justice Department Justice Department See

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau

See

Federal Bureau of Investigation

NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees: Clean Air Act, 36157 2017-16369
Labor Department Labor Department See

Employee Benefits Security Administration

See

Employment and Training Administration

See

Workers Compensation Programs Office

National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Importation Eligibility for Certain Nonconforming Motor Vehicles, 36184-36185 2017-16384 National Institute Food National Institute of Food and Agriculture NOTICES Requirements and Registration for U.S. Department of Agriculture Innovations in Food and Agricultural Science and Technology Prize Competition, 36118-36122 2017-16342 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 36151-36152 2017-16313 2017-16314 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Snapper-Grouper Fishery of South Atlantic: 2017 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Other Jacks Complex (Lesser Amberjack, Almaco Jack, and Banded Rudderfish), 36102 2017-16378 PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program, 36111-36113 2017-16376 NOTICES Meetings: Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review, 36128-36129 2017-16362 New England Fishery Management Council, 36129 2017-16363 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36130 2017-16326 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Operator Licensing Examination Data, 36161-36162 2017-16336 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 36162-36163 2017-16329 2017-16348 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Change in Rates and Classes of General Applicability for Competitive Products, 36164 2017-16328 Product Changes: Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement, 36163, 36165 2017-16315 2017-16317 Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 36163-36165 2017-16307 2017-16309 2017-16321 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: C2 Options Exchange, Inc., 36176-36178 2017-16396 Fixed Income Clearing Corporation, 36165-36168 2017-16297 Miami International Securities Exchange LLC, 36172-36176 2017-16296 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 36168-36172 2017-16298 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 36178-36180 2017-16331 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Supplemental Questions for Visa Applicants, 36180-36182 2017-16343 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Abandonment Exemptions: Norfolk Southern Railway Co.; Atlanta, GA, 36182 2017-16356 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Internal Revenue Service

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Meetings: Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee, 36152-36153 2017-16360 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department RULES Schedule for Rating Disabilities: Dental and Oral Conditions, 36080-36086 2017-16132 Workers' Workers Compensation Programs Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36159-36161 2017-16320 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Labor Department, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 36214-36235 2017-16295 Part III Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 36238-36305 2017-16291 Part IV Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 36308-36317 2017-16353 Reader Aids

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

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

82 148 Thursday, August 3, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-8162; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-12] Establishment of Class E Airspace, and Amendment of Class E Airspace; St. George, UT AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action establishes Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class E surface area, establishes Class E en route airspace, and modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at St. George Regional Airport (formerly St. George Municipal Airport), St. George, UT. After a review of the airspace, the FAA found redesign necessary to support new instrument flight rules (IFR) standard instrument approach procedures and en route operations where the Federal airway structure is inadequate, for the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport. Also, this action updates the airport name from St. George Municipal Airport, to St. George Regional Airport, in the associated Class E airspace areas.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, October 12, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA, 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace and modifies Class E airspace at St. George Regional Airport, St. George, UT, to support IFR operations in standard instrument approach procedures at the airport.

History

On April 20, 2017, the FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 18594) Docket FAA-2016-8162 a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace designated as an extension, establish Class E en route airspace, and modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at St. George Regional Airport, St. George, UT. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Subsequent to publication, the FAA discovered the references to Class D airspace at St. George, UT, were in error. Those references are removed from the rule. No Class D airspace exists or is proposed at St. George, UT.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002, 6004, 6005, and 6006, respectively of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class E surface area, establishes Class E domestic en route airspace upward from 1,200 feet above the surface, and modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at St. George Regional Airport, St. George, UT. This airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport and to support en route operations where the Federal airway structure is inadequate. Also, this action updates the airport name from St. George Municipal Airport, to St. George Regional Airport, in the associated Class E airspace areas.

Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class E surface area is established within 1 mile each side of the St. George Regional Airport 030° bearing from the airport 4.5-mile radius to 7.7 miles northeast of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the airport 203° bearing from the 4.5-mile radius to 8.5 miles southwest of the airport. This controlled airspace supports instrument flight rules (IFR) operations for standard instrument approach aircraft operating below 1,000 feet above the surface.

Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is reduced to a 4.5-mile radius (from a 8.1-mile radius) of the airport, and within 2.5 miles each side of the airport 203° bearing (from 4 miles each side of the 200° bearing) of the airport extending from the airport 4.5-mile radius (from a 8.1-mile radius) to 13.9 miles southwest (from 20 miles southwest) of the airport, and within 2.2 miles (from 4 miles) each side of the airport 030° bearing extending from the airport 4.5-mile radius (from a 8.1-mile radius) to 21.6 miles northeast (from 25.8 miles) of the airport. The existing 1,200 foot airspace is removed since this would duplicate the en route airspace described below.

Class E en route airspace is established for the safety and management of IFR point-to-point operations outside of the established airway structure, and Air Traffic Control vectoring services.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. ANM UT E2 St. George, UT [Modified] St. George Regional Airport, UT (Lat. 37°02′11″ N., long. 113°30′37″ W.)

Within a 4.5-mile radius of St. George Regional Airport.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D or Class E Surface Area. ANM UT E4 St. George, UT [New] St. George Regional Airport, UT (Lat. 37°02′11″ N., long. 113°30′37″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1 mile each side of the St. George Regional Airport 030° bearing from the airport 4.5-mile radius to 7.7 miles northeast of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the airport 203° bearing from the airport 4.5-mile radius to 8.5 miles southwest of the airport.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ANM UT E5 St. George, UT [Modified] St. George Regional Airport, UT (Lat. 37°02′11″ N., long. 113°30′37″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 4.5-mile radius of the St. George Regional Airport, and within 2.5 miles each side of the airport 203° bearing, extending from the airport 4.5-mile radius to 13.9 miles southwest of the airport, and within 2.2 miles each side of the airport 030° bearing extending from the airport 4.5-mile radius to 21.6 miles northeast of the airport.

Paragraph 6006 En Route Domestic Airspace Areas. ANM UT E6 St. George, UT [New] St. George Regional Airport, UT (Lat. 37°02′11″ N., long. 113°30′37″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within an area bounded by lat. 37°30′00″ N., long. 113°00′00″ W.; to lat. 37°48′00″ N., long. 113°30′00″ W.; to lat. 37°49′25″ N., long. 113°42′01″ W.; to lat. 37°43′00″ N., long. 113°47′00″ W.; to lat. 37°34′30″ N., long. 113°54′00″ W.; to lat. 37°25′32″ N., long. 113°51′22″ W.; to lat. 37°15′00″ N., long. 114°00′00″ W.; to lat. 36°58′00″ N., long. 114°14′03″ W.; to lat. 36°19′00″ N., long. 114°14′03″ W.; to lat. 35°39′00″ N., long. 114°14′03″ W.; to lat. 35°22′40″ N., long. 113°46′10″ W.; to lat. 36°02′00″ N., long. 112°58′00″ W.; to lat. 36°42′00″ N., long. 112°56′00″ W.; to lat. 36°57′00″ N., long. 112°52′00″ W., thence to the point of beginning.

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on July 27, 2017. Shawn Kozica, Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-16282 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0355; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-12] Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Mosinee, WI AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action modifies Class E airspace extending up to 700 feet above the surface at Central Wisconsin Airport, Mosinee, WI, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Mosinee outer marker (OM) and DANCI locator outer marker (LOM) and cancellation of the associated approaches, and enhances the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport and the Wausau VHF Omni-Directional Radio Range and Collocated Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC). This proposal also updates the geographic coordinates in Class D and Class E surface area airspace, and makes an editorial change in the legal description by replacing Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, October 12, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Walter Tweedy (prepared by Ron Laster), Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5802.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class D airspace, Class E extension area airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward 700 feet above the surface at Central Wisconsin Airport, Mosinee, WI, to support IFR operations at the airport.

History

The FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 22090, May 12, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2017-0355, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace and airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Central Wisconsin Airport, Mosinee, WI. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Central Wisconsin Airport, with a segment 3.3 miles each side of the 350° bearing from the airport extending from the 7-mile radius to 12.3 miles north of the airport.

The segment within 4 miles each side of the Wausau VORTAC 039° radial extending from the 7-mile radius to 10.9 miles northeast of the airport would be removed due to the decommissioning of the Mosinee OM and DANCI LOM and cancellation of the associated approaches. This action enhances the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport. This action will also update the geographic coordinates of the airport and the Wausau VORTAC.

Additionally, this action replaces the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in Class D and Class E surface area airspace, as well as updates the airport coordinates for Central Wisconsin Airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. AGL WI D Mosinee, WI [Amended] Central Wisconsin Airport, WI (Lat. 44°46′39″ N., long. 89°40′00″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,800 feet MSL within a 4.5-mile radius of Central Wisconsin Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. AGL WI E2 Mosinee, WI [Amended] Central Wisconsin Airport, WI (Lat. 44°46′39″ N., long. 89°40′00″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.5-mile radius of Central Wisconsin Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL WI E5 Mosinee, WI [Amended] Central Wisconsin Airport, WI (Lat. 44°46′39″ N., long. 89°40′00″ W.) Wausau VORTAC (Lat. 44°50′48″ N., long. 89°35′12″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of the Central Wisconsin Airport, and within 3.3 miles each side of the 350° bearing from the airport extending from the 7-mile radius to 12.3 miles north of the airport.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on July 27, 2017. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-16284 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 4 RIN 2900-AP08 Schedule for Rating Disabilities; Dental and Oral Conditions AGENCY:

Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This document amends the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Schedule for Rating Disabilities by revising the portion of the schedule that addresses dental and oral conditions. The effect of this action is to ensure that the rating schedule uses current medical terminology and to provide detailed and updated criteria for evaluation of dental and oral conditions for disability rating purposes.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on September 10, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ioulia Vvedenskaya, M.D., M.B.A., Medical Officer, Part 4 VASRD Regulations Staff (211C), Compensation Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-9700 (This is not a toll-free telephone number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

VA published a proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register at 80 FR 44913 on July 28, 2015, to amend the portion of the VA Schedule of Rating Disabilities (VASRD or rating schedule) dealing with dental and oral conditions. VA provided a 60-day public comment period and interested persons were invited to submit written comments on or before September 28, 2015. VA received 5 comments.

One commenter suggested further defining the description of mandibular and maxillary malunion and maxillary non-union based on the degree of open bite under diagnostic codes 9904 and 9916. However, the severity of mandibular and maxillary displacement and its effect on anterior or posterior open bite depend on an individual's functional anatomy. Therefore, different veterans with the same degree of displacement would present with different degrees of open bite. A qualified dental provider such as a dentist or oral surgeon would appropriately determine the degree of severity in each individual case. Further, rather than basing the severity of open bite on a range of numerical values, it is standard practice for such dental providers to assess the degree of severity as severe, moderate, mild, or not causing open bite.

Additionally, the commenter suggested defining moderate and severe anterior or posterior open bite and mild anterior or posterior open bite. Similarly, due to the variances between individuals' facial anatomy, it would be improper to use exact numerical values to determine the degree of moderate and severe anterior or posterior open bite and mild anterior or posterior open bite. A qualified dental provider would appropriately measure and record these findings. Therefore, VA makes no changes based on these comments.

The same commenter had a question about why only a 20 percent rating is warranted for severe anterior or posterior open bite due to mandibular malunion and a 30 percent rating is warranted for severe anterior or posterior open bite due to maxillary malunion, while moderate anterior or posterior open bite warrants 10 percent ratings for both conditions. These variations in disability compensation are based on the differences in functional impairment due to maxillary and mandibular fractures. Unlike mandibular fracture and its residuals, maxillary fracture presents a more challenging case for repair and rehabilitation. For example, unlike mandibular fractures, maxillary fractures often communicate with sinuses and/or combine with orbital fractures. Such fractures are predisposed to contamination, sinus infection, and obstruction. Even after following treatment guidelines, significant bony resorption may occur leading to cosmetic contour deformity. Further, although such residuals of maxillary fracture raise the potential for pyramiding, such a situation is addressed by the new note (2) to § 4.150, which directs raters to separately evaluate other impairments under the appropriate diagnostic code. Therefore, the functional impairment due to maxillary fracture significantly differs from mandibular fractures. VA took these functional anatomy differences and the resultant differences in functional impairment into consideration during the revision process.

Additionally, the commenter noted that mandibular malunion and maxillary malunion and non-union do not have the same choices of severity of anterior or posterior open bite. Once more, these differences are based on differences in the functional anatomy of maxillas and mandibles and standard clinical assessments by a qualified dental provider. Therefore, VA makes no changes based on these comments.

Multiple commenters asked for additional guidance in assessing interincisal measurements of maximum unassisted vertical opening under diagnostic code 9905. One commenter stated that guidance was needed on how to handle measurements that fall between the specific numbers. Another commenter suggested adding the phrase “or less” to the whole numbers listed in the proposed rule or using a range of numbers, such as from 21 to 29 millimeters. VA applied a standard scale for the measurement of interincisal ranges, vertical and lateral, based on the Guidelines to the Evaluation of Impairment of the Oral and Maxillofacial Region by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Guidelines to the Evaluation of Impairment of the Oral and Maxillofacial Region, American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons can be found at http://www.astmjs.org/impairment.html. VA agrees that for the sake of clarity, a full range of maximum unassisted vertical opening should be included and makes appropriate edits to diagnostic code 9905.

One commenter stated that VA should address bruxism and its relationship to temporomandibular joint disorder in a note to diagnostic code 9905. Specifically, the commenter stated that VA's treatment of bruxism as only a secondary condition and not a stand alone disability is problematic with regards to claims for dental treatment. The commenter recommended amending 38 CFR 3.381 to clarify the treatment of bruxism in regards to service connection for dental treatment or to add to diagnostic code 9905 the phrase “with or without bruxism.” The commenter also recommended rating bruxism as a stand alone issue. However, bruxism is considered a symptom of craniomandibular disorders, of which temporomandibular disorders are a subset; other symptoms of craniomandibular disorders include anxiety, stress, and other mental disorders (Shetty, Shilpa et al., Bruxism: A Literature Review, J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2010 Sep; 10(3): 141-148., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3081266/). Therefore, it is not appropriate to place bruxism as a separate diagnosis or a symptom under diagnostic code 9905. VA has determined that only secondary service connection for treatment purposes is warranted for this condition, both because it is only a secondary condition, not a primary condition, and because its symptoms are already contemplated by the underlying condition for which the veteran is being compensated. Thus, it does not require a separate diagnostic code, and VA makes no changes based on this comment.

One commenter had a question about why diagnostic codes 9901, 9908, 9909, 9913, 9914, and 9915 were missing from the discussion. VA did not propose any changes to these diagnostic codes. According to the Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook Rule 1.14, this was noted by inserting asterisks in place of unchanged diagnostic codes. Therefore, VA makes no changes based on this comment.

The same commenter proposed to rate maxillary and mandibular malunion and non-union exactly the same way, regardless of which bone is affected. However, the functional impairment due to mandibular malunion and non-union significantly differs from maxillary malunion and non-union. VA took these differences in functional anatomy and the resultant differences in functional impairment into consideration during the revision process. Therefore, VA makes no changes based on this comment.

One commenter was supportive of the overall changes and additions to this section of the rating schedule. However, the commenter stated that a service-connected noncompensable rating for a dental disability inappropriately restricts the ability of a recently discharged veteran whose eligibility for outpatient dental services is based on 38 CFR 17.161(b) [Class II] to receive appropriate dental services and appliances. To illustrate, the commenter stated that the dental rating schedule provides for a diagnosis of “loss of teeth, replaceable by prosthesis” with diagnostic code 9913. Because the schedule considers this to be a noncompenable disability, the veteran is limited to receiving one-time treatment for this condition under 38 CFR 17.161(b). The commenter described why this is not a suitable clinical response for the veteran, especially over the veteran's life-time. Specifically, the commenter stated that the provision of dentures has historically been, and continues to be, VA's treatment response for this condition, even though (1) modern dentistry, as practiced in the community, goes beyond this, offering partial dentures, implants, bridges, crowns, and other prostheses, and (2) the use of dentures may be inappropriate and more harmful to the future dental health of the veteran (e.g., where their use, to address a lost tooth, requires the removal of other healthy teeth to fit them). Moreover, this commenter stated that limiting this veteran to one-time treatment for this condition is outdated and a disservice to the veteran, further noting that, even were these newer treatment options available to this cohort, the one-time limitation would still be unreasonable because these newer options typically require replacement after several years. The commenter believes all of these problems would be remedied by either ensuring that this dental condition (diagnostic code 9913) is changed to reflect a compensable rating for veterans who experience complications of treatment, such as inability to load the prosthesis, diminished vocal projection, chronic pain, or peri-implantitis. In the alternative, this particular dental condition/diagnosis could be excepted from the one-time treatment limitation under § 17.161(b). Lastly, this commenter suggested adding a general note under 38 CFR 4.150 to allow for analogous compensable ratings for any dental disabilities service-connected (or treated as service-connected under 38 U.S.C. 1151) which require ongoing treatment.

Veterans with a service-connected compensable dental condition are eligible for any outpatient dental treatment indicated as reasonably necessary to maintain oral health and masticatory function, with no time limits for making application for treatment and no restrictions as to the number of repeat episodes of treatment under 38 CFR 17.161(a). In addition, other veteran-cohorts are eligible for outpatient dental treatment as specified in § 17.161. Under § 17.161(b) [Class II], a veteran's eligibility for the one-time correction of a service-connected noncompensable dental condition is available to certain veterans who have been recently discharged or released from active service, if specified requirements, including timely filing of the dental application, are met. (No rating action is needed for Class II applicants if the conditions set forth in 38 CFR 17.162 are met).

While we appreciate the arguments raised by the commenter and his advocacy efforts on behalf of the members of his organization, this rulemaking does not seek to revise diagnostic code 9913, as it applies to the loss of teeth, replaceable by prosthesis. As such, these comments go beyond the scope of this rulemaking, which is focused on other codes in the dental rating schedule. Further, a veteran's Class II eligibility for outpatient dental services and applicances is not based on the level of functional impairment for which the Veteran is compensated under 38 CFR part 4. Ratings provided for service-connected conditions under 38 CFR part 4 serve solely to compensate veterans for functional impairment resulting from diseases and injuries and any residuals. In addition, VA has determined that the dental conditions contemplated by § 17.161(b) do not, in general, result in functional impairment. Indeed, VA experts recently carefully considered this very issue as part of an independent undertaking, but they concluded that while such a change would serve a great convenience to affected veterans, no clinical justification exists to change the non-compensable designation given to conditions under diagnostic code 9913, to include loss of teeth, replaceable by prosthesis. Moreover, the commenter's broader suggested amendments to VA's outpatient treatment dental regulations likewise go beyond the scope of this immediate rulemaking, which again is focused on limited components of the dental rating schedule. Finally, we note that the eligibility criteria set forth in § 17.161(b) are based in law, 38 U.S.C. 1712(a)(1)(B), (b), and so cannot be changed via rulemaking. As a result of all these factors, no changes to VA's outpatient dental regulations are made in response to this commenter's comments related to diagnostic code 9913.

The same commenter was supportive of the overall changes and additions to diagnostic codes 9904 and 9916. However, the commenter was concerned about inter-examiner and inter-rater reliability due to the descriptors of open bite, noting that vague descriptors could result in under-evaluation or pyramiding. As discussed above, due to the variances between individuals' facial anatomy, it would be improper to use exact numerical values to determine the degree of moderate and severe anterior or posterior open bite and mild anterior or posterior open bite. Further, the potential for pyramiding is addressed by the new note (2) to § 4.150, which directs raters to separately evaluate other impairments under the appropriate diagnostic code. Additionally, VA took differences in functional anatomy of maxillas and mandibles into consideration during the revision process. Therefore, VA makes no changes based on this comment.

One commenter urged VA to include periodontal disease as a compensable condition and amend 38 CFR 3.381 accordingly. The commenter stated that periodontal disease has been linked to diabetes as well as other conditions, and veterans who have service-connected diabetes as a result of herbicide exposure are not able to receive dental treatment unless their overall disability rating is 100 percent. The commenter stated that assigning a compensable disability rating for periodontal disease or providing for a compensable rating as a secondary disability associated with service-connected diabetes would alleviate the lack of treatment issue for veterans. As noted previously, the ratings under 38 CFR part 4 serve to compensate for functional impairment. VA has determined that periodontal disease does not result in loss of earning capacity resulting from functional impairment, so no changes have been made to make this condition compensable. Therefore, VA makes no changes based on these comments.

VA is correcting typographical errors under DC 9905 and DC 9916. With respect to DC 9905, in the proposed rulemaking notice, for the 50 percent evaluation, VA referred to mechanically altered food instead of mechanically altered foods. With respect to DC 9916, in the explanatory note for disability rating personnel, VA failed to include the phrase “following treatment” between “maxilla fragments” and the parenthetical. VA is correcting these errors in this final rule.

VA appreciates the comments submitted in response to the proposed rulemaking notice. Based on the rationale stated in the proposed rulemaking notice and in this document, the final rule is adopted with the changes noted.

Effective Date of Final Rule

Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) personnel utilize the Veterans Benefit Management System for Rating (VBMS-R) to process disability compensation claims that involve disability evaluations made under the VASRD. In order to ensure that there is no delay in processing veterans' claims, VA must coordinate the effective date of this final rule with corresponding VBMS-R system updates. As such, this final rule will apply effective September 10, 2017, the date VBMS-R system updates related to this final rule will be complete.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), unless OMB waives such review, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”

The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this final rule have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of this rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's Web site at http://www.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for “VA Regulations Published From FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to Date.”

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This final rule will not affect any small entities. Only certain VA beneficiaries could be directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

Unfunded Mandates

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.104, Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability for Veterans; 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability; and 64.110, Veterans Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for Service Connected Death.

Signing Authority

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on July 21, 2017, for publication.

Dated: July 27, 2017. Michael Shores, Director, Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs. List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 4

Disability benefits, Pensions, Veterans.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 4 as follows:

PART 4—SCHEDULE FOR RATING DISABILITIES 1. The authority citation for part 4 continues to read as follows: Authority:

38 U.S.C. 1155, unless otherwise noted.

Subpart B—Disability Ratings 2. Amend § 4.150 by: a. Adding Notes 1 and 2 at the beginning of the table; b. Revising the entries for diagnostic codes 9900 and 9902 through 9905; c. Removing the entries for diagnostic codes 9906 and 9907; d. Revising the entry for diagnostic code 9911; e. Removing entry for diagnostic code 9912; f. Revising the entry for diagnostic code 9916; and g. Adding, in numerical order, entries for diagnostic codes 9917 and 9918.

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 4.150 Schedule of ratings—dental and oral conditions. Rating Note (1): For VA compensation purposes, diagnostic imaging studies include, but are not limited to, conventional radiography (X-ray), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), radionuclide bone scanning, or ultrasonography Note (2): Separately evaluate loss of vocal articulation, loss of smell, loss of taste, neurological impairment, respiratory dysfunction, and other impairments under the appropriate diagnostic code and combine under § 4.25 for each separately rated condition 9900 Maxilla or mandible, chronic osteomyelitis, osteonecrosis or osteoradionecrosis of: Rate as osteomyelitis, chronic under diagnostic code 5000. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 9902 Mandible, loss of, including ramus, unilaterally or bilaterally: Loss of one-half or more, Involving temporomandibular articulation Not replaceable by prosthesis 70 Replaceable by prosthesis 50 Not involving temporomandibular articulation. Not replaceable by prosthesis 40 Replaceable by prosthesis 30 Loss of less than one-half, Involving temporomandibular articulation. Not replaceable by prosthesis 70 Replaceable by prosthesis 50 Not involving temporomandibular articulation. Not replaceable by prosthesis 20 Replaceable by prosthesis 10 9903 Mandible, nonunion of, confirmed by diagnostic imaging studies: Severe, with false motion 30 Moderate, without false motion 10 9904 Mandible, malunion of: Displacement, causing severe anterior or posterior open bite 20 Displacement, causing moderate anterior or posterior open bite 10 Displacement, not causing anterior or posterior open bite 0 9905 Temporomandibular disorder (TMD): Interincisal range: 0 to 10 millimeters (mm) of maximum unassisted vertical opening. With dietary restrictions to all mechanically altered foods 50 Without dietary restrictions to mechanically altered foods 40 11 to 20 mm of maximum unassisted vertical opening. With dietary restrictions to all mechanically altered foods 40 Without dietary restrictions to mechanically altered foods 30 21 to 29 mm of maximum unassisted vertical opening. With dietary restrictions to full liquid and pureed foods 40 With dietary restrictions to soft and semi-solid foods 30 Without dietary restrictions to mechanically altered foods 20 30 to 34 mm of maximum unassisted vertical opening. With dietary restrictions to full liquid and pureed foods 30 With dietary restrictions to soft and semi-solid foods 20 Without dietary restrictions to mechanically altered foods 10 Lateral excursion range of motion: 0 to 4 mm 10 Note (1): Ratings for limited interincisal movement shall not be combined with ratings for limited lateral excursion Note (2): For VA compensation purposes, the normal maximum unassisted range of vertical jaw opening is from 35 to 50 mm Note (3): For VA compensation purposes, mechanically altered foods are defined as altered by blending, chopping, grinding or mashing so that they are easy to chew and swallow. There are four levels of mechanically altered foods: full liquid, puree, soft, and semisolid foods. To warrant elevation based on mechanically altered foods, the use of texture-modified diets must be recorded or verified by a physician *         *         *         *         *         *         * 9911 Hard palate, loss of: Loss of half or more, not replaceable by prosthesis 30 Loss of less than half, not replaceable by prosthesis 20 Loss of half or more, replaceable by prosthesis 10 Loss of less than half, replaceable by prosthesis 0 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 9916 Maxilla, malunion or nonunion of: Nonunion, With false motion 30 Without false motion 10 Malunion, With displacement, causing severe anterior or posterior open bite 30 With displacement, causing moderate anterior or posterior open bite 10 With displacement, causing mild anterior or posterior open bite 0 Note: For VA compensation purposes, the severity of maxillary nonunion is dependent upon the degree of abnormal mobility of maxilla fragments following treatment (i.e., presence or absence of false motion), and maxillary nonunion must be confirmed by diagnostic imaging studies 9917 Neoplasm, hard and soft tissue, benign: Rate as loss of supporting structures (bone or teeth) and/or functional impairment due to scarring. 9918 Neoplasm, hard and soft tissue, malignant 100 Note: A rating of 100 percent shall continue beyond the cessation of any surgical, radiation, antineoplastic chemotherapy or other therapeutic procedure. Six months after discontinuance of such treatment, the appropriate disability rating shall be determined by mandatory VA examination. Any change in evaluation based upon that or any subsequent examination shall be subject to the provisions of § 3.105(e) of this chapter. If there has been no local recurrence or metastasis, rate on residuals such as loss of supporting structures (bone or teeth) and/or functional impairment due to scarring
3. Amend appendix A to part 4 by: a. Revising the entries for diagnostic codes 9900, 9902, and 9903; b. Adding, in numerical order, an entry for diagnostic code 9904; c. Revising the entry for diagnostic code 9905; d. Adding, in numerical order, entries for diagnostic codes 9906, 9907, 9911, and 9912; e. Revising the entry for diagnostic code 9916; and f. Adding, in numerical order, entries for diagnostic codes 9917 and 9918.

The revisions and additions read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 4—Table of Amendments and Effective Dates Since 1946 Sec. Diagnostic
  • Code No.
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * 9900 Criterion September 22, 1978; criterion February 17, 1994; title September 10, 2017. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 9902 Criterion February 17, 1994; evaluation September 10, 2017; title September 10, 2017. 9903 Criterion February 17, 1994; evaluation September 10, 2017; title September 10, 2017. 9904 Criterion September 10, 2017. 9905 Criterion September 22, 1978; evaluation February 17, 1994; evaluation September 10, 2017; title September 10, 2017. 9906 Removed September 10, 2017. 9907 Removed September 10, 2017. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 9911 Criterion and title September 10, 2017. 9912 Removed September 10, 2017. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 9916 Added February 17, 1994; criterion September 10, 2017. 9917 Added September 10, 2017. 9918 Added September 10, 2017.
    4. Amend appendix B to part 4 by: a. Revising the entries for diagnostic codes 9900, 9902, 9903, and 9905; b. Removing the entries for diagnostic codes 9906 and 9907; c. Revising the entry for diagnostic code 9911; d. Removing the entry for diagnostic code 9912; and e. Adding, in numerical order, entries for diagnostic codes 9917 and 9918.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    Appendix B to Part 4—Numerical Index of Disabilities Diagnostic Code No. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Dental and Oral Conditions 9900 Maxilla or mandible, chronic osteomyelitis, osteonecrosis, or osteoradionecrosis of. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 9902 Mandible loss of, including ramus, unilaterally or bilaterally. 9903 Mandible, nonunion of, confirmed by diagnostic imaging studies. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 9905 Temporomandibular disorder (TMD). *         *         *         *         *         *         * 9911 Hard palate, loss of. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 9917 Neoplasm, hard and soft tissue, benign. 9918 Neoplasm, hard and soft tissue, malignant.
    5. Amend appendix C to part 4 as follows: a. Under the entry for “Limitation of motion,” remove the entry for “Temporomandibular articulation” and add in its place an entry for “Temporomandibular”; b. Under the entry for “Loss of,” add in alphabetical order an entry for “Palate, hard”; c. Revise the entry for “Mandible”; d. Add in alphabetical order an entry for “Maxilla or mandible, chronic osteomyelitis, osteonecrosis, or osteoradionecrosis of”; e. Remove the entries for “Palate, hard” and “Ramus” located below the entry for “Nose, part of, or scars” and above the entry for “Skull, part of”; f. Under the entry for “Neoplasms,” under both “Benign” and “Malignant,” add in alphabetical order an entry for “Hard and soft tissue”; g. Under the entry for “Nonunion,” remove the entry for “Mandible” and add in its place an entry for “Mandible, confirmed by diagnostic imaging studies”; h. Remove the entry for “Osteomyelitis maxilla or mandible”.

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    Appendix C to Part 4—Alphabetical Index of Disabilities Diagnostic Code No. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Limitation of motion: *         *         *         *         *         *         * Temporomandibular 9905 *         *         *         *         *         *         * Loss of: *         *         *         *         *         *         * Palate, hard 9911 * * * * Mandible: Including ramus, unilaterally or bilaterally 9902 *         *         *         *         *         *         * Maxilla or mandible, chronic osteomyelitis, osteonecrosis, or osteoradionecrosis of 9900 *         *         *         *         *         *         * Neoplasms: Benign: *         *         *         *         *         *         * Hard and soft tissue 9917 *         *         *         *         *         *         * Malignant: *         *         *         *         *         *         * Hard and soft tissue 9918 *         *         *         *         *         *         * Nonunion: Mandible, confirmed by diagnostic imaging studies 9903 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-16132 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0676; FRL-9961-69] Ethaboxam; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of ethaboxam in or on Ginseng; Pepper/eggplant, subgroup 8-10B; Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9; and Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C. Valent USA Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective August 3, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 2, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0676, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mike Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl

    C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0676 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 2, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0676, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of April 25, 2016 (81 FR 24044) (FRL-9944-86), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 5F8383) by Valent USA Corporation, 1600 Riviera Avenue, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.622 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide ethaboxam, N-(cyano-2-thienylmethyl)-4-ethyl-2-(ethlyamino)-5-thiazolecarboxamide, in or on ginseng at 0.09 parts per million (ppm); Pepper/eggplant (Crop Subgroup 8-10B) at 0.6 ppm; Cucurbit Vegetables (Crop Group 9) at 0.3 ppm; and Tuberous and corm Vegetable Subgroup 1C at 0.01 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Valent USA Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has corrected proposed commodity definitions and revised certain proposed crop tolerances. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for ethaboxam including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with ethaboxam follows.

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

    The toxicology database for ethaboxam is complete. The male reproductive system is a target for ethaboxam, with alterations to the male reproductive organs as well as functional effects on male reproduction observed in several oral subchronic and chronic rat studies. In subchronic studies in rats, there were severe testicular alterations including small testes, decreased testicular weight and atrophy, abnormal spermatids in the testes, and interstitial cell hyperplasia. In the epididymis, there were small epididymides, decreased epididymal weights, abnormal spermatogenic cells, and absent spermatozoa. Decreased seminal vesicle and prostate weights were also observed. Effects were also seen after chronic exposure including decreased epididymal and seminal vesicle weights, seminiferous tubule atrophy, small/flaccid testes and epididymides, abnormal spermatogenic cells in the epididymal duct, absent sperm, epididymal vacuolation, and reduced colloid in the prostate. Fine vacuolation of the adrenal zona glomerulosa was also observed in both sexes in the rat studies, along with decreased body weight in females. There were no treatment-related male reproductive effects observed in mice, but there were effects seen in the liver. In mice, increased liver weights associated with centrilobular hypertrophy and liver histopathology (eosinophilic foci) were observed after chronic exposure. In dogs, decreased body weight and body weight gain, decreased thymus weights and thymus atrophy/involution, and hematopoiesis of the spleen were noted after subchronic exposure. No treatment-related effects were noted in dogs after chronic exposure. There is no concern for neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity after exposure to ethaboxam. No evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility was seen in the developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits; however, increased qualitative susceptibility was seen in the rat reproduction study where decreased body weight, decreased viability, and delayed sexual maturation were seen in offspring animals in the presence of limited parental effects (decreased body weight and body weight gain). Ethaboxam is classified as having “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential,” based on an increased incidence of benign Leydig cell tumors in male rats. The Agency has determined that quantification of cancer risk using a non-linear approach (based on the POD of 5.5 mg/kg/day for establishing a chronic reference dose) would adequately account for all chronic toxicity since the POD is 6-fold lower than the lowest dose that induced tumors.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by ethaboxam as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document “Ethaboxam. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed First Food Uses on Fruiting Vegetables (Pepper/Eggplant Subgroup 8-10B), Cucurbit Vegetables (Group 9), Ginseng, and Potato (Tuberous and Corm Vegetable Subgroup 1C)” at pages 27-32 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0676.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for ethaboxam used for human risk assessment is shown in the Table of this unit.

    Table—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Ethaboxam for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment Exposure/scenario Point of departure and uncertainty/safety factors RfD, PAD, LOC for risk
  • assessment
  • Study and toxicological effects
    Acute dietary (All Populations) No appropriate endpoint attributable to a single dose identified. Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL= 5.5 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Chronic RfD = 0.055 mg/kg/day
  • cPAD = 0.055 mg/kg/day
  • Combined Chronic/Carcinogenicity-Rat.
  • LOAEL = 16.4 mg/kg/day based on effects observed in the male reproductive organs (testes, epididymides, prostate, seminal vesicles).
  • Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) Classification: “Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenicity”, based on an increased incidence of benign Leydig Cell tumors in males. Cancer risk has been assessed using a non-linear approach. FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act safety factor. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to ethaboxam, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing ethaboxam tolerances in 40 CFR 180.622. EPA assessed dietary exposures from ethaboxam in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.

    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for ethaboxam; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the 2003-2008 U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). Tolerance-level residues and 100% crop treated were assumed for all crops. Empirical data indicate that residues of ethaboxam in processed grape (e.g., juice, raisins, etc.) and potato (e.g., flakes, chips, etc.) commodities are not expected to exceed the tolerance level for grapes or potatoes; therefore, no concentration factors were used in this analysis.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing cancer risk to ethaboxam. Cancer risk was assessed using the same exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii., chronic exposure.

    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for ethaboxam. Tolerance-level residues and/or 100% CT were assumed for all food commodities.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for ethaboxam in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of ethaboxam. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

    Based on the Pesticide in Water Calculator (PWC) v1.50 and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of ethaboxam for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 3.91 ppb for surface water and 7.4 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 7.4 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

    Ethaboxam is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.

    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    EPA has not found ethaboxam to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and ethaboxam does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that ethaboxam does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is evidence of increased qualitative susceptibility in the rat developmental and reproduction studies. Considering the overall toxicity profile and the doses and endpoints selected for risk assessment for ethaboxam, the degree of concern for prenatal and postnatal effects observed in the studies is low based on the following: The developmental/offspring effects observed in the studies are well characterized and occur in the presence of maternal toxicity; a clear NOAEL has been identified in both of the studies; and there are no residual uncertainties for pre-and/or postnatal toxicity. Furthermore, the toxicology endpoint established for risk assessment is based on a lower NOAEL than the reproductive NOAEL, and thus is considered protective of developmental/offspring effects.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1x. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for ethaboxam is complete.

    ii. There is no indication that ethaboxam is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. Although there is evidence of increased qualitative susceptibility in the rat reproduction study, the offspring effects observed in the study are well characterized and clear NOAELs/LOAELs have been identified in the study for the effects of concern. Additionally, the points of departure (PODs) selected for risk assessment are protective of potential offspring effects.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to ethaboxam in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by ethaboxam.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, ethaboxam is not expected to pose an acute risk.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to ethaboxam from food and water will utilize 36% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for ethaboxam.

    3. Short-term and intermediate-term risk. Short-term (and intermediate-term) aggregate exposure takes into account short-term (and intermediate-term) residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Although short-term and intermediate-term adverse effects were identified, ethaboxam is not registered for any use patterns that would result in short-term or intermediate-term residential exposure. Because there is no residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short-term or intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of residential risk is necessary. EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short-term and intermediate-term risk for ethaboxam.

    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As discussed in Unit III.A., EPA has determined that the chronic reference dose (cRfD) is protective of the potential cancer effects. Because chronic exposure does not exceed the Agency's level of concern, EPA concludes that ethaboxam does not pose a cancer risk.

    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to ethaboxam residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology Liquid Chromotography with tandem mass spectrometrometry (LC-MS/MS) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.

    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected]

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    MRLs have not been established by Codex for residues of ethaboxam on the commodities in this action.

    C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    To reflect the correct commodity definitions, EPA revised the proposed commodity listings for Potato (Tuberous and Corm Vegetable Subgroup 1C); Peppers (Pepper/Eggplant Crop Subgroup 8-10B); and Cucurbit Vegetables (Crop Group 9) to Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C; Pepper/eggplant, subgroup 8-10B; and Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9, respectively.

    The petitioner requested that the tolerances for Pepper/eggplant, subgroup 8-10B be set at 0.6 ppm and Ginseng be set at 0.09 ppm; however, the Agency is establishing the tolerances at 0.90 ppm and 0.10 ppm, respectively, based on Agency calculations using data obtained from the submitted residue studies. The Agency used the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) maximum residue limit (MRL) calculation procedures to derive the recommended levels. For crop groups, and per EPA's current policy, a tolerance level for each representative commodity was calculated separately, and then the maximum value within each crop group was selected as the tolerance level.

    All of EPA's tolerance levels are expressed to provide sufficient precision for enforcement purposes. This may include the addition of trailing zeros, as was the case for Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 for which a tolerance of 0.3 ppm was proposed and a tolerance at 0.30 ppm is being established.

    Finally, EPA is revising the tolerance expression to clarify (1) that, as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance covers metabolites and degradates of ethaboxam not specifically mentioned; and (2) that compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance expression.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of ethaboxam (N-(cyano-2-thienylmethyl)-4-ethyl-2-(ethlyamino)-5-thiazolecarboxamide), including its metabolites and degradates, in or on Ginseng at 0.10 ppm; Pepper/eggplant, subgroup 8-10B at 0.90 ppm; Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.30 ppm; and Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.01 ppm. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified above is to be determined by measuring only ethaboxam (N-(cyano-2-thienylmethyl)-4-ethyl-2-(ethlyamino)-5-thiazolecarboxamide).

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

    VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 29, 2017. Donna Davis, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. Section 180.622, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
    § 180.622 Ethaboxam; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of ethaboxam, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities listed in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only ethaboxam (N-(cyano-2-thienylmethyl)-4-ethyl-2-(ethylamino)-5-thiazolecarboxamide) in or on the commodity.

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • Ginseng 0.10 Grape 1 6.0 Pepper/eggplant subgroup 8-10B 0.90 Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 0.30 Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C 0.01 1 There is no U.S. registration as of September 27, 2006.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16371 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0679; FRL-9963-02] Cyclaniliprole; Pesticide Tolerances and Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of cyclaniliprole in or on multiple commodities that are identified and discussed later in this document. ISK Biosciences Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). Additionally, this regulation also establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for indirect or inadvertent residues of cyclaniliprole on multiple commodities identified and discussed later in this document.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective August 3, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 2, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0679, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael L. Goodis, Director, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

    C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0679 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 2, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0679, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of April 6, 2015 (80 FR 18327) (FRL-9924-00), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 4F8253) by ISK Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn Road, Suite A, Concord, OH 44077. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide cyclaniliprole, 3-bromo-N-[2-bromo-4-chloro-6-[[(1-cyclopropylethyl)amino]carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide, in or on the following commodities: Pome Fruit (Crop Group 11-10) at 0.3 parts per million (ppm); Tree Nuts (Crop Group 14-12) at 0.02 ppm; Stone Fruit (Crop Group 12-12) at 0.7 ppm; Fruiting Vegetables (Crop Group 8-10) at 0.2 ppm; Cucurbit Vegetables, (Crop Group 9) at 0.2 ppm; and Small Fruit Vine Climbing Subgroup, except Fuzzy Kiwifruit (Crop Group 13-07F) at 0.9 ppm. Additionally tolerances are requested for residues of cyclaniliprole in or on the crops in the proposed Crop Subgroup 4-14A, Leafy greens subgroup at 7.0 ppm, including amaranth, Chinese; amaranth, leafy; aster, Indian; blackjack; cat's whiskers; chervil, fresh leaves; cham-chwi; cham-namul; chipilin; chrysanthemum, garland; cilantro, fresh leaves; corn salad; cosmos; dandelion; dang-gwi; dillweed; dock; dol-nam-mul; ebolo; endive; escarole; fameflower; feather cockscomb; good king henry; huauzontle; jute, leaves; lettuce, bitter; lettuce, head; lettuce, leaf; orach; parsley, fresh leaves; plantain, buckhorn; primrose, English; purslane, garden; purslane, winter; radicchio; spinach; spinach, malabar; spinach, New Zealand; spinach, tanier; swiss chard; and violet, Chinese; crops in the proposed Crop Subgroup 4-14B, Brassica leafy greens subgroup at 15 ppm, including arugula; broccoli raab; broccoli, Chinese; cabbage, abyssinian; cabbage, seakale; Chinese cabbage, bok choy; collards; cress, garden; cress, upland; hanover salad; kale; maca; mizuna; mustard greens; radish, leaves; rape greens; rocket, wild; shepherd's purse; turnip greens; and watercress; crops in the proposed Crop Subgroup 22B, Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup at 7.0 ppm, including Cardoon; celery; celery, Chinese; fuki; rhubarb; udo; zuiki; and the crops in the proposed Crop Group 5-14, Brassica Head and Stem Vegetable at 1.5 ppm, including broccoli; Brussels sprouts; cabbage; cabbage, Chinese, napa; and cauliflower. Tolerances are also requested for residues of cyclaniliprole in or on the following animal feed commodities: almond, hulls at 8.0 ppm; apple, wet pomace at 0.96 ppm; and in the following animal tissues and meat byproducts: Cattle, fat at 0.08 ppm; cattle, kidney at 0.08 ppm; cattle, liver at 0.1 ppm; cattle, meat at 0.02 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at 0.02 ppm; goat, fat at 0.08 ppm; goat, kidney at 0.08 ppm; goat, liver at 0.1 ppm; goat, meat at 0.02 ppm; goat, meat byproducts at 0.02 ppm; horse, fat at 0.08 ppm; horse, kidney at 0.08 ppm; horse, liver at 0.1 ppm; horse, meat at 0.02 ppm; horse, meat byproducts at 0.02 ppm; milk at 0.01 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.08 ppm; sheep, kidney at 0.08 ppm; sheep, liver at 0.1 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.02 ppm; and sheep, meat byproducts at 0.02 ppm. In addition, a tolerance was requested for imported Tea (dried and instant) at 40 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by ISK Biosciences Corporation, the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    In the Federal Register of November 23, 2015 (80 FR 72941) (FRL-9936-73), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing ISK's amendment to its pesticide petition (PP 4F8253). The amended petition requested, in addition to the tolerances requested in the original petition, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for indirect or inadvertent residues of cyclaniliprole in or on all food commodities, not already covered by a tolerance. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by ISK Biosciences Corporation, the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. A comment was received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to that comment is discussed in Unit IV.C.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is establishing tolerances that vary from what was requested by the petitioner for multiple commodities. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for cyclaniliprole including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with cyclaniliprole follows.

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

    No single or repeated dose study performed by any route of exposure produced an adverse effect following cyclaniliprole exposure below, at, or above the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day). In short- and long-term studies in rats and mice, the most consistent finding was adaptive liver effects, which often consisted of slight increases in liver weight without associated clinical chemistry and histopathological changes, and it was seen mostly at or above the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day). In dogs, both subchronic and chronic studies showed increases in liver weight, centrilobular hepatocellular hypertrophy, and elevated levels of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) at sub-limit dose levels. However, these findings were not considered as adverse because of the following: (1) ALP increase in dogs is a common laboratory finding and could be attributed to many factors such as corticosterone release, young dogs often have high and variable ALP values related to bone growth, cholestasis, and pharmacologically mediated hepatic drug metabolizing enzyme induction; (2) no histopathological changes were seen at any dose level tested; (3) the liver effects showed no progression of toxicity or increase in the number of parameters affected in the chronic study (1-year) relative to the subchronic study; and (4) no liver effects were seen in toxicity studies in rats and mice at or above the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day). In addition, a structurally related chemical, chlorantraniliprole, tested up to the limit dose in dogs did not demonstrate liver effects.

    No toxicity was seen in rat and rabbit developmental toxicity and in rat reproduction studies which were tested up to the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day). Therefore, there is no evidence that cyclaniliprole produces increased susceptibility with prenatal or postnatal exposures. Cyclaniliprole is classified as “Not likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” based on no increase in treatment-related tumor incidence in the chronic toxicity study in rats and in carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice. Cyclaniliprole produced no genotoxicity. A dermal toxicity study tested at the limit dose did not produce any systemic toxicity, which was consistent with the finding of low dermal absorption.

    Specific information on the studies received for cyclaniliprole as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document “Cyclaniliprole: Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed New Insecticide Active Ingredient” dated September 12, 2015 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0679.

    Based on the analysis of the available cyclaniliprole toxicological studies, there is no adverse toxicity seen in any of the required submitted toxicology studies, and no toxicity endpoint and point of departure are established for human health risk assessment.

    Cyclaniliprole is proposed for use on a variety of crops. Humans could potentially be exposed to cyclaniliprole residues in food because cyclaniliprole may be applied directly to growing crops. These applications can also result in cyclaniliprole reaching surface and ground water, both of which can serve as sources of drinking water. There are no proposed uses in residential settings; therefore, there are no anticipated residential exposures.

    Based on the toxicological profile of cyclaniliprole, EPA has concluded that the FFDCA requirements to retain an additional safety factor for protection of infants and children and to consider cumulative effects do not apply. Section 408(b)(2)(C) requires an additional tenfold margin of safety in the case of threshold risks, which are not present in this case. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires consideration of information concerning cumulative effects of substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity, which cyclaniliprole does not have.

    Based on the available data indicating a lack of adverse effects from exposure to cyclaniliprole, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to cyclaniliprole.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Method JSM0269 was developed for plant commodities, and Method JSM0277 was developed for livestock commodities. Residues of cyclaniliprole are extracted from crops using acetonitrile and cleaned up by solid phase extraction. Extracted residue levels are determined by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Residues of cyclaniliprole are extracted from livestock using acetonitrile and cleaned up by liquid-liquid partition with hexane followed by SPE. Extracted residue levels are determined by LC-MS/MS in positive ion spray mode.

    Multiresidue methods testing data have been submitted for cyclaniliprole and NK-1375. The data indicate that the multiresidue methods (Protocols A through G) are not suitable for the analysis of cyclaniliprole, so the multiresidue methods cannot serve as enforcement methods. The multiresidue data have been sent to FDA.

    Adequate enforcement methodology (LC-MS/MS) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected]

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    The Codex has not established a MRL for cyclaniliprole.

    C. Response to Comments

    A comment was received from an anonymous commenter objecting to EPA requesting denial of this petition and stating that “food should not be contaminated with these chemicals.” The existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) states that tolerances may be set when the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. As required by that statute, EPA conducted a comprehensive assessment of cyclaniliprole, including its potential for carcinogenicity. Based on its assessment of the available data, the Agency believes that given the observed lack of toxicity of this chemical, no risks of concern are expected. Therefore, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to cyclaniliprole.

    D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Tolerances were requested for individual crops in the proposed Crop Subgroup 4-14A, Leafy greens subgroup at 7.0 ppm; crops in the proposed Crop Subgroup 4-14B, Brassica leafy greens subgroup at 15 ppm; crops in the proposed Crop Subgroup 22B, Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup at 7.0 ppm and the crops in the proposed Crop Group 5-14: Brassica Head and Stem Vegetable at 1.5 ppm. These crop groups were proposed in a Proposed Rule that published in the Federal Register of November 14, 2014 (79 FR 68153). In the time since the petition was initially filed, these crop group/subgroups have been established, although with a slightly different numbering based on the year in which the crop groups were finalized, i.e., since the rule was published in 2016, the groups end in a -16, instead of -14 when they were proposed. See May 3, 2016 (85 FR 26471). Therefore, EPA is establishing the subgroup/group tolerances as requested but with the updated names with one exception. EPA is not establishing a tolerance for subgroup 22B since residue field trial data (celery) were not provided to support the establishing a tolerance for the commodities in subgroup 22B.

    Additionally, the EPA is establishing a tolerance for Vegetable, leafy, group 4-16 at 15 ppm instead of the requested tolerance for residues in or on the leafy greens subgroup 4-16A at 7.0 ppm and Brassica leafy greens subgroup 4-16B at 15 ppm. Based on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) tolerance calculation procedures and residue data for head lettuce, leaf lettuce, and spinach, the tolerance level would be 8.0 ppm for leafy greens subgroup 4-16A. However, instead of establishing the two subgroup tolerances, in order to harmonize with Canada which has established a crop group, Leafy Vegetables (CG 4-13) maximum residue level (MRL) at 15 ppm, EPA is establishing a tolerance for Vegetable, leafy, group 4-16 at 15 ppm.

    The EPA is also establishing lower tolerance levels than requested for the following commodities because the residue of concern is parent only instead of parent and its metabolite NK-1375: Almond hulls, reduced from 8 to 6.0 ppm; wet apple pomace, reduced from 0.96 to 0.50 ppm; Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 reduced from 1.5 to 1.0 ppm; cucurbit vegetables, crop group 9, reduced from 0.2 to 0.15 ppm; small vine climbing fruit, except fuzzy kiwifruit, crop group 13-07F, reduced from 0.9 to 0.80 ppm; and for the following commodities for each animal (cattle, goat, horse, and sheep)—fat, reduced from 0.08 to 0.015 ppm; kidney (now included in meat byproducts), reduced from 0.08 to 0.015 ppm; meat, reduced from 0.02 to 0.01 ppm; meat byproducts, reduced from 0.02 to 0.015 ppm; and liver, reduced from 0.1 to 0.015 ppm.

    Based on OECD tolerance calculation procedures, EPA is also establishing higher tolerance levels than requested for the following commodities: The stone fruit crop group 12-12, increased from 0.7 to 1.0 ppm; the tree nuts crop group 14-12, increased from 0.02 to 0.03 ppm, and tea, dried leaves, increased from 40 to 50 ppm. No tolerance is needed for tea, instant (dry form) since residues are covered by the tolerance on tea, dried.

    EPA is establishing an increased tolerance on milk from 0.01 ppm to 0.015 ppm to harmonize with Canada.

    Finally, tolerances were requested for residues in/on kidney and liver of cattle, goat, horse, and sheep. According to current EPA policy, residues for liver and kidney will be covered by tolerances for residues in/on meat byproducts so separate tolerances are not needed.

    V. Conclusion

    Although the lack of toxicity supports a safety finding for an exemption from the requirement of tolerance for all crops, EPA is establishing tolerances for residues resulting from direct applications to certain commodities because the petitioner requested them for international trade purposes. Tolerances are established for residues of cyclaniliprole, 3-bromo-N-[2-bromo-4-chloro-6-[[(1-cyclopropylethyl)amino]carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide, in or on Pome Fruit (Crop Group 11-10) at 0.30 parts per million (ppm); Nut, tree (Crop Group 14-12) at 0.03 ppm; Stone Fruit (Crop Group 12-12) at 1.0 ppm; Fruiting Vegetables (Crop Group 8-10) at 0.20 ppm; Cucurbit Vegetables, (Crop Group 9) at 0.15 ppm; Small Fruit Vine Climbing Subgroup except Fuzzy Kiwifruit (Crop Group 13-07F) at 0.80 ppm; Vegetable, leafy, group 4-16 at 15 ppm; Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 1.0 ppm; Milk at 0.015 ppm; tea, dried leaves at 50 ppm; Almond, hulls at 6.0 ppm; Apple, wet pomace at 0.50 ppm; cattle, goat, horse, and sheep fat at 0.015 ppm; cattle, goat, horse, and sheep meat at 0.01 ppm; and cattle, goat, horse, and sheep meat byproducts at 0.015 ppm.

    Additionally, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for indirect or inadvertent residues of cyclaniliprole, 3-bromo-N-[2-bromo-4-chloro-6-[[(1-cyclopropylethyl)amino]carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide, in or on all raw agricultural commodities, except for those commodities with tolerances established.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

    VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 30, 2017. Richard P. Keigwin, Jr., Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. Add § 180.694 to subpart C to read as follows:
    §  180.694 Cyclaniliprole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide cyclaniliprole, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only cyclaniliprole, 3-bromo-N-[2-bromo-4-chloro-6-[[(1-cyclopropylethyl)amino]carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide, in or on the commodity.

    Commodity Parts
  • per million
  • Almond, hulls 6.0 Apple, wet pomace 0.50 Cattle, fat 0.015 Cattle, meat 0.01 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.015 Fruit, pome, group 11-10 0.30 Fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F 0.80 Fruit, stone, group 12-12 1.0 Goat, fat 0.015 Goat, meat 0.01 Goat, meat byproducts 0.015 Horse, fat 0.015 Horse, meat 0.01 Horse, meat byproducts 0.015 Milk 0.015 Nut, tree, group 14-12 0.03 Sheep, fat 0.015 Sheep, meat 0.01 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.015 Tea, dried 1 50 Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 1.0 Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 0.15 Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 0.20 Vegetable, leafy, group 4-16 15 1 There are no U.S. registrations for Tea.

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]

    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]

    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]

    3. Add § 180.1344 to subpart D to read as follows:
    §  180.1344 Cyclaniliprole; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for indirect and inadvertent residues of the insecticide cyclaniliprole, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on all raw agricultural commodities not listed in paragraph (a) of § 180.694, when residues are present therein as a result of subsequent uptake by crops rotated into fields where the crops in § 180.694 (a) were treated with cyclaniliprole.

    [FR Doc. 2017-16375 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0428, 0430, 0432, 0434, 0435, 0436 and 0437; FRL-9965-31-OLEM] National Priorities List AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), as amended, requires that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”) include a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List (“NPL”) constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the Environmental Protection Agency (“the EPA” or “the agency”) in determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further investigations will allow the EPA to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. This rule adds seven sites to the General Superfund section of the NPL.

    DATES:

    The document is effective on September 5, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Contact information for the EPA Headquarters:

    • Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue NW.; William Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004, 202/566-0276.

    The contact information for the regional dockets is as follows:

    • Holly Inglis, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund Records and Information Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912; 617/918-1413.

    • Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4344.

    • Lorie Baker (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/814-3355.

    • Cathy Amoroso, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562-8637.

    • Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA Superfund Division Librarian/SFD Records Manager SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/886-4465.

    • Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/665-7436.

    • Kumud Pyakuryal, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201 Renner Blvd., Mailcode SUPRSTAR, Lenexa, KS 66219; 913/551-7956.

    • Victor Ketellapper, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 303/312-6578.

    • Sharon Murray, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/947-4250.

    • Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Mailcode ECL-112, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/463-1349.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603-8852, email: [email protected] Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch, Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (Mailcode 5204P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; or the Superfund Hotline, phone (800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810 in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background A. What are CERCLA and SARA? B. What is the NCP? C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)? D. How are sites listed on the NPL? E. What happens to sites on the NPL? F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites? G. How are sites removed from the NPL? H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are cleaned up? I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)? J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure? K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL Listing? II. Availability of Information to the Public A. May I review the documents relevant to this final rule? B. What documents are available for review at the EPA Headquarters docket? C. What documents are available for review at the EPA regional dockets? D. How do I access the documents? E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL sites? III. Contents of This Final Rule A. Additions to the NPL B. What did the EPA do with the public comments it received? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act I. Background A. What are CERCLA and SARA?

    In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (“SARA”), Public Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.

    B. What is the NCP?

    To implement CERCLA, the EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”), 40 CFR part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, or releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. The EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).

    As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also includes “criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, taking into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action.” “Removal” actions are defined broadly and include a wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).

    C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?

    The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of “releases” and the highest priority “facilities” and requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is of only limited significance, however, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.

    For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by the EPA (the “General Superfund section”) and one of sites that are owned or operated by other federal agencies (the “Federal Facilities section”). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities section, these sites are generally being addressed by other federal agencies. Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody or control, although the EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking System (“HRS”) score and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL.

    D. How are sites listed on the NPL?

    There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS, which the EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil exposure and air. As a matter of agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL. (2) Each state may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one facility designated by each state as the greatest danger to public health, welfare or the environment among known facilities in the state. This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2). (3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:

    • The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.

    • The EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health.

    • The EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to the release.

    The EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.

    E. What happens to sites on the NPL?

    A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the “Superfund”) only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1). (“Remedial actions” are those “consistent with a permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions” (40 CFR 300.5). However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2), placing a site on the NPL “does not imply that monies will be expended.” The EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

    F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?

    The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the time of listing.

    Although a CERCLA “facility” is broadly defined to include any area where a hazardous substance has “come to be located” (CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course, HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS analysis.

    When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the “boundaries” of the site. Rather, the site consists of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well as any other location where that contamination has come to be located, or from where that contamination came.

    In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate the site (e.g., the “Jones Co. Plant site”) in terms of the property owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of the “site”). The “site” is thus neither equal to, nor confined by, the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to help identify the geographic location of the contamination, and is not meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For example, the name “Jones Co. plant site,” does not imply that the Jones Company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant site.

    EPA regulations provide that the remedial investigation (“RI”) “is a process undertaken . . . to determine the nature and extent of the problem presented by the release” as more information is developed on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an interactive fashion with the feasibility study (“FS”) (40 CFR 300.5). During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the contamination “has come to be located” before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release with absolute certainty.

    Further, as noted previously, NPL listing does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property, it can submit supporting information to the agency at any time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.

    For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research reveals more information about the location of the contamination or release.

    G. How are sites removed from the NPL?

    The EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(e). This section also provides that the EPA shall consult with states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met:

    (i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

    (ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been implemented and no further response action is required; or

    (iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

    H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are cleaned up?

    In November 1995, the EPA initiated a policy to delete portions of NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may have been cleaned up and made available for productive use.

    I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?

    The EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list (“CCL”) to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal significance.

    Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved; (2) the EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction (e.g., institutional controls); or (3) the site qualifies for deletion from the NPL. For more information on the CCL, see the EPA's Internet site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-remedial-performance-measures#cc_anchor.

    J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure?

    The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure represents important Superfund accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority the EPA places on considering anticipated future land use as part of the remedy selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are in place. The EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the environment for current and future land uses, in a manner that allows contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and economic vitality. For further information, please go to https://www.epa.gov/superfund/about-superfund-cleanup-process#tab-9.

    K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing?

    In order to maintain close coordination with states and tribes in the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to determine the position of the states and tribes regarding sites that the EPA is considering for listing. This consultation process is outlined in two memoranda that can be found at the following Web site: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.

    The EPA has improved the transparency of the process by which state and tribal input is solicited. The EPA is using the Web and where appropriate more structured state and tribal correspondence that (1) explains the concerns at the site and the EPA's rationale for proceeding; (2) requests an explanation of how the state intends to address the site if placement on the NPL is not favored; and (3) emphasizes the transparent nature of the process by informing states that information on their responses will be publicly available.

    A model letter and correspondence between the EPA and states and tribes where applicable, is available on the EPA's Web site at http://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HQ/174024.

    II. Availability of Information to the Public A. May I review the documents relevant to this final rule?

    Yes, documents relating to the evaluation and scoring of the sites in this final rule are contained in dockets located both at the EPA headquarters and in the EPA regional offices.

    An electronic version of the public docket is available through https://www.regulations.gov (see table below for docket identification numbers). Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facilities identified in section II.D.

    Docket Identification Numbers by Site Site name City/County, State Docket ID No. Post and Lumber Preserving Co. Inc Quincy, FL EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0428. Microfab, Inc. (Former) Amesbury, MA EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0430. Old HWY 275 and N 288th Street Valley, NE EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0432. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Village of Hoosick Falls, NY EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0434. The Battery Recycling Company Bo. Cambalache, PR EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0435. Former Custom Cleaners Memphis, TN EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0436. Highway 18 Ground Water Kermit, TX EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0437. B. What documents are available for review at the EPA Headquarters docket?

    The headquarters docket for this rule contains the HRS score sheets, the documentation record describing the information used to compute the score and a list of documents referenced in the documentation record for each site.

    C. What documents are available for review at the EPA regional dockets?

    The EPA regional dockets contain all the information in the headquarters docket, plus the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied upon by the EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score. These reference documents are available only in the regional dockets.

    D. How do I access the documents?

    You may view the documents, by appointment only, after the publication of this rule. The hours of operation for the headquarters docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. Please contact the regional dockets for hours. For addresses for the headquarters and regional dockets, see Addresses section in the beginning portion of this preamble.

    E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL sites?

    You may obtain a current list of NPL sites via the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/national-priorities-list-npl-sites-site-name or by contacting the Superfund docket (see contact information in the beginning portion of this document).

    III. Contents of This Final Rule A. Additions to the NPL

    This final rule adds the following seven sites to the General Superfund section of the NPL. These sites are being added to the NPL based on HRS score.

    General Superfund Section State Site name City/County FL Post and Lumber Preserving Co. Inc Quincy. MA Microfab, Inc. (Former) Amesbury. NE Old HWY 275 and N 288th Street Valley. NY Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Village of Hoosick Falls. PR The Battery Recycling Company Bo. Cambalache. TN Former Custom Cleaners Memphis. TX Highway 18 Ground Water Kermit. B. What did the EPA do with the public comments it received?

    One site being added to the NPL in this rule, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics (Village of Hoosick Falls, NY), received comments related to HRS scoring. The responses to those comments and the impact those comments have on the site score, if any, are contained in a support document available in the public docket concurrently with this rule.

    Four of the sites received comments requesting the sites be listed on the NPL. These sites are Post and Lumber Preserving Co. Inc. (Quincy, FL), Old HWY 275 and N 288th Street (Valley, NE), The Battery Recycling Company (Bo. Cambalache, PR) and Highway 18 Ground Water (Kermit, TX). One commenter's submission to the Old HWY 275 and N 288th Street docket stated that all eight sites proposed on September 9, 2016 (81 FR 62428) should be added to the NPL.

    The docket for the Post and Lumber Preserving Co. Inc. (Quincy, FL) site received seven comments. Of these comments, two were intended for the Post and Lumber Co. Inc. site and supported listing. One comment was intended for the Old HWY 275 and N 288th Street site as discussed below. The remaining comments were intended for the Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics site and are addressed in the support document for that site. One comment that solely supported the listing was included in a commenter's submission to the Anaconda Copper Mine docket as well as the Post and Lumber Preserving Co. Inc. docket. This comment came from a resident who lives near the Post and Lumber Preserving Co. Inc. site and is concerned about the magnitude of hazardous material at the site. The comment mentions that pollution is continuing to impact surrounding wetland areas. This commenter supports listing to allow the contamination at the site to be addressed and suggested that the removal of the contaminated soil mound should be given the highest priority. The second comment described several contaminants found at the site (arsenic, dioxin and pentachlorophenol) and the health effects of exposure to these contaminants. The commenter concluded that the Post and Lumber Preserving Co. Inc. site should be added to the NPL to address the contamination at the site. In response to these two comments, the EPA is listing the site to study the risks and to determine what, if any, actions need to be taken to ensure protection of human health and the environment.

    The Old HWY 275 and N 288th Street (Valley, NE) site received one comment from the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska in support of listing. This comment was included in the dockets for Old HWY 275 and N 288th Street and Post and Lumber Preserving Co. Inc. The commenter expressed concern for contamination at the Old HWY 275 and N 288th Street site and noted the potential for vapor intrusion contamination into residential basements, stating that all homes on top of or near the ground water plume should be tested for vapor intrusion. The Ponca Tribe would like to have the site added to the NPL to contain the ground water plume and address contamination at the site. In response to this comment, the EPA is listing the site on the NPL to study the risks and to determine what, if any, remediation is necessary.

    The Battery Recycling Company (Bo. Cambalache, PR) site received one comment in support of listing. The commenter discussed lead contamination at battery recycling facilities and the resulting human health and environmental impacts. The commenter concluded that the site should be added to the NPL so that the contamination at the site can be addressed. The EPA agrees with the commenter and is listing the site so that further study can be done to determine what, if any, remediation is necessary. An additional comment that appears to be related to the Microfab, Inc. (Former) site was posted in The Battery Recycling Company docket and contains the text “For it! Microfab Inc.”

    The Highway 18 Ground Water (Kermit, TX) site received one comment in support of listing and a comment related to the Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics site that was posted to multiple site dockets. The comment related to the Highway 18 Ground Water site described the site background and the health effects of trichloroethene and tetrachloroethene, and concluded that the Highway 18 Ground Water site should be added to the NPL to address the contamination at the site. The EPA agrees with this comment and is listing the site to evaluate the risks posed by the site and to determine what, if any, remediation is necessary.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval of the OMB.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This rule listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This rule also does not establish standards or requirements that any small entity must meet, and imposes no direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of hazardous substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site is listed on the NPL through this rulemaking.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by a private party, state, local or tribal governments or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from future site-specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of placing a site on the NPL.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. Listing a site on the NPL does not impose any costs on a tribe or require a tribe to take remedial action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this action itself is procedural in nature (adds sites to a list) and does not, in and of itself, provide protection from environmental health and safety risks. Separate future regulatory actions are required for mitigation of environmental health and safety risks.

    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. As discussed in Section I.C. of the preamble to this action, the NPL is a list of national priorities. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is of only limited significance as it does not assign liability to any party. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.

    K. Congressional Review Act

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Provisions of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of CERCLA may alter the effective date of this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(1), a rule shall not take effect, or continue in effect, if Congress enacts (and the President signs) a joint resolution of disapproval, described under section 802. Another statutory provision that may affect this rule is CERCLA section 305, which provides for a legislative veto of regulations promulgated under CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,103 S. Ct. 2764 (1983), and Bd. of Regents of the University of Washington v. EPA, 86 F.3d 1214,1222 (D.C. Cir. 1996), cast the validity of the legislative veto into question, the EPA has transmitted a copy of this regulation to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

    If action by Congress under either the CRA or CERCLA section 305 calls the effective date of this regulation into question, the EPA will publish a document of clarification in the Federal Register.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: July 27, 2017. Barry N. Breen, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency Management.

    40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

    PART 300—NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN 1. The authority citation for part 300 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p.193.

    2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300 is amended by adding entries for “Post and Lumber Preserving Co. Inc.”, “Microfab, Inc. (Former)”, “Old HWY 275 and N 288th Street”, “Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics”, “The Battery Recycling Company”, “Former Custom Cleaners”, and “Highway 18 Ground Water” in alphabetical order by state to read as follows: Appendix B to Part 300—National Priorities List Table 1—General Superfund Section State Site name City/County Notes a *         *         *         *         *         *         * FL Post and Lumber Preserving Co. Inc Quincy *         *         *         *         *         *         * MA Microfab, Inc. (Former) Amesbury *         *         *         *         *         *         * NE Old HWY 275 and N 288th Street Valley *         *         *         *         *         *         * NY Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Village of Hoosick Falls *         *         *         *         *         *         * PR The Battery Recycling Company Bo. Cambalache *         *         *         *         *         *         * TN Former Custom Cleaners Memphis *         *         *         *         *         *         * TX Highway 18 Ground Water Kermit *         *         *         *         *         *         * a Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need not be greater than or equal to 28.50).
    [FR Doc. 2017-16172 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 383 Commercial Driver's License Standards: Regulatory Guidance Concerning the Issuance of Commercial Learner's Permits AGENCY:

    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Regulatory guidance.

    SUMMARY:

    FMCSA announces regulatory guidance clarifying that State Driver Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) may agree to facilitate the commercial learner's permit (CLP) application process and to administer the commercial driver's license (CDL) general knowledge test to individuals who are not domiciled in the State. Today's guidance makes clear that SDLAs may accept applications for CLPs and administer the general knowledge test to individuals taking commercial motor vehicle driver training in that State, but who are not domiciled there, provided that: The SDLA administering the general knowledge test transmits the test results directly, securely, and electronically to the applicant's State of domicile; and the State of domicile agrees to accept the test results and issue the CLP. While today's guidance is in answer to general knowledge testing as addressed in FMCSA regulations, we note that this regulatory guidance is consistent with the Agency's October 13, 2016, final rule which amended the CDL regulations to ease the transition of military personnel into civilian careers driving commercial motor vehicles (CMVs).

    DATES:

    Regulatory Guidance: The regulatory guidance is applicable August 3, 2017. The guidance expires August 3, 2022.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Nikki McDavid, Chief of the Commercial Driver's License Division, Office of Safety Programs, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Phone: 202-366-0831; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On October 13, 2016, FMCSA published “Commercial Driver's License Requirements of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and the Military Commercial Driver's License Act of 2012” (2016 Final Rule) (81 FR 70634). This rule allows a State to accept applications from active duty military personnel who are stationed in that State as well as administer the written and skills test for a CLP or CDL. States that choose to accept such applications are required to transmit the test results electronically to the State of domicile of the military personnel. The State of domicile may then issue the CLP or CDL on the basis of those test results. During the rulemaking proceeding, the American Trucking Associations (ATA) expressed an interest in allowing all drivers to take both the written and skills tests outside their State of domicile and requested that FMCSA issue a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on that subject. The FMCSA declined to address the issue at that time. It should be noted, however, that States of domicile are already required by 49 CFR 383.79 to accept skills tests administered by another state. Subsequently, in January 2017, the ATA requested regulatory guidance clarifying that SDLAs may accept the results of knowledge tests taken in another State to ease the travel burden on civilian CLP applicants attending a truck driver training school outside of their State of domicile. Based upon a review of the CDL statutes and the 2016 Final Rule, FMCSA has determined that regulatory guidance would clarify the flexibility allowed under the existing statutes and regulations.

    Specifically, section 383.73(a)(2)(i) mandates that a State “require the applicant to make the certifications, pass the tests, and provide the information as described in § 383.71(a)(2).” Neither § 383.71 nor § 383.73 requires that these actions take place in the State of domicile. However, the State of domicile must continue to comply with § 383.73(h) by creating the Commercial Driver Licensing Information System (CDLIS) record and issuing the physical CLP or CDL.

    II. Regulatory Guidance

    Based on the forgoing, FMCSA issues the following guidance.

    Regulatory Guidance to 49 CFR Part 383—Commercial Driver's License Standards Section 383.73 State Procedures

    Question: May States accept applications for a CLP from individuals who are not domiciled in the State but who receive CDL training within the State, and administer the knowledge test to these individuals?

    Guidance: Yes. Section 383.73 does not prohibit States from accepting and processing CLP applications from out-of-State applicants (e.g., individuals who are not domiciled in the State but who receive training there) and administering the knowledge test to such applicants, provided there is agreement between the testing State and the applicant's State of domicile. In particular: (1) The testing State must administer the general knowledge test in accordance with 49 CFR part 383, subparts F, G, and H; (2) transmission of general knowledge test results and any other supporting documentation shall occur by a direct, secure, electronic means to the State of domicile; and (3) in accordance with § 383.73(h), only the State of domicile may create the CDLIS record and issue the physical CLP. Ultimately, the responsibility for compliance with all requirements of § 383.71 and § 383.73 remains with the State of domicile. Under 49 CFR 383.79, States of domicile are already required to accept skills test results from other States; this guidance clarifies that States of domicile may (but are not required to) accept knowledge test results from other States in the same manner. This guidance shall not be construed to allow a State to issue a CLP or CDL to an individual who is not domiciled in that State. Both the CLP and the CDL must be issued by the State of domicile, as required by 49 U.S.C. 31311(a)(12)(A).

    Expiration Date for the Regulatory Guidance

    In accordance with the requirement in Section 5203(a)(2)(A) of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, Public Law 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1535, Dec. 4, 2015, the guidance above will be posted on FMCSA's Web site, http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov and expires no later than August 3, 2022. The Agency will then consider whether the guidance should be withdrawn, reissued for another period of up to five years, or incorporated into the safety regulations at that time.

    Issued on: July 26, 2017. Daphne Y. Jefferson, Deputy Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16338 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 120815345-3525-02] RIN 0648-XF581 Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; 2017 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for the South Atlantic Other Jacks Complex (Lesser Amberjack, Almaco Jack, and Banded Rudderfish) AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS implements an accountability measure (AM) for the commercial sector for the Other Jacks Complex (lesser amberjack, almaco jack, and banded rudderfish) in the South Atlantic for the 2017 fishing year through this temporary rule. NMFS projects that commercial landings of the Other Jacks complex will reach their combined commercial annual catch limit (ACL) by August 4, 2017. Therefore, NMFS closes the commercial sector for this complex on August 4, 2017, through the remainder of the fishing year in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. This closure is necessary to protect the lesser amberjack, almaco jack, and banded rudderfish resources.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, August 4, 2017, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes lesser amberjack, almaco jack, and banded rudderfish, which combined are the Other Jacks Complex, and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

    The combined commercial ACL for the Other Jacks Complex is 189,422 lb (85,920 kg), round weight. Under 50 CFR 622.193(l)(1)(i), NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for the Other Jacks Complex when the commercial ACL has been reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined that the commercial sector for this complex is projected to reach its ACL by August 4, 2017. Therefore, this temporary rule implements an AM to close the commercial sector for the Other Jacks Complex in the South Atlantic, effective 12:01 a.m., local time, August 4, 2017.

    The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper having lesser amberjack, almaco jack, or banded rudderfish on board must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such species prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, August 4, 2017. During the closure, the recreational bag limit specified in 50 CFR 622.187(b)(8) and the possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.187(c) apply to all harvest or possession of lesser amberjack, almaco jack, or banded rudderfish in or from the South Atlantic EEZ. These recreational bag and possession limits apply in the South Atlantic on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, regardless of whether such species were harvested in state or Federal waters. During the closure, the sale or purchase of lesser amberjack, almaco jack, or banded rudderfish taken from the EEZ is prohibited.

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the fish in the Other Jacks Complex, a component of the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery, and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(l)(1)(i) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

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

    This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the commercial sector for the Other Jacks Complex constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule implementing the AM itself has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect the Other Jacks Complex since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial ACL. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial ACL.Comm

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

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: July 31, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16378 Filed 7-31-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 148 Thursday, August 3, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0666; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-15] Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Pueblo, CO AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace upward from 700 feet above the surface at Pueblo Memorial Airport, Pueblo, CO. The part-time Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) information would be removed from Class E airspace designated as an extension. The geographic coordinates for Pueblo Memorial Airport in the associated Class D and E airspace areas also would be amended to match the FAA's aeronautical database. A biennial review found these changes are necessary to accommodate airspace redesign for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System. Also, an editorial change would be made to the Class D and Class E airspace legal descriptions replacing “Airport/Facility Directory” with the term “Chart Supplement.”

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0666; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-15, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class D and Class E airspace at Pueblo Memorial Airport, Pueblo, CO to support IFR operations at the airport.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0666/Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-15”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, Class E airspace designated as an extension, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Pueblo Memorial Airport, Pueblo, CO.

    Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace would be reduced to within a 5.1-mile radius (from 5.6 miles) of Pueblo Memorial Airport.

    The Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area east of the airport would be modified to a 7.2 mile wide segment (from 7 miles) extending to 11.3 miles (from 11.4 miles) east of the airport; the segment west of the airport would be removed as it is not necessary to support current operations; and a segment would be established north of the airport within 1.6 miles west and 1.3 miles east of the 358° bearing from the airport extending from the 5.1 mile radius to 6.7 miles north of the airport.

    Also, this action would eliminate the following language from the legal description of Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area at the airport: “This Class E airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory,” since the airspace remains in effect full time.

    Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet would be reduced to within a 7.6-mile radius of the Pueblo Memorial Airport with extensions to 12 miles north and 12.3 miles east of the airport (from a 21.8-mile radius with an extension to 28.2 miles east). Also, this action would remove Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface since the airspace is wholly contained within the Denver Class E en route airspace area and duplication is not necessary.

    Additionally, this action would update the geographic coordinates for Pueblo Memorial Airport and replace the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” with the term “Chart Supplement” in the associated Class D and Class E airspace legal descriptions. This proposed airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ANM CO D Pueblo, CO [Amended] Pueblo Memorial Airport, CO (Lat. 38°17′24″ N., long. 104°29′53″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 7,200 feet MSL within a 5.1-mile radius of Pueblo Memorial Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. ANM CO E2 Pueblo, CO [Amended] Pueblo Memorial Airport, CO (Lat. 38°17′24″ N., long. 104°29′53″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 5.1-mile radius of Pueblo Memorial Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D or Class E Surface Area. ANM CO E4 Pueblo, CO [Amended] Pueblo Memorial Airport, CO (Lat. 38°17′24″ N., long. 104°29′53″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within 3.6 miles each side of the 081° bearing from Pueblo Memorial Airport extending from the 5.1 mile radius of the airport to 11.3 miles east of the airport, and within 1.6 miles west and 1.3 miles east of the 358° bearing from the airport extending from the 5.1 mile radius of the airport to 6.7 miles north of the airport.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ANM CO E5 Pueblo, CO [Amended] Pueblo Memorial Airport, CO (Lat. 38°17′24″ N., long. 104°29′53″ W.)

    That airspace upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.6-mile radius of Pueblo Memorial Airport, and within 2.2 miles west and 1.8 miles east of the 358° bearing from the airport extending to 12 miles north of the airport, and within 3.8 miles each side of the 081° bearing from the airport extending to 12.3 miles east of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on July 27, 2017. Shawn Kozica, Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16283 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0649; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-11] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Boothville, LA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Boothville, LA. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new special instrument approach procedures developed at Boothville Heliport, for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the heliport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0649; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-11, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Walter Tweedy (prepared by Ron Laster), Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5802.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace extending up to and including 700 feet above the surface at Boothville Heliport, Boothville, LA in support of IFR operations at the heliport.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0649; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-11.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Boothville Heliport, Boothville, LA, to accommodate new special instrument approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASW LA E5 Boothville, LA [New] Boothville Heliport, LA (Lat. 29°21′15″ N., long. 89°26′09″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Boothville Heliport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX; on July 27, 2017. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16285 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0073, 0074, 0075 and 0076; EPA-HQ-SFUND-1994-0003; FRL-9965-36-OLEM] National Priorities List AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), as amended, requires that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”) include a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List (“NPL”) constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “the agency”) in determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further investigations will allow the EPA to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. This rule proposes to add four sites to the General Superfund section of the NPL and withdraws a previous proposal to list one site on the NPL.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be submitted (postmarked) on or before October 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Identify the appropriate docket number from the table below.

    Docket Identification Numbers by Site Site name City/county, state Docket ID No. Newark South Ground Water Plume Newark, DE EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0073. American Creosote DeRidder DeRidder, LA EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0074. Mississippi Phosphates Corporation Pascagoula, MS EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0075. Eagle Industries Midwest City, OK EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0076.

    Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate docket number, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    To send a comment via the United States Postal Service, use the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Superfund Docket Center, Mailcode 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    Use the Docket Center address below if you are using express mail, commercial delivery, hand delivery or courier. Delivery verification signatures will be available only during regular business hours: EPA Superfund Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.

    For additional docket addresses and further details on their contents, see section II, “Public Review/Public Comment,” of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION portion of this preamble.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603-8852, email: [email protected], Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch, Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (Mailcode 5204P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; or the Superfund Hotline, phone (800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810 in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background A. What are CERCLA and SARA? B. What is the NCP? C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)? D. How are sites listed on the NPL? E. What happens to sites on the NPL? F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites? G. How are sites removed from the NPL? H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are cleaned up? I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)? J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure? K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing? II. Public Review/Public Comment A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule? B. How do I access the documents? C. What documents are available for public review at the EPA Headquarters docket? D. What documents are available for public review at the EPA regional dockets? E. How do I submit my comments? F. What happens to my comments? G. What should I consider when preparing my comments? H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is over? I. May I view public comments submitted by others? J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed to the NPL? III. Contents of This Proposed Rule A. Proposed additions to the NPL B. Withdrawal of Previous Proposal to list a Site on the NPL IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations I. Background A. What are CERCLA and SARA?

    In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (“SARA”), Public Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.

    B. What is the NCP?

    To implement CERCLA, the EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”), 40 CFR part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances or releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. The EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).

    As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also includes “criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable taking into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action.” “Removal” actions are defined broadly and include a wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).

    C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?

    The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of “releases” and the highest priority “facilities” and requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is only of limited significance, however, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.

    For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by the EPA (the “General Superfund section”), and one of sites that are owned or operated by other federal agencies (the “Federal Facilities section”). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities section, these sites are generally being addressed by other federal agencies. Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody or control, although the EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking System (“HRS”) score and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL.

    D. How are sites listed on the NPL?

    There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS, which the EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four pathways: ground water, surface water, soil exposure and air. As a matter of agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL. (2) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B), each state may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one facility designated by each state as the greatest danger to public health, welfare or the environment among known facilities in the state. This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2). (3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:

    • The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.

    • The EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health.

    • The EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to the release.

    The EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.

    E. What happens to sites on the NPL?

    A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the “Superfund”) only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1). (“Remedial actions” are those “consistent with permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. * * *” 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) placing a site on the NPL “does not imply that monies will be expended.” The EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

    F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?

    The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the time of listing.

    Although a CERCLA “facility” is broadly defined to include any area where a hazardous substance has “come to be located” (CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course, HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS analysis.

    When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the “boundaries” of the site. Rather, the site consists of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well as any other location where that contamination has come to be located, or from where that contamination came.

    In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate the site (e.g., the “Jones Co. Plant site”) in terms of the property owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of the “site”). The “site” is thus neither equal to, nor confined by, the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to help identify the geographic location of the contamination, and is not meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For example, the name “Jones Co. Plant site,” does not imply that the Jones Company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant site.

    The EPA regulations provide that the remedial investigation (“RI”) “is a process undertaken . . . to determine the nature and extent of the problem presented by the release” as more information is developed on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an interactive fashion with the feasibility Study (“FS”) (40 CFR 300.5). During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the contamination “has come to be located” before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release with absolute certainty.

    Further, as noted previously, NPL listing does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property, it can submit supporting information to the agency at any time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.

    For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research reveals more information about the location of the contamination or release.

    G. How are sites removed from the NPL?

    The EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(e). This section also provides that the EPA shall consult with states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met:

    (i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

    (ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been implemented and no further response action is required; or

    (iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

    H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are cleaned up?

    In November 1995, the EPA initiated a policy to delete portions of NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may have been cleaned up and made available for productive use.

    I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?

    The EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list (“CCL”) to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal significance.

    Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved; (2) the EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction (e.g., institutional controls); or (3) the site qualifies for deletion from the NPL. For more information on the CCL, see the EPA's Internet site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-remedial-performance-measures#cc_anchor.

    J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure?

    The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure (formerly called Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse) represents important Superfund accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority the EPA places on considering anticipated future land use as part of the remedy selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are in place. The EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the environment for current and future land uses, in a manner that allows contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and economic vitality. For further information, please go to https://www.epa.gov/superfund/about-superfund-cleanup-process#tab-9.

    K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing?

    In order to maintain close coordination with states and tribes in the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to determine the position of the states and tribes regarding sites that the EPA is considering for listing. This consultation process is outlined in two memoranda that can be found at the following Web site: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.

    The EPA is improving the transparency of the process by which state and tribal input is solicited. The EPA is using the Web and where appropriate more structured state and tribal correspondence that (1) explains the concerns at the site and the EPA's rationale for proceeding; (2) requests an explanation of how the state intends to address the site if placement on the NPL is not favored; and (3) emphasizes the transparent nature of the process by informing states that information on their responses will be publicly available.

    A model letter and correspondence from this point forward between the EPA and states and tribes where applicable, is available on the EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.

    II. Public Review/Public Comment A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?

    Yes, documents that form the basis for the EPA's evaluation and scoring of the sites in this proposed rule are contained in public dockets located both at the EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, and in the regional offices. These documents are also available by electronic access at https://www.regulations.gov (see instructions in the “Addresses” section above).

    B. How do I access the documents?

    You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the Headquarters or the regional dockets after the publication of this proposed rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding federal holidays. Please contact the regional dockets for hours.

    The following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters Docket: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, CERCLA Docket Office, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., William Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004; 202/566-0276. (Please note this is a visiting address only. Mail comments to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble.)

    The contact information for the regional dockets is as follows:

    • Holly Inglis, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund Records and Information Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912; 617/918-1413.

    • Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4344.

    • Lorie Baker (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/814-3355.

    • Cathy Amoroso, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562-8637.

    • Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA Superfund Division Librarian/SFD Records Manager SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/886-4465.

    • Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/665-7436.

    • Kumud Pyakuryal, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201 Renner Blvd., Mailcode SUPRSTAR, Lenexa, KS 66219; 913/551-7956.

    • Victor Ketellapper, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 303/312-6578.

    • Sharon Murray, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/947-4250.

    • Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Mailcode ECL-112, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/463-1349.

    You may also request copies from the EPA Headquarters or the regional dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents. Please note that due to the difficulty of reproducing oversized maps, oversized maps may be viewed only in-person; since the EPA dockets are not equipped to both copy and mail out such maps or scan them and send them out electronically.

    You may use the docket at https://www.regulations.gov to access documents in the Headquarters docket (see instructions included in the ADDRESSES section). Please note that there are differences between the Headquarters docket and the regional dockets and those differences are outlined in this preamble, Sections II.C and D.

    C. What documents are available for public review at the EPA Headquarters docket?

    The Headquarters docket for this proposed rule contains the following for the sites proposed in this rule: HRS score sheets; documentation records describing the information used to compute the score; information for any sites affected by particular statutory requirements or the EPA listing policies; and a list of documents referenced in the documentation record.

    D. What documents are available for public review at the EPA regional dockets?

    The regional dockets for this proposed rule contain all of the information in the Headquarters docket plus the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied upon and cited by the EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These reference documents are available only in the regional dockets.

    E. How do I submit my comments?

    Comments must be submitted to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble in the ADDRESSES section. Please note that the mailing addresses differ according to method of delivery. There are two different addresses that depend on whether comments are sent by express mail or by postal mail.

    F. What happens to my comments?

    The EPA considers all comments received during the comment period. Significant comments are typically addressed in a support document that the EPA will publish concurrently with the Federal Register document if, and when, the site is listed on the NPL.

    G. What should I consider when preparing my comments?

    Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the specific information that the EPA should consider and how it affects individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria (Northside Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). The EPA will not address voluminous comments that are not referenced to the HRS or other listing criteria. The EPA will not address comments unless they indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what particular point in the EPA's stated eligibility criteria is at issue.

    H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is over?

    Generally, the EPA will not respond to late comments. The EPA can guarantee only that it will consider those comments postmarked by the close of the formal comment period. The EPA has a policy of generally not delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate consideration of late comments.

    I. May I view public comments submitted by others?

    During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters docket and are available to the public on an “as received” basis. A complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the regional dockets approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.

    All public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper form, will be made available for public viewing in the electronic public docket at https://www.regulations.gov as the EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Once in the public dockets system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

    J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed to the NPL?

    In certain instances, interested parties have written to the EPA concerning sites that were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and comment will not generally be included in the docket.

    III. Contents of This Proposed Rule A. Proposed Additions to the NPL

    In this proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to add four sites to the NPL, all to the General Superfund section. All of the sites in this proposed rulemaking are being proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above.

    The sites are presented in the table below.

    General Superfund Section State Site name City/county DE Newark South Ground Water Plume Newark. LA American Creosote DeRidder DeRidder. MS Mississippi Phosphates Corporation Pascagoula. OK Eagle Industries Midwest City. B. Withdrawal of Previous Proposal To List a Site on the NPL

    The EPA is withdrawing its previous proposal to add the Burlington Northern Livingston Shop Complex site in Livingston, Montana to the NPL because the potentially responsible party, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company, will complete the remaining actions to investigate and clean up contamination at the facility pursuant to the State of Montana Comprehensive Environmental Cleanup and Responsibility Act (CECRA) and the 1990 Modified Partial Consent Decree and subsequent Statements of Work. The rule proposing to add this site to the NPL can be found at 59 FR 43314 (August 23, 1994). Refer to the Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-1994-0003 for supporting documentation regarding this action. Other information regarding this site can be found on the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Web page at http://deq.mt.gov/Land/statesuperfund/bnlivingston.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval of the OMB.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This rule listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This rule also does not establish standards or requirements that any small entity must meet, and imposes no direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of hazardous substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site is listed on the NPL through this rulemaking.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by a private party, state, local or tribal governments or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from future site-specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of placing a site on the NPL.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. Listing a site on the NPL does not impose any costs on a tribe or require a tribe to take remedial action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this action itself is procedural in nature (adds sites to a list) and does not, in and of itself, provide protection from environmental health and safety risks. Separate future regulatory actions are required for mitigation of environmental health and safety risks.

    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. As discussed in Section I.C. of the preamble to this action, the NPL is a list of national priorities. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is of only limited significance as it does not assign liability to any party. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p.193.

    Dated: July 27, 2017. Barry N. Breen, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16171 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 680 RIN 0648-BG84 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) submitted Amendment 48 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (Crab FMP) to NMFS for review. If approved, Amendment 48 would revise the Crab FMP to specify how NMFS determines the amount of limited access privileges held and used by groups in the Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program (CDQ Program) for the purposes of managing the excessive share limits under the Crab Rationalization (CR) Program. Amendment 48 is necessary to make the Crab FMP consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requirements and NMFS' current method of managing excessive share limits for CDQ groups in the CR Program. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Crab FMP, and other applicable laws.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before October 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0038, by any one of the following methods.

    Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0038, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

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

    Electronic copies of the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and the Categorical Exclusion prepared for Amendment 48 may be obtained from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

    The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), RIR, Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and Social Impact Assessment prepared for the CR Program are available from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Keeley Kent, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each regional fishery management council submit any fishery management plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a fishery management plan amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment. This notice announces that proposed Amendment 48 to the Crab FMP is available for public review and comment.

    NMFS manages the king and Tanner crab fisheries in the U.S. exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) under the Crab FMP. The Council prepared, and NMFS approved, the Crab FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the Crab FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 680.

    The CR Program was implemented on April 1, 2005 (70 FR 10174). The CR Program established a limited access privilege program for nine crab fisheries in the BSAI and assigned quota share (QS) to persons based on their historic participation in one or more of those nine BSAI crab fisheries during a specific period. Each year, a person who holds QS may receive an exclusive harvest privilege for a portion of the annual total allowable catch. This annual exclusive harvest privilege is called individual fishing quota (IFQ).

    NMFS also issued processor quota share (PQS) under the CR Program. Each year PQS yields an exclusive privilege to process a portion of the IFQ in each of the nine BSAI crab fisheries. This annual exclusive processing privilege is called individual processor quota (IPQ). Only a portion of the QS issued yields IFQ that is required to be delivered to a processor with IPQ; this IFQ is called Class A IFQ. Each year there is a one-to-one match of the pounds of Class A IFQ with the total pounds of IPQ issued in each crab fishery.

    The CDQ Program was established by the Council and NMFS in 1992, and in 1996, authorization for the Program was incorporated into the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The purpose of the CDQ Program is (1) to provide eligible western Alaska villages with the opportunity to participate and invest in fisheries in the BSAI, (2) to support economic development in western Alaska, (3) to alleviate poverty and provide economic and social benefits for residents of western Alaska, and (4) to achieve sustainable and diversified local economies in western Alaska (16 U.S.C. 1855(i)(1)(A)).

    Section 305(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act describes the CDQ Program and identifies the villages eligible to participate in the CDQ Program through the six entities specified in Section 305(i)(1)(D) as the CDQ groups (16 U.S.C. 1855(i)). Regulations at 50 CFR 679.2 define the term “CDQ group” as an entity identified as eligible for the CDQ Program under 16 U.S.C. 1855(i)(1)(D). The CDQ Program receives annual apportionments of total allowable catches (TACs) for a variety of commercially valuable species in the BSAI groundfish, crab, and halibut fisheries, which are in turn allocated among the six different CDQ groups. In addition to their allocations under the CDQ Program, CDQ groups participate in the AFA and CR Program fisheries by purchasing QS and PQS or through ownership of vessels or processors that participate in the fisheries. The CDQ groups have purchased both QS and PQS under the CR Program.

    Section 303A(c)(5)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Council and NMFS to establish excessive share limits for limited access privilege (LAP) programs to prevent excessive accumulation of privileges by participants in the LAP programs (16 U.S.C. 1853a(c)(5)(D)). The intent of these limits is to prevent excessive consolidation in the harvesting and processing sectors in order to maintain an appropriate distribution of economic and social benefits for fishery participants and communities. Because determination of excessive shares must consider the specific circumstances of each fishery, the Council has implemented different excessive share limits in the LAP programs in Alaska's fisheries, including the CR Program.

    The excessive share limit regulations prohibit a person from holding and using more than a specific portion of the LAPs allocated under the CR Program. Under 50 CFR 679.2, “person” includes individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations, and other non-individual entities. To monitor holdings and use of LAPs, NMFS determines what portion of a program's harvesting and processing privileges a person holds and uses to ensure that no person holds or uses more privileges than authorized by the excessive share limit established for each LAP.

    NMFS determines a person's holding and use of a LAP by summing (1) the amount directly held and used by that person, and (2) the amount held and used by that person indirectly through an ownership interest in or control of another entity that also holds and uses the LAP. Businesses that hold and use LAPs in the CR Program are often composed of multiple owners that have ownership interests in multiple fishing businesses. In cases where a LAP is held by a business entity with more than one owner, NMFS applies the excessive share limits (also called holding and use limits or caps) to each entity that has an ownership interest in or control of the LAP to monitor whether those entities each exceed the established caps. Ownership attribution refers to the method NMFS uses to assess the relationships between different entities that participate in LAP programs.

    NMFS uses two ownership attribution methods to assess these relationships. The two methods for attribution are the “individual and collective” rule and the “10-percent rule.” Under the individual and collective rule, a person is attributed holding or use of LAPs proportionally to their ownership in or control of other entities that hold or use LAPs. For example, if Company A owns or controls 15 percent of Company B that holds LAPs, Company A would be attributed 15 percent of the holding or use of those LAPs. In contrast, under the 10-percent rule, a person is attributed 100 percent of an entity's LAPs if that person owns or otherwise controls ten percent or more of that entity. Thus, if Company A owns or controls 10 percent or more of Company B, then all of Company B's holdings of LAPs are attributed to Company A. The individual and collective rule is less restrictive than the 10-percent rule because a person is only attributed holding or use in proportion to how much that person owns or controls of other entities, rather than attributing 100 percent of the other entity's LAP holdings once the 10-percent threshold is met.

    When the Council recommended the CR Program, it expressed concern about the potential for excessive consolidation of QS and PQS, in which too few persons control all of the QS or PQS and the resulting annual IFQ and IPQ. The Council determined that excessive consolidation could have adverse effects on crab markets, price setting negotiations between harvesters and processors, employment opportunities for harvesting and processing crew, tax revenue to communities in which crab are landed, and other factors considered and described in the CR Program EIS. To address this concern, the CR Program includes limits on the amount of QS and PQS that a person can hold and the amount of IFQ and IPQ that a person can use. To facilitate the monitoring of these limits, NMFS requires holders of QS and PQS that are non-individual entities to annually submit information on their ownership structure, down to the individual level, and on each owner's percentage holdings in the entity. Holding and use limits for QS and IFQ vary across CR Program fisheries because of different fleet characteristics and the differences in historic dependency of participants on the different crab fisheries. Under 50 CFR 680.42(a)(2), NMFS applies holding and use limits on QS and IFQ using the individual and collective rule for all participants, including CDQ groups, as was recommended by the Council for monitoring harvesting privileges.

    For processing privileges, the CR Program limits a person to holding no more than 30 percent of the PQS initially issued in the fishery, and to using no more than the amount of IPQ resulting from 30 percent of the PQS initially issued in a given fishery, with a limited exemption for persons receiving more than 30 percent of the initially-issued PQS (50 CFR 680.42(b)). The rationale for holding and use limits is described in the CR Program EIS and the final rule implementing the CR Program (70 FR 10174, 10175; March 2, 2005). Under 50 CFR 680.42(b)(3), NMFS applies holding and use limits on PQS and IPQ using the 10-percent rule, as was recommended by the Council and as was addressed in the preamble to the proposed rule for the CR Program (69 FR 63200, 63219 & 63226; October 29, 2004).

    When the CR Program was implemented, NMFS used the 10-percent rule to monitor PQS and IPQ holding and use limits in the CR Program for all program participants, including CDQ groups. In 2006, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-241; the Coast Guard Act) revised the Magnuson-Stevens Act to specify that CDQ groups would be subject to excessive share ownership, harvesting, or processing limitations only to the extent of their proportional ownership (16 U.S.C. 1855(i)(1)(F)(i)). Since the 2006 amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS has used the individual and collective rule for CDQ groups to monitor excessive share limits for CDQ groups in the CR Program. The individual and collective rule allows CDQ groups to hold and use more PQS and IPQ than non-CDQ persons because non-CDQ persons will remain subject to the more restrictive ownership attribution method (the 10-percent rule).

    Amendment 48 would revise the Crab FMP to make it consistent with NMFS' ownership attribution process for calculating holding and use of PQS and IPQ to monitor excessive share limits for CDQ groups in the CR Program. Amendment 48 would revise Section 2.7.1 under Chapter 11 of the FMP in the Processing Sector Elements section of the Crab FMP to specify that PQS and IPQ holding and use caps for CDQ groups are applied using the individual and collective rule, without continuing to use the 10-percent rule for determining whether an entity is included in calculating a CDQ group's holding and use caps. For example, if a CDQ group holds 15 percent of a company that holds or uses PQS or IPQ, Amendment 48 to the Crab FMP would clarify that the CDQ group would be attributed 15 percent of the holding or use of that PQS or IPQ. Amendment 48 would not revise the Crab FMP for the QS and IFQ holding and use limits under the CR Program because NMFS uses the individual and collective rule to monitor QS and IFQ holding and use limits for all program participants, including CDQ groups. NMFS has used the individual and collective rule to determine holding and use of PQS and IPQ by CDQ groups since enactment of the Coast Guard Act; however, NMFS has not revised the Crab FMP to reflect this statutory change or NMFS' current process.

    Amendment 48 would benefit CDQ groups and the public by revising the Crab FMP for consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Amendment 48 would also update the Crab FMP to specify the method NMFS currently uses to determine holding and use of processing privileges by CDQ groups for purposes of monitoring excessive share limits for the CR Program.

    Public comments are solicited on proposed Amendment 48 to the Crab FMP through the end of the comment period (see DATES). NMFS intends to publish in the Federal Register and seek public comment on a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 48, following NMFS' evaluation of the proposed rule under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 48 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 48. All comments received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 48, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule will be considered in the amendment approval/disapproval decision. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. To be considered,comments must be received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by the last day of the comment period.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: July 31, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16376 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 148 Thursday, August 3, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request July 31, 2017.

    The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC; New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602.

    Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by September 5, 2017. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Agricultural Marketing Service

    Title: Laboratory Approval Programs

    OMB Control Number: 0581-0251

    Summary of Collection: The Agricultural Marketing Act (AMA) of 1946, as amended, provides analytical testing services that facilitate marketing and allow products to obtain grade designations or meet marketing or quality standards. Pursuant to this authority, AMS develops and maintains laboratory certification verification and approval programs as needed by the agricultural industry, to support domestic and international marketing of U.S. products. To ensure that a laboratory is capable of accurately performing the specified analyses, it must adhere to certain good laboratory practice and show technical proficiency in the required areas.

    Need and Use of the Information: Checklist and forms have been developed that ask the laboratory for information concerning procedures, the physical facility, employees, and their training. The laboratory must also provide Standard Operating Procedures for the analyses and quality assurance. The laboratory certification and approval programs are voluntary, fee for service, and for admission into one of these programs a laboratory must have a client who requires the specific testing. It is necessary to collect and require the laboratory to attest to the performance elements necessary to determine the credibility of the laboratory. To do less would be a disservice to the agricultural community.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Farms.

    Number of Respondents: 56.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 4,140.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16334 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request July 31, 2017.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by September 5, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

    Title: Importation of Unshu Oranges from the Republic of Korea into the Continental United States.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0314.

    Summary of Collection: Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to carry out operations or measures to detect, eradicate, suppress, control, prevent, or retard the spread of plant pests new to the United States or not known to be widely distributed throughout the United States. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) amended the regulations governing the importation of citrus fruit to allow fresh Unshu oranges from the Republic of Korea to be imported in the continental United States under certain conditions. As a condition of entry, the oranges have to be prepared for shipping using packinghouse procedures that include culling of damaged or diseased fruit and washing in a water bath and a surface sterilization treatment.

    Need and Use of the Information: APHIS requires that some plants or plant products are accompanied by a phytosanitary inspection certificate that is completed by plant health officials in the originating or transiting country. APHIS uses the information on the certificate to determine the pest condition of the shipment at the time of inspection in the intensity of the inspection, APHIS conducts when the shipment arrives. Without this information, all shipments would need to be inspected very thoroughly, thereby requiring considerably more time. This would slow the clearance of international shipments.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Federal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 4.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 36.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16337 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Davy Crockett-Sam Houston Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Davy Crockett-Sam Houston Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Ratcliff, Texas. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: http://cloudapps-usda-gov.force.com/FSSRS/RAC_Page?id=001t0000002JcvhAAC.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on August 31, 2017, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at Davy Crockett Ranger District, Conference Room, 18551 State Highway 7 East, Kennard, Texas. Participants who would like to attend by teleconference or by video conference, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at Davy Crockett Ranger District. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michelle Rowe, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 936-655-2299 extension 224 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Introduce new members,

    2. Elect a chairman, and

    3. Review and approve new RAC projects.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by August 1, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Gerald Lawrence, Jr., Designated Federal Officer, Davy Crockett Ranger District, 18551 State Highway 7 East, Kennard, Texas 75847; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 936-655-2817.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled For Further Information Contact. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: July 10, 2017. Glenn Casamassa, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16302 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service West Virginia Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The West Virginia Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Elkins, West Virginia. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: https://cloudapps-usda-gov.secure.force.com/FSSRS/RAC_Page?id=001t0000002JcuqAAC.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on August 22, 2017, from 10:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in the Monongahela National Forest Headquarters Building, First Floor Conference Room, 200 Sycamore Street, Elkins, West Virginia. Participants who would like to attend by teleconference or by video conference, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at Monongahela National Forest Headquarters Building. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie Fosbender, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 304-636-1800 extension 169 or via email at [email protected].

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to review and discuss Title II project proposals.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by August 16, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Julie Fosbender, RAC Coordinator, Monongahela National Forest Headquarters Building, 200 Sycamore Street, Elkins, West Virginia 26241; by email to [email protected]; or via facsimile to 304-637-0582.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled For Further Information Contact. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: July 10, 2017. Glenn Casamassa, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16308 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Huron-Manistee Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Huron-Manistee Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Mio, Michigan. The RAC is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the RAC is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Act.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on August 22, 2017, from 6:30 p.m.-9:30 p.m. All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Mio Ranger District, 107 McKinley Road, Mio, Michigan, 48647. Participants who would like to attend by teleconference or by video conference, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Mio Ranger District. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brad Bolton, Designated Federal Officer, by phone at 989-826-3252 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Review and adopt meeting minutes from previous meeting,

    2. Review processess for recommending and considering Title II projects,

    3. Provide project presentations, and

    4. Allow for pubic comment.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should make a request in writing by August 15, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Brad Bolton, Designated Federal Officer, 107 McKinley Road, Mio, Michigan 48647, by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 989-826-6073.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled For Further Information Contact. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: July 5, 2017. Glenn Casamassa, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16305 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Fresno and Madera Counties Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Fresno and Madera Counties Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Clovis, California. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Act.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on August 17, 2017, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Sierra National Forest (NF) Supervisor's Office, 1600 Tollhouse Road, Clovis, California.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Sierra NF Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie Roberts, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 559-297-0706 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Discuss and agree on general operating procedures,

    2. Elect a chair,

    3. Review project proposals, and

    4. Possibly vote to recommend project proposals for Title II Funds.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by August 4, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Julie Roberts, RAC Coordinator, Sierra NF Supervisor's Office, 1600 Tollhouse Road, Clovis, California 93611; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 559-294-4809.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: July 10, 2017. Glenn Casamassa, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16303 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service West Virginia Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The West Virginia Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Elkins, West Virginia. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: https://cloudapps-usda-gov.secure.force.com/FSSRS/RAC_Page?id=001t0000002JcuqAAC.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on September 7, 2017, from 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in the Monongahela National Forest Headquarters Building, First Floor Conference Room, 200 Sycamore Street, Elkins, West Virginia. Participants who would like to attend by teleconference or by video conference, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at Monongahela National Forest Headquarters Building. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie Fosbender, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 304-636-1800 extension 169 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to review and discuss Title II project proposals.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by September 1, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Julie Fosbender, RAC Coordinator, Monongahela National Forest Headquarters Building, 200 Sycamore Street, Elkins, West Virginia 26241; by email to [email protected]; or via facsimile to 304-637-0582.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled For Further Information Contact. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: July 5, 2017. Glenn Casamassa, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16304 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of Proposed New Fee Site AGENCY:

    Hiawatha National Forest, USDA Forest Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed new fees and fee increase.

    SUMMARY:

    The Hiawatha National Forest is proposing new camping fees for the Grand Island National Recreation Area. The following sites are included in the new fee proposal: Channel Marker, Loon Call, Bermuda, Little Dune 1, Little Dune 2, Little Duck, and Driftwood campsites would be $10.00 per night. Gamefence, Hardwood, Hemlock, and Duck Lake campsites would be $8.00 per night. The proposed fee for Murray Bay and Juniper Flats Group Sites would be $30.00 per night. Fees are being proposed based on the level of amenities and services provided, cost of operations and maintenance, and market assessment of each site. Fees are necessary to ensure continued operation, maintenance, and improvements of these facilities. Final fee adjustments will be determined based upon further analysis and public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted through September 1st, 2017. New fees would begin May 2018.

    ADDRESS:

    Cid Morgan, Forest Supervisor, Hiawatha National Forest, 820 Rains Drive Gladstone, Michigan 49837.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Holeva, Program Manager Recreation and Lands, 906-428-5889. Information about the proposed fee changes can be also found on the Hiawatha National Forest Web site: https://www.fs.usda.gov/hiawatha.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directs the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new recreation fee areas are established. Once public involvement is complete, these new fees will be reviewed by the Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to final decision and implementation.

    Grand Island National Recreation Area is a 13,500 acre island located in Lake Superior about .25 miles from the mainland. All campsites included in this proposal are located on the southern half of Grand Island National Recreation Area and are accessible to the public via ferry service or private boat. Campsites are currently opened seasonally and provide a limited variety of amenities. Revenue generated by the proposed fee increases would be used to leverage federal funding, grants, and partnership contributions to make the following investments and improvements: Initiate trash service at boat access points; installation of bear-proof trash receptacles; upgrade picnic tables, grills, and fire rings; provide better signage; new heritage programs and interpretation materials; implementation of new permit system for better reservation tracking, and potentially a more environmentally sustainable recreation infrastructure, such as hammock stands, etc.

    Dated: July 10, 2017. Glenn Casamassa, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System .
    [FR Doc. 2017-16310 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Institute of Food and Agriculture Announcement of Requirements and Registration for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Innovations in Food and Agricultural Science and Technology (I-FAST) Prize Competition AGENCY:

    National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) is announcing the I-FAST prize competition (the “I-FAST Competition” or the “Competition”) to develop and implement the Innovations in Food and Agricultural Science and Technology (I-FAST) Program. USDA NIFA will partner with the National Science Foundation (NSF) Innovation Corps (I-Corps) to provide entrepreneurship training to USDA NIFA grantees under this I-FAST pilot program. The goals are to identify valuable product opportunities that can emerge from NIFA supported academic research. Selected USDA NIFA I-FAST project teams will have the opportunity to concurrently participate in the educational programs with NSF I-Corps awardees. Over a period of six months the USDA NIFA supported teams in the I-FAST program will learn what it will take to achieve an economic impact with their particular innovation. The final goal of the I-FAST Competition is to facilitate technology transfer of innovations that can make an impact in the marketplace and the global economy.

    DATES:

    Competition Submission Period—Pre-Application and Evaluation Interviews:

    Pre-Application Open Period: August 3, 2017 to September 8, 2017.

    Pre-Application Evaluation and Interviews: September 11, 2017 to September 14, 2017.

    Full Application Open Period: September 15, 2017 to October 6, 2017.

    Final Evaluation and Judging—Full Application: October 9, 2017 to October 11, 2017.

    Verification of Winners: October 13, 2017.

    Announcement of Winner(s): October 17, 2017.

    NSF I-Corps Training for Winner(s): Winning team(s) will need to be available to travel to and attend one of the following NSF I-Corps training sessions with the following dates and locations:

    Winter 2018 COHORTS:

    Winter Cohort #1: Location TBD (Likely DC metro area).

    Kickoff (on-site): January (arrive 16) 17-19.

    Web sessions (online): Thursdays 1-4 p.m. ET—January 25, February 1, 8, 15, 22.

    Lessons Learned (on-site): March 1-2.

    Winter Cohort #2: Location TBD (Likely Atlanta metro area).

    Kickoff (on-site): January (arrive 21) 22-24.

    Web sessions (online): Mondays 1-4 p.m. ET—January 29, February 5, 12, 19, 26.

    Lessons Learned (on-site): March 5-6.

    The Pre-Application Phase Competition Submission Period begins August 3, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. ET and ends September 8, 2017 at 12:00 a.m. ET. USDA NIFA's receiving computer set to Eastern Time is the official time keeping device for the Competition.

    Pre-Application Interviews will take place September 11, 2017 to September 14, 2017.

    The Full-Application Phase Competition Submission Period begins September 15, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. ET and ends October 6, 2017 at 12:00 a.m. ET. USDA NIFA's receiving computer set to Eastern Time is the official timekeeping device for the Competition.

    Competition dates are subject to change. Entries submitted before or after the Competition Submission Period will not be reviewed or considered for award. For more details, please visit the www.challenge.gov Web site.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Changes or updates to the Competition rules will be posted and can be viewed at https://nifa.usda.gov/program/innovations-food-and-agricultural-science-and-technology-i-fast-prize-competition. Questions about the Competition can be directed to Scott Dockum at [email protected], or phone 202-720-6346.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Subject of Challenge Competition

    The USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) mission is to invest in and advance agricultural research, education, and extension to solve societal challenges. As part of this mission NIFA is charged with providing grant funding for research, education, and extension that address key problems of national, regional, and multi-state importance in sustaining all components of agriculture. A majority of NIFA grant funding is provided to academic institutions to focus on developing research in the areas of farm efficiency and profitability, ranching, renewable energy, forestry (both urban and agroforestry), aquaculture, rural communities and entrepreneurship, human nutrition, food safety, biotechnology, and conventional breeding.

    USDA NIFA will partner with the NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps) who will provide an Entrepreneurial Immersion course and training to USDA NIFA grantees through this I-FAST Competition. The goals of this Competition are to spur translation of fundamental research to the market place, to encourage collaboration between academia and industry, and to train NIFA-funded faculty, students and other researchers to understand innovation and entrepreneurship.

    The purpose of the I-FAST Competition is to identify NIFA-funded research teams who will receive additional support, in the form of mentoring, training, and funding to accelerate the translation of knowledge derived from fundamental research into emerging products and services that can attract subsequent third-party funding. NIFA-funded research teams will be required to participate in Entrepreneurial Immersion courses provided by the NSF I-Corps program. Each team that receives an I-FAST award is required to participate in the following NSF I-CORP activities: (1) Attendance by the entire team at an on-site three-day NSF I-CORP Entrepreneurial Immersion course; (2) Mandatory participation in the I-CORPs weekly Webinars following the in-person three day on-site meeting; (3) Completion of approximately 15 hours of preparation per week over the duration of the program; (4) Attendance of a two day lessons learned in-person meeting at the end of the training. During the training, teams are expected to engage in at least 100 contacts with potential customers and provide a 5-page summary report back to USDA NIFA on the outcome of the training and milestones to be met by the team (i.e., commercialization, market proposition, and lessons learned from the program). The major focus of I-FAST is for the selected teams (an I-FAST team includes the Principal Investigator (PI), the Entrepreneurial Lead, and the Mentor) to participate in an Entrepreneurial Immersion course provided by the NSF I-Corps program. The NSF I-Corps is a program specifically designed to broaden the impact of select, basic research projects by preparing scientists and engineers to focus beyond the laboratory. Leveraging experience and guidance from established entrepreneurs and a targeted curriculum within the NSF I-Corp program, USDA I-FAST teams will learn to identify valuable product opportunities that can emerge from USDA NIFA supported academic research. The I-FAST Competition will help create a stronger national ecosystem for innovation that couples scientific discovery with technology development to address agricultural and societal needs.

    Eligibility Rules for Participating in the Competition

    The I-FAST Competition is open to teams (“Teams” or “Participants”) that are made up of individuals from academic/university institutions that have received a prior award from NIFA (in a scientific or engineering field relevant to the proposed innovation) that is currently active or that has been active within five years from the closing date of the I-FAST deadline. The lineage of the prior award extends to the PI, Co-PIs, Senior Personnel, Postdoctoral Scholars, Professional Staff, or others who were supported under the NIFA award. The prior award could range from a modest single-investigator award to a large, distributed center and also includes awards involving students.

    To be eligible to win a prize under the Competition, Teams:

    (1) Shall have registered to participate in the Competition under the rules;

    (2) Shall have complied with all the requirements of the Competition rules;

    (3) May not include a Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of their employment; and

    (4) In the case of a private entity Team member, the member shall be incorporated in and maintain a primary place of business in the United States. In the case of an individual Team member, shall be a citizen or permanent resident of the United States.

    Makeup of I-FAST Competition Teams: Each Team shall consist of three members:

    (1) Entrepreneurial Lead (EL).

    (2) I-FAST Team Mentor.

    (3) Principal Investigator (PI).

    I-FAST teams are made up of individuals from an academic/university institution except for the Mentor who may reside with an outside organization as described below.

    The Entrepreneurial Lead (EL) could be a postdoctoral scholar, graduate, or other student with relevant knowledge of the technology located at the academic/university institution and a deep commitment to investigate the commercial landscape surrounding the innovation. The EL should also be capable and have the will to support the transition of the technology, should the I-FAST Team's project demonstrate the potential for commercial viability. The EL will be responsible for: (1) Developing the team to include the mentor and PI, (2) leading the development of the pre-application, participating in the I-FAST interviews and developing the full application, if selected, (3) starting and completing all training activities in the Entrepreneurial Immersion course provided by the NSF I-Corps program, (4) communicating and coordinating with team members to achieve the goals of the team, (5) developing and monitoring team activity milestones from the Entrepreneurial Immersion course, (6) ensuring the team milestones are completed on time, and (7) ensuring the team is in communication with the NIFA I-FAST Competition Director and the NSF I-Corps Program Director as needed.

    The I-FAST Teams Mentor will typically be an experienced or emerging entrepreneur with proximity to the academic/university institution and have experience in transitioning technology out of the academic arena. The Mentor should be selected as a third-party resource, or may be a person that has an established relationship with the team (e.g., Board Member), but cannot be an employee nor directly involved with the technology development. Ideally, the Industry Expert should have prior experience developing and commercializing other products within the broader technology space related to the specific project under development. The EL will need to identify a Mentor that has business expertise in the proposed technology sector and has entrepreneurial experience. A Mentor will be someone with the right “rolodex” of contacts in the technology area of commercialization which are critical for “getting the technology out of the university.” The EL of the team should contact their University Technology Transfer Office for ideas of potential Mentors. The I-FAST Team's Mentor will be responsible for guiding the team forward using existing entrepreneurial experience and tracking the team's progress through regular communication with the EL, PI, the NIFA I-FAST competition director, and the NSF I-Corps Program Director, as needed.

    The PI will have in-depth knowledge of the innovation developed under the earlier USDA NIFA Grant and will be responsible for: (1) Coordinating with the university on the transfer of prize funds from NIFA, if the team is selected, (2) tracking of the prize funding for team activities, (3) reporting to NIFA on disbursements and obligations of the prize funding, (4) guiding the EL and Mentor on technical aspects of the innovation, (5) communicating as needed with the NIFA I-FAST Competition Director and the NSF I-Corps Program Director, (6) ensuring the EL meets the required milestones for the NSF I-CORP training, and (7) participating as a team member. The Principal Investigator who received the earlier NIFA grant for the technology is allowed to participate on the team, but cannot be the Entrepreneurial Lead.

    During the I-Corps course, each participating team, including all its team members, will be required to:

    • Attend, in person, an evening reception and 3-day kick-off Entrepreneurial Immersion course;

    • Conduct approximately 100 customer interviews over the 6-week program, and submit interview summary reports. This process of customer discovery “outside the building” is expected to require a minimum of 15 hours per week for at least five weeks;

    • Participate in 5 weekly webinar sessions and submit regular updates to the team's business model canvas. In addition, it is expected that I-Corps teams will take advantage of instructor office hours; and

    • Attend, in person, the final 2-day course close out/lessons learned session (to be held in the same region as the kick-off course).

    If one or more team members cannot meet these requirements, the team should not pursue the program.

    Amount of the Prize

    The USDA NIFA I-FAST Competition Prize Purse will be a maximum of $400,000 which will be divided to provide $50,000 each to a maximum of eight (8) Teams. Prize Purse funds are required to be used by winning Teams to fully participate in the NSF I-Corps program curriculum. USDA NIFA reserves the right to award less than the maximum number of available prizes.

    Payment of the Prize

    Prizes awarded under this Competition will be paid by electronic funds transfer to the academic/university institution the Team(s) represent(s). Prize winners will be required to complete the required financial documents and forms to be supplied by NIFA to set up the electronic transfer. All Federal, state and local taxes are the sole responsibility of the winner(s).

    Submission Process for Participants

    The Competition will have a three-phase selection process. Initially, Teams will submit a pre-application. From the pre-applications, USDA NIFA will conduct phone interviews. Selected Teams will be invited to submit a full application. From the full applications, USDA NIFA will select the winning Team(s).

    Participants will register for the Competition and will submit the pre-application to the Competition via www.challenge.gov. Teams can enter the contest by submitting the pre-application through the “Enter a Submission” function on Challenge.gov, and then send the pre-application, with name and contact info, to [email protected] The pre-application shall contain the following information:

    Prepare a three-page Executive Summary that describes the following:

    (1) Composition of the Team and roles (EL, PI, Mentor) of the members proposing to undertake the commercialization feasibility research.

    (2) Point of Contact information for ALL of the members.

    (3) Relevant current/previous NIFA award(s) including award number, Title of the Project, and the NIFA program the award was funded under.

    (4) Brief description of the potential commercial impact.

    (5) Brief description of the current commercialization plans for the innovation.

    After the interviews, Teams that are selected to submit a full application will submit it via challenge.gov through the “Enter a Submission” function and then send the application with name and contact info to [email protected] The full application shall include the following project description information:

    1. I-Corps Team (One Page Limit)

    a. Briefly describe the I-Corps team and provide rationale for its formation, focusing on members' entrepreneurial expertise, relevance to the innovation effort, and members' experience in collaborating on previous projects.

    b. Include point of contact information for all team members.

    2. Lineage of the Proposed Innovation (One Page Limit)

    a. Provide the current/previous NIFA award(s) including award number, Title of Project and the NIFA program the award was funded under.

    b. Briefly describe how this research has led the Team to believe that a commercial opportunity exists for the effort moving forward.

    3. Description of the Potential Commercial Impact (Two Page Limit)

    a. Provide a brief profile of a typical customer of the proposed innovation.

    b. Describe the customer need that you believe will be met by the proposed innovation.

    c. Describe how the customer currently meets those needs.

    d. Your approach—What is the proposed innovation? How does it relate to the fundamental research already conducted under previous award(s)?

    e. How much do you think a customer would pay for your solution?

    4. Brief Description of the Project Plan (One Page Limit)

    a. Current Status—In what stage is the development: Proof-of-principle, proof-of-concept, prototype (alpha, beta), etc . . .

    b. Provide a brief description of the proof-of-concept or technology demonstration that will be provided at the end of the project.

    The total page limit for the project description full application is five (5) pages.

    From the Teams submitting full applications, a maximum of eight Teams will be selected as winners to enter into the I-FAST Program.

    Judging

    The information on the Competition will be provided via www.challenges.gov.

    USDA NIFA will screen all entries for eligibility and completeness. Entries from Teams that do not meet the eligibility requirements and/or that fail to include required submission elements will not be evaluated or considered for award. Eligible and complete entries will be judged by a fair and impartial panel of individuals from USDA NIFA and NSF (the “Judging Panel”).

    Pre-Application Evaluation: The Judging Panel will evaluate the pre-application to determine the following:

    (1) Did the technology proposed receive past NIFA funding?

    (2) Does the team have the required team members and are the roles of each team member clearly described?

    (3) Does the commercialization plan provide a good understanding of the team's knowledge of the current state of the art and how the technology could enter into a potential market?

    (4) Were the page limits met?

    Following the evaluation, the Judging Panel will conduct a phone interview with each selected team. This will emphasize the time commitment and availability of the entire team to complete the NSF I-CORPS program during one of the winter 2018 cohorts.

    Full-Application Evaluation: The Judging Panel will evaluate the Full-application to determine the following and approximately equal consideration will be given to each criterion except for item (3), which will receive twice the value of any of the other items:

    1. I-Corps Team: Does the application clearly describe: The I-Corps team, the rationale for the team's formation, members' entrepreneurial expertise, relevance to the innovation effort, and members' experience in collaborating on previous projects?

    2. Lineage of the Proposed Innovation: Does the application provide a table of previous NIFA awards and identify the original Principle Investigator (PI)? Does the application clearly describe how this research has led the Team to believe that a commercial opportunity exists for the effort moving forward?

    3. Description of the Potential Commercial Impact: Does the application clearly describe the profile of a typical customer of the proposed innovation? Does the application describe the customer needs to be met by the proposed innovation? Does the application describe how the customer currently meets those needs? Does the application clearly describe the proposed innovation and how it relates to the fundamental research already conducted under previous award(s)? Does the application describe how much a customer would pay for the solution?

    4. Project Plan: Does the project plan clearly describe the current status including the stage of development? Does the application provide a description of the proof-of-concept or technology demonstration that will be provided at the end of the project?

    5. Page Limits: Did the application meet the required page limits?

    Additional Rules and Conditions A. General Conditions

    By entering the Competition, each Team guarantees that its entry complies with all applicable Federal and state laws and regulations.

    Each Team warrants that its entry is free of viruses, spyware, malware, and any other malicious, harmful, or destructive device. Teams submitting entries containing any such device will be held liable and may be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    Entries containing any matter which, in the sole discretion of USDA NIFA, is indecent, defamatory, in obvious bad taste, demonstrates a lack of respect for public morals or conduct, promotes discrimination in any form, shows unlawful acts being performed, is slanderous or libelous, or adversely affects the reputations of USDA NIFA or NSF will not be accepted. If USDA NIFA, in its sole discretion, finds any entry to be unacceptable, then such entry shall be deemed disqualified and will not be evaluated or considered for award.

    The winning Team(s) must comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding Prize Purse receipt and disbursement.

    USDA NIFA's failure to enforce any term of any applicable rule or condition shall not constitute a waiver of that term.

    B. Entry Conditions, Release & Liability

    By entering the Competition, each Team agrees to:

    (1) Comply with and be bound by all applicable rules and conditions, and the decisions of USDA NIFA, which are binding and final in all matters relating to this Competition.

    (2) Release and hold harmless USDA NIFA and NSF and all their respective past and present officers, directors, employees, agents, and representatives (collectively the “Released Parties”) from and against any and all claims, expenses, and liability arising out of or relating to the Team's entry or participation in the Competition and/or the Team's acceptance, use, or misuse of the Prize Purse or recognition. Provided, however, that Participants are not required to waive claims arising out of the unauthorized use or disclosure by USDA NIFA or NSF of the intellectual property, trade secrets, or confidential business information of the Participant.

    The Released Parties are not responsible for: (1) Any incorrect or inaccurate information, whether caused by Teams, printing errors, or by any of the equipment or programming associated with or used in the Competition; (2) technical failures of any kind, including, but not limited to, malfunctions, interruptions, or disconnections in phone lines or network hardware or software; (3) unauthorized human intervention in any part of the entry process for the Competition; (4) technical or human error that may occur in the administration of the Competition or the processing of entries; or (5) any injury or damage to persons or property that may be caused, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, from Team's participation in the Competition or receipt or use or misuse of the Prize Purse. If for any reason a Team's entry is confirmed to have been deleted erroneously, lost, or otherwise destroyed or corrupted, that Team's sole remedy is to submit another entry in the Competition.

    C. Termination and Disqualification

    USDA NIFA reserves the authority to cancel, suspend, and/or modify the Competition, or any part of it, if any fraud, technical failures, or any other factor beyond USDA NIFA's reasonable control impairs the integrity or proper functioning of the Competition, as determined by USDA NIFA in its sole discretion.

    USDA NIFA reserves the right to disqualify any Team it believes to be tampering with the entry process or the operation of the Competition or to be acting in violation of any applicable rule or condition.

    Any attempt by any person to undermine the legitimate operation of the Competition may be a violation of criminal and civil law, and, should such an attempt be made, USDA NIFA reserves the authority to seek damages from any such person to the fullest extent permitted by law.

    D. Verification of Potential Winner(s)

    All potential Competition winners are subject to verification by USDA NIFA whose decisions are final and binding in all matters related to the Competition.

    Potential winner(s) must continue to comply with all terms and conditions of the Competition rules, and winning is contingent upon fulfilling all requirements. The potential winner(s) will be notified by email and/or telephone. If a potential winner cannot be contacted, or if the notification is returned as undeliverable, the potential winner forfeits. In the event that a potential winner, or an announced winner, is found to be ineligible or is disqualified for any reason, USDA NIFA may make award, instead, to the next runner up, as previously determined by the Judging Panel.

    Prior to awarding the Prize Purse, USDA NIFA will verify that the potential winner(s) is/are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded from doing business with the U.S. Federal Government. Suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded parties will not be eligible to win the Competition.

    E. Intellectual Property

    By entering the Competition, each Team warrants that it is the author and/or authorized owner of its entry, and that the entry is wholly original with the Team (or is an improved version of an existing project plan the Team is legally authorized to enter into the Competition), and that the submitted entry does not infringe on any copyright, patent, or any other rights of any third party. Each Team agrees to hold the Released Parties harmless for any infringement of copyright, trademark, patent, and/or other real or intellectual property right that may be caused, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, from that Team's participation in the Competition.

    All legal rights in any materials produced or submitted in entering the Competition are retained by the Team and/or the legal holder of those rights. Entry into the Competition constitutes express authorization for USDA NIFA, NSF, and the Judging Panel to review and analyze any and all aspects of submitted entries, including any trade secret or proprietary information contained in or evident from review of the submitted entries.

    F. Privacy & Disclosure Under FOIA

    Personal and contact information is not collected for commercial or marketing purposes. Information submitted throughout the Competition will be used only to communicate with Teams regarding entries and/or the Competition.

    Teams' entries to the Competition may be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). If a Team believes that all or part of its Competition entry is protected from release under FOIA (e.g., if the information falls under FOIA exemption #4 for “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person [that is] privileged or confidential”) the Team will be responsible for clearly marking the page(s)/section(s) of information it believes are protected.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 3719.

    Done at Washington, DC, this 27th day of July, 2017. Kim L. Hicks, Branch Chief, Grants and Agreements Management Branch USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Financial Management and Agreements Division.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16342 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-837] Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET Film) from Taiwan. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016. This review covers the respondent Nan Ya Plastics Corporation (Nan Ya), a producer and exporter of PET Film from Taiwan. The Department preliminarily determines that sales of subject merchandise have been made below normal value (NV) by Nan Ya during the POR. In addition, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to Shinkong Materials Technology Corporation (SMTC). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Applicable August 3, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Myrna Lobo at (202) 482-5255 and (202) 482-2371, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is PET Film. The PET Film subject to the order is currently classifiable under subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.1

    1 A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the memorandum from James Maeder, Senior Director performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Taiwan; 2015-2016” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice.

    Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    On September 12, 2016, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PET Film from Taiwan.2 On December 12, 2016, the petitioners 3 withdrew their request for review with respect to SMTC.4 In response to this timely filed request and since no other party requested a review of SMTC, we are rescinding this administrative review, in part, with respect to SMTC, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

    2See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 62720 (September 12, 2016).

    3 The petitioners in this investigation are DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc., and SKC, Inc. (the petitioners).

    4See Petitioners Letter “Partial Withdrawal of Request for Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,” dated December 12, 2016.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.

    For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as an Appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit in room B8024 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margin for the period July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016.

    Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Nan Ya Plastics Corporation 1.34
    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice.5 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.6 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.7 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.8 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS.9 In order to be properly filed, ACCESS must successfully receive an electronically-filed document in its entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.

    5See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    6See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii).

    7See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    8See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

    9See 19 CFR 351.303.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.10 Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs.

    10See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    Unless extended, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

    Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). If Nan Ya's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent) in the final results of this review, we will calculate importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales and the total entered value of the sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis. Where the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.

    Consistent with the Department's “automatic assessment” regulation for entries this clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Nan Ya for which it did not know that its merchandise was destined for the United States.11 Furthermore, for SMTC for which this review is rescinded, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i).

    11See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice). See also Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2013-2014, 80 FR 61369 (October 13, 2015).

    We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of PET Film from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the company under review will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters is 2.40 percent.12 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    12See PET Film from Taiwan Amended Final Determination.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

    Dated: July 28, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Partial Rescission 4. Scope of the Order 5. Preliminary Finding of No Shipments for SMTC 6. Comparisons to Normal Value 7. Product Comparisons 8. Date of Sale 9. Export Price 10. Normal Value 11. Currency Conversion 12. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2017-16351 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-533-825] Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip (PET film) from India for the period of review (POR) January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015. We preliminarily determine that Jindal Poly Films Limited of India (Jindal) and SRF Limited (SRF) received countervailable subsidies during the POR. See the “Preliminary Results of Review” section, below. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Applicable August 3, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elfi Blum, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0197.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    The Department initiated a review of ten companies in this segment of the proceeding.1 In response to timely filed withdrawal requests, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to Ester, Garware, Jindal Poly Films Ltd. (India), MTZ, Polyplex, Uflex Ltd., Vacmet, and Vacmet India Limited, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). The remaining companies subject to the instant review are Jindal and SRF, which the Department has selected as the mandatory respondents.2

    1See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 62720, 62727 (September 12, 2016). The ten companies were Ester, Garware, Jindal, Jindal Poly Films Ltd. (India), MTZ, Polyplex, SRF, Uflex Ltd., Vacmet, and Vacmet India Limited. DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc., and SKC, Inc. (collectively Petitioners) requested a review for six companies (Ester, Garware, Polyplex, SRF, Jindal, and Vacmet). Polyplex USA requested a review for eight companies (Ester, Garware, Jindal, MTZ, Polyplex, SRF, Uflex Ltd., and Vacmet India Limited). In addition, Jindal Poly Films Ltd. (India) and SRF self-requested an administrative review.

    2See Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India; 2015, dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET film are classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00.90. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(l)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy, i.e., a government-provided financial contribution that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.3 For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice. A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as an Appendix to this notice.

    3See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://trade.gov/enforcement/frn/index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates for the period January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015 to be:

    Manufacturer/exporter Subsidy rate (percent
  • ad valorem)
  • Jindal Poly Films Limited of India 5.26 SRF Limited 5.79
    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of these preliminary results.4 Interested parties may submit written comments (case briefs) within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs) within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs.5 Rebuttal briefs must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs.6 Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.7

    4See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    5See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(l)(ii) and 351.309(d)(l).

    6See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2).

    7See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must do so within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results by submitting a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, using Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS system.8 Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, we will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined.9 Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing. Issues addressed at the hearing will be limited to those raised in the briefs.10 All briefs and hearing requests must be filed electronically and received successfully in their entirety through ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.

    8See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    9See 19 CFR 351.310.

    10See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days after publication of these preliminary results.

    Assessment Rates and Cash Deposit Requirement

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of review.

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

    These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(l) and 777(i)(l) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: July 28, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Partial Rescission of Administrative Review 4. Scope of the Order 5. Subsidies Valuation Information 6. Analysis of Programs 7. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2017-16352 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Meeting of the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, December 14, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST).

    ADDRESSES:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Topics To Be Considered: The agenda for the Thursday, December 14, 2017 CINTAC meeting is as follows:

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

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

    Public Session (3:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.) 2. Public comment period. Public attendance is limited and available on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting must notify Mr. Jonathan Chesebro at the contact information above by 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, December 8, 2017 in order to pre-register.

    Please specify any requests for reasonable accommodation at least five business days in advance of the meeting. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may not be possible to fill.

    A limited amount of time will be available for pertinent brief oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per person, with a total public comment period of 60 minutes. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must contact Mr. Chesebro and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the comments and the name and address of the proposed participant by 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, December 8, 2017. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, ITA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers.

    Any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the CINTAC's affairs at any time before and after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, U.S. Department of Commerce, Mail Stop 28018, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230. For consideration during the meeting, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, December 8, 2017. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the meeting.

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

    Dated: June 22, 2017. Adam O'Malley, Director, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16316 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-475-818] Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta (pasta) from Italy, covering the period July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016. This review covers two mandatory respondents, Ghigi 1870 S.p.A. (previously known as Ghigi lndustria Agroalimentare Srl) (Ghigi) and Pasta Zara S.p.A. (Pasta Zara) (collectively Ghigi/Zara), Industria Alimentare Colavita S.p.A. (Indalco) and four non-selected companies. We preliminarily determine that Ghigi/Zara made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) and Indalco did not. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Applicable August 3, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joy Zhang or George McMahon, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1168 or (202) 482-1167, respectively.

    Background

    On September 12, 2016, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping order on pasta from Italy.1 On February 27, 2017, the Department rescinded the instant review, in part, with respect to Premiato Pastificio Afeltra S.r.l. (Afeltra), Delverde Industrie Alimentari S.p.A. (Delverde Alimentari), Pastificio Felicetti S.r.L. (Felicetti), Pastificio Labor S.r.L. (Labor), La Fabbrica Della Pasta di Gragnano S.A.S di Antonio Moccia (La Fabbrica), Liguori Pastificio dal 1820 S.p.A. (Liguori), Rustichella d'Abruzzo SpA (Rustichella), and Tamma Industrie Alimentari de Capitanata S.r.L (Tamma) pursuant to the timely withdrawal requests submitted by the respective parties.2

    1See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 62720 (September 12, 2016) (Initiation Notice).

    2See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 82 FR 11903 (February 27, 2017).

    Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by the order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta. The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under items 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.3

    3 For a full description of the scope of the order, see the “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta from Italy; 2015-2016,” dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Constructed export price or export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary results, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, the Department calculated a weighted-average dumping margin of 16.07 percent for Ghigi/Zara and a de minimis margin for Indalco for the period July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016. Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the Department assigned the weighted-average dumping margin of 16.07 percent calculated for Ghigi/Zara to the four non-selected companies in these preliminary results, as referenced below.

    Producer and/or exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Ghigi 1870 S.p.A. and Pasta Zara S.p.A. (Zara) (collectively Ghigi/Zara) 4 16.07 Industria Alimentare Colavita S.p.A. (Indalco) 0.00 GR.A.M.M. S.r.l. 16.07 Pastificio Andalini S.p.A. (Andalini) 16.07 Pastificio Zaffiri S.r.l. (Zaffiri) 16.07 Tesa SrL (Tesa) 16.07
    Assessment Rate

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. If the weighted-average dumping margin for Indalco or Ghigi/Zara is not zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent), we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem antidumping duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is not zero or de minimis. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review where applicable.

    4See Memorandum titled “2015-2016 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Pasta from Italy: Ghigi and Zara Collapsing Memorandum,” dated July 31, 2017.

    In accordance with the Department's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by each respondent for which they did not know that their merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

    We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for respondents noted above will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 15.45 percent, the all-others rate established in the antidumping investigation as modified by the section 129 determination.5 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    5See Implementation of the Findings of the WTO Panel in US—Zeroing (EC): Notice of Determinations Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Revocations and Partial Revocations of Certain Antidumping Duty Orders, 72 FR 25261 (May 4, 2007).

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of these preliminary results.6 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.7 Parties who submit comments are requested to submit: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. All briefs must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS.

    6See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    7See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, using Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS system within 30 days of publication of this notice.8 Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, we will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined.9 Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing.

    8See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    9See 19 CFR 351.310.

    Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their case briefs, within 120 days after issuance of these preliminary results.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

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

    Dated: July 28, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Scope of the Order 4. Affiliation and Collapsing 5. Discussion of Methodology Date of Sale Comparisons to Normal Value Product Comparisons Determination of Comparison Method Results of the Differential Pricing (DP) Analysis Export Price (EP)/Constructed Export Price (CEP) Normal Value A. Home Market Viability B. Level of Trade C. Sales to Affiliated Customers D. Cost of Production Analysis 1. Calculation of Cost of Production 2. Test of Home Market Prices 3. Results of the COP Test E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices F. Price-to-CV Comparison G. Constructed Value Margins for Companies Not Selected for Individual Examination Currency Conversion 6. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2017-16349 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Meeting of the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, October 12, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).

    ADDRESSES:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Topics To Be Considered: The agenda for the Thursday, October 12, 2017 CINTAC meeting is as follows:

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

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

    Public Session (3:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.) 2. Public comment period Public attendance is limited and available on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting must notify Mr. Jonathan Chesebro at the contact information above by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, October 6, 2017 in order to pre-register. Please specify any requests for reasonable accommodation at least five business days in advance of the meeting. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may not be possible to fill.

    A limited amount of time will be available for pertinent brief oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per person, with a total public comment period of 60 minutes. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must contact Mr. Chesebro and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the comments and the name and address of the proposed participant by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, October 6, 2017. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, ITA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers.

    Any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the CINTAC's affairs at any time before and after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, U.S. Department of Commerce, Mail Stop 28018, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230. For consideration during the meeting, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, October 6, 2017. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the meeting.

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

    Dated: June 22, 2017. Adam O'Malley Director, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16312 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF588 Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of SEDAR 54 assessment webinar IV for Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Sandbar shark.

    SUMMARY:

    The SEDAR 54 assessment of the HMS Sandbar will consist of a series of assessment webinars. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    DATES:

    The SEDAR 54 assessment webinar IV will be held from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on August 23, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) to request an invitation providing webinar access information. Please request webinar invitations at least 24 hours in advance of each webinar.

    SEDAR address: 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

    The items of discussion in the Assessment Process webinars are as follows:

    1. Using datasets and initial assessment analysis recommended from the Data Webinar, panelists will employ assessment models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks and management criteria, and project future conditions.

    2. Participants will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action 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 Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 business days prior to each webinar.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: July 31, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16362 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF552 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 8, 2017 beginning at 9:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Hotel Providence, 139 Mathewson Street, Providence, RI 02903; phone: (401) 861-8000.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda

    The committee will review recent stock assessment information from the U.S./Canada Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee and information provided by the Council's Groundfish Plan Development Team (PDT) and recommend the overfishing level (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC) for Georges Bank yellowtail flounder for the 2018 fishing year. They will receive an update and/or recommendations from the SSC's working group on defining “substantial change” in status or overfishing of stocks when developing OFL and ABC recommendations. They will also receive an update on a planned review of operational assessments for other groundfish stocks. Also on the agenda will be to review information provided by the Council's Skate PDT and recommend the OFL and ABC for the northeast skate complex for fishing years 2018-2019. Other business will be discussed as needed.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. 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 the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: July 31, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16363 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting TIME AND DATE:

    11:00 a.m., Thursday, August 10, 2017.

    PLACE:

    Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

    STATUS:

    Closed.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    Surveillance, enforcement, and examinations matters. In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202-418-5964.

    Natise Allen, Executive Assistant.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16432 Filed 8-1-17; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License to VICIS, Inc.; Seattle, WA AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to VICIS, Inc.; a corporation having its principle place of business at 570 Mercer St., Seattle, WA 98109, an exclusive license.

    DATES:

    Written objections must be filed not later than 15 days following publication of this announcement.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written objections to U.S. Army Research Laboratory Technology Transfer and Outreach Office, RDRL-DPT/Thomas Mulkern, Building 321 Room 110, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Mulkern, (410) 278-0889, Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of the Army plans to grant an exclusive license to VICIS, Inc. in the field of use related to Helmet Chinstraps Incorporating Rate-Actuated Tethers for Football, Lacrosse and Hockey relative to the following—

    • “Rate-Responsive, Stretchable Devices”, U.S. Patent No.: 9,303,717, Filing Date June 26, 2013, Issue Date April 5, 2016.

    • “Rate-Responsive, Stretchable Devices (Further Improvements)”, U.S. Patent Application No.: 15/057,944, Filing Date March 1, 2016.

    The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the U.S. Army Research Laboratory receives written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). Competing applications completed and received by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license.

    Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16345 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy [Docket ID: USN-2017-HQ-0002] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    30-Day information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 5, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA); Department of the Navy Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Credential Application (LEOSA); OMB Control Number 0703-XXXX.

    Type of Request: New Collection.

    Number of Respondents: 900.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 900.

    Average Burden per Response: .05 hrs.

    Annual Burden Hours: 450.

    Needs and Uses: To verify eligibility of current DON Law enforcement officers for assigned duties and to determine if reassignment, reclassification, detail or other administrative action is warranted based on an officer's ability to obtain or maintain credential qualification requirements. To verify and validate eligibility of current, separating or separated and retired DON law enforcement officers to ship, transport, possess or receive Government-issued or private firearms or ammunition.

    To verify and validate eligibility of current, separating or separated, and retired DON law enforcement officers to receive DON endorsed law enforcement credentials, to include LEOSA credentials. The information is captured for administrative, mission support and law enforcement/legal use; if required. The information collected allows the Department of the Navy to effectively and efficiently process, validate, issue and track LEOSA applications and issuances.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

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

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

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

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

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

    Dated: July 31, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16326 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Mountaineer Xpress and Gulf Xpress Projects Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC Docket No. CP16-357-000. Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC Docket No. CP16-361-000.

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Mountaineer XPress Project (MXP), proposed by Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gas), and the Gulf XPress Project (GXP), proposed by Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gulf), in the above-referenced dockets. Columbia Gas requests authorization to construct and operate a total of 170.9 miles of natural gas transmission pipeline and ancillary facilities in West Virginia, and to modify one existing, one approved, and one pending compressor station. The MXP would provide about 2,700,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of available capacity for transport to Columbia Gas' TCO Pool 1 for delivery to markets across Columbia Pipeline Group's system, including the Columbia Gulf Leach interconnect with Columbia Gulf. Columbia Gulf requests authorization to construct and operate seven new natural gas-fired compressor stations and to upgrade one approved compressor station and one existing meter station in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi. The GXP would provide about 860,000 Dth/d of natural gas delivery to markets in the Gulf Coast region.

    1 The TCO Pool is the main natural gas pooling point for gas pricing and trading on Columbia Gas' system. Shippers may make deliveries into the TCO Pool from any source of delivery into Columbia Gas' system.

    The EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the MXP and GXP in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed projects would result in some adverse and significant environmental impacts. However, if the projects are constructed and operated in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, the mitigation measures discussed in this EIS, and our recommendations, these impacts would be reduced to acceptable levels.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, and West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of this EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and may participate in the NEPA analysis. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would adopt and use the EIS to comply with the requirements of NEPA before issuing permits for the projects under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which governs the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (including wetlands). Although the cooperating agencies provided input to the conclusions and recommendations presented in this EIS, the agencies would present their own conclusions and recommendations in their respective records of decision (where applicable) for the projects.

    The EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation in West Virginia of the following MXP facilities:

    • About 164.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline extending from Marshall County to Cabell County (MXP-100);

    • about 6.0 miles of new 24-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in Doddridge County (MXP-200);

    • three new compressor stations in Doddridge, Calhoun, and Jackson Counties (one that also includes a new regulator station);

    • two new regulating stations in Jackson and Cabell Counties;

    • about 296 feet of new, 10-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline at the Ripley Regulator Station to tie Columbia Gas' existing X59M1 pipeline into the MXP-100 pipeline in Jackson County;

    • an approximately 0.4-mile-long replacement segment of 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in Cabell County; and

    • upgrades to one existing compressor station (Wayne County) and two compressor stations (Marshall and Kanawha Counties) that are approved or pending, respectively, under separate FERC proceedings.

    The EIS also addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the following GXP facilities:

    • Seven new compressor stations in Kentucky (Rowan, Garrard, and Metcalfe Counties), Tennessee (Davidson and Wayne Counties), and Mississippi (Union and Granada Counties);

    • upgrades to one approved compressor station in Carter County, Kentucky; and

    • upgrades at one existing meter station in Boyd County, Kentucky.

    The FERC staff mailed copies of the EIS to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project areas. Paper copies of this EIS were mailed to those specifically requesting them; all others received a CD version. In addition, the EIS is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8371.

    Additional information about the projects is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on General Search, and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP16-357 and CP16-361). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676; for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

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

    Dated: July 28, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16346 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP17-257-000] WBI Energy Transmission Inc.; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Valley Expansion Project

    On April 26, 2017, WBI Energy Transmission Inc. (WBI Energy) filed an application in Docket No. CP17-257-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Valley Expansion Project (Project), and would provide an additional 40 million cubic feet per day of firm transportation on its system.

    On May 9, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.

    Schedule for Environmental Review Issuance of EA—September 20, 2017 90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline—December 19, 2017.

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

    Project Description

    WBI Energy proposes to construct a new 2,600-horsepower electric-driven compressor station in Cass County, North Dakota; 38 miles of new 16-inch-diameter pipeline between Mapleton, North Dakota and Felton, Minnesota; and farm taps, valve settings, and ancillary facilities. Additionally, WBI Energy proposes to replace two existing town border station delivery points and construct one regulator station in Burleigh, Stutsman, and Barnes Counties, North Dakota, respectively, to increase the operating pressure of a portion of its Line Section 24.

    Background

    On November 23, 2016, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Valley Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI). The NOI was issued during the pre-filing review of the Project in Docket No. PF16-10 and was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. In response to the NOI, commenters raised concerns regarding: watershed and waterbody crossings; stormwater discharge; groundwater impacts; flood zone impacts; reseeding and species review requirements; Section 106 consultation; cultural resources and land valuation impacts; route variations; project impacts on the Fargo-Moorhead Area Diversion Project; and fugitive dust emissions and noise impacts.

    Additional Information

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

    Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). Using the eLibrary link, select General Search from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and Docket Number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP17-257), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at (866) 208-3676, TTY (202) 502-8659, or at [email protected] The eLibrary link on the FERC Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: July 28, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16347 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 3267-016] Chasm Hydro, Inc.; ECOsponsible, LLC; Notice of Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    On July 10, 2017, Chasm Hydro, Inc. (transferor) and ECOsponsible, LLC (transferee) filed an application for the transfer of license for the Ballard Mill Project No. 3267, from the transferor to the transferee. The project is located on the Salmon River in Franklin County, New York. The project does not occupy Federal lands.

    The applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for the Ballard Mills Project from the transferor to the transferee.

    Applicant's Contacts: For Transferor: Mr. John Dowd, President, Chasm Hydro, Inc., P.O. Box 265, Chateaugay, NY 12920.

    For Transferee: Mr. Dennis Ryan, Manager, ECOsponsible, LLC, P.O. Box 114, West Falls, NY 14170.

    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis, (202) 502-8735, [email protected]

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests: 30 days from the date that the Commission issues this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-3267-016.

    Dated: July 28, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16350 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0713; FRL-9965-53] Nominations to the Augmented Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC); Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This document provides the names and affiliations of additional candidates currently under consideration for appointment to the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC). The purpose of the SACC is to provide independent advice and expert consultation at the request of the EPA Administrator with respect to the scientific and technical aspects of risk assessments, methodologies, and pollution prevention measures or approaches. After further consideration of the objectives and scope of SACC activities, EPA is considering additional candidates for SACC membership from the August 26, 2016 Federal Register notice pool of requested nominees. These additional candidates are named in this notice. The Agency is also considering the 29 candidates for membership previously identified in the December 9, 2016 Federal Register notice. Comments that were previously received on the 29 candidates will also be considered. The Agency, at this time, anticipates selecting approximately six additional SACC members with specific expertise and perspectives representing industry, labor, animal protection, government, public health, and public interest groups. Public comments on the candidates are invited as they will be used to assist the Agency in selecting the additional chartered committee members.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 5, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket Identification (ID) Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0713, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: OPPT Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tamue Gibson, DFO, Office of Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-7642; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may be of interest to those involved in the manufacture, processing, distribution, disposal, and/or have other interests in the assessment of risks involving chemical substances and mixtures. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

    B. What is EPA's authority?

    This committee is established under FACA, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2, and pursuant to the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, 2016.

    II. Background

    The SACC was established under FACA section 9(a), and pursuant to section 2526(o) of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (LCSA), to provide advice and recommendations on the scientific basis for risk assessments, methodologies, and pollution prevention measures or approaches. On January 17, 2017, the EPA Administrator appointed 18 expert members from diverse backgrounds, professional experiences, and perspectives that would contribute to the breadth and balance of scientific viewpoints on the committee. These members have expertise and perspectives representing government, labor, public health, public interest, animal protection, industry, and other groups.

    EPA has decided to increase the membership of the SACC to approximately 24 members to better address the objectives and scope of activities for the committee. These members will serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs) or Regular Government Employees (RGEs).

    The purpose of the SACC is to provide independent advice and expert consultation at the request of the EPA Administrator with respect to the scientific and technical aspects of risk assessments, methodologies, and pollution prevention measures or approaches. After further consideration of the objectives and scope of SACC activities, EPA is considering additional candidates for SACC membership from the August 26, 2016 Federal Register notice pool of requested nominees (81 FR 58925) (FRL-9950-66). These additional candidates are named in this notice. The Agency is also considering the 29 candidates for membership previously identified in the December 9, 2016 Federal Register notice (Docket ID Number: EPA-OPPT-2016-0713; (81 FR 89092) (FRL-9956-17)). The written comment period for this announcement closed on January 9, 2017. The Agency, at this time, anticipates selecting approximately six additional SACC members with specific expertise and perspectives representing industry, labor, animal protection, government, public health, and public interest groups. Public comments on the candidates are invited as they will be used to assist the Agency in selecting the additional chartered committee members.

    III. Qualifications of Members

    Members are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to provide expert comments on the scientific and technical aspects of risk assessments, methodologies, and pollution prevention measures or approaches. No persons shall be ineligible to serve on the Committee by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to a Federal department or agency, or their employment by a Federal department or agency (except the EPA). The Administrator appoints individuals to serve on the Committee for staggered terms of 1 to 3 years. Panel members are subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 3, subpart F, Standards of Conduct for Special Government Employees, which include rules regarding conflicts of interest. Each nominee selected by the Administrator, before being formally appointed, is required to submit a confidential statement of employment and financial interests, which shall fully disclose, among other financial interests, the nominee's sources of research support, if any.

    IV. Applicability of Existing Regulations

    EPA's existing regulations applicable to Special Government Employees, which include advisory committee members, will also apply to the members of the SACC. These regulations appear in 40 CFR part 3, subpart F.

    V. Process of Obtaining Nominees

    On August 26, 2016, EPA published a Federal Register notice (81 FR 58925) (FRL-9950-66) providing notice of intent to establish the SACC, describing its purpose, and announcing the opportunity for the public to provide nominations for the Agency's consideration. The nomination period was open for 45 days and ended on October 11, 2016. In response, the Agency received approximately 100 nominees.

    EPA considered the following criteria to select candidates from these nominations: Interest and availability to participate in committee meetings, absence of financial conflicts of interest, absence of the appearance of a loss of impartiality, scientific expertise, and backgrounds and experiences that would contribute to the diversity of scientific viewpoints on the committee, including professional experiences in government, labor, public health, public interest, animal protection, industry, or other groups.

    Based on these criteria, EPA has identified 64 additional candidates for further consideration for membership on the SACC. EPA will also further consider the 29 candidates identified in the December 9, 2016 Federal Register Notice, as well as the public comments that were previously received on the 29 candidates. The following are the names (listed alphabetically, last name first) and professional affiliations of the 64 additional candidates. Brief biographical sketches for these candidates are posted on the EPA Web site at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review.

    1. Allen, David, Ph.D., Vice President, Science and Strategy, Integrated Laboratory Systems, Inc., Raleigh, NC.

    2. Barton, Charles, Ph.D., Manager, Toxicology and Risk Assessment, Valspar Corporation, Sesickley, PA.

    3. Becker, Richard, Ph.D., Senior Toxicologist, American Chemical Council, Washington, DC.

    4. Belcher, Scott, Ph.D., Research Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

    5. Bennett, Steven, Ph.D., Senior Director, Scientific Affairs & Sustainability, Consumer Specialty Products Association, Washington, DC.

    6. Benvenuto, Mark, Ph.D., Professor and Chair, Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Detroit-Mercy, Detroit, MI.

    7. Blystone, Sheri, Ph.D., Director, Regulatory Affairs & Product Safety, SNF Holding Company.

    8. Chui, Weihsueh, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Veterinary Integrative Biosciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

    9. Congleton, Johanna, Ph.D., Senior Scientist/Toxicologist, Environmental Working Group, Washington, DC.

    10. Coots, Robert, Ph.D., Manager, R&D, Colonial Chemical, Inc., New Hope, TN.

    11. Dempsey, Susan, M.S., Human Health/Ecological Risk Assessor, Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, Lincoln, NE.

    12. Edstrom, Robert, Ph.D., Chief Toxicologist, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Office of Environmental Stewardship, St. Paul, MN.

    13. Faustman, Elaine, Ph.D., Professor, Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

    14. Fowle III, John, Ph.D., Principal, Science To Inform, LLC, Pittsboro, NC.

    15. Garcia, Kristina, P.G., Environmental Compliance Program Manager, Office of Watershed Protection, Atlanta Department of Watershed Management, Atlanta, GA.

    16. Gordon, Terry, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Environmental Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY.

    17. Hartung, Thomas, Ph.D., Professor, Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.

    18. Heiger-Bernays, Wendy, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Health, School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, MA.

    19. Henderson, Rogene, Ph.D., Senior Scientist (Emeritus), Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, Albuquerque, NM.

    20. Higgs, Megan, Ph.D., Statistician, Neptune and Company, Lakewood, CO.

    21. Hollis, Adrienne, Ph.D., JD, Director, Federal Policy, WE ACT For Environmental Justice, Washington, DC.

    22. Holsapple, Michael, Ph.D., Director and Endowed Chair, Center for Research on Ingredient Safety, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

    23. Jaeger, Calvin, Ph.D., Senior Security Systems Risk Analyst, Sandia National Laboratories (retired), Albuquerque, NM.

    24. Janssen, Sarah, MD, Ph.D., Assistant Clinical Professor, Division of Occupational Medicine, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.

    25. Janus, Erik, M.S., President, M3 Technical and Regulatory Services, LLC, Shepherdstown, WV.

    26. Johnson, Mark, Ph.D., Director of Toxicology, United States Army Public Health Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.

    27. Kester, Janet, Ph.D., Toxicologist, New Fields, Wentzville, MO.

    28. Lohmann, Rainer, Ph.D., Professor, Oceanography, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.

    29. Luderer, Ulrike, M.D., Ph.D., Professor, Department of Medicine, Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, University of California-Irvine, Irvine, CA.

    30. Maffini, Maricel, Ph.D., Private Contractor (former Senior Scientist, Health and Environment Program, Natural Resources Defense Council), Washington, DC.

    31. Marlborough III, Sidney, Ph.D., Senior Environmental Toxicologist, Noble Energy, Houston, TX.

    32. McFadden, Roger, Chief Science and Sustainability Officer, Replenish, LLC, Portland, OR.

    33. McLeod, Brittany, Environmental Divisional Manager, Ormantine USA, Palm Bay, FL.

    34. McPartland, Jennifer, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Health Program, Environmental Defense Fund, Washington, DC.

    35. Mitchell Mark, M.D., M.P.H., Principal, Mitchell Environmental Health Associates, Hartford, CT.

    36. Mitchelmore, Carys, Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, College Park, MD.

    37. Nelson, William, Ph.D., Branch Chief, Environmental Risk Assessment Branch, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS.

    38. Nidel, Christopher, Esquire, President, Nidel & Nace, PLLC, Washington, DC.

    39. Noce, Anthony, Consultant, Haley & Aldrich, Inc., Burlington, MA.

    40. Orlov, Alexander, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Materials Science and Chemical Engineering Department, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY.

    41. Pennell, Michael, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Division of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

    42. Plopper, Charles, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Cell Biology, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA.

    43. Pope, Carey, Ph.D., Professor and Chair in Toxicology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.

    44. Portier, Christopher, Ph.D., M.S., Private Consultant, Thun, Switzerland.

    45. Post, Gloria, Ph.D., Research Scientist, Division of Science, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ.

    46. Rawlins, James, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Polymer Science and Engineering, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS.

    47. Rudel, Ruthann, M.S., Director of Research, Silent Spring Institute, Washington, DC.

    48. Singla, Veena, Ph.D., Scientist, Health & Environment Program, Natural Resource and Defense Council, San Francisco, CA.

    49. Solomon, Gina, M.D., M.P.H., Deputy Secretary for Science and Health, California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.

    50. Stone, Alex, Sc.D., Chemist, Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Lacy, WA.

    51. Swartzendruber, Philip, Ph.D., Air Quality Scientist, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

    52. Tickner, Joel, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Community Health and Sustainability, University of Massachusetts-Lowell, Lowell, MA.

    53. Trejo, Nidia, M.S., Research Intern, Ithaca Waste Water Treatment Facility, Ithaca, NY.

    54. Weiss, Judith, Ph.D., Professor (Emerita), Department of Biological Sciences, Rutgers, New Brunswick, NJ.

    55. Wilson, Michael, Ph.D., Director, Occupational and Environmental Health Program, Blue Green Alliance, San Francisco, CA.

    56. Wise, John, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

    57. Wolf, Martin, M.A., Director, Sustainability and Authenticity, Seventh Generation, Inc., Burlington, VT.

    58. Wood-Black, Frankie Kay, Ph.D., Principal, Sophic Pursits, Inc., Ponca, OK.

    59. Wright, Robert, M.D., M.P.H., Professor of Pediatrics and Preventive Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine-Mount Sinai, New York, NY.

    60. Wylie, Ann, Ph.D., Professor of Geology (Emerita), University of Maryland, College Park, MD.

    61. Yoon, MiYoung, Ph.D., Senior Research Investigator, ScitoVation, Research Triangle Park, NC.

    62. Zhu, Hao, Ph.D., Associate Professor, The Rutgers Center for Computational and Integrative Biology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

    63. Zoeller, Robert Thomas, Ph.D., Professor of Biology, University of Massachusetts- Amherst, Amherst, MA.

    64. Zota, Ami, Sc.D., M.S., Assistant Professor, Environmental and Occupational Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2625 et seq.; 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2 et seq.

    Dated: July 28, 2017. Louise P. Wise, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16385 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0011; FRL-9961-84] Registration Review; Draft Human Health and/or Ecological Risk Assessments for Benfluralin, Bromuconazole, Carbaryl, Clodinafop-propargyl, Deltamethrin, Diflufenzopyr, Esfenvalerate, Lufenuron, and Mepiquat Chloride/Mepiquat Pentaborate; Notice of Availability AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the availability of EPA's draft risk human health and/or ecological risk assessments for the registration review of benfluralin, bromuconazole, carbaryl, clodinafop-propargyl, deltamethrin, diflufenzopyr, esfenvalerate, lufenuron, and mepiquat chloride/mepiquat pentaborate. Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. As part of the registration review process, the Agency has completed a comprehensive draft human health and/or ecological risk assessments for all pesticides listed in the Table in Unit III. After reviewing comments received during the public comment period, EPA will issue revised risk assessments, explain any changes to the draft risk assessments, and respond to comments and may request public input on risk mitigation before completing proposed registration review decisions for the pesticides listed in the Table in Unit III. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0794, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For pesticide specific information contact: The Chemical Review Manager identified for the pesticide of interest in the Table in Unit III.

    For general questions on the registration review program, contact: Dana Friedman, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-8827; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the Chemical Review Manager identified for the pesticide of interest in the Table in Unit III.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

    II. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of the pesticides listed in the Table in Unit III pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food.

    III. Registration Reviews

    As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide registrations for the pesticides listed in the Table of this unit to ensure that they continue to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration—that is, that these pesticides can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.

    Table—Draft Risk Assessments Being Made Available for Public Comment Registration review
  • case name and No.
  • Pesticide Docket ID No. Chemical Review Manager,telephone number, email address
    Benfluralin, Case 2030 EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0931 Brian Kettl, [email protected], (703) 347-0535. Bromuconazole, Case 7035 EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0535 Thomas Harty, [email protected], (703) 347-0338. Carbaryl, Case 0080 EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0230 Linsey Walsh, [email protected], (703) 347-8030. Clodinafop-propargyl, Case 7250 EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0424 Wilhelmena Livingston, [email protected], (703) 308-8025. Deltamethrin, Case 7414 EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0637 Bilin Basu, [email protected], (703) 347-0455. Diflufenzopyr, Case 7246 EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0911 Bilin Basu, [email protected], (703) 347-0455. Esfenvalerate, Case 7406 EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0301 Marianne Mannix, [email protected], (703) 347-0275. Lufenuron, Case 7627 EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0098 Bonnie Adler, [email protected], (703) 308-8523. Mepiquat Chloride/Mepiquat Pentaborate, Case 2375 EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0083 Caitlin Newcamp, [email protected], (703) 347-0325.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice of availability, for interested parties to provide comments and input concerning the Agency's draft human health and/or ecological risk assessments for the pesticides listed in the Table in Unit III. Such comments and input could address, among other things, the Agency's risk assessment methodologies and assumptions, as applied to these draft risk assessments. The Agency will consider all comments received during the public comment period and make changes, as appropriate, to the draft human health and/or ecological risk assessments. EPA will then issue revised risk assessments, explain any changes to the draft risk assessments, and respond to comments. In the Federal Register notice announcing the availability of the revised risk assessments, if the revised risk assessment indicates risks of concern, the Agency may provide a comment period for the public to submit suggestions for mitigating the risk identified in the revised risk assessment before developing proposed registration review decisions for the pesticides listed in the Table in Unit III.

    1. Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or information in response to this document. To be considered during a pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must meet the following requirements:

    • To ensure that EPA will consider data or information submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider data or information submitted at a later date.

    • The data or information submitted must be presented in a legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or electronic form.

    • Submitters must clearly identify the source of any submitted data or information.

    • Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However, submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.

    As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions required in the final decision on the registration review case have been completed.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: May 11, 2017. Yu-Ting Guilaran, Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16372 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0618; FRL-9963-97] Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations and/or Amendments To Terminate Uses; Correction AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of November 22, 2016, concerning receipt of requests to voluntarily cancel certain pesticide registrations and/or amend registrations to terminate certain uses. EPA also issued a notice in the Federal Register of April 10, 2017, concerning cancellation of certain pesticide registrations and/or amendments to terminate uses. This document corrects a typographical error in both of these notices. The EPA registration number for one of the products being voluntarily cancelled was listed incorrectly in the original notices.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christina Scheltema, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-2201; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    The Agency included in both the November 22, 2016 and April 10, 2017 notices a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0618, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. What does this correction do?

    The EPA registration number for one of the products being voluntarily cancelled was listed incorrectly in the original notices as EPA Reg. No. 100-699. The product name was listed correctly. Therefore, FR Doc. 2016-280906 published in the Federal Register of November 22, 2016 (81 FR 83833) (FRL-9959-38) is corrected as follows:

    1. On page 83834, in Table 1, correct 100-699 to read 100-669.

    In addition, FR Doc. 2017-07133 published in the Federal Register of April 10, 2017 (82 FR 17253) (FRL-9959-38) is corrected as follows:

    1. On page 17254, in Table 1, correct 100-699 to read 100-669.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: July 7, 2017. Yu-Ting Guilaran, Director, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16386 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0214; FRL-9965-61] Revised Dates for Comment Periods for the November 2017 FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This document provides revised dates for the comment periods for written comments and for comments on nominees for ad hoc members of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP). The 3-day meeting will be held on November 28 to November 30, 2017, from approximately 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., as first announced in the Federal Register of June 6, 2017 (82 FR 26097; FRL-9962-79), at which time the SAP will consider and review the Continuing Development of Alternative High-Throughput Screens to Determine Endocrine Disruption, Focusing on Androgen Receptor, Steroidogenesis, and Thyroid Pathways.

    Comments 1. FIFRA SAP Documents, Oral and Written Comments, and Listing of Nominees

    EPA's background paper, charge/questions to FIFRA SAP, and related supporting materials will be available on or before September 1, 2017. In addition, a list of candidates under consideration as prospective ad hoc panelists for this meeting will be available for public comment by August 22, 2017 (see link for nominee listing at: https://www.epa.gov/sap).

    Written comments: Written comments should be submitted, using the instructions under ADDRESSES in Unit I.B., on or before October 16, 2017, to provide FIFRA SAP the necessary time to consider and review the written comments. FIFRA SAP may not fully consider written comments submitted after October 16, 2017.

    Oral comments: The Agency encourages each individual or group wishing to make brief oral comments to FIFRA SAP to submit their request to the Designated Federal Official (DFO) listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on or before November 7, 2017, to be included on the meeting agenda. Requests to present oral comments will be accepted until the date of the meeting and, to the extent that time permits, the Chair of FIFRA SAP may permit the presentation of oral comments at the meeting by interested persons who have not previously requested time. Oral comments before FIFRA SAP are limited to approximately 5 minutes unless arrangements have been made prior to November 7, 2017. The request should identify the name of the individual making the presentation, the organization (if any) the individual will represent, and any requirements for audiovisual equipment. In addition, each speaker should bring 15 copies of his or her oral remarks and presentation slides (if required) for distribution to FIFRA SAP at the meeting by the DFO.

    FIFRA SAP Nominees: Comments on nominees should be provided to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on or before September 7, 2017. Your comments will be placed in the public docket by the DFO. You may obtain electronic copies of most meeting documents, including FIFRA SAP composition (i.e., members and ad hoc members for this meeting) and the meeting agenda, at http://www.regulations.gov and the FIFRA SAP Web site at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap.

    For additional instructions regarding submitting comments, see Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    2. FIFRA SAP Meeting Minutes

    FIFRA SAP will prepare meeting minutes summarizing its recommendations to the Agency approximately 90 days after the meeting. The meeting minutes and report will be posted on the FIFRA SAP Web site or may be obtained from the OPP Docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection Agency, Conference Center, Lobby Level, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA 22202.

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket Identification (ID) Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0214, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Todd Peterson, DFO, Office of Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-6428; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the general public. This action may also be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and FIFRA. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. If your comments contain any information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to obtain special instructions before submitting your comments.

    C. Tips for Preparing Your Comments

    1. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et. seq.; 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.

    Dated: July 28, 2017. Louise P. Wise, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16383 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0350; FRL-9963-80] Pesticide Maintenance Fee: Notice of Receipt of Requests to Voluntarily Cancel Certain Pesticide Registrations AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of requests by registrants to voluntarily cancel certain pesticide registrations. EPA intends to grant these requests at the close of the comment period for this announcement unless the Agency receives substantive comments within the comment period that would merit its further review of the requests, or unless the registrants withdraw its requests. If these requests are granted, any sale, distribution, or use of products listed in this notice will be permitted after the registrations have been cancelled only if such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms as described in the final order.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before January 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0350, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Submit written withdrawal request by mail to: Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. ATTN: Michael Yanchulis.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

    Michael Yanchulis, Information Technology and Resources Managment Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-0237; email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. What action is the Agency taking?

    This notice announces receipt by the Agency of requests from registrants to cancel 221 pesticide products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a) or 24(c) (7 U.S.C. 136v(c)). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number (or company number and 24(c) number) in Table 1 of this unit.

    Unless the Agency determines that there are substantive comments that warrant further review of the requests or the registrants withdraw their requests, EPA intends to issue an order in the Federal Register canceling all of the affected registrations.

    Table 1—Registrations With Pending Requests for Cancellation Registration No. Company No. Product name Chemical name 100-598 100 Profenofos Technical Profenofos. 100-669 100 Curacron 8E Insecticide-Miticide Profenofos. 100-1411 100 Enfold Insecticide Emamectin benzoate. 264-956 264 Gustafson Allegiance-LS Fungicide Metalaxyl. 264-967 264 Raxil Allegiance MD Fungicide Metalaxyl, Tebuconazole. 264-993 264 Secure Dry Insecticide Spinosad. 264-994 264 Secure II Liquid Stored Grain Insecticide Spinosad. 264-1073 264 Puma Ultra Herbicide Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl. 264-1132 264 Poncho/GB126 Clothianidin; Bacillus firmus strain I-1582. 264-1176 264 Melocon WP Purpureocillium lilacinum strain 251. 432-757 432 Tribute II XL Termiticide/insecticide Concentrate Esfenvalerate. 432-814 432 Deltamethrin 25 SC Concentrate Deltamethrin. 432-823 432 Delta 920 Dust Insecticide Deltamethrin. 432-824 432 Delta Granular Deltamethrin. 432-897 432 Aliette HG Brand Fungicide Fosetyl-Al. 432-1252 432 Maxforce Professional Insect Control Ant Killer Bait Stations Hydramethylnon. 432-1253 432 Maxforce Roach Control System Formula 18493 Hydramethylnon. 432-1260 432 Maxforce Ant Bait F3 Fipronil. 432-1263 432 Maxforce Ant Bait F2 Fipronil. 432-1265 432 Maxforce IBH11 Hydramethylnon. 432-1301 432 Tempo 20 WP In Water Soluble Packets Cyfluthrin. 432-1303 432 Tempo 1 Insecticide beta-Cyfluthrin. 432-1305 432 Tempo 10 WP In Packets beta-Cyfluthrin. 432-1306 432 Tempo 20 WP Insecticide In Water Soluble Packets Cyfluthrin. 432-1313 432 Tempo 2 TC Insecticide Cyfluthrin. 432-1315 432 Tempo 0.1% Dust Insecticide Cyfluthrin. 432-1357 432 Tempo Ultra 40 Insecticide beta-Cyfluthrin. 432-1368 432 Premise Gel Insecticide Imidacloprid. 464-99 464 Chlorine Chlorine. 464-8131 464 Aqucar Sump Buddy Pro Water Treatment Microbiocide 2,2-Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide. 498-180 498 Champion Sprayon Disinfectant Formula 4 Isopropyl alcohol; o-Phenylphenol. 498-187 498 Champion Sprayon Ant & Roach Killer 4 Piperonyl butoxide; Permethrin; Tetramethrin. 524-610 524 M1750 Herbicide Glyphosate ethanolamine salt; Dicamba, diglycolamine salt. 777-105 777 Lysol Brand IV I.C. Disinfectant Quaternary ammonium compounds; Ethanol. 961-352 961 Lebanon Fertilizer with Surflan Oryzalin. 961-364 961 Lebanon Fertilizer with Barricade Preemergence Weed Control (0.22%) Prodiamine. 961-369 961 Lebanon Fertilizer with Dimension (0.072%) Crabgrass Control Dithiopyr. 1001-82 1001 Bounty Turf and Ornamental Insecticide Imidacloprid. 1001-83 1001 Minx Ornamental Miticide/insecticide Abamectin. 1812-338 1812 Kocide LF Copper hydroxide. 3432-25 3432 Pool Protector Brand Pool Algaecide & Sanitizer Quaternary ammonium compounds. 4787-33 4787 Cheminova Methyl Parathion Technical Methyl parathion. 4822-479 4822 Raid Ant & Roach Killer 479 Piperonyl butoxide; Permethrin; o-Phenylphenol; Pyrethrins. 4822-547 4822 Deedee 1 Quaternary ammonium compounds. 5383-108 5383 Polyphase 662 Carbendazim; Carbamic acid, butyl-, 3-iodo-2-propynyl ester; 1,3,5-Triazine-2,4-diamine, N-cyclopropyl-N′-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-6-(methylthio)-. 5383-161 5383 Z-9 Tricosene Technical cis-9-Tricosene. 5383-162 5383 Trimedlure 4(or 5)-Chloro-2-methylcyclohexanecarboxylic acid, 1,1-dimethylethyl ester. 5383-163 5383 Disparlure Racemic cis-7,8-Epoxy-2-methyloctadecane. 5383-168 5383 Fungitrol 1075 1,3,5-Triazine-2,4-diamine, N-cyclopropyl-N′-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-6-(methylthio)-. 5383-173 5383 Fungitrol 11-50S Fungicide Folpet. 5383-179 5383 Nuosept W Bronopol; 5-Chloro-2-methyl-3(2H)-isothiazolone; 2-Methyl-3(2H)-isothiazolone. 5383-180 5383 Nuosept W Concentrate Bronopol; 5-Chloro-2-methyl-3(2H)-isothiazolone; 2-Methyl-3(2H)-isothiazolone. 5383-185 5383 Nuosept BT10 1,2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one. 5383-186 5383 Nuosept BMC 412 1,2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one; 2-Methyl-3(2H)-isothiazolone; 5-Chloro-2-methyl-3(2H)-isothiazolone. 5813-47 5813 Bowl Gard Automatic Bowl Cleaner Calcium hypochlorite. 5813-48 5813 Bowl Gard II Automatic Toilet Bowl Cleaner Calcium hypochlorite. 5813-71 5813 Ultra Clorox Bleach Formula C Sodium hypochlorite. 5813-72 5813 Ultra Clorox Bleach Formula G Sodium hypochlorite. 10088-109 10088 Permicide 9% Concentrate Permethrin. 10163-46 10163 Prokil Naled Insecticide Naled. 10163-56 10163 Gowan Dimethoate E267 Dimethoate. 10163-76 10163 Gowan Wettable Sulfur Sulfur. 10163-77 10163 Gowan Dusting Sulfur Sulfur. 10163-120 10163 Gowan Trifluralin 10G Trifluralin. 10163-141 10163 Sulfur Base (for Manufacturing Use) Sulfur. 10163-205 10163 Handy Spray Betasan Crabgrass Preventer Bensulide. 10163-249 10163 Thiophanate Methyl 80 WDG Thiophanate-methyl. 10163-262 10163 Thiophanate Methyl 70-W Agricultural Fungicide Thiophanate-methyl. 47371-158 47371 PVP Iodine Solution FE-150 Betadine. 59639-100 59639 Resource 80 WP Herbicide Flumiclorac. 59639-122 59639 V-10097 Herbicide Glyphosate-isopropylammonium; Flumiclorac. 60063-37 60063 Echo 6F ETQ Chlorothalonil. 60063-54 60063 Flud-E 1SC Turf Fungicide Fludioxonil. 66222-3 66222 Pyrinex 4 EC Chlorpyrifos. 66222-15 66222 Prometryn 4L Herbicide Prometryn. 66222-18 66222 Chlorpyrifos 15G Chlorpyrifos. 66222-38 66222 Sonora 4SC Prometon. 66222-39 66222 Pramitol 4RR Prometon. 66222-43 66222 Pramitol 4 MUP Prometon. 66222-49 66222 Valuron 60 DF Herbicide Metsulfuron. 66222-50 66222 Metsulfuron Methyl 60DF Herbicide Metsulfuron. 66222-55 66222 Pramitol 2l-Diuron 2l Diuron; Prometon. 66222-57 66222 Rimon (Novaluron) 7.5 WDG Novaluron. 66222-62 66222 Thionex 50W Insecticide Endosulfan. 66222-63 66222 Thionex 3 EC Insecticide Endosulfan. 66222-98 66222 Fanfare 2EC-CAL Bifenthrin. 66222-101 66222 Bifenthrin SC Lawn and Tree Flowable Insecticide/Miticide Bifenthrin. 66222-102 66222 Bifenthrin SC Flowable Insecticide/Miticide Bifenthrin. 66222-110 66222 Prodiamine 65 WDG Prodiamine. 66222-112 66222 Folpan 80 WDG Industrial Folpet. 66222-116 66222 Cotton-Pro Prometryn. 66222-122 66222 Acephate 90 SP Cotton Insecticide Acephate. 66222-142 66222 Diuron MUP Diuron. 66222-147 66222 Nations AQ II Metsulfuron Methyl DF Metsulfuron. 66222-148 66222 Nations AQ II Metsulfuron Methyl 60 DF Metsulfuron. 66222-153 66222 Triclopyr 4 Triclopyr, butoxyethyl ester. 66222-164 66222 Vegetation Manager Metsulfuron Methyl-Turf Herbicide Metsulfuron. 66222-165 66222 Vegetation Manager Metsulfuron Methyl DF Metsulfuron. 66222-166 66222 Imazapyr 2SL Imazapyr, isopropylamine salt. 66222-167 66222 Imazapyr 4 SL Imazapyr, isopropylamine salt. 66222-171 66222 Mohave 70 EG Bareground Vegetation Control Diuron; Imazapyr. 66222-175 66222 Pyrimax 3.2 L Herbicide Pyrithiobac-sodium. 66222-202 66222 Ironclad Herbicide Nicosulfuron; Rimsulfuron. 66222-206 66222 Farmsaver.com Metsulfuron Methyl 60 DF Metsulfuron. 66222-228 66222 Pasada 1.6F Imidacloprid. 66222-237 66222 Dupont Direx 4L Diuron. 66222-238 66222 Mana Karmex XP Herbicide Diuron. 66222-242 66222 Fomesafen 2 SL Sodium salt of fomesafen. 66222-255 66222 Mana 11415 Bifenthrin. 66222-259 66222 Mana 24301 Chlorpyrifos; Bifenthrin. 70627-37 70627 Johnson Wax Professional Cockroach Gel Bait Formula 3 Abamectin. 70627-38 70627 Johnson Wax Professional Residual Insecticide Cyfluthrin. 70627-44 70627 Johnson Wax Professional Cockroach Bait Station Abamectin. 70627-45 70627 Johnson Wax Professional Fire Ant Bait Abamectin. 70627-46 70627 Johnson Wax Professional Perimeter Spray Microencapsulated Concentrate Cyfluthrin. AL070001 100 Reward Landscape and Aquatic Herbicide Diquat dibromide. AL110002 100 Heritage Fungicide Azoxystrobin. AL120001 100 Avid 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide Abamectin. AR930001 71368 Weedar 64 Broadleaf Herbicide 2,4-D, dimethylamine salt. AZ070011 71711 ET Herbicide/Defoliant Pyraflufen-ethyl. AZ120002 228 Nufarm Ethephon 2 Plant Growth Regulator Ethephon. CA020005 264 Rovral Brand 4 Flowable Fungicide Iprodione. CA040008 264 Rovral 4 Flowable Fungicide Iprodione. CA050001 264 Rovral Brand 4 Flowable Fungicide Iprodione. CA060020 264 Rovral Brand 4 Flowable Fungicide Iprodione. CA140007 228 Nufarm Ethephon 2 Plant Growth Regulator Ethephon. CA930015 264 Rovral 4 Flowable Fungicide Iprodione. CA970033 228 Riverdale Solution Water Soluble 2,4-D, dimethylamine salt. CO150003 55146 Gibgro 4LS Gibberellic acid. CO980003 5481 Orthene Turf, Tree & Ornamental Sprayb WSP Acephate. FL110011 100 Heritage Fungicide Azoxystrobin. FL130004 100 Avid 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide Abamectin. FL890017 5481 Orthene 75 S Soluble Powder Acephate. FL890018 5481 Orthene 75 S Soluble Powder Acephate. FL890019 5481 Orthene 75 S Soluble Powder Acephate. FL890022 5481 Orthene 75 S Soluble Powder Acephate. FL940002 5481 Orthene 75 S Soluble Powder Acephate. GA000001 59639 Knack Insect Growth Regulator Pyriproxyfen. GA050003 100 Caparol 4l Prometryn. GA110001 100 Abound Flowable Fungicide Azoxystrobin. GA110005 352 Dupont Coragen Insect Control Chlorantraniliprole. GA110007 100 Avid 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide Abamectin. GA880004 5481 Orthene 75 S Soluble Powder Acephate. GA960002 5481 Orthene 75 S Soluble Powder Acephate. HI140001 61842 Lime-Sulfur Solution Lime sulfur. ID980003 19713 Drexel Endosulfan 3EC Endosulfan. IN110001 100 Abound Flowable Fungicide Azoxystrobin. KY100003 100 Quadris Flowable Fungicide Azoxystrobin. LA120019 352 Dupont Leadoff Herbicide Rimsulfuron; Thifensulfuron. LA130002 100 Avid 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide Abamectin. LA930001 71368 Weedar 64 Broadleaf Herbicide 2,4-D, dimethylamine salt. LA950001 464 Chlorine Chlorine. MA090001 100 Callisto Herbicide Mesotrione. MD130005 100 Abound Flowable Fungicide Azoxystrobin. ME070002 264 Provado 1.6 Flowable Insecticide Imidacloprid. ME090003 100 Callisto Herbicide Mesotrione. ME120003 228 Nufarm Ethephon 2 Plant Growth Regulator Ethephon. MI140008 100 Switch 62.5WG Cyprodinil; Fludioxonil. MI160001 100 Heritage Fungicide Azoxystrobin. MN070001 55146 Agritin Fentin hydroxide. MN070008 55146 Agri Tin Flowable Fentin hydroxide. MO050004 100 Caparol 4L Prometryn. MO120002 100 Avid 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide Abamectin. MO140004 100 Abound Flowable Fungicide Azoxystrobin. MS010003 71368 Roundup Herbicide Glyphosate-isopropylammonium. MS120013 100 Avid 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide Abamectin. MS900016 71368 Weedar 64 Broad Leaf Herbicide 2,4-D, dimethylamine salt. MS910004 228 Riverdale Weedestroy AM-40 Amine Salt 2,4-D, dimethylamine salt. MT060007 100 Touchdown CT Herbicide Glycine, N-(phosphonomethyl)- potassium salt. NC110003 100 Quadris Flowable Fungicide Azoxystrobin. NC110006 100 Avid 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide Abamectin. ND030011 55146 Agri Tin Water Soluble Pack Fentin hydroxide. ND040007 71368 Nufarm Credit Systemic Extra Herbicide Glyphosate-isopropylammonium. ND050001 100 Callisto Mesotrione. ND060002 524 RT 3 Herbicide Glycine, N-(phosphonomethyl)- potassium salt. ND060003 100 Touchdown CT Herbicide Glycine, N-(phosphonomethyl)- potassium salt. NE000002 264 Rovral 4 Flowable Fungicide Iprodione. NE150002 100 Heritage Fungicide Azoxystrobin. NJ130011 100 Avid 0.15EC Miticide/Insecticide Abamectin. NM110003 81880 Sandea Herbicide Halosulfuron-methyl. NM130002 100 Avid 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide Abamectin. NM140003 100 Avid 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide Abamectin. NV980001 100 Agri-Mek 0.15EC Abamectin. OH110004 100 Abound Flowable Fungicide Azoxystrobin. OH130003 100 Avid 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide Abamectin. OK110004 100 Avid 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide Abamectin. OR010034 5481 Orthene 75 S Soluble Powder Acephate. OR010035 5481 Orthene 97 Pellets Acephate. OR060019 5481 Orthene 97 Acephate. OR940036 228 Riverdale Weedestroy AM 40 Amine Salt 2,4-D, dimethylamine salt. PA110001 100 Abound Flowable Fungicide Azoxystrobin. PA130004 100 Avid 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide Abamectin. SC110003 100 Avid 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide Abamectin. SC120002 100 Abound Flowable Fungicide Azoxystrobin. TN080010 100 Aatrex 4L Atrazine. TN110001 100 Abound Flowable Fungicide Azoxystrobin. TN130003 100 Avid 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide Abamectin. TX000005 5481 Orthene 97 Pellets Acephate. TX110012 100 Avid 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide Abamectin. TX120004 228 Nufarm Ethephon 2 Plant Growth Regulator Ethephon. TX150003 100 Heritage Fungicide Azoxystrobin. TX830022 5481 Orthene 75 S Soluble Powder Acephate. TX900001 5481 Orthene 75 S Soluble Powder Acephate. TX970011 5481 Orthene 90 S Acephate. UT000003 5481 Orthene 97 Pellets Acephate. VA050003 100 Caparol 4l Prometryn. VA110001 100 Abound Flowable Fungicide Azoxystrobin. VA130008 100 Avid 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide Abamectin. VA150002 100 Heritage Fungicide Azoxystrobin. WA050014 5481 Orthene 97 Acephate. WA070001 264 Rovral 4 Flowable Fungicide Iprodione. WA090022 5481 Orthene 97 Acephate. WA110001 100 Callisto Herbicide Mesotrione. WA120006 100 Switch 62.5WG Cyprodinil; Fludioxonil. WA940032 228 Riverdale Weedestroy AM-40 Amine Salt 2,4-D, dimethylamine salt. WA980012 19713 Drexel Endosulfan 3EC Endosulfan. WI010006 71368 Weedar 64 Broadleaf Herbicide 2,4-D, dimethylamine salt. WI060002 5481 Orthene 75 S Soluble Powder Acephate. WI060003 5481 Orthene 97 Acephate. WI950007 71368 Weedar 64 Broadleaf Herbicide 2,4-D, dimethylamine salt. WY030004 352 Dupont Asana XL Insecticide Esfenvalerate.

    Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in this unit.

    Table 2—Registrants Requesting Voluntary Cancellation EPA
  • Company No.
  • Company name and address
    100 Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. 228 Nufarm Americas, Inc., 4020 Aerial Center Parkway, Suite 101, Morrisville, NC 27560. 264 Bayer Cropscience LP, P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. 352 E. I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, Chestnut Run Plaza, 974 Centre Road, Wilmington, DE 19805. 432 Bayer Environmental Science, A Division of Bayer Cropscience LP, P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. 464 The Dow Chemical Co., 1501 Larkin Center Drive, 200 Larkin Center, Midland, MI 48674. 498 Chase Products Co., P.O. Box 70, Maywood, IL 60153. 524 Monsanto Company, 1300 I Street NW., Suite 450 East, Washington, DC 20005. 777 Reckitt Benckiser LLC, 399 Interpace Parkway, Parsippany, NY 07054. 961 Lebanon Seaboard Corporation, 1600 East Cumberland Street, Lebanon, PA 17042. 1001 Cleary Chemicals, LLC, c/o Nufarm Americas, Inc., 4020 Aerial Center Parkway, Suite 101, Morrisville, NC 27560. 1812 Griffin LLC, c/o. DuPont Crop Protection, Stine-Haskell Research Center, P.O. Box 30, Newark, DE 19714. 3432 N. Jonas & Co., Inc., P.O. Box 425, Bensalem, PA 19020. 4787 Cheminova A/S, c/o FMC Corporation, 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. 4822 S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 1525 Howe Street, Racine, WI 53403. 5383 Troy Chemical Corp., c/o Troy Corporation, 8 Vreeland Road, Florham Park, NJ 07932. 5481 Amvac Chemical Corporation, 4695 MacArthur Court, Suite 1200, Newport Beach, CA 92660. 5813 The Clorox Co., c/o PS&RC, P.O. Box 493, Pleasanton, CA 94566. 10088 Athea Laboratories Inc., P.O. Box 240014, Milwaukee, WI 53224. 10163 Gowan Company, P.O. Box 5569, Yuma, AZ 85366. 19713 Drexel Chemical Company, P.O. Box 13327, Memphis, TN 38113. 47371 H&S Chemicals Division, c/o Lonza Inc., 90 Boroline Road, Allendale, NJ 07401. 55146 Nufarm Americas, Inc., 4020 Aerial Center Parkway, Suite 101, Morrisville, NC 27560. 59639 Valent U.S.A. Corporation, 1600 Riviera Avenue, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. 60063 Sipcam Agro USA, Inc., 2525 Meridian Pkwy., Suite 350, Durham, NC 27713. 61842 Pyxis Regulatory Consulting, Inc., Agent for Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc., 4110 136th Street CT NW., Gig Harbor, WA 98332. 66222 Makhteshim Agan of North America, Inc., D/B/A Adama, 3120 Highwoods Blvd., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27604. 70627 Diversey, Inc., P.O. Box 19747, Charlotte, NC 28219. 71368 Nufarm Americas, Inc., 4020 Aerial Center Parkway, Suite 101, Morrisville, NC 27560. 71711 Nichino America, Inc., 4550 New Linden Hill Road, Suite 501, Wilmington, DE 19808. 81880 Canyon Group LLC, c/o Gowan Company, 370 S. Main Street, Yuma, AZ 85364.
    III. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register. EPA will provide a 180-day comment period on the proposed requests. Thereafter, the EPA Administrator may approve such a request.

    IV. Procedures for Withdrawal of Request

    Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation should submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. If the products have been subject to a previous cancellation action, the effective date of cancellation and all other provisions of any earlier cancellation action are controlling.

    V. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products that are currently in the United States and that were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. Because the Agency has identified no significant potential risk concerns associated with these pesticide products, upon cancellation of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II., EPA anticipates allowing registrants to sell and distribute existing stocks of these products until January 15, 2018, or the date of that the cancellation notice is published in the Federal Register, whichever is later. Thereafter, registrants will be prohibited from selling or distributing the pesticides identified in Table 1 of Unit II., except for export consistent with FIFRA section 17 or for proper disposal. Persons other than registrants will generally be allowed to sell, distribute, or use existing stocks until such stocks are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the canceled products.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: June 26, 2017. Delores Barber, Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16370 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities AGENCY:

    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collection—extension without change.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) announces that it is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for a three-year extension without change of the Elementary-Secondary Staff Information Report (EEO-5).

    DATES:

    Written comments on this notice must be submitted on or before September 5, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on this notice must be submitted to Joseph B. Nye, Policy Analyst, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, [email protected] Commenters are also encouraged to send comments to the EEOC online at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions on the Web site for submitting comments. In addition, the EEOC's Executive Secretariat will accept comments in hard copy. Hard copy comments should be sent to Bernadette Wilson, Acting Executive Officer, EEOC, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507. Finally, the Executive Secretariat will accept comments totaling six or fewer pages by facsimile (“FAX”) machine. This limitation is necessary to assure access to the equipment. The telephone number of the fax receiver is (202) 663-4114. (This is not a toll-free number). Receipt of FAX transmittals will not be acknowledged, except that the sender may request confirmation of receipt by calling the Executive Secretariat staff at (202) 663-4070 (voice) or (202) 663-4074 (TTD). (These are not toll-free telephone numbers.) The EEOC will post online at http://www.regulations.gov all comments submitted via the online rulemaking portal, in hard copy, or by fax to the Executive Secretariat. These comments will be posted without change, including any personal information you provide, except as noted below. The EEOC reserves the right to refrain from posting comments, including those that contain obscene, indecent, or profane language; that contain threats or defamatory statements; that contain hate speech directed at race, color, sex, national origin, age, religion, disability, or genetic information; or that promote or endorse services or products. All comments received, including any personal information provided, also will be available for public inspection during normal business hours by appointment only at the EEOC Headquarters Library, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507. Upon request, individuals who require assistance viewing comments will be provided appropriate aids such as readers or print magnifiers. To schedule an appointment, contact EEOC Library staff at (202) 663-4630 (voice) or (202) 663-4641 (TTY). (These are not toll-free numbers.)

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ronald Edwards, Director, Program Research and Surveys Division, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Room 4SW30F, Washington, DC 20507; (202) 663-4949 (voice) or [email protected] Requests for this notice in an alternative format should be made to the Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs at (202) 663-4191 (voice), (202) 663-4494 (TTY), or email at: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A notice that EEOC would be submitting this request was published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2017 allowing for a 60-day public comment period. There were no comments received from the public.

    Overview of Information Collection

    Collection Title: Elementary-Secondary Staff Information Report (EEO-5).

    OMB-Number: 3046-0003.

    Frequency of Report: Biennial.

    Type of Respondent: Certain public elementary and secondary school districts.

    Description of Affected Public: Certain public elementary and secondary school districts.

    Number of Responses: 6024.1

    1 This number represents the number of filers from the most recently completed EEO-5 survey in 2014.

    Reporting Hours (biennial): 102,839.32.

    Respondent Cost Burden (biennial): $0.

    Federal Cost: $190,000.

    Number of Forms: 1.

    Form Number: EEOC Form 168A.

    Abstract: Section 709 (c) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-8(c), requires employers to make and keep records relevant to a determination of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed, to preserve such records, and to produce reports as the Commission prescribes by regulation or order. Accordingly, the EEOC issued regulations prescribing the reporting requirements for elementary and secondary public school districts. The EEOC uses EEO-5 data to investigate charges of employment discrimination against elementary and secondary public school districts. The data also are used for research. The data are shared with the Department of Education (Office for Civil Rights) and the Department of Justice. Pursuant to Section 709(d) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, EEO-5 data also are shared with state and local Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs).

    Burden Statement: The EEOC has updated its methodology for calculating annual burden to reflect the different staff responsible for preparing and filing the EEO-5. The EEOC's revised burden estimate reflects that the bulk of the work in biennially preparing an EEO-5 report is performed by computer support specialists, executive administrative staff, and payroll and human resource professionals; the revised estimate also includes time spent by school district finance professionals and superintendents who, in a few cases, may consult briefly during the reporting process. The revised estimates reflect input obtained by the EEOC during a limited survey of school districts with varying resource levels and student populations. The school districts provided information on the types of employees that participate in preparation of the EEO-5 report and the amount of time spent by each type of employee. After accounting for the time spent by the various employees who have a role in preparing an EEO-5, the EEOC estimates that a school district will spend 17.07 hours to prepare the report, and estimates that the aggregate biennial hour burden for all respondents is 102,839.32. The cost associated with the burden hours was calculated using median hourly wage rates obtained from the Department of Labor 2 for each job identified above as participating in the submission of the survey; the burden hour cost per school district will be approximately $539.57, while the estimated total biennial burden cost for all 6024 school districts will be $3,250,361.25 (See Table 1 3 ).

    2 Median hourly wage rates were obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (see U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, http://www/bls.gov/ooh/)

    3 Figures shown in table have been rounded.

    Table 1—Estimate of Burden for EEO-5 Report Hourly
  • wage rate
  • Burden hours
  • per district
  • Burden hour
  • cost per
  • district 4
  • Total burden
  • hours 5
  • Total burden
  • hour cost 6
  • N = 6024 COMPUTER SUPPORT SPECIALIST (IT PROFESSIONAL/DATA PROCESSING SPECIALIST) 25.21 3.4286 86.4343 20653.7143 520680.1371 DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL FINANCE (FINANCIAL MANAGERS) 56.73 0.1429 8.1043 860.5714 48820.2171 EXECUTIVE CLERICAL STAFF 26.66 2.9286 78.0757 17641.7143 470328.1029 HUMAN RESOURCE SPECIALIST 28.06 5.4286 152.3257 32701.7143 917610.1029 PAYROLL SPECIALIST 20.26 1.4286 28.9429 8605.7143 174351.7714 SENIOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGERS 50.21 3.4286 172.1486 20653.7143 1037022.9943 SUPERINTENDENT (SCHOOL MANAGEMENT OCCUPATIONS 47.38 0.2857 13.5371 1721.1429 81547.7486 SUB TOTAL 17.0716 539.5686 102839.3184 3250361.2464

    These estimates are based on an assumption of paper reporting. However, the EEOC has made electronic filing much easier for respondents required to file the EEO-5 Report. As a result, more respondents are using this filing method. This development, along with the greater availability of human resource information software, is expected to significantly reduce the actual burden of reporting. The Commission continues to develop more reliable estimates of reporting burdens given the significant increase in electronic filing and explore new approaches to make such reporting even less burdensome. In order to help reduce survey burden, respondents are encouraged to report data electronically, whenever possible.

    4 The figures in this column were calculated by multiplying the figures in the Hourly Wage Rate column by those in the Burden Hours Per District Column.

    5 The figures in this column were calculated by multiplying the figures in the Burden Hours Per District column by 6024, the total number of respondents.

    6 The figures in this column were calculated by multiplying the figures in the Burden Hour Cost Per District column by 6024, the total number of respondents.

    Dated: July 24, 2017.

    For the Commission.

    Victoria A. Lipnic, Acting Chair.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16340 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than August 17, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Brendan S. Murrin, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. Boyd Brent Myers, Tazewell, Tennessee, as trustee of six McNeilus family trusts, all of Rochester, Minnesota; to retain control of the voting shares of Sterling Financial Group, Inc., Rochester, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly retain control of Sterling State Bank, Austin, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 28, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16292 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-17-0576] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice should be directed to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    Possession, Use, and Transfer of Select Agents and Toxins (42 CFR part 73)—Revision—Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)/Division of Select Agents and Toxins (DSAT) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)/Agriculture Select Agent Services (AgSAS).

    Background and Brief Description

    Subtitle A of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, (42 U.S.C. 262a), requires the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to regulate the possession, use, and transfer of biological agents or toxins that have the potential to pose a severe threat to public health and safety (select agents and toxins). Subtitle B of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (which may be cited as the Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2002), (7 U.S.C. 8401), requires USDA to regulate the possession, use, and transfer of biological agents or toxins that have the potential to pose a severe threat to animal or plant health, or animal or plant products (select agents and toxins). The HHS Secretary delegated the responsibility for promulgating and implementing select agent regulations found at 42 CFR part 73 to CDC Division of Select Agents and Toxins (DSAT). The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)/Agriculture Select Agent Services (AgSAS) was delegated responsibility by USDA for select agent regulations (7 CFR part 331, and 9 CFR part 121). The Federal Select Agent Program (FSAP) is the collaboration of the DSAT and AgSAS to administer the select agent regulations in a manner to minimize the administrative burden on persons subject to the select agent regulations. Accordingly, CDC and APHIS have adopted an identical system to collect information for the possession, use, and transfer of select agents and toxins.

    CDC is requesting OMB approval to revise the collected information under the select agent regulations through the use of the APHIS/CDC Form 3 (Incident Notification and Reporting (Theft/Loss/Release)). The form (42 CFR 73.19(a),(b)) must be completed by an individual or an entity whenever the individual or entity experiences a theft, loss, or release of a select agent or toxin. CDC is proposing to revise the form to further clarify what needs to be reported as a “release” and “loss” and additional fields to assist with categorizing the type of release (e.g., spill within secondary containment, occupational exposure, possible breach of facility containment, etc.), type of exposure, and the understanding of safety and security risk levels relative to human illness. Guidance documents were also added to assist with the following forms: Application for Registration (APHIS/CDC Form 1), Request to Transfer Select Agents and Toxins (APHIS/CDC Form 2), Report of Identification of a Select Agent or Toxin (APHIS/CDC Form 4), Request of Exemption of Select Agents and Request for Exclusions Toxins for an Investigational Product (APHIS/CDC Form 5), Request for Expedited Review, Security Plan, Security Plan, Biosafety Plan, Request Regarding a Restricted Experiment, Incident Response Plan, Training, and Records.

    Annualized burden hours and cost were calculated based on data obtained from 2016 Annual Report of the Federal Select Agent Program for submissions to FSAP for 2016. CDC requests a three year approval for this Revision. The estimated annualized Burden has been reduced to 8,408 hours due to the decrease in the number of Respondents. There is no cost to Respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Section Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • 73.7 Application for Registration (APHIS/CDC Form 1) 1 1 4 73.7 Amendment to a Certificate of Registration 238 7 1 73.7 Application for Registration (APHIS/CDC Form 1) Guidance 1 1 1 73.16 Request to Transfer Select Agents and Toxins (APHIS/CDC Form 2) 188 1 1 73.16 Request to Transfer Select Agents and Toxins (APHIS/CDC Form 2) Guidance 188 1 30/60 73.19 Report of Theft, Loss, or Release of Select Agent or Toxin (APHIS/CDC Form 3) 205 1 90/60 73.19 Report of Theft, Loss, or Release of Select Agent or Toxin (APHIS/CDC Form 3) Guidance 205 1 30/60 73.5 & 6 Report of Identification of a Select Agent or Toxin from a Clinical/Diagnostic Specimen (APHIS/CDC Form 4A) 1,030 1 30/60 73.5 & 6 Report of Identification of a Select Agent or Toxin from a Proficiency Test (APHIS/CDC Form 4B) 10 1 30/60 73.5 & 6 Federal Law Enforcement Reporting Seizure of Select Agent or Toxin (APHIS/CDC Form 4C) 1 1 30/60 73.5 & 6 Report of Identification of a Select Agent or Toxin (APHIS/CDC Form 4) Guidance 1,030 1 30/60 73.5 & 73.6 Request of Exemption of Select Agents and Toxins for an Investigational Product (APHIS/CDC Form 5) 1 1 30/60 73.5 & 73.6 Request of Exemption of Select Agents and Toxins for an Investigational Product (APHIS/CDC Form 5) Guidance 1 1 30/60 73.3 & 73.4 Request for Exclusions 3 1 30/60 73.3 & 73.4 Request for Exclusions Guidance 3 1 30/60 73.9 Documentation of Self-inspection 238 1 1 73.1 Request for Expedited Review 1 1 15/60 73.1 Request for Expedited Review Guidance 1 1 15/60 73.11 Security Plan 238 1 5 73.11 Security Plan Guidance 238 1 30/60 73.11 Security Plan Template 238 1 30/60 73.12 Biosafety Plan 238 1 5 73.12 Biosafety Plan Guidance 238 1 30/60 73.12 Biosafety Plan Template 238 1 30/60 73.13 Request Regarding a Restricted Experiment 1 1 30/60 73.13 Request Regarding a Restricted Experiment Guidance 1 1 30/60 73.14 Incident Response Plan 238 1 5 73.14 Incident Response Plan Guidance 238 1 30/60 73.14 Incident Response Plan Template 238 1 30/60 73.15 Training 238 1 30/60 73.15 Training Guidance 238 1 30/60 73.17 Records 238 1 30/60 73.17 Guidance on the Inventory of Select Agents 238 1 30/60 73.20 Administrative Review 1 1 1
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16333 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [Docket No. CDC-2014-0015] Vaccines Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) 2.0 Form AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the availability of the final Vaccines Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) 2.0 Form www.vaers.hhs.gov. The VAERS 2.0 Form replaces the VAERS-1 Form which had been in use since 1990.

    DATES:

    The VAERS 2.0 Form was implemented June 30, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tiffany Suragh, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop D-26; Atlant, Georgia 30329-4018; Telephone: (404) 498-0681.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    VAERS is an important and critical “early warning system” in the federal vaccine safety infrastructure for identifying adverse events after receipt of childhood, adolescent, and adult vaccines licensed for use in the United States. Healthcare providers and vaccine manufacturers are required under section 2125(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-25(b)) to submit VAERS reports regarding the occurrence of any event set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table which occurs within 7 days of the administration of any vaccine set forth in the Table or within such longer period as is specified in the Table and the occurrence of any contraindicating reaction to a vaccine which is specified in the manufacturer's package insert. VAERS also accepts reports on adverse events following receipt of other vaccines. Patients, parents and others aware of adverse events can also submit VAERS reports. Although VAERS is not designed to assess if a vaccine caused an adverse event, VAERS provides HHS/CDC and HHS/FDA with important early information that might signal a potential problem. If the VAERS data suggest a possible association between an adverse event and vaccination, the relationship will be further assessed. In recent years VAERS has received approximately 40,000 U.S. reports annually.

    VAERS is a mandated activity for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and VAERS data are used by Federal agencies, State Health Officials, health care providers, manufacturers, and the public. Therefore, it is important to maximize the usefulness of this system. The information collected by the final VAERS 2.0 Form will be similar to that from the current VAERS-1 Form so historical comparisons can be made. However, the changes in the final VAERS 2.0 Form should improve reporting efficiency and data quality. VAERS 2.0 Form offers standardized responses, clearer instructions and guidance, and improved online reporting capability. Select questions have been updated, with questions added, removed, and reorganized to decrease response burden and maximize usability. The final VAERS 2.0 Form can be found at http://www.regulations.gov and www.vaers.hhs.gov.

    During the development of the VAERS 2.0 Form, CDC and FDA sought input from key stakeholders in the Federal government, State Health Officials involved in vaccine safety and vaccine programs, and other public health partners. In addition, the VAERS 2.0 Form was presented to three Federal advisory committees, the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (September 5, 2014), the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (September 9, 2014), and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (October, 2014). Finally, the final VAERS form was tested with potential users (e.g., physicians, nurses, pharmacists, patients, and parents).

    On November 24, 2014 HHS/CDC published a notice in the Federal Register (79 FR 69853) announcing the opening of a docket to obtain public comment on the draft VAERS 2.0 Form. HHS/CDC received 19 comments on the draft VAERS 2.0 Form from members of the general public and professional and advocacy organizations. All comments were carefully reviewed and considered in the preparation of the final VAERS form.

    Dated: July 31, 2017. Sandra Cashman, Executive Secretary, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16335 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-17-17WE] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice should be directed to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices related to a Domestic Readiness Initiative on Zika Virus Disease—New—Office of the Associate Director for Communication, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Since late 2015, Zika has rapidly spread through Puerto Rico. As of November 2016, there have been 35,136 confirmed cases of Zika in Puerto Rico, with 2,797 cases among pregnant women and 67 cases of Guillain-Barré caused by Zika. In the continental United States, there have been 4,432 travel-associated cases of Zika and 185 locally-acquired Zika cases in Florida and Texas. Due to the urgent nature of this public health emergency, CDC is implementing a Zika prevention communication and education initiative.

    The purpose of this survey is to assess a domestic U.S. and Puerto Rico-based communication and education initiative aimed at encouraging at-risk populations to protect themselves and their families from Zika virus infection. CDC will assess the following communication and education objectives: (1) Determine the reach and saturation of the initiative's messages in Puerto Rico and the domestic U.S.; (2) measure the extent to which messages were communicated clearly across multiple channels to advance knowledge and counter misinformation; and (3) monitor individual and community-level awareness, attitudes and likelihood to follow recommended behavior. This data collection includes 2,400 surveys conducted in four geographic locations following peak campaign activity to assess key outcomes of the initiative. The information will be used to make recommendations for improving communication and education regarding the prevention and spread of the Zika virus. Information may also be used to develop presentations, reports, and manuscripts to document the communication effort and lessons learned in order to inform future similar communication efforts.

    The goal of this project is to determine knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to a Domestic Readiness Initiative on Zika Virus Disease being launched in the United States (U.S.) mainland and Puerto Rico.

    CDC will seek to gain OMB approval of this new information collection request to conduct a final survey (wave 3) to evaluate the CDC Domestic Readiness Initiative for Zika Virus. The Zika Readiness Initiative campaign has been implemented in two phases with peak campaign activity coinciding with the height of mosquito season during the summer months of 2016 (phase 1) and 2017 (phase 2). OMB granted CDC an emergency review approval in 2016 (OMB Control Number 0920-1136, expiration 3/31/2017) to conduct the first two waves of data collection which captured the effectiveness of the first phase of the campaign. The third wave of data collection will allow CDC to capture the effectiveness of the second phase of the campaign being implemented through late summer/early fall 2017.

    While the campaign objectives and the call to action remain the same across both phases, campaign materials have been modified between phases based the first two waves of data collection to better address misinformation about Zika and promote a sense of urgency to adopt preventive actions. The third and final wave of data collection is vital to CDC's continued understanding of how the campaign information is received by target audiences and what actions are being taken to prevent Zika virus transmission Findings will be used to improve planning, implementation, refinements and demonstrate outcomes of a Zika Domestic Readiness Initiative communication and education effort.

    The total estimated annualized burden hours are 560. There are no costs to participants other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • U.S. Domestic Adults Zika Readiness Initiative Questionnaire 1,800 1 14/60 Puerto Rico Adults Zika Readiness Initiative Questionnaire 600 1 14/60
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16332 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-D-2163] Child-Resistant Packaging Statements in Drug Product Labeling; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Child-Resistant Packaging Statements in Drug Product Labeling.” This guidance is intended to assist applicants, manufacturers, packagers, and distributors who choose to include child-resistant packaging (CRP) statements in prescription and over-the-counter human drug product labeling. The guidance discusses what information should be included to support CRP statements and to help ensure that such labeling is clear, useful, informative, and, to the extent possible, consistent in content and format.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by October 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2017-D-2163 for “Child-Resistant Packaging Statements in Drug Product Labeling.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Lostritto, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 4132, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-1697; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Child-Resistant Packaging Statements in Drug Product Labeling.” In 1970, the Poison Prevention Packaging Act (PPPA) was enacted to protect children (under 5 years of age) from unintentional exposure to household substances including food, drugs, and cosmetics. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), a drug that has packaging or labeling that is in violation of a regulation issued pursuant to section 3 or 4 of the PPPA is deemed to be misbranded. FDA was responsible for enforcing the PPPA until 1973, when jurisdiction was transferred to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Because of FDA's authority to regulate labeling for prescription and nonprescription drug products, if firms choose to make statements in their labeling for such products about CRP, such statements must comply with FDA's statutory and regulatory requirements. The draft guidance explains that to ensure that CRP statements on labeling are not false or misleading, such statements should only be used when the drug product packaging has been shown to comply with the applicable CPSC regulatory standards and test procedures for CRP. This guidance is intended to apply to FDA-regulated drug products that bear CRP statements, regardless of whether CRP is required for such products under 16 CFR 1700. For example, bulk packages of prescription drugs that are shipped to pharmacies for repackaging by a pharmacist are not required to utilize CRP, but a firm may nevertheless choose to use CRP (and a CRP statement) for such drugs.

    CPSC's regulations list “special packaging standards” (also referred to herein as child-resistant packaging, or CRP) for a wide range of household products, including most oral prescription drugs and many nonprescription drug products (see 16 CFR 1700 for substances requiring special packaging and the relevant packaging standards and testing procedures). There are different ways to make packaging child-resistant, with the most common forms being a child-resistant closure (e.g., a “safety cap”) and certain unit-dose blister packaging (e.g., puncture-resistant and peel-push blisters).

    Child-resistant packaging is regarded as an important public health safety tool for avoiding harmful outcomes related to unsupervised pediatric ingestions. FDA advocates that all drugs, irrespective of the type of packaging, be stored safely out of reach and sight of children to further the overall public health efforts to address this safety issue.

    Because health care professionals and consumers may not be able to determine on visual inspection whether the packaging is child-resistant, a labeling statement may help to identify this attribute. Therefore, in this guidance, we recommend text that may be appropriate to consider when including CRP statements on the containers and packaging of products.

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on child-resistant packaging statements in drug product labeling. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. Because FDA's guidance documents do not bind the public or FDA to any requirements, this guidance is not considered to be subject to Executive Order 12866.

    II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collection of information for submitting labeling in original and supplemental new drug applications (NDAs), abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs), and biologics license applications (BLAs) in 21 CFR 314.50(e) and (l), 314.94(a)(8), 314.70, and 314.97, and 21 CFR 601.2 and 601.12 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001 and 0910-0338, respectively. The collection of information for preparing prescription drug product labeling under 21 CFR 201.56 and 201.57 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0572. The collection of information for Drug Facts labeling under 21 CFR 201.66 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0340. The collection of information for Medication Guides has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0393. The collection of information for submitting chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information in original and supplemental NDAs, ANDAs, and BLAs in 21 CFR 314.50(d)(1), 314.94(a)(9), 314.70, and 314.97, and 21 CFR 601.2 and 601.12 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001 and 0910-0338, respectively.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 31, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16379 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-2489] Receipt of Notice That a Patent Infringement Complaint Was Filed Against a Biosimilar Applicant AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing notice that an applicant for a proposed biosimilar product notified FDA that a patent infringement action was filed in connection with the applicant's biologics license application (BLA). Under the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), an applicant for a proposed biosimilar product or interchangeable product must notify FDA within 30 days after the applicant was served with a complaint in a patent infringement action described under the PHS Act. FDA is required to publish notice of the complaint in the Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Daniel Orr, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6246, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-0979, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act) was enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148) on March 23, 2010. The BPCI Act amended the PHS Act and created an abbreviated licensure pathway for biological products shown to be biosimilar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed biological reference product. Section 351(k) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262(k)), added by the BPCI Act, describes the requirements for a BLA for a proposed biosimilar product or a proposed interchangeable product (351(k) BLA). Section 351(l) of the PHS Act, also added by the BPCI Act, describes certain procedures for exchanging patent information and resolving patent disputes between a 351(k) BLA applicant and the holder of the BLA reference product. If a 351(k) applicant is served with a complaint for a patent infringement described in section 351(l)(6) of the PHS Act, the applicant is required to provide FDA with notice and a copy of the complaint within 30 days of service. FDA is required to publish notice of a complaint received under section 351(l)(6)(C) of the PHS Act in the Federal Register.

    FDA received notice of the following complaint under section 351(l)(6)(C) of the PHS Act: Amgen, Inc., et al. v. Coherus Biosciences, Inc., 17-cv-00546 (D. Del., filed May 10, 2017).

    FDA has only a ministerial role in publishing notice of a complaint received under section 351(l)(6)(C) of the PHS Act and does not perform a substantive review of the complaint.

    Dated: July 31, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16380 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-0002] B. Braun Medical, Inc.; Withdrawal of Approval of Three New Drug Applications and One Abbreviated New Drug Application AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is withdrawing approval of three new drug applications (NDAs) and one abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) held by B. Braun Medical, Inc. B. Braun Medical, Inc., notified the Agency in writing that the drug products were no longer marketed and requested that the approval of the applications be withdrawn.

    DATES:

    Effective September 5, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Valerie A. Butler, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    B. Braun Medical, Inc., 901 Marcon Blvd., Allentown, PA 18109, has informed FDA that the following three NDAs and one ANDA are no longer marketed and has requested that FDA withdraw approval of the applications under the process in § 314.150(c) (21 CFR 314.150(c)). By its request, B. Braun Medical, Inc., has also waived its opportunity for a hearing. Withdrawal of approval of an application under § 314.150(c) is without prejudice to refiling.

    NDA/ANDA Proprietary name BN 090024 Dextran 70, 6% Dextran 70 in 0.9% NaCl Injection. BN 160767 Dextran 40, 10% Dextran 40 in 0.9% NaCl Injection and 10% Dextran 40 in 5% Dextrose. BN 890104 Pentaspan® (10% Pentastarch in 0.9% NaCl Injection in EXCEL Containers). BA 740283 Hespan® (6% Hetastarch in 0.9% NaCl in EXCEL Containers).

    Therefore, approval of the applications listed in the table, and all amendments and supplements thereto, is hereby withdrawn, effective September 5, 2017. Introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce for products without an approved NDA or ANDA violates section 301(a) and (d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and (d)). Drug products that are listed in the table that are in inventory on the date that this notice becomes effective (see the DATES section) may continue to be dispensed until the inventories have been depleted or the drug products have reached their expiration dates or otherwise becomes violative, whichever occurs first.

    Dated: July 31, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16377 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case:

    Nasser Chegini, Ph.D., University of Florida: Based on the report of an investigation conducted by the University of Florida (UF), the prior corrections in the scientific record noted below, and additional analysis conducted by ORI in its oversight review, ORI found that Dr. Nasser Chegini, retired as a Professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, UF, engaged in research misconduct in research supported by National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant 2 R01 HD037432.

    ORI acknowledges that the following papers were retracted as a result of the institution's investigation:

    1. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 88(10):4967-4976, 2003. Retraction in: J Clin Endocrinol Metab 100(1):318, 2015 Jan. 2. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 1:125, 2003. Retraction in: Reprod Biol Endocrinol 13:25, 2015 Apr 3. 3. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 88(3):1350-1361, 2003. Retraction in: J Clin Endocrinol Metab 100(1):318, 2015 Jan. 4. Hum Reprod 21(10):2555-2563, 2006. Retraction in: Hum Reprod 30(1):249, 2015 Jan (Epub 2014 Nov 6). 5. Mol Hum Reprod 12(4):245-256, 2006. Retraction in: Mol Hum Reprod 20(12):1258, 2014 Dec (Epub 2014 Nov 13). 6. Mol Hum Reprod 13(11):797-806, 2007. Retraction in: Mol Hum Reprod 20(12):1259, 2014 Dec (Epub 2014 Nov 13). 7. Reprod Sci 15(10):993-1001, 2007. Retraction in: Reprod Sci 21(10):1326, 2014 Oct. 8. J Cell Mol Med 12(1):227-240, 2008. Retraction in: J Cell Mol Med 19(10):2512, 2015 Oct.

    ORI found that Respondent engaged in research misconduct by intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly falsifying data that were included in: J Reprod Immunol 73(2):118-29, 2007 (hereafter referred to as “JRI 2007”). Specifically, ORI found that Respondent falsified data points and standard errors of the mean in bar graphs plotting matrix metalloprotease expression or activity in the following figures of JRI 2007:

    • Figures 2A, 2B, 2C • Figures 3A, 3B, 3C • Figure 4B • Figure 5C • Figure 6B • Figures 7A, 7B, 7C • Figure 8, middle left panel and lower right panel

    Dr. Chegini entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement with ORI, in which he voluntarily agreed to the following, beginning on July 12, 2017:

    (1) Respondent has not applied for or engaged in U.S. Public Health Service (PHS)-supported research since 2012; Respondent has no intention of applying for or engaging in PHS-supported research or otherwise working with PHS; however, if within five (5) years of the effective date of the Agreement, the Respondent receives or applies for PHS support, the Respondent agreed to have his research supervised for a period of five (5) years from the date of his employment in a position in which he receives or applies for PHS support and agreed to notify his employer(s)/institution(s) of the terms of this supervision; Respondent agreed that prior to the submission of an application for PHS support for a research project on which the Respondent's participation is proposed and prior to Respondent's participation in any capacity on PHS-supported research, Respondent shall ensure that a plan for supervision of Respondent's duties is submitted to ORI for approval; the supervision plan must be designed to ensure the scientific integrity of Respondent's research contribution; Respondent agreed that he shall not participate in any PHS-supported research until such a supervision plan is submitted to and approved by ORI; Respondent agreed to maintain responsibility for compliance with the agreed upon supervision plan;

    (2) Respondent agreed that for a period of five (5) years beginning on the date on which the Respondent receives or applies for PHS support, any institution employing him shall submit, in conjunction with each application for PHS funds, or report, manuscript, or abstract involving PHS-supported research in which Respondent is involved, a certification to ORI that the data provided by Respondent are based on actual experiments or are otherwise legitimately derived and that the data, procedures, and methodology are accurately reported in the application, report, manuscript, or abstract;

    (3) to exclude himself voluntarily from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant for a period of five (5) years, beginning with the effective date of the Agreement; and

    (4) as a condition of the Agreement, Respondent will request that J Reprod Immunol 73(2):118-29, 2007 be retracted.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Director, Office of Research Integrity, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8200.

    Kathryn M. Partin, Director, Office of Research Integrity.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16311 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-31-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel NIAID Clinical Trial Implementation Grant (R01).

    Date: August 28, 2017.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Kelly Y. Poe, Ph.D., Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room 3F40B National Institutes of Health, NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5036, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: July 28, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16314 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; AIDSRRC Independent SEP.

    Date: August 23, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Peter R. Jackson, Ph.D., Chief, AIDS Research Review Branch, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room #3G20, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5049, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: July 28, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16313 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [Docket No. USCBP-2017-0028] Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

    ACTION:

    Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) will hold its quarterly meeting on Wednesday, August 23, 2017, in San Diego, California. The meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The COAC will meet on Wednesday, August 23, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. PDT. Please note that the meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business.

    Pre-Registration: Meeting participants may attend either in person or via webinar after pre-registering using one of the methods indicated below:

    For members of the public who plan to attend the meeting in person, please register by 5:00 p.m. EDT by August 22, 2017, either online at https://apps.cbp.gov/te_reg/index.asp?w=115; by email to [email protected]; or by fax to (202) 325-4290. You must register prior to the meeting in order to attend the meeting in person.

    For members of the public who plan to participate via webinar, please register online at https://apps.cbp.gov/te_reg/index.asp?w=114 by 5:00 p.m. EDT by August 22, 2017.

    Please feel free to share this information with other interested members of your organization or association.

    Members of the public who are pre-registered and later need to cancel, please do so by August 22, 2017, utilizing the following links: https://apps.cbp.gov/te_reg/cancel.asp?w=115 to cancel an in person registration or https://apps.cbp.gov/te_reg/cancel.asp?w=114 to cancel a webinar registration.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Omni Hotel, 675 L Street, San Diego, CA 92101. For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Ms. Florence Constant-Gibson, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, at (202) 344-1440, as soon as possible.

    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues the committee will consider prior to the formulation of recommendations as listed in the “Agenda” section below.

    Comments must be submitted in writing no later than August 10, 2017, and must be identified by Docket No. USCBP-2017-0028, and may be submitted by one (1) of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include the docket number in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: (202) 325-4290, Attention: Florence Constant-Gibson.

    Mail: Ms. Florence Constant-Gibson, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number (USCBP-2017-0028) for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov. Please do not submit personal information to this docket.

    Docket: For access to the docket or to read background documents or comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket Number USCBP-2017-0028. To submit a comment, click the “Comment Now!” button located on the top-right hand side of the docket page.

    There will be multiple public comment periods held during the meeting on August 23, 2017. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to two (2) minutes or less to facilitate greater participation. Contact the individual listed below to register as a speaker. Please note that the public comment period for speakers may end before the time indicated on the schedule that is posted on the CBP Web page, http://www.cbp.gov/trade/stakeholder-engagement/coac.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Florence Constant-Gibson, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229; telephone (202) 344-1440; facsimile (202) 325-4290 OR Ms. Valarie Neuhart, Acting Director and Designated Federal Officer, can also be reached at (202) 344-1440.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix. The Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) provides advice to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on matters pertaining to the commercial operations of CBP and related functions within the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of the Treasury.

    Agenda

    The COAC will hear from the following subcommittees on the topics listed below and then will review, deliberate, provide observations, and formulate recommendations on how to proceed:

    1. The Trade Modernization Subcommittee will discuss and deliver recommendations related to the subcommittee's International Engagement and Trade Facilitation Working Group which is identifying examples of best practices in the U.S. and abroad that facilitate trade. The subcommittee will also discuss the progress of the E-Commerce Working Group and will deliver recommendations related to the subcommittee's Section 321 Working Group. The Section 321 Working Group has focused on facilitative methods for the processing of low value “de-minimis” shipments while maintaining security and compliance.

    2. The One U.S. Government Subcommittee will discuss the progress of the Fish & Wildlife Service Working Group and will present recommendations in this area. The subcommittee will also discuss the progress of the Automated Commercial Environment core functions and the Single Window Effort, including the North American Single Window progress.

    3. The Global Supply Chain Subcommittee will present their involvement in the present draft of an updated supply chain security Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) best practice framework, provide an update to on-going input work regarding the C-TPAT minimum security criteria, and a progress report with recommendations from the Pipeline Working Group.

    4. The Trusted Trader Subcommittee will continue the discussion for an enhanced Trusted Trader program that includes engagement with CBP to include relevant partner government agencies with a potential for international interoperability. A review of the pilot program status and benefits will also be undertaken in parallel to determine the optimum benefits that would be assigned to Trusted Trader participants.

    5. The Trade Enforcement & Revenue Collection (TERC) Subcommittee will discuss the progress made on TERC recommendations and updates from the Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty, Bond, Forced Labor, and Intellectual Property Rights Working Groups.

    6. The Exports Subcommittee will discuss the Post Departure Filing (PDF) working group's progress in developing additional recommendations for an implementation plan of the PDF Proposal and will include steps to initiate a proof of concept that incorporates the PDF model in conjunction with the Ocean Export Manifest pilot. The subcommittee will also discuss the progress of the Truck Manifest Sub-Working Group recommendations presented at the March 1, 2017 public meeting, and progress on issues with the ongoing manifest pilots.

    Meeting materials will be available by August 20, 2017, at: http://www.cbp.gov/trade/stakeholder-engagement/coac/coac-public-meetings.

    Dated: July 27, 2017. Bradley Hayes, Executive Director, Office of Trade Relations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16360 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1000] Certain Motorized Self-Balancing Vehicles; Commission Determination To Review-in-Part an Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; on Review, To Vacate One Portion of the Initial Determination and Take No Position on One Issue; and Affirmance of the Finding of No Violation and Termination of the Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review-in-part a final initial determination (“ID”) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) finding no violation of section 337. On review, the Commission has determined to vacate one portion of the ID and to take no position with respect to one issue. The Commission has also determined to affirm the ID's finding of no violation of section 337 and has terminated the investigation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission instituted this investigation on May 26, 2016, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Razor USA LLC of Cerritos, California; and Inventist, Inc. and Shane Chen, both of Camas, Washington. 81 FR 33548-49. The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,738,278 (“the '278 patent”). The complaint further alleged violations of section 337 based upon false advertising, misrepresentation, and unfair competition, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States or to prevent the establishment of such an industry. The Commission's notice of investigation named the following twenty-eight respondents: Contixo Co. of Ontario, California and ZTO Store a.k.a. ZTO Trading, Inc. of Monterey Park, California (collectively, “Contixo”); Joy Hoverboard a/k/a Huizhou Aoge Enterprise Co. Ltd (“Joy Hoverboard”) of Huizhou, China; Shenzhen Chenduoxing Electronic Technology Ltd. (“Chenduoxing”), Shareconn International, Inc. (“Shareconn”), and Shenzhen R.M.T. Technology Co., Ltd. (“RMT”); all of Guangdong, China; Cyboard LLC a/k/a Shark Empire Inc. (“Cyboard”) of Glendale, California; GyroGlyder.com (“GyroGlyder”) of Stockton, California; Soibatian Corporation d.b.a. IO Hawk and d.b.a. Smart Wheels (“Soibatian”) of Glendale, California; PhunkeeDuck, Inc. (“PhunkeeDuck”) of Floral Park, New York; Shenzhen Jomo Technology Co., Ltd. (“Jomo”) of Shenzhen City, China; Shenzhen Kebe Technology Co., Ltd. (“Kebe”) and Shenzhen Supersun Technology Co. Ltd., a.k.a. Aottom (“Supersun”), both of Shenzhen, China; Twizzle Hoverboard (“Twizzle”) of La Puente, California; Uwheels of Santa Ana, California; InMotion Entertainment Group LLC (“InMotion”) of Jacksonville, Florida; HoverTech of Hebron, Kentucky; Leray Group a/k/a ShanDao Trading Co., Ltd. (“Leray”) of Beijing, China; Spaceboard USA (“Spaceboard”) of Norcross, Georgia; Genius Technologies a.k.a. Prime Capital (“Genius Technologies”) of Hastings, Minnesota; Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Co., Ltd. (“Chic”) of Hangzhou, China; Swagway, LLC (“Swagway”) of South Bend, Indiana; Modell's Sporting Goods, Inc. (“Modell's”) of New York City, New York; Powerboard a.k.a. Optimum Trading Co. (“Powerboard”) of Hebron, Kentucky; United Integral, Inc. dba Skque Products (“Skque”) of Irwindale, California; Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. of Causeway Bay, Hong Kong and Alibaba.com Ltd. of Hangzhou, China (collectively, “Alibaba”); Jetson Electric Bikes LLC (“Jetson”) of New York City, New York; and Newegg, Inc. (“Newegg”) of City of Industry, California. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) is also a party to the investigation. Id. Eight respondents remain in the investigation, i.e., Chic, Swagway, Modell's, Powerboard, Skque, Alibaba, Jetson, and Newegg (collectively, “respondents”). Every other respondent was terminated from the investigation based on a consent order stipulation and proposed consent order or good cause, or was found in default.

    On August 10 and November 17, 2016, respectively, the Commission issued notice of its determinations not to review the ALJ's IDs (Order Nos. 11 and 22) terminating the investigation as to Contixo based on a consent order stipulation and proposed consent order, and as to InMotion based on a consent order stipulation, proposed consent order, and settlement agreement. On October 19 and 27, 2016, respectively, the Commission issued notice of its determinations not to review the ALJ's IDs (Order Nos. 19 and 20) terminating the investigation as to claim 9 of the '278 patent and claim 4 of the patent. On September 7, October 11, and December 13, 2016, respectively, the Commission issued notice of its determinations not to review the ALJ's IDs (Order Nos. 14, 18, and 26) finding respondents GyroGlyder, Soibatian, PhunkeeDuck, Jomo, Kebe, Supersun, Twizzle, and Uwheels in default, respondents Joy Hoverboard, Chenduoxing, Shareconn, RMT, and Cyboard in default, and respondents HoverTech, Leray, and Spaceboard in default, respectively. On January 17, 2017, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 27) terminating the investigation as to Genius Technologies for good cause. On February 15, 2017, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 42) granting complainants' unopposed motion to terminate the investigation as to their Lanham Act, common law, and state unfair and deceptive trade practices allegations under section 337(a)(1)(A).

    On May 26, 2017, the ALJ issued his final ID and recommended determination (“RD”) on remedy and bonding. The ID finds that Alibaba is not an agent of the other respondents and therefore is not within the jurisdiction of section 337. It also finds that none of the respondents' accused products infringe the '278 patent, but that all of the defaulting respondents' accused products infringe the asserted patent based on taking the allegations in the complaint as true. The ID also finds that the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement was not satisfied with respect to the '278 patent. The cover page of the ID/RD, however, states that a violation of section 337 was found, page 75 of the ID/RD states that a violation was found as to the defaulting respondents, and the separately issued “Notice Regarding Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond” (May 26, 2017) (“Notice Regarding the ID”) states that a violation of section 337 was found. On June 5, 2017, the ALJ issued an erratum clarifying that there was no violation of section 337 because complainants had not satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement. He also issued a corrected ID/RD and Notice Regarding the ID on June 5, 2017; however, the error on page 75 of the ID/RD was not corrected. The Commission clarifies that the erratum also applies to (1) page 75 of the ID/RD and corrects that page to delete the statement that a violation has been found as to the defaulting respondents; and (2) footnote 47 on the same page, and corrects the footnote by striking “infringe the '278 patent” and substituting “violate section 337”.

    On June 12, 2017, OUII, complainants, respondent Chic, and a group of three respondents (Swagway, Modell's, and Newegg) filed separate petitions for review of the final ID. On June 20, 2017, OUII, complainants, respondent Jetson, respondent Alibaba, and a group of four respondents (Swagway, Modell's, Chic, and Newegg) filed separate responses to the opposing petitions.

    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ID, the parties' petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review-in-part the final ID. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review (1) the ID's finding that the Commission has no jurisdiction over Alibaba; and (2) the ID's analysis regarding infringement by the defaulting respondents. The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the final ID.

    On review with respect to issue (1), the Commission determines to take no position on the ID's finding that the Commission has no jurisdiction over Alibaba. On review with respect to issue (2), the Commission vacates the ID's findings in the last paragraph on page 39 (and paragraph 5 on page 72, as well as the first sentence on page 83) that complainants have established that the defaulting respondents infringe the '278 patent. These respondents have been found in default by virtue of their failure to respond to the complaint and notice of investigation. See Comm'n Notice (September 7, 2016); Comm'n Notice (October 11, 2016); Comm'n Notice (December 13, 2016). Section 337(g)(1), 19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1), provides the conditions and procedures applicable for issuing a default remedy. In light of the Commission's determination not to review the remainder of the final ID, including but not limited to the finding that the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '278 patent has not been satisfied, the analysis under Section 337(g)(1) is moot.

    The Commission therefore affirms the ID's finding of no violation of section 337 and terminates the investigation.

    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: July 28, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16325 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-703 (Fourth Review)] Furfuryl Alcohol From China; Determination

    On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on furfuryl alcohol from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

    1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).

    Background

    The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), instituted this review on January 3, 2017 (82 FR 140) and determined on April 10, 2017, that it would conduct an expedited review (82 FR 23063, May 19, 2017).

    The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on July 28, 2017. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4708 (July 2017), entitled Furfuryl Alcohol from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-703 (Fourth Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: July 28, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16324 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives [OMB Number 1140-0019] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Federal Firearms License (FFL) RENEWAL Application—ATF F 8 (5310.11) Part 11 AGENCY:

    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the [Federal Register, on May 25, 2017, allowing for a 60-day comment period].

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until September 5, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments, particularly with respect to the estimated public burden or associated response time, have suggestions, need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or desire any other additional information, please contact Tracey Robertson, Chief, Federal Firearms Licensing Center either by mail at 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405, by email at [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a currently approved collection.

    (2) The Title of the Form/Collection: Federal Firearms License (FFL) RENEWAL Application.

    (3) The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:

    (4) Form number: ATF F 8 (5310.11) Part 11.

    Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

    (5) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Primary: Business or other for-profit.

    Other: Individuals or households.

    Abstract: The form is filed by the licensee desiring to renew a Federal firearms license. It is used to identify the applicant, locate the business/collection premises, identify the type of business/collection activity, and determine the eligibility of the applicant.

    (6) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 35,000 respondents will utilize the form, and it will take each respondent 30 minutes to complete the form.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 17,500 hours which is equal to (35,000 (total # of respondents * .5 (30 minutes).

    If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: July 31, 2017. Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16330 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Bureau of Investigation [OMB Number 1110-0046] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection Friction Ridge Cards: Arrest and Institution FD-249; Applicant FD-258; Personal Identification FD-353; FBI Standard Palm Print FD-884; Supplemental Finger and Palm Print FD-884a AGENCY:

    Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division has submitted the following information collection renewal to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review in accordance with established review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on June 5, 2017 allowing for a 60 day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encourages and will be accepted for an additional 30 day until September 5, 2017.

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Gerry Lynn Brovey, Supervisory Information Liaison Specialist, FBI, CJIS, Resources Management Section, Administrative Unit, Module C-2, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia, 26306 (facsimile: 304-625-5093). Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20530 or sent to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Friction Ridge Cards: Arrest and Institution; Applicant; Personal Identification; FBI Standard Palm Print; Supplemental Finger and Palm Print.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: Agency form number: Forms FD-249 (Arrest and Institution), FD-258 (Applicant), and FD-353 (Personal Identification); FD-884 (FBI Standard Palm Print); FD-884a (Supplemental Finger and Palm Print) encompassed under OMB 1110-0046; CJIS Division, FBI, DOJ.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: City, county, state, federal and tribal law enforcement agencies; civil entities requesting security clearance and background checks. This collection is needed to collect information on individuals requesting background checks, security clearance, or those individuals who have been arrested for or accused of criminal activities. Acceptable data is stored as part of the Next Generation Identification System (NGI) of the FBI.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: It is estimated that 78,479 respondents will complete each form within approximately 10 minutes.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 14.6 million total annual burden hours associated with this collection.

    If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: July 28, 2017. Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16364 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Bureau of Investigation [OMB Number 1110-0049] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension Without Change, of a Previously Approved Collection InfraGard Membership Application and Profile AGENCY:

    Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until October 2, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Lisa Avery, Management and Program Analyst, Strategic Initiatives Unit, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Intelligence Branch, Office of Private Sector, FBIHQ, 1075 F Street SW., Washington DC 20024 or via email at [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Officer of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington DC 20503 or sent to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    (2) The Title of the Form/Collection: InfraGard Membership Application and Profile

    (3) The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: The form is unnumbered. The applicable component within the Strategic Initiatives Unit (SIU) Office of Private Sector of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Justice (DOJ)

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Members of the public and private-sector with a nexus to critical infrastructure protection interested in being a member of the FBI's National InfraGard Program. Personal information is collected by the FBI for vetting and background information to obtain membership to the Program and access to its secure portal. InfraGard is a two-way information sharing exchange between the FBI and members of the public and private sector focused on intrusion and vulnerabilities affecting 16 critical infrastructures. Members are provided access to law enforcement sensitive analytical products pertaining to their area of expertise.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: InfraGard has approximately 50,000 members and receives approximately 7,200 new applications for membership per year. The average response time for reading and responding to the membership application and profile is estimated to be 30 minutes.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:

    The estimated public burden associated with this collection is 3,600 hours. If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: July 31, 2017. Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16365 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act

    On July 31, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in the lawsuit entitled United States v. Harcros Chemicals Inc., Civil Action No. 2: 17-cv-2432.

    The United States, on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, filed a complaint against Harcros Chemicals Inc. (“Harcros”) seeking injunctive relief and the imposition of civil penalties for violations of Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act in connection with three of Harcros' chemical manufacturing, repacking, blending, storage, and distribution facilities located in Shreveport, Louisana, Kansas City, Kansas, and Bessemer, Alabama. The proposed Consent Decree concerns those facilities and twenty-six additional Harcros facilities located in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. The Consent Decree requires Harcros to audit its facilities for compliance with Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act and to correct any discovered violations of these requirements. The Consent Decree also requires Harcros to pay a cash civil penalty of $950,000 for the violations alleged in the complaint, as well as for violations of Section 112(r) expected to be uncovered at other facilities. The Consent Decree also requires Harcros to perform a Supplemental Environmental Project to enhance its fire-prevention capability at eight of its facilities.

    The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to United States v. Harcros Chemicals Inc., D.J. Ref. No. 90-5-2-1-11461. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:

    To submit comments: Send them to: By email [email protected] By mail Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. We will provide a paper copy of the Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    Please enclose a check or money order for $19.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $10.75.

    Susan M. Akers, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16369 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration 187th Meeting of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans

    Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 512 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1142, the 187th meeting of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans (also known as the ERISA Advisory Council) will be held on August 22-24, 2017.

    The three-day meeting will take place at the U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210 in Room N3437-C. The meeting will run from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 5:30 p.m. on August 22-23, with a one hour break for lunch each day, and from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on August 24. The purpose of the open meeting is for Advisory Council members to hear testimony from invited witnesses and to receive an update from the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA). The EBSA update is scheduled for the morning of August 24, subject to change.

    The Advisory Council will study the following topics: (1) Reducing the Burden and Increasing the Effectiveness of Mandated Disclosures with respect to Employment-Based Health Benefit Plans in the Private Sector, and (2) Mandated Disclosure for Retirement Plans—Enhancing Effectiveness for Participants and Sponsors. The Council will hear testimony on both topics on August 22 and 23. It will continue with discussions of its topics on August 24. Descriptions of these topics are available on the Advisory Council page of the EBSA Web site, at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/about-us/erisa-advisory-council.

    Organizations or members of the public wishing to submit a written statement may do so by submitting 35 copies on or before August 15, 2017, to Larry Good, Executive Secretary, ERISA Advisory Council, U.S. Department of Labor, Suite N-5623, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Statements also may be submitted as email attachments in word processing or pdf format transmitted to [email protected] It is requested that statements not be included in the body of the email. Statements deemed relevant by the Advisory Council and received on or before August 15 will be included in the record of the meeting and made available through the EBSA Public Disclosure Room, along with witness statements. Do not include any personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. Written statements submitted by invited witnesses will be posted on the Advisory Council page of the EBSA Web site, without change, and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines.

    Individuals or representatives of organizations wishing to address the Advisory Council should forward their requests to the Executive Secretary or telephone (202) 693-8668. Oral presentations will be limited to 10 minutes, time permitting, but an extended statement may be submitted for the record. Individuals with disabilities who need special accommodations should contact the Executive Secretary by August 15.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of July, 2017. Timothy D. Hauser, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Program Operations, Employee Benefits Security Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16361 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Comment Request for Information Collection for Form ETA-9035, Labor Condition Application for Nonimmigrant Workers (OMB Control Number 1205-0310), Revision of a Currently Approved Collection AGENCY:

    Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (DOL or Department), as part of its effort to streamline information collection, clarify statutory and regulatory requirements, and provide greater transparency and oversight in the H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 nonimmigrant visa application processes, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.

    Currently, ETA is soliciting comments concerning the extension of the approval for the information collection, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 1205-0310, containing Form ETA-9035—Labor Condition Application for Nonimmigrant Workers; Form ETA-9035E—Labor Condition Application for Nonimmigrants Workers (electronic version); Form ETA-9035CP—General Instructions for the 9035 & 9035E; Wage and Hour Division (WHD) Form WH-4—Nonimmigrant Worker Information Form; and other H-1B related information collection and retention requirements, which expire May 31, 2018. A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this notice.

    The Form ETA-9035/9035E must be used by employers seeking to employ a foreign worker in a specialty occupation or as a fashion model of distinguished merit and ability under the H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 nonimmigrant visa classifications. The Form ETA-9035/9035E must be certified by the DOL before the Department of Homeland Security's United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may approve a petition authorizing admission of a foreign worker under the visa classification. The Form WH-4 is used to request that DOL's Wage and Hour Division initiate an investigation related to alleged violations of H-1B, H-1B1 and E-3 program requirements.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before October 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written comments to William W. Thompson II, Administrator, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, Box# 12-200, Employment & Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone number: 202-513-7350 (this is not a toll-free number).

    Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-877-889-5627 (TTY/TDD). Fax: 202-513-7395. Email: [email protected] subject line: ETA-9035. A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the office listed above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The information collection is required by sections 212(n) and (t) and 214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n) and (t), and 1184(c)). The Department and the Department of Homeland Security have promulgated regulations to implement the INA. Specifically for this collection, 20 CFR 655 Subparts H and I, and 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4) are applicable. The INA mandates that no alien may enter the United States (U.S.) to perform work in a specialty occupation or as a fashion model unless the U.S. employer makes certain attestations to the Secretary of Labor (Secretary). Those attestations include that the working conditions for the alien will not adversely affect the working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers; that the employer will offer a wage that is at least the higher of the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to all other individuals with similar experience and qualifications for the specific employment in question; that there is no strike or lockout in the course of a labor dispute in the occupational classification at the place of employment; and that the employer has provided notice of the filing of the LCA. In addition, further attestations are generally required for H-1B dependent employers and willful violators. The current ICR expires May 31, 2018. The Department is seeking revisions to the Form 9035/9035E and Form 9035CP Instructions in order to streamline parts of the current information collection to assist the regulated community with form completion; provide greater clarity of existing employer obligations under the programs; and promote greater program transparency by collecting additional information on the employment of temporary nonimmigrant workers by U.S. employers. The Department is also seeking revisions to the Form WH-4 in order to provide the form in a LIVECYCLE document to improve accessibility and compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794d), as amended by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-220), August 7, 1998 SEC. 508; assist the regulated community with form completion; and collect additional information to facilitate complainant communication for the enforcement of Forms 9035 and 9035E.

    II. Review Focus

    DOL is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; and also the agency's estimates associated with the annual burden cost incurred by respondents and the government cost associated with this collection of information;

    • enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    III. Current Actions

    In order to meet its statutory responsibilities under the INA, the Department needs to extend an existing collection of information pertaining to labor condition applications that are used in the H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 visa programs and allow employers to bring foreign labor to the U.S. on a temporary basis.

    This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1205-0310. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2018. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this revised information collection for three (3) more years.

    In the past the respondents have been for-profit businesses and not-for-profit institutions. On rare occasions the respondents have been local, State, tribal governments, or the Federal government. The Secretary uses the collected information to determine if employers are meeting their statutory and regulatory obligations.

    A. General

    Title: Labor Condition Application for H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 Non-immigrants.

    Type of Review: Revision.

    OMB Number: 1205-0310. B. ETA Forms and Information Collections

    Title(s): Labor Condition Application for Nonimmigrant Workers, and General Instructions for the 9035 & 9035E.

    Affected Public: Private Sector (businesses or other for-profits and not-for-profit institutions) and State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

    Form(s): ETA forms ETA-9035, ETA-9035E, and ETA-9035CP.

    Total Annual Respondents: 569,260.

    Annual Frequency: On occasion.

    Total Annual Responses: One per respondent.

    Average Time per Response: 1.25 hours for forms ETA-9035/9035E, Appendix A (0.33 hour), and ETA-9035CP.

    For other steps conducted:

    • Documentation of Corporate Identity—1 hour • H-1B Employer's Only—Determination of H-1B Dependency—0.5 hour • H-1B Employer's Only—Determination of H-1B Dependency-Document Retention—0.05 hour • List of Exempt H-1B Employees in Public Access File—0.25 hour • Record of Assurances of Non-displacement of U.S. Workers at Second Employer's Worksite—0.166 hour (x5 times annually) • Offers of Employment to Displaced U.S. Workers—0.33 hour • Documentation of U.S. Worker Recruitment—0.33 hour • Documentation of Fringe Benefits—1.5 hour • Documentation of Fringe Benefits for Multinational Employers—0.5 hour • Wage Recordkeeping requirements Applicable to Employers of H-1B Nonimmigrants—2.5 hour

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 910,844.

    Total Annual Burden Cost for Respondents: $53,171,155.

    C. WHD Form

    Title(s): Nonimmigrant Worker Information Form.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Form(s): WH-4.

    Total Annual Respondents: 225.

    Annual Frequency: Once.

    Total Annual Responses: 225.

    Average Time per Response: 0.333 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 75.

    Total Annual Burden Cost for Respondents: $4330.20.

    Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the ICR; they will also become a matter of public record. Commenters are encouraged not to disclose private and/or sensitive information (e.g., Social Security Numbers or confidential business information).

    Byron Zuidema, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16293 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of Workers' Compensation Programs Proposed Revision to Existing Approved Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Division of Federal Employees' Compensation, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Department of Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs is is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection: Claim for Compensation (CA-7); Authorization for Examination and/or Treatment (CA-16); Duty Status Report (CA-17); Attending Physician's Report (CA-20); Request for the Services of an Attendant (CA-1090); Referral to a Medical Specialist (CA-1305); OWCP Requirements for Audiological Examination (CA-1087); Referral for a Complete Audiologic and Otologic Examination (CA-1331); Outline for Audiologic Examination (CA-1332); Work Capacity Evaluation, Psychiatric/Psychological Conditions (OWCP-5a); Work Capacity Evaluation, Cardiovascular/Pulmonary Conditions (OWCP-5b); and Work Capacity Evaluation, Musculoskeletal Conditions (OWCP-5c). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before October 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by mail, delivery service, or by hand to Ms. Yoon Ferguson, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Room S-3323, Washington, DC 20210; by fax to (202) 354-9647; or by Email to [email protected] Please use only one method of transmission for comments (mail/delivery, fax, or Email). Please note that comments submitted after the comment period will not be considered.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background: The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) administers the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U.S.C. 8101 et seq. The statute provides for the payment of benefits for wage loss and/or for permanent impairment to a scheduled member, arising out of a work related injury or disease. The Act outlines the elements of pay which are to be included in an individual's pay rate, and sets forth various other criteria for determining eligibility to and the amount of benefits, including: augmentation of basic compensation for individuals with qualifying dependents; a requirement to report any earnings during a period that compensation is claimed; a prohibition against concurrent receipt of FECA benefits and benefits from OPM or certain VA benefits; a mandate that money collected from a liable third party found responsible for the injury for which compensation has been paid is applied to benefits paid or payable. This information collection is currently approved for use through January 31, 2018. This ICR has been classified as a revision, because of a change to the CA-16. As DFEC is focusing more on program integrity issues, in particular medical billing, and to strengthen efforts to reduce potential fraud and abuse, this form is intimately tied to those efforts and DFEC would like to incorporate recent and upcoming policy changes (e.g., new guidance/forms for compound and opioid medications—OMB 1240-0055). The proposed revisions provide more clarification regarding who may be authorized to initiate the CA-16 and who is authorized to provide medical treatment, to include qualifications and definitions of these authorization officials. Further clarification is provided regarding non-authorization for compound medication and the requirements to be enrolled with our Medical Bill Processing Contractor to receive payments for services rendered. Where revisions were made, Instructions were expanded to provide explanation.

    II. Review Focus: The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:

    * Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    * evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    * enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    * minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    III. Current Actions: The Department of Labor seeks a revision in order to carry out its statutory responsibility to compensate injured employees under the provisions of the Act.

    Type of Review: Revision.

    Agency: Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.

    Title: FECA medical Reports, Claim for Compensation.

    OMB Number: 1240-0046.

    Agency Number: CA-7; CA-16; CA-17; CA-20; CA-1090; CA-1305; CA-1087; CA-1331; CA-1332; OWCP-5a; OWCP-5b; and OWCP-5c.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit; Federal Government previously approved.

    Total Respondents: 282,353.

    Form Time to
  • complete
  • (min)
  • Number of
  • responses
  • Hours burden
    CA-7 13 500 120 CA-16 5 29,519 2,460 CA-17 5 182,793 15,233 CA-20 5 56,394 4,700 CA-1090 10 234 39 CA-1305 20 136 45 CA-1331/CA-1087* 5 1,062 89 CA-1332 30 30 6 OWCP-5's 15 11,651 2,913 Totals 282,353 25,605 * Responses and hours associated with Form CA-1087 are included in the estimates for the Form CA-1331. The Form CA-1087 is attached to the Form CA-1331.

    Total Annual Responses: 232,353.

    Average Time per Response: 5 minutes-30 minutes.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 25,605.

    Frequency: As Needed.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $0.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): $110,118.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: July 14, 2017. Yoon Ferguson, Agency Clearance Officer, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16320 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-CH-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2016-0219] Information Collection: NRC Form 536, “Operator Licensing Examination Data” AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “NRC Form 536, “Operator Licensing Examination Data.”

    DATES:

    Submit comments by September 5, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: Aaron Szabo, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0131), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503; telephone: 202-395-3621, email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0219 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0219.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by accessing ADAMS Accession No. ML17135A262. The supporting statement is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17135A267.

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

    NRC's Clearance Officer: A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by contacting the NRC's Clearance Officer, David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email: [email protected]

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0219 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

    II. Background

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “NRC Form 536, “Operator Licensing Examination Data.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    The NRC published a Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period on this information collection on March 15, 2017, (82 FR 13874).

    1. The title of the information collection: NRC Form 536, “Operator Licensing Examination Data.”

    2. OMB approval number: 3150-0131.

    3. Type of submission: Extension.

    4. The form number if applicable: NRC Form 536.

    5. How often the collection is required or requested: Annually.

    6. Who will be required or asked to respond: (a) All holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors under the provision of part 50 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” except those that have permanently ceased operations and have certified that fuel has been permanently removed from the reactor vessel; and

    (b) All holders of, or applicants for, a limited work authorization, early site permit, or combined licenses issued under 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certifications and Approval for Nuclear Power Plants.”

    7. The estimated number of annual responses: 100.

    8. The estimated number of annual respondents: 100.

    9. An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to comply with the information collection requirement or request: 75 (0.75 hour per form x 100).

    10. Abstract: The NRC is requesting renewal of its clearance to annually request all commercial power reactor licensees and applicants for an operating license to voluntarily send to the NRC: (1) Their projected number of candidates for initial operator licensing examinations; (2) the estimated dates of the examinations, and (3) if the examinations will be facility developed or NRC developed. This information is used to plan budgets and resources in regard to operator examination scheduling in order to meet the needs of the nuclear power industry.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of July, 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16336 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. MC2017-162 and CP2017-227; MC2017-163 and CP2017-228; MC2017-164 and CP2017-229; CP2017-230] New Postal Products AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: August 7, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Docketed Proceeding(s) I. Introduction

    The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.

    Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.

    The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (http://www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of the Postal Service's request(s), if any, can be accessed through compliance with the requirements of 39 CFR 3007.40.

    The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.

    II. Docketed Proceeding(s)

    1. Docket No(s).: MC2017-162 and CP2017-227; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 336 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: July 28, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Christopher C. Mohr; Comments Due: August 7, 2017.

    2. Docket No(s).: MC2017-163 and CP2017-228; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 337 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: July 28, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Katalin K. Clendenin; Comments Due: August 7, 2017.

    3. Docket No(s).: MC2017-164 and CP2017-229; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 49 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: July 28, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Kenneth R. Moeller; Comments Due: August 7, 2017.

    4. Docket No(s).: CP2017-230; Filing Title: Notice of the United States Postal Service of Changes in Rates of General Applicability for a Competitive Product, Established in Governors' Decision No. 16-9; Filing Acceptance Date: July 28, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3633 and 39 CFR 3015.2; Public Representative: Katalin K. Clendenin; Comments Due: August 7, 2017.

    This notice will be published in the Federal Register.

    Stacy L. Ruble, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16348 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. MC2017-160 and CP2017-225; MC2017-161 and CP2017-226] New Postal Products AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: August 4, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Docketed Proceeding(s) I. Introduction

    The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.

    Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.

    The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (http://www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of the Postal Service's request(s), if any, can be accessed through compliance with the requirements of 39 CFR 3007.40.

    The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.

    II. Docketed Proceeding(s)

    1. Docket No(s).: MC2017-160 and CP2017-225; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 48 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: July 27, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Matthew R. Ashford; Comments Due: August 4, 2017.

    2. Docket No(s).: MC2017-161 and CP2017-226; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 335 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: July 27, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Matthew R. Ashford; Comments Due: August 4, 2017.

    This notice will be published in the Federal Register.

    Ruth Ann Abrams, Acting Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16329 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Product Change—Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

    DATES:

    Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): August 3, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 28, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 49 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-164, CP2017-229.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16315 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Product Change—Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

    DATES:

    Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): August 3, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 28, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 337 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-163, CP2017-228.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16309 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Product Change—Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

    DATES:

    Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): August 3, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 27, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 335 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-161, CP2017-226.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16307 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Change in Rates and Classes of General Applicability for Competitive Products AGENCY:

    Postal Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a change in rates of general applicability for First-Class Package Service Retail parcels, a new price category within the competitive product list.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth changes in rates of general applicability for a new price category within the competitive product list.

    DATES:

    Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(2): August 3, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John F. Rosato, 202-268-2990.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On December 5, 2016, pursuant to their authority under 39 U.S.C. 3632, the Governors of the Postal Service established prices and classification changes for a product that the Postal Service planned to transfer from the market dominant product list to the competitive product list, pending a final determination from the Postal Regulatory Commission (Commission) approving the transfer. On July 20, 2017, in Order No. 4009, the Commission approved the transfer of First-Class Mail Parcels Retail to the competitive product list as a new price category within First-Class Package Service, conditional on the Postal Service providing pricing for the transferred product. The Governors' Decision and the record of proceedings in connection with such decision are reprinted below in accordance with section 3632(b)(2). Pursuant to the Notice of the United States Postal Service of Changes in Rates of General Applicability for a Competitive Product, Established in Governors' Decision No. 16-9 (Postal Regulatory Commission Docket No. CP2017-230), the new prices will be implemented on September 3, 2017.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance. Decision of the Governors of the United States Postal Service on Changes in Rates of General Applicability for Competitive Products (Governors' Decision No. 16-9) December 5, 2016 Statement of Explanation and Justification

    Pursuant to authority under section 3632 of title 39, as amended by the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (“PAEA”), I establish price changes for the Postal Service's shipping services (competitive products), specifically for First-Class Package Service. The price changes are described generally below, with a schedule of the new prices in the attachment.

    If management is given the authority by the Postal Regulatory Commission to effectuate a transfer of First-Class Mail Retail parcels to the competitive product list, I hereby authorize the attached prices for the new First-Class Package Service Retail parcels price category. These changes reflect a 9.9 percent average increase over the prices in effect for First-Class Mail Retail parcels, as of January 22, 2017. I further authorize any additional conforming Mail Classification Schedule changes that may be necessary to implement the transfer.

    The changes I establish should enable each competitive product to cover its attributable costs (39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(2)) and should result in competitive products as a whole complying with 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(3), which, as implemented by 39 CFR § 3015.7(c), requires competitive products collectively to contribute a minimum of 5.5 percent to the Postal Service's institutional costs. Accordingly, no issue of subsidization of competitive products by market dominant products should arise (39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(1)). I therefore find that the new prices are in accordance with 39 U.S.C. §§ 3632-3633 and 39 CFR § 3015.2.

    Order

    The changes in prices set forth herein shall be effective thirty (30) days after management has filed appropriate notice of these changes with the Postal Regulatory Commission (“Commission”). I direct the Secretary to have this decision published in the Federal Register in accordance with 39 U.S.C. § 3632(b)(2), and direct management to file with the Commission appropriate notice of these changes, unless this decision has been superseded by a subsequent decision. Further, this decision may be rescinded in the event any new Governor is confirmed by the Senate prior to the filing of the notice of adjustment with the Commission that is authorized herein, and a majority of Governors then in office vote to do so.

    By The Governors: /s/ James H. Bilbray Chairman, Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors Attachment to Governors' Decision No. 16-9 MAIL CLASSIFICATION CHANGES Part B Competitive Products 2125 First-Class Package Service 2125.6 Prices Retail 1 Maximum Weight (ounces) Single-Piece
  • ($)
  • 1 $3.00 2 $3.00 3 $3.00 4 $3.00 5 $3.16 6 $3.32 7 $3.48 8 $3.64 9 $3.80 10 $3.96 11 $4.19 12 $4.36 13 $4.53 Notes 1. A handling charge of $0.01 per piece applies to foreign-origin, inbound direct entry mail tendered by foreign postal operators, subject to the terms of an authorization arrangement.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16328 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Product Change—Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

    DATES:

    Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): August 3, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 28, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 336 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-162, CP2017-227.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16321 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Product Change—Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

    DATES:

    Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): August 3, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 27, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 48 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-160, CP2017-225.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16317 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-81255; File No. SR-FICC-2017-018] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees in the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division Clearing Rules and the EPN Rules July 28, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on July 28, 2017, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the clearing agency. FICC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder.4 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

    I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    On July 31, 2017, FICC will implement proposed rule change SR-FICC-2017-012 (“Rule Filing 2017-012”).5 Rule Filing 2017-012 will amend the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division Clearing Rules (the “MBSD Rules”) to (1) move the time that FICC novates and treats itself as the settlement counterparty for certain transactions, (2) guarantee and novate trades with stipulations (“Stipulated Trades”), and (3) establish new processes that promote operational efficiencies for Clearing Members.6 In connection with Rule Filing 2017-012, FICC is proposing with this filing to amend the fees in the MBSD Rules and the EPN Rules (the “EPN Rules”) as further described below.7 The changes proposed in this filing would become effective on August 1, 2017, as described below.

    5 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81051 (June 29, 2017), 82 FR 31378 (July 6, 2017) (SR-FICC-2017-012) (“Approval Order”).

    6Id. In connection with the changes in Rule Filing 2017-012, FICC will implement new processes that promote operational efficiencies for Clearing Members. The full text of Rule Filing 2017-012 may be obtained by visiting DTCC's Web site at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.

    7 Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the MBSD Rules and the EPN Rules, available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.

    II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    (A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    On July 31, 2017, FICC will amend the MBSD Rules to (1) move the time that FICC novates and treats itself as the settlement counterparty for certain transactions, (2) guarantee and novate trades with stipulations (“Stipulated Trades”), and (3) establish new processes that promote operational efficiencies for Clearing Members.8 In connection with Rule Filing 2017-012, FICC is proposing with this filing to amend the fees in the MBSD Rules and the EPN Rules as further described below. The changes proposed in this filing would become effective on August 1, 2017, as described below.

    8See Approval Order, supra note 5.

    I. Proposed Changes to the MBSD Rules

    FICC is proposing to amend the fees in the MBSD Rules' Schedule of Charges Broker Account Group as listed below.

    1. The Account Maintenance section would be amended to eliminate the “Option Account” fee. This change is being proposed because FICC will eliminate the Broker “give-up” process from the MBSD Rules in connection with Rule Filing 2017-012.9 Because the submission of Broker Give-Up Trades (which includes Option Contracts) will be eliminated, the associated account maintenance fee for Option Accounts will be eliminated.

    9See Approval Order, 82 FR at 31382.

    2. The Trade Processing section would be amended to change the name of the “Give-Up Trade Creates” fee to the “Trade Creates” fee. This change is being proposed because FICC will eliminate the Broker “give-up” process from the MBSD Rules in connection with Rule Filing 2017-012.10

    10Id.

    3. The Processing Fees section would be amended to increase the “Trade Input Non-Compliance” fee to $1,000 a month per Account from $500 a month per Account. This change is being proposed in order to encourage Clearing Members to submit transactions into FICC's Real-Time Trade Matching (“RTTM”) system in a timely manner. The timely submission of transactions is especially important because FICC will novate and become the settlement counterparty to all transactions (other than Option Contracts) pursuant to Rule Filing 2017-012.11

    11See Approval Order, supra note 5.

    FICC is proposing to amend the fees in the MBSD Rules' Schedule of Charges Dealer Account Group as listed below.

    1. The Trade Processing section would be amended to modify the tiering levels and the associated fees assigned to each tier for SBO-Destined Trades.12 In connection with Rule Filing 2017-012, MBSD's processing cost will not change; however, MBSD's operational cost will increase because of MBSD's new allocation department.13 As a result, these proposed fee changes would offset the loss of revenue attributed to the decrease in transaction volumes processed through the Pool Netting System and the EPN Service due to the introduction of the DNA process and the removal of the Notification of Settlement process.

    12 Pursuant to the MBSD Rules, the term “SBO-Destined Trade” means a TBA transaction in the Clearing System intended for TBA Netting in accordance with the provisions of the MBSD Rules. See MBSD Rule 1, supra note 7.

    13 The MBSD allocations department will monitor the transmission of pool information that is used to satisfy to-be-announced transactions. The team will also handle any exception processing that occurs.

    Current charge Total par amount traded per month Proposed charge Total par amount traded per month $1.93/MM 1,000,000-2,500,000,000 $2.00/MM 01-2,500,000,000. $1.77/MM 2,501,000,000-5,000,000,000 $1.58/MM 2,500,000,001-7,500,000,000. $1.60/MM 5,001,000,000-7,500,000,000 $1.39/MM 7,500,000,001-12,500,000,000. $1.49/MM 7,501,000,000-10,000,000,000 $1.19/MM 12,500,000,001-300,000,000,000. $1.32/MM 10,001,000,000-12,500,000,000 $1.16/MM 300,000,000,001 and over. $1.14/MM 12,501 and over

    2. The Trade Processing section would be amended to increase the fee for “TBA Netting Balance Orders” to $1.00/MM from $0.75/MM. In connection with Rule Filing 2017-012, MBSD's processing cost will not change; however, MBSD's operational cost will increase because of MBSD's new allocation department. As a result, this proposed fee change would offset the loss of revenue attributed to the decrease in transaction volumes processed through the Pool Netting System and the EPN Service due to the introduction of the DNA process and the removal of the Notification of Settlement process. FICC is also proposing to amend this section to eliminate the applicability of this fee to SBOO Trades because this trade type will be eliminated in connection with Rule Filing 2017-012.14

    14See Approval Order, 82 FR at 31380.

    3. The Trade Processing section would be amended to establish fees for Stipulated Trades, which will be a new trade type eligible for processing at MBSD pursuant to Rule Filing 2017-012.15 The fees for Stipulated Trades would be the same fees that are in place for the processing of Trade-for-Trade Transactions 16 and Specified Pool Trades.17 FICC would amend the heading of this section to clarify that the fees would be applicable to Trade-for Trade-Transactions, Specified Pool Trades and Stipulated Trades.

    15See Approval Order, 82 FR at 31381.

    16 Pursuant to the MBSD Rules, the term “Trade-for-Trade Transaction” means a TBA Transaction submitted to MBSD not intended for TBA Netting in accordance with the provisions of the MBSD Rules. See MBSD Rule 1, supra note 7.

    17 Pursuant to the MBSD Rules, the term “Specified Pool Trade” means a trade in which all required pool data, including the pool number to be delivered on the Contractual Settlement Date, are agreed upon by Members at the time of execution. See MBSD Rule 1, supra note 7.

    4. The Trade Processing section would be amended to increase the “Trade Creates” fee for Trade-for-Trade Transactions and Specified Pool Trades to $1.16/MM from $1.00/MM. This increased fee would also apply to Stipulated Trades. In connection with Rule Filing 2017-012, MBSD's processing cost will not change; however, MBSD's operational cost will increase because of MBSD's new allocation department. As a result, this proposed fee change would offset the loss of revenue attributed to the decrease in transaction volumes processed through the Pool Netting System and the EPN Service due to the introduction of the DNA process and the removal of the Notification of Settlement process.

    5. FICC is proposing to include two new fees in connection with the proposed Do Not Allocate (“DNA”) process.18 One fee would be in the amount of $1.25/MM per transaction in connection with a Clearing Member's request to include eligible trades in the DNA process (such request would be referred to as a “DNA Request”). The second fee would be in the amount of $4.00 per transaction in connection with a Clearing Member's request to cancel its DNA Request (such cancellation would be referred to as a “DNA Request Cancel”).

    18 As described in Rule Filing 2017-012, the DNA process will permit offsets among SBON Trades and Trade-for-Trade Transactions. See Approval Order, 82 FR at 31381.

    6. The Pool Netting Fees section would be amended to increase the fee for “Matched Pool Instructs” to $1.00 per side from $0.60 per side. In connection with Rule Filing 2017-012, MBSD's processing cost will not change; however, MBSD's operational cost will increase because of MBSD's new allocation department. As a result, this proposed fee change would offset the loss of revenue attributed to the decrease in transaction volumes processed through the Pool Netting System and the EPN Service due to the introduction of the DNA process and the removal of the Notification of Settlement process.

    7. The Processing Fees section would be amended to increase the “Trade Input Non-Compliance” fee to $1,000 a month per Account from $500 a month per Account. This change is being proposed in order to encourage Clearing Members to submit transactions into FICC's RTTM system in a timely manner. The timely submission of transactions is especially important because FICC will novate and become the settlement counterparty to all transactions (other than Option Contracts) pursuant to Rule Filing 2017-012.19

    19See Approval Order, supra note 5.

    8. The Notification of Settlement fees would be eliminated because FICC will eliminate the Notification of Settlement process from the MBSD Rules in connection with Rule Filing 2017-012.20

    20See Approval Order, 82 FR at 31381.

    II. Proposed Changes to the EPN Rules

    FICC is proposing to amend the “Message Processing Fees” in the EPN Schedule of Charges as listed below. In connection with Rule Filing 2017-012, MBSD's processing cost will not change; however, MBSD's operational cost will increase because of MBSD's new allocation department. As a result, these proposed fee changes would offset the loss of revenue attributed to the decrease in transaction volumes processed through the Pool Netting System and the EPN Service due to the introduction of the DNA process and the removal of the Notification of Settlement process.

    EPN Fee Schedule Fee descriptions Current charge Message submission times New charge Message submission times Messaging Processing Fees ON Send $0.17 Per MM Current Face (opening of business to 1:00 p.m.) $0.19 Per MM Current Face (opening of business to 1:00 p.m.). 0.86 Per MM Current Face (1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.) 0.95 Per MM Current Face (1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.). 1.73 Per MM Current Face (2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.) 1.90 Per MM Current Face (2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.). 1.44 Per MM Current Face (3:00 p.m. to close of business) 1.58 Per MM Current Face (3:00 p.m. to close of business). ON Receive 0.46 Per MM Current Face (opening of business to 1:00 p.m.) 0.51 Per MM Current Face (opening of business to 1:00 p.m.). 0.23 Per MM Current Face (1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.) 0.26 Per MM Current Face (1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.). 0.23 Per MM Current Face (2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.) 0.26 Per MM Current Face (2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.). Cancel/Correct Send 0.17 Per MM Current Face (opening of business to 11:00 a.m.) 0.19 Per MM Current Face (opening of business to 11:00 a.m.). 0.86 Per MM Current Face (11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.) 0.95 Per MM Current Face (11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.). 1.73 Per MM Current Face (12:00 p.m. to 12:15 p.m.) 1.90 Per MM Current Face (12:00 p.m. to 12:15 p.m.). 0.17 Per MM Current Face (12:15 p.m. to end of day) 0.19 Per MM Current Face (12:15 p.m. to end of day). III. Delayed Implementation of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed changes would become effective on August 1, 2017.21 Upon FICC's submission of this proposed rule change to the Commission, FICC would add a legend to the MBSD Rules and the EPN Rules, as applicable, to state that the specified changes have been filed with the Commission for immediate effectiveness, however, such changes are not yet implemented and to provide the date such changes would become implemented. The legend would also include the file number of the proposed rule change and would state that once implemented, the legend would automatically be removed from the MBSD Rules and EPN Rules as applicable.

    21 FICC will implement Rule Filing 2017-012 on July 31, 2017, however, the proposed fee changes would be implemented on August 1, 2017 because the billing cycle begins on the first day of each month.

    2. Statutory Basis

    Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act requires that the MBSD Rules and the EPN Rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its participants.22 FICC believes that the proposed (1) changes to the MBSD Trade Processing fees, MBSD Pool Netting fees and the EPN Message Processing fees (collectively, the “Processing Fees”), and (2) new fees for Stipulated Trades submissions and the DNA process (collectively, the “New Fees”) are equitably allocated among Clearing Members and EPN Users, as applicable, because the fees would continue to be based on each Clearing Member's utilization of MBSD's services. Specifically, each Clearing Member or EPN User would be charged based on the volume of transactions and/or messages submitted to MBSD.

    22 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).

    FICC believes that the proposed changes to the Processing Fees and the New Fees are reasonable because the proposed fee changes would offset the loss of revenue attributed to the decrease in transaction volumes processed through the Pool Netting System and the EPN Service due to the introduction of the DNA process and the removal of the Notification of Settlement process. Additionally, MBSD's new allocation department will increase MBSD's operational cost. FICC believes that the proposed fee changes are reasonable because the fees would align with the cost of providing the benefits associated with the implementation of Rule Filing 2017-012.23

    23 These benefits include the following: (1) The submission of Pool Instructs by Clearing Members will become optional because FICC would be permitted to submit on behalf Clearing Members; (2) Clearing Members will no longer be required to fulfill Notification of Settlement obligations because transactions (except Option Contracts) would settle with FICC; (3) Clearing Members will have the ability to exclude TBA Obligations from the pool allocation process, netting, and securities settlement through the DNA process; (4) Clearing Members will have the ability to net their pools via the Expanded Pool Netting process in the event that such Clearing Members miss the established deadline for the initial Pool Netting process; (5) Dealer Netting Members will remain anonymous with the elimination of the “give-up” process for Brokered Transactions; (6) Clearing Members will be allowed to submit SBO-Destined Trades in all trade sizes; and (7) Clearing Members will be allowed to submit Stipulated Trades as a new trade type. See Approval Order, 82 FR at 31378.

    FICC believes that its proposal to increase the Trade Input Non-Compliance fee for Brokers and Dealers are reasonable because doubling the existing fee would be sufficient to encourage Clearing Members to submit transactions in a timely manner. This is especially important because FICC will novate and become the settlement counterparty to all transactions (except Option Contracts) at trade comparison pursuant to Rule Filing 2017-012.

    FICC believes that the proposal to increase the Trade Input Non-Compliance fee for Brokers and Dealers are equitably allocated because the same fee would be applicable to the Accounts of all Clearing Members who do not submit transactions on a timely basis.

    Therefore, FICC believes the proposed fees are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act.

    (B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FICC believes that the proposed (1) changes to the Processing Fees and (2) new fee for Stipulated Trades may impose a burden on competition. However, FICC believes any burden on competition that may result from the proposed fees increases would be necessary and appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as permitted by Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act.24

    24 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).

    Specifically, FICC believes that the proposed (1) changes to the Processing Fees and (2) new fee for Stipulated Trades are necessary because the fees would provide FICC with the ability to achieve and maintain its operating margin. FICC believes that the proposed fee increases and the new fee for Stipulated Trades are appropriate because the fees would provide FICC with the ability to recover the cost of providing the services described in Rule Filing 2017-012. As discussed above, in connection with Rule Filing 2017-012, MBSD's processing cost will not change; however, MBSD's operational cost will increase because of MBSD's new allocation department. As a result, these proposed fee changes would offset the loss of revenue attributed to the decrease in transaction volumes processed through the Pool Netting System and the EPN Service due to the introduction of the DNA process and the removal of the Notification of Settlement process.

    FICC believes that the proposed changes to increase the Trade Input Non-Compliance fee for Brokers and Dealers will not impact competition because Clearing Members could avoid these fees by submitting their transactions on a timely basis in accordance with the MBSD Rules.

    FICC believes that the proposed change to eliminate the Option Account fees for Brokers and the Notification of Settlement fees will not impact competition because these fees are associated with processes that will be eliminated pursuant to Rule Filing 2017-012.

    FICC believes that the proposed new fee for the DNA process will not impact competition because the DNA process is voluntary and Clearing Members could elect not to submit their transactions through the DNA process.

    (C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. FICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by FICC.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change, and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 25 and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.26 At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

    25 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    26 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-FICC-2017-018 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2017-018. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of FICC and on DTCC's Web site (http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2017-018 and should be submitted on or before August 24, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.27

    27 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16297 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-81256; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2017-077] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Alter the Exchange's Fee Schedule for the Short Interest Report July 28, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on July 25, 2017, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.3 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 The Commission notes that Nasdaq initially filed this proposal as SR-NASDAQ-2017-064 on June 29, 2017. Nasdaq withdrew that filing on July 13, 2017 and replaced it with SR-NASDAQ-2017-071. On July 25, 2017, Nasdaq withdrew that filing and replaced it with this filing.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to alter the Exchange's fee schedule for the Short Interest Report at Rule 7022.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to alter the fee schedule for the Short Interest Report at Rule 7022. The Exchange proposes to replace the current fee structure, which is based on the frequency of distribution, with a subscription service based on the number of Subscribers receiving that report. Nasdaq proposes these changes to: (i) Partially offset increases in Nasdaq's cost of producing the report; (ii) more accurately reflect the value of the product to purchasers by establishing fees based on the number of Subscribers receiving the report rather than frequency of distribution; and (iii) provide an incentive to distribute the report widely by offering reduced rates to Distributors with a proven record of disseminating data widely to professionals and members of the investing public.

    Short Interest Report

    The Short Interest Report is a summary of short interest positions for all Nasdaq-listed issues as reported by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA); it is designed to facilitate the distribution of short sale data to the media and assist investors and traders in developing risk-assessment tools and trading models for Nasdaq-listed issues. Reports are available on a semi-monthly basis on a secured FTP server.

    Current Fee Structure

    Fees for the Short Interest Report are set forth in Subsection C of Nasdaq Rule 7022(b), under the title Nasdaq Issues Summary Statistics.4 Fees are divided into two schedules, depending upon whether the report is distributed more or less than once per month. Reports distributed once per month, quarter or year are charged as follows: $250 for 1-500 Subscribers; $300 for 501-999 Subscribers; $350 for 1,000-4,999 Subscribers; $400 for 5,000-9,999 Subscribers; and $500 for over 10,000 Subscribers. Reports distributed more often than once per month are charged $1,000 per month for unlimited internal distribution and $2,500 per month for unlimited external distribution.5 In addition, an annual set of aged reports previously distributed more often than once a month is available for $3,000 for an unlimited number of subscribers.

    4 The Short Interest Report is the only report currently distributed under the fee schedule for Nasdaq Summary Statistics set forth in Subsection C of Nasdaq Rule 7022(b). See Securities Exchange Act Release 73662 at n.3 (November 20, 2014), 79 FR 70600 (November 26, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-106); Securities Exchange Act Release 72911 (August 25, 2014), 79 FR 51628 (August 29, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-086); Securities Exchange Act Release 68636 (January 11, 2013), 78 FR 3940 (January 17, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-009).

    5 Internal distribution is defined as distribution within the recipient firm, while external distribution is defined as distribution both inside and outside of the firm.

    Proposed Fee Structure

    The proposed fee structure, set forth in revised Rule 7022(c),6 establishes a flat fee of $500 per month for unlimited access to the Short Interest Report. Separate fees based on the frequency of distribution are removed, including fees for reports distributed once per month, quarter, or year, and fees for an annual set of aged reports previously distributed more often than once a month. Internal distribution fees remain the same at $1,000 per month.

    6 The Exchange proposes to move the fee schedule for the report from Subsection C of Rule 7022(b) to Rule 7022(c) because the proposed fees are designed specifically for the Short Interest Report. Subsection C of Nasdaq Rule 7022(b) will be reserved until needed for a new report that falls within that category of information. In 2013, the Exchange moved the Daily List and Fundamental Data information in a similar fashion from Nasdaq Issues Summary Statistics into Rule 7022(d), which will be re-designated as Rule 7022(e) by this rule change. See Securities Exchange Act Release 68636 (January 11, 2013), 78 FR 3940 (January 17, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-009).

    External distribution fees are revised to reflect the number of Subscribers with access to the report, as follows: $2,500 for 1-499 Subscribers; $5,000 for 500-9,999 Subscribers; and $7,500 for 10,000 or more Subscribers or on an open Web site.

    Distributors that serve a large number of external Subscribers will be offered reduced fees. Firms that purchase an enterprise license for Nasdaq Basic under Rule 7047(b)(5), an enterprise license for depth-of-book data under Rule 7023(c)(3), or that pay $5,000 or more in monthly usage fees for Nasdaq Last Sale (NLS) or NLS Plus under Rule 7039 (excluding distributor fees under Rule 7039(c)), will be eligible for a reduced rate of $1,500 per month for distribution to an unlimited number of external Subscribers or on an open Web site.7 This fee is a reduction from the current flat fee of $2,500.8

    7 The Exchange offers a reduced rate for the largest distributors of a number of its market data products. For example, the Exchange establishes a maximum fee of $41,500 per month for NLS for Nasdaq and NLS for NYSE/NYSE MKT without regard to usage in Rule 7039(b). Also, firms that purchase enterprise licenses under Rules 7023(c)(3) or Rule 7047(b)(5) may pay less for the same service than firms that elect not to purchase an enterprise license. As explained in the discussion of statutory basis, offering discounts to firms that elect to purchase an enterprise license or that otherwise pay large amounts in market data fees is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges.

    8 The Exchange also corrects a typographical error in the fee schedule by replacing “4999” with “4,999.”

    These changes are proposed to: (i) Partially offset increases in Nasdaq's cost of producing the report; (ii) more accurately reflect the value of the product to purchasers by establishing fees based on the number of Subscribers receiving the report rather than frequency of distribution; and (iii) provide an incentive to distribute the report widely by offering reduced rates to Distributors with a proven record of disseminating data widely to professionals and members of the investing public.

    The impetus for the proposed fee changes arose when FINRA increased its annual charges for receipt of short interest data effective January 1, 2017, resulting in an increase to Nasdaq's cost in producing the report. In response, the Exchange reviewed the Short Interest Report fee structure, and determined that fees should be based on the number of Subscribers receiving it, rather than the frequency of distribution. The Exchange proposes these revisions because the number of Subscribers is a better measure of the value of the report to both professionals and the investing public than the frequency of distribution. The Exchange also proposes to adjust the fee structure to encourage wider dissemination of the report by reducing fees for firms with a proven ability to disseminate information widely. This includes firms with a sufficiently large Subscriber base to purchase enterprise licenses for Nasdaq Basic and depth-of-book data, or that have demonstrated broad dissemination of Exchange data by paying over $5,000 per month in monthly usage fees for NLS or NLS Plus.

    The proposed fees for the Short Interest Report are optional in that they apply only to firms that elect to purchase these products. The proposed changes do not impact the cost of any other Nasdaq product.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,9 in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,10 in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The proposed fee increase reasonably reflects the value that members and sponsored customers receive for the service, and a reduced rate for large Distributors avoids placing a disproportionate financial burden on Distributors that have purchased enterprise licenses to control costs or that have already expended substantial amounts to distribute certain Nasdaq market data products intended for the general investing public.

    9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).

    The Exchange proposes charging the same $500 subscription fee and $1,000 internal distribution fee to all Distributors.

    External distribution fees will be based on a tiered fee structure that depends on the number of Subscribers, with a reduced rate for Distributors that purchase certain enterprise licenses or that pay more than a certain amount for NLS or NLS Plus. Firms with between 1 and 499 Subscribers will continue to pay $2,500, while firms with more Subscribers pay either $5,000 or $7,500, depending on the number of Subscribers. The tiered structure for external distribution is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges because the higher fees are commensurate with the higher value of the report for Distributors with more Subscribers.

    The reduced rate for Distributors that have elected to purchase an enterprise license for the distribution of Nasdaq depth-of-book products or Nasdaq Basic, or that pay substantial fees for the distribution of NLS or NLS Plus, is also an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges. Enterprise licenses are a frequently-employed method for allowing Distributors to control costs, and purchasing such licenses may, from time to time, result in the enterprise license purchaser paying less for the same service than a Distributor that elected not to purchase such a license. This is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges because Distributors have a choice of whether or not to purchase the enterprise license.

    The Exchange also proposes a fee cap on short interest report fees for firms that pay over $5,000 per month in monthly usage fees for NLS or NLS Plus. This is analogous to the fee cap of $41,500 per month for NLS in Rule 7039(b). It is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges because it avoids placing a disproportionate financial burden on Distributors that pay a substantial amount for distributing data to the general investing public by limiting the total amount that such Distributors are required to pay. This fee cap will be applied equally to all Distributors that reach the established level of fees for NLS or NLS Plus.

    In adopting Regulation NMS,11 the Commission granted SROs and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Short Interest Report—which supplies data on short interest positions for all Nasdaq-listed issues as reported by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority—is the type of market data product that the Commission envisioned when it adopted regulation NMS. The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS—deregulating the market in proprietary data—would further the Act's goals of facilitating efficiency and competition:

    11See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) (“Regulation NMS Adopting Release”).

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive (and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal analysis of the need for such data.12

    12Id.

    By removing unnecessary regulatory restrictions on the ability of exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history.

    In NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission13 (“NetCoalition”) the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based approach.14 As the court emphasized, the Commission “intended in Regulation NMS that ‘market forces, rather than regulatory requirements’ play a role in determining the market data . . . to be made available to investors and at what cost.” 15 “No one disputes that competition for order flow is ‘fierce.’ . . . As the SEC explained, ‘[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution’; [and] ‘no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted’ because ‘no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers’ . . . .” 16

    13NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

    14See NetCoalition, at 534-535.

    15Id. at 537.

    16Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).

    Data products such as the Short Interest Report are a means by which exchanges compete to attract order flow. To the extent that exchanges are successful in such competition, they earn trading revenues and also enhance the value of their data products by increasing the amount of data they provide. The need to compete for order flow places substantial pressure upon exchanges to keep their fees for both executions and data reasonable.17

    17See Sec. Indus. Fin. Mkts. Ass'n (SIFMA), Initial Decision Release No. 1015, 2016 SEC LEXIS 2278 (ALJ June 1, 2016) (finding the existence of vigorous competition with respect to non-core market data).

    The proposed changes are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. The proposed fees will reflect the value of the product by basing fees on the number of Subscribers receiving the report, and the reduced fees for certain large Distributors avoids allocating disproportionally high charges to Distributors that already expend substantial amounts to distribute certain Nasdaq products. The proposed changes would not permit unfair discrimination because the Exchange will apply the same fee to all similarly-situated Distributors.

    Fees for the Short Interest Report are optional in that they apply only to firms that elect to purchase the product, which, like all proprietary data products, they may cancel at any time.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Indeed, the Exchange believes that the Short Interest Report enhances competition by creating a fee structure that reflects the value of the report to both Distributors and Subscribers and encourages the dissemination of the report to professionals and the investing public.

    The market for data products is extremely competitive and firms may freely choose alternative venues and data vendors based on the aggregate fees assessed, the data offered, and the value provided. Numerous exchanges compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself, providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish to produce and distribute their own market data. Transaction execution and proprietary data products are complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. The decision whether and on which platform to post an order will depend on the attributes of the platform where the order can be posted, including the execution fees, data quality and price, and distribution of its data products. Without trade executions, exchange data products cannot exist. Moreover, data products are valuable to many end users only insofar as they provide information that end users expect will assist them or their customers in making trading decisions.

    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing, maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, the operation of the exchange is characterized by high fixed costs and low marginal costs. This cost structure is common in content distribution industries such as software, where developing new software typically requires a large initial investment (and continuing large investments to upgrade the software), but once the software is developed, the incremental cost of providing that software to an additional user is typically small, or even zero (e.g., if the software can be downloaded over the internet after being purchased).18 It is costly to build and maintain a trading platform, but the incremental cost of trading each additional share on an existing platform, or distributing an additional instance of data, is very low. Market information and executions are each produced jointly (in the sense that the activities of trading and placing orders are the source of the information that is distributed) and are each subject to significant scale economies.

    18See William J. Baumol and Daniel G. Swanson, “The New Economy and Ubiquitous Competitive Price Discrimination: Identifying Defensible Criteria of Market Power,” Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 70, No. 3 (2003).

    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint products. The level of competition and contestability in the market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow, including SRO markets, as well as internalizing BDs and various forms of alternative trading systems (“ATSs”), including dark pools and electronic communication networks (“ECNs”). Each SRO market competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two FINRA-regulated TRFs compete to attract internalized transaction reports. It is common for BDs to further and exploit this competition by sending their order flow and transaction reports to multiple markets, rather than providing them all to a single market. Competitive markets for order flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products. The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so, including Nasdaq, NYSE, NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca, and the BATS exchanges.

    In this competitive environment, an “excessive” price for one product will have to be reflected in lower prices for other products sold by the Exchange, or otherwise the Exchange may experience a loss in sales that may adversely affect its profitability.

    In this instance, the proposed rule change enhances competition by creating a fee structure that reflects the value of the report to both Distributors and Subscribers and encourages the dissemination of the report to professionals and the investing public. If the Short Interest Report were to become unattractive to members and sponsored firms, those firms would opt not to purchase the product, and it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. As such, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair competition in the financial markets.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.19

    19 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-077 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-077. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-077, and should be submitted on or before August 24, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.20

    20 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16298 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-81252; File No. SR-MIAX-2017-36] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a New Type of MIAX Express Interface Port Known as a Purge Port, To Amend MIAX Options Rule 519C, Mass Cancellation of Trading Interest, To Adopt a New Purge Message, and To Amend Its Fee Schedule To Adopt Fees for Purge Ports July 28, 2017.

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on July 24, 2017, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (“MIAX Options” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Rule 519C, Mass Cancellation of Trading Interest, to adopt new rule text to reflect the proposed Purge Port functionality, as well as to make clarifying changes to existing rule text to more accurately describe current functionality, and to reorganize the rule for ease of reference. The Exchange is also proposing to amend its Fee Schedule to adopt fees for Purge Ports.

    The text of the proposed changes to Exchange Rule 519C is attached as Exhibit 5A. The proposed changes to the Fee Schedule are attached as Exhibit 5B. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings, at MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to offer Market Makers 3 that connect to the Exchange using the MIAX Express Interface (“MEI”) 4 a new type of connection port, named Purge Ports, to be used as dedicated ports for sending purge messages to the Exchange. The Exchange also proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to identify and adopt fees for Purge Ports. Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 519C, Mass Cancellation of Trading Interest, to adopt new rule text to reflect the proposed Purge Port functionality, as well as to make clarifying changes to existing rule text to more accurately describe current functionality, and to reorganize the rule for ease of reference.

    3 The term “Market Makers” refers to “Lead Market Makers”, “Primary Lead Market Makers” and “Registered Market Makers” collectively. See Exchange Rule 100.

    4 MIAX Express Interface is a connection to MIAX systems that enables Market Makers to submit simple and complex electronic quotes to MIAX. See MIAX Options Fee Schedule, Section 5)d)ii), footnote 26.

    Market Makers connect to the Exchange's System 5 via their assigned MEI ports. Currently, the Exchange offers Market Makers two different types of MEI port connections. The first is a Full Service Port 6 which supports all message types, and the other is a Limited Service Port 7 which provides slightly less functionality. The Exchange limits Market Makers to two (2) Full Service Ports and allows up to eight (8) Limited Service Ports per MIAX matching engine.8

    5 The term “System” means the automated trading system used by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule 100.

    6 Full Service MEI Ports provide Market Makers with the ability to send Market Maker simple and complex quotes, eQuotes, and quote purge messages to the MIAX System. Full Service MEI Ports are also capable of receiving administrative information. Market Makers are limited to two Full Service MEI Ports per matching engine. See MIAX Options Fee Schedule, Section 5)d)ii), footnote 27.

    7 Limited Service MEI Ports provide Market Makers with the ability to send simple and complex eQuotes and quote purge messages only, but not Market Maker Quotes, to the MIAX System. Limited Service MEI Ports are also capable of receiving administrative information. Market Makers initially receive two Limited Service MEI Ports per matching engine. See MIAX Options Exchange Fee Schedule, Section 5)d)ii), footnote 28.

    8 A “matching engine” is a part of the MIAX electronic system that processes options quotes and trades on a symbol-by-symbol basis. Some matching engines will process option classes with multiple root symbols, and other matching engines will be dedicated to one single option root symbol (for example, options on SPY will be processed by one single matching engine that is dedicated only to SPY). A particular root symbol may only be assigned to a single designated matching engine. A particular root symbol may not be assigned to multiple matching engines. See MIAX Options Exchange Fee Schedule, Section 5)d)ii), footnote 29.

    The proposed Purge Ports are a new, optional, third type of MEI port dedicated solely to handling purge messages which would enable a Market Maker, by MPID, to remove all or a subset of its (i) quotations 9 in the System and block all or a subset of new inbound quotations from being received;10 or (ii) Standard quotations 11 in the System and block all or a subset of new inbound Standard quotations from being received.12 Sending a purge message pursuant to (ii) above will not remove or block eQuotes,13 which are a specific type of quotation that allows the Market Maker to continue to provide targeted liquidity to the market and to interact with Public Customer 14 orders. When quotes have been purged pursuant to (i) or (ii) above,15 the block will remain in effect until the Market Maker requests that the Exchange remove the block.

    9 The term “quote” or “quotation” means a bid or offer entered by a Market Maker that is firm and may update the Market Maker's previous quote, if any. The Rules of the Exchange provide for the use of different types of quotes, including Standard quotes and eQuotes, as more fully described in Rule 517. A Market Maker may, at times, choose to have multiple types of quotes active in an individual option. See Exchange Rule 100.

    10 A Market Maker currently has the ability to send a purge message to remove all or a subset of its quotations and block all or a subset of its new inbound quotations via its MEI port or by request to the Exchange's Help Desk. That ability is not changing with this proposal. What is changing with this proposal is the ability of a Market Maker to send that purge message via the proposed Purge Ports.

    11 A Standard quote is a quote submitted by a Market Maker that cancels and replaces the Market Maker's previous Standard quote, if any. See Exchange Rule 517(a)(1).

    12 The Exchange is introducing a new purge message that will remove all or a subset of a Market Maker's Standard quotations and block all or a subset of its new inbound Standard quotations. This request may only be sent electronically via a Market Maker's existing MEI port, or via the new proposed Purge Ports.

    13 An eQuote is a quote with a specific time in force that does not automatically cancel and replace a previous Standard quote or eQuote. An eQuote can be cancelled by the Market Maker at any time, or can be replaced by another eQuote that contains specific instructions to cancel an existing eQuote. See Exchange Rule 517(a)(2).

    14 The term “Public Customer” means a person that is not a broker or dealer in securities. See Exchange Rule 100.

    15 The Exchange notes that there is no mass cancellation functionality available to remove eQuotes only and block new inbound eQuotes.

    The purge messages described above may be sent via any type of MEI port, however, purge messages received on the proposed Purge Ports will be handled by the System in a way that ensures minimum possible latency (as Purge Ports solely process purge messages, as opposed to Full Service MEI Ports and Limited Service MEI Ports, which also process additional message types), thereby providing Market Makers with a faster, more efficient means to have their quotes removed from the System, which will provide Market Makers with an enhanced level of risk protection.

    The proposed Purge Ports are designed to assist Market Makers in the management of, and risk control over, their quotes, particularly if the Market Maker is quoting a large number of options. For example, if a Market Maker detects market indications that may influence the direction or bias of its quotes, the Market Maker may use the proposed Purge Ports to reduce uncertainty and to manage risk by purging all quotes in a number of options seamlessly to avoid unintended executions, while continuing to evaluate the direction of the market.

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Section (5)(d)(ii) of its Fee Schedule to identify and adopt fees for Purge Ports. The Exchange currently assesses monthly MEI Port fees on Market Makers based upon the number of matching engines used by the Market Maker. Market Makers are allocated two (2) Full Service MEI Ports and two (2) Limited Service MEI Ports per matching engine to which they connect.

    The Exchange currently assesses the following MEI Port fees: (i) $5,000 for Market Maker Assignments in up to 5 option classes or up to 10% of option classes by volume; (ii) $10,000 for Market Maker Assignments in up to 10 option classes or up to 20% of option classes by volume; (iii) $14,000 for Market Maker Assignments in up to 40 option classes or up to 35% of option classes by volume; (iv) $17,500 for Market Maker Assignments in up to 100 option classes or up to 50% of option classes by volume; and (v) $20,500 for Market Maker Assignments in over 100 option classes or over 50% of option classes by volume up to all option classes listed on MIAX.16

    16See MIAX Fee Schedule, Section (5)(d)(ii).

    The Exchange also currently charges $100 per month for each additional Limited Service MEI Port per matching engine for Market Makers over and above the two (2) Limited Service MEI Ports per matching engine that are allocated with the Full Service MEI Ports.17 Market Makers are limited to six (6) additional Limited Service MEI Ports per matching engine, for a total of eight (8) per matching engine.18 The Full Service MEI Ports, Limited Service MEI Ports and the additional Limited Service MEI Ports all include access to the Exchange's primary and secondary data centers and its disaster recovery center.19

    17Id.

    18See MIAX Fee Schedule, footnote 30.

    19See MIAX Fee Schedule, Section (5)(d)(ii).

    With the introduction of Purge Ports, the Exchange proposes to amend Section (5)(d)(ii) of its Fee Schedule to provide that a Market Maker may request and be allocated two (2) Purge Ports per matching engine to which it connects via a Full Service MEI Port. (That is, a Market Maker must have a Full Service MEI Port connection to a matching engine in order to be eligible to receive Purge Ports with respect to that matching engine.) The Exchange proposes that, for each month in which the Market Maker has been credentialed to use Purge Ports in the production environment and has been assigned to quote in at least one class, the Exchange will assess the Market Maker a flat fee of $1,500 per month, regardless of the number of actual Purge Ports allocated to the Market Maker. For example, a Market Maker (that requests Purge Ports) that connects to 10 matching engines would be allocated 20 Purge Ports, and would be charged $1,500 per month for use of those Purge Ports. A Market Maker (that requests Purge Ports) that connects to two (2) matching engines would be allocated four (4) Purge Ports, and would be charged $1,500 per month for use of those Purge Ports. The Exchange believes that charging Market Makers a flat monthly fee for use of the Purge Port service (regardless of the number of matching engines to which it connects and consequently regardless of the number of Purge Ports allocated to the Market Maker) is equitable, reasonable, and competitive with the fees charged by other exchanges that offer comparable purge port services, as most such exchanges charge per port, which results in monthly fees for purge port usage that are significantly higher than $1,500 per month for users with multiple purge ports.20

    20See Bats BXZ Options Exchange Fee Schedule, Options Logical Port Fees. Bats BZX assesses its members $750 per month per purge port. See also Nasdaq GEMX Schedule of Fees, Section IV.E. Nasdaq GEMX assesses its members $1,250 per SQF Purge Port per month, subject to a monthly cap of $12,500 for SQF Purge Ports and SQF Ports, applicable to market makers.

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 519C, Mass Cancellation of Trading Interest, to clarify current functionality. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend 519C(a) which reads, “[a] Member 21 may remove all of its quotations and/or cancel all or any subset of its orders . . . .” Accordingly, the Exchange is deleting the reference to quotations from this subsection (a) as quotations will now be addressed in subsection (b)(2). The Exchange proposes to amend the sentence to read, “[a] Member may remove all or a subset of its orders . . . .” The Exchange believes that, although there is no change to existing functionality addressed by subsection (a) of the rule, the proposed changes to subsection (a) provide greater clarity regarding the Exchange's risk protection functionality as it relates to the handling of orders. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend the rule to change the phrase, “any subset” to “a subset” to be consistent with proposed changes to section (b) of the Rule as described below.

    21 The term “Member” means an individual or organization approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading Permit. Members are deemed “members” under the Exchange Act. See Exchange Rule 100.

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 519C(b) to reorganize the rule for ease of reference and to reflect the proposed Purge Port functionality. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to replace existing rule text pertaining to the removal of quotations and the cancellation of orders with a separate subsection for orders, proposed new subsection (b)(1); and a separate subsection for quotations, proposed new subsection (b)(2). The Exchange proposes to adopt new rule text under subsection (b)(1) to describe current functionality pertaining to orders which states, “[a]n EEM may request that the Exchange cancel all or a subset of its orders in the System and block all new inbound orders.” Under this proposal there is no change to the functionality available for Electronic Exchange Members (“EEMs”).22 The Exchange believes that separately describing functionality available for EEMs and Market Makers provides greater clarity and specificity in the Exchange's rule.

    22 The term “Electronic Exchange Member” means the holder of a Trading Permit who is not a Market Maker. Electronic Exchange Members are deemed “members” under the Exchange Act. See Exchange Rule 100.

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to adopt new rule text under subsection (b)(2) pertaining to quotations that provides that a Market Maker may remove all or a subset of its quotations and block all or a subset of its new inbound quotations by firm name or MPID.23 This functionality currently exists on the Exchange and is not new, as a Market Maker may contact Exchange staff to have this action performed on their behalf or may submit a request to the Exchange's System via its MEI port. However, what is now being proposed pursuant to this filing is that this request may also be sent electronically to the Exchange's System via the new proposed Purge Ports.

    23 The term “MPID” means Market Participant Identifier. See Exchange Rule 519C.

    The Exchange also proposes to adopt new rule text for new functionality being introduced in this proposal which provides that a Market Maker may remove all or a subset of its Standard quotations and block all or a subset of its new inbound Standard quotations by MPID. A Market Maker's eQuotes that are in the System will remain and the Market Maker will retain the ability to continue to send eQuotes to the System. This request may only be submitted to the Exchange's System electronically via the Market Maker's MEI port, either via its existing MEI ports, or via the new, proposed Purge Ports.

    Lastly, the Exchange proposes to amend the rule text which currently states that, “[t]he block will remain in effect until the Member requests Exchange staff to remove the block,” by removing the word “staff.” To remove a block a Member may (i) send an electronic message directly into the Exchange's System; or (ii) contact Exchange staff. Additionally, a Market Maker may make a request to Exchange staff to remove quotations or may send a message directly to the Exchange's System via its MEI connection. The Exchange believes removing the word staff from the rule text more accurately encompasses the activity under both scenarios.

    The Exchange notes that this proposal does not preclude Members from using the existing purge messages provided by either the MEI protocol or the cancel messages provided by the FIX protocol. Under the MEI protocol, Market Makers may request that all quotations for all underlyings, or for a specific underlying, be removed, and that new inbound quotations for all underlyings, or specific underlyings, be blocked. Under the FIX protocol, EEMs may also request that all, or a subset, of orders for an MPID, or all Day or GTC orders for an MPID, on the requesting session, be canceled.

    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change by Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 60 days following the operative date of the proposed rule. The implementation date will be no later than 60 days following the issuance of the Regulatory Circular. The Exchange currently anticipates implementing the proposed rule change on August 3, 2017, subject to announcement of the actual date via Regulatory Circular.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 24 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 25 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

    24 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    25 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,26 in that it promotes just and equitable principles of trade and removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market. Offering Market Makers designated Purge Ports would enhance their ability to manage quotes, quote traffic, and their quoting obligations,27 which would, in turn, improve their risk controls to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes that Purge Ports would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities because designating Purge Ports for purges only may encourage better use of dedicated ports. This may, concurrent with the ports that carry quotes and other information necessary for market making activities, enable more efficient, as well as fair and reasonable, use of Market Makers' resources. As Purge Ports are only available for purging and not for activities such as order or quote entry, the Purge Ports are not designed to permit unfair discrimination but rather are designed to enable Market Makers to manage their quoting risk and meet their heightened quoting obligations that other market participants are not subject to, which, in turn, benefits all market participants. The Exchange also notes that similar connectivity and functionality is offered by other exchanges.28

    26Id.

    27See Exchange Rule 604.

    28See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 77613 (April 13, 2016), 81 FR 23023 (April 19, 2016) (SR-Phlx-2016-45); 79956 (February 3, 2017), 82 FR 10102 (February 9, 2017) (SR-BatsBZX-2017-05); and 81095 (July 7, 2017), 82 FR 32409 (July 13, 2017) (SR-ISE-2017-62).

    The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will not relieve Market Makers of their continuous quoting obligations under Exchange Rule 604 and under Regulation NMS Rule 602.29 Specifically, any interest that is executable against a Market Maker's quotes that is received by the Exchange's matching engine prior to the time that the purge message is received by the Exchange's matching engine will automatically execute at that price, up to the quote's size. Market Makers that purge their quotes will not be relieved of the obligation to provide continuous two-sided quotes on a daily basis, nor will it prohibit the Exchange from taking disciplinary action against a Market Maker for failing to meet its continuous quoting obligation each trading day.

    29 17 CFR 242.602.

    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal removes impediments to and perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protects investors and the public interest by providing Market Makers with an additional purge message which allows them to remove their Standard quotes and blocks new inbound Standard quotes from being received yet preserves their ability to continue to provide liquidity to the market and interact with Public Customer orders via eQuotes. Further, the Exchange is clarifying existing rule text in Rule 519C to better describe current functionality available on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that clarifying current functionality promotes the protection of investors and the public interest by helping market participants better understand the risk protection tools available on the Exchange.

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,30 in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among Members and other persons using any facility or system which the Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange believes that its proposed fees should facilitate the ability of the Exchange to recoup some costs associated with Purge Ports as well as provide, maintain, and improve Purge Ports. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges offer connectivity services as a means to facilitate the trading activities of Members and other participants. Accordingly, fees charged for connectivity are constrained by the active competition for the order flow of such participants as well as demand for market data from the Exchange. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for connectivity, affected Members will opt to terminate their connectivity arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible range of alternative strategies, including routing to the applicable exchange through another participant or market center or taking that exchange's data indirectly. Accordingly, the exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose not only connectivity revenues but also revenues associated with the execution of orders routed to it by affected Members, and, to the extent applicable, market data revenues. The Exchange believes that this competitive dynamic imposes powerful restraints on the ability of any exchange to charge unreasonable fees for connectivity. The Exchange also believes the proposed fee for the Purge Ports is equitable, reasonable, and competitive with the rates charged by competitor exchanges for similar functionality.31

    30 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

    31See supra note 20.

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments to its fee schedule are non-discriminatory because they will apply uniformly to all Market Makers. The proposed Purge Ports are completely voluntary and no Market Maker is required or under any regulatory obligation to utilize them. All Market Makers that voluntarily request this service will be charged the same amount for the same service. All Market Makers have the option to select any connectivity option, and there is no differentiation among Market Makers with regard to the fees charged for the services offered by the Exchange.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will enhance competition because it will enable it to offer similar connectivity and functionality as its competitor exchanges.32 In addition, the proposed Purge Ports are completely voluntary and no Market Maker is required or under any regulatory obligation to utilize them.

    32See supra note 28.

    The Exchange does not believe that allowing one type of Member (Market Makers) and not the other (EEMs) to utilize the proposed Purge Ports will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act, given the roles and responsibilities required by each type of Member. Market Makers connect to the Exchange via MEI while EEMs connect to the Exchange via FIX. Market Makers have a heightened obligation on the Exchange to maintain a continuous two-sided market, pursuant to Rule 604(e). As such, Market Makers have an obligation to provide continuous quotes for a large number of series. The volume of quotes that the Market Maker has in the market directly correlates to the Market Maker's risk exposure. EEMs, by contrast, can only send orders to the Exchange and do not have similar obligations. The Exchange believes providing Market Makers with an additional risk management tool will enhance competition as this tool is already offered by other exchanges.33

    33Id.

    The Exchange believes its proposed amendments to its Fee Schedule would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. On the contrary, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will enhance competition because it will enable it to offer similar connectivity and functionality as its competitor exchanges.34 In addition, the proposed Purge Ports are completely voluntary and no Market Maker is required or under any regulatory obligation to utilize them. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change represents a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Market Makers may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of Market Makers or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

    34Id.

    The Exchange believes that fees for the proposed Purge Ports and connectivity, in general, are constrained by the robust competition for order flow among exchanges and non-exchange markets. Further, excessive fees for connectivity, including Purge Port fees, would serve to impair an exchange's ability to compete for order flow rather than burdening competition. The Exchange also does not believe the proposed rule change would impact intramarket competition as it would apply to all Members and non-Members equally.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 35 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 36 thereunder.

    35 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    36 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 37 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange requests that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. As noted above, the Exchange has proposed to announce an implementation date by Regulatory Circular, which the Exchange anticipates will be August 3, 2017. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as it will enable the Exchange to allow the enhanced risk protection for Market Makers offered by the proposed Purge Ports to go into effect without undue delay. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay requirement and designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.38

    37 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    38 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-MIAX-2017-36 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2017-36. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2017-36 and should be submitted on or before August 24, 2017.

    39 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.39

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16296 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-81261; File No. SR-C2-2017-022] Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 6.1, Days and Hours of Business, To Clarify the Trading Hours for Options on Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes July 31, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on July 18, 2017, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the “Exchange” or “C2”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a “non-controversial” proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.4 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The purpose of this filing is to amend C2 Rule 6.1 to clarify the trading hours for options on Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes (“ETNs”).5 The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.

    5 An Index-Linked Exchangeable Note is exchangeable debt security that is exchangeable at the option of the holder (subject to the requirement that the holder in most circumstances exchange a specified minimum amount of notes), on call by the issuer, or at maturity for a cash amount based on the reported market prices of the underlying stocks of an underlying index. See Rule 1.1.

    (additions are underlined; deletions are [bracketed]) C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated Rules Rule 6.1. Days and Hours of Business

    The hours during which option transactions may be made on the Exchange shall be from 8:30 a.m. Chicago Time to 3:00 p.m. Chicago Time except for option contracts on Index Options, Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes, Index Portfolio Shares, Index Portfolio Receipts, and Trust Issued Receipts which may remain open for trading beyond 3:00 p.m. but in no case later than 3:15 p.m. Chicago Time, as designated by the Exchange.

    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The purpose of this filing is to amend C2 Rule 6.1 to clarify the trading hours for options on Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes (“ETNs”).6 Specifically, the Exchange seeks to amend Rule 6.1 to provide that options on ETNs may be traded on the Exchange until 3:15 p.m. (CT) each business day. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule is based on NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT”) Rule 901NY Commentary .02.7

    6 An Index-Linked Exchangeable Note is exchangeable debt security that is exchangeable at the option of the holder (subject to the requirement that the holder in most circumstances exchange a specified minimum amount of notes), on call by the issuer, or at maturity for a cash amount based on the reported market prices of the underlying stocks of an underlying index. See Rule 1.1.

    7See Securities Exchange Act Release 62067 (May 10, 2010), 75 FR 27603 (May 17, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-41).

    Rule 6.1 provides that the default trading hours on the Exchange are from 8:30 a.m. Chicago Time to 3:00 p.m. Chicago Time. However, Rule 6.1 provides an exception for Index Options, Index Portfolio Shares, Index Portfolio Receipts, and Trust Issued Receipts, which may remain open for trading beyond 3:00 p.m. but in no case later than 3:15 p.m. Chicago Time, as designated by the Exchange. Rule 6.1 does not specifically identify ETNs in the list of products that may be traded beyond 3:00 p.m. Chicago Time, which suggests options on ETNs must close at 3:00 p.m. Chicago time. However, industry practice and the Exchange's current practice allow options on ETNs to trade until 3:15 p.m. Chicago Time. This filing seeks to align C2 Rules with industry practice by allowing the Exchange to determine which options on ETNs will trade beyond 3:00 p.m. Chicago Time but no later than 3:15 p.m. Chicago Time.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.8 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 9 requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 10 requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.

    8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    10Id.

    In particular, the proposed rule change will protect investors and the public interest by reducing potential confusing regarding C2's trading hours for options on ETNs and aligning C2's Rules regarding trading orders for options on ETNs with industry practice. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule is based on NYSE MKT Rule 901NY Commentary .02.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change will not impose any burden on intermarket or intramarket competition as the proposed rule change will align C2's Rules regarding trading orders for options on ETNs with industry practice. In addition, the proposed rule change does not modify the construct for trading hours but simply adds options on ETNs to the list of products specifically noted in Rule 6.1.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 11 and subparagraph (f)(6) Rule 19b-4 thereunder.12

    11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-C2-2017-022 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2017-022. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2017-022 and should be submitted on or before August 24, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.13

    13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16396 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION [Docket No. SSA-2017-0040] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Deputy Commissioner of Systems, Social Security Administration (SSA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of a New System of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Privacy Act we are issuing public notice of our intent to establish a new system of records entitled, Customer Engagement Tools (CET) Record System (60-0383), hereinafter called the CET Record System. We will use this system to maintain the information we collect during our electronic communications with those individuals who have created a my Social Security account and have been authenticated to use online electronic services via the my Social Security web portal, and who choose to communicate with us using an electronic communication method, such as the Click-to-Chat tool. This notice publishes details of the system as set forth under the caption SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    DATES:

    The System of Records Notice (SORN) is applicable August 3, 2017, with the exception of the routine uses which are applicable [insert date]. We invite public comment on the routine uses or other aspects of this SORN. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (e)(11), the public is given a 30-day period in which to submit comments. Therefore, please submit any comments by September 5, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Congress may comment on this publication by writing to the Executive Director, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, SSA, Room 617 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, or through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. All comments we receive will be available for public inspection at the above address and we will post them to http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela J. Carcirieri, Supervisory Government Information Specialist, Privacy Implementation Division, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, SSA, Room 617, Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, telephone (410) 965-0355, email: [email protected] or Elizabeth Boorstein, Government Information Specialist, Privacy Implementation Division, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, Room 617 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, telephone: (410) 966-2824, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We are establishing the CET Record System to cover information we collect about individuals who choose to use one of our electronic communication options to conduct business with SSA online. These communication options provide service to our customers, and will assist individuals who prefer to communicate with us in a dynamic and electronic environment.

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), we have provided a report to OMB and Congress on this new system of records.

    Dated: April 3, 2017. Mary Ann Zimmerman, Acting Executive Director, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel. SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER:

    Customer Engagement Tools (CET) Record System, 60-0383.

    SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

    Unclassified.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    Social Security Administration, Deputy Commissioner of Systems, Office of IT Business Support, Office of IT Enterprise Business Support, Robert M. Ball Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235.

    SYSTEM MANAGER(S):

    Social Security Administration, Deputy Commissioner of Systems, Office of IT Business Support, Office of IT Enterprise Business Support, Robert M. Ball Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    General authority to maintain the system is contained in sections 205(a) and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 405(a) and 902(a)(5)).

    PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM:

    We will use this system to maintain the information we collect during our electronic communications with individual's who choose to communicate with us via one of our electronic communication options to conduct business with SSA online. The CET Record System will allow us to better serve online users by providing informational and programmatic responses to authenticated my Social Security users via designated subject experts throughout the country.

    Furthermore, transcripts and communication records may be used for employee performance assessments, employee conduct issues, and employee disciplinary actions. These materials may also be used to help determine individual employee, unit, and office-wide training needs, as well as the quality of responses, trends, public reactions to policies, legislation, and other public announcements. The transcripts and records may be used to train SSA management service observers to ensure uniform and consistent evaluation criteria and as documentation for any disciplinary and performance-based actions. The transcripts and records may be redacted of beneficiary information if the information is not relevant and necessary for this purpose, or changed to protect privacy, before use.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    Individuals who have created a my Social Security account and have been authenticated to use online electronic services via the my Social Security web portal.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    This system maintains information either provided by an individual or collected in transcripts and records during the electronic communication with a designated SSA employee. This information may include the individual's name, SSN, date of birth, parent name(s), address, and place of birth. Additional information may be included in the electronic communication, which may include information about an individual's Social Security benefits or other business the individual has with the agency. Information about the designated SSA employee will also be collected, including the employee's Personal Identification Number (PIN) and chosen display name.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    We obtain information in this system from those individuals who choose to communicate with us using an electronic communication method. Depending on the individual's inquiry, we may also access individuals' information from other SSA sources, such as the Enumeration System, the Integrated Client Data Base, and the Title II systems, to help resolve their questions or concerns.

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    We will disclose records pursuant to the following routine uses; however, we will not disclose any information defined as “return or return information” under 26 U.S.C. 6103 of the Internal Revenue Service Code, unless authorized by statute, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), or IRS regulations.

    1. To a congressional office in response to an inquiry from that office made on behalf of, and at the request of, the subject of the record or third party acting on the subject's behalf.

    2. To the Office of the President in response to an inquiry from that office made on behalf of, and at the request of, the subject of record or a third party acting on the subject's behalf.

    3. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), a court or other tribunal, or another party before such court or tribunal, when:

    (a) SSA, or any component thereof; or

    (b) any SSA employee in his/her official capacity; or:

    (c) any SSA employee in his/her individual capacity where DOJ (or SSA where it is authorized to do so) has agreed to represent the employee; or

    (d) the United States or any agency thereof where SSA determines the litigation is likely to SSA or any of its components, is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and SSA determines that the use of such records by DOJ, a court or other tribunal, or another party before the tribunal is relevant and necessary to the litigation, provided, however, that in each case, the agency determines that disclosure of the records to DOJ, court or other tribunal, or another party is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.

    4. To contractors and other Federal agencies, as necessary, for assisting SSA in the efficient administration of its programs. We will disclose information under this routine use only when SSA enters into a contractual or similar agreement with the contractor or agency.

    5. To student volunteers, individuals working under a personal services contract, and other workers who technically do not have the status of Federal employees, when they are performing work for SSA, as authorized by law, and they need access to personally identifiable information (PII) in SSA records in order to perform their assigned agency functions.

    6. To Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies and private security contractors, as appropriate, information necessary:

    (a) To enable them to protect the safety of SSA employees and customers, the security of the SSA workplace, and the operation of SSA facilities, or

    (b) to assist in investigations or prosecutions with respect to activities that affect such safety and security or activities that disrupt the operation of SSA facilities.

    7. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) under 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    8. To appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, entities, and persons when:

    (a) We suspect or confirm that the security or confidentiality of information in this system of records has been compromised;

    (b) we determine that, as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identify theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs that rely upon the compromised information; and

    (c) we determine that disclosing the information to such agencies, entities, and persons is necessary to assist in our efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    9. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the SSA determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in:

    (a) Responding to a suspected or confirmed breach; or

    (b) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.

    10. To the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when requested in connection with investigation into alleged or possible discriminatory practices in the Federal sector, examination of Federal afimative employment programs, compliance by Federal agencies with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, or other functions vested in the Commission.

    11. To the Merit Systems Protection Board or the Office of Special Counsel in connection with appeals, special studies of the civil service and other merit systems, review of rules and regulations, investigations of alleged or possible prohibited personnel practices, and other such functions promulgated in 5 U.S.C. Chapter 12, or as may be required by law.

    12. To the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the Office of the Special Counsel, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, the Federal Service Impasses Panel, or an arbitrator requesting information in connection with the investigations of allegations of unfair practices, matters before an arbitrator or the Federal Service Impasses Panel.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORAGE OF RECORDS:

    We will maintain records in this system in paper and electronic form.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETRIEVAL OF RECORDS:

    We may retrieve records by the individual's name, the individual's SSN, topic of chat, date of communication, an employee's name, or an employee's personal identification number (PIN).

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETENTION AND DISPOSAL OF RECORDS:

    These records are currently unscheduled. We retain records in accordance with NARA approved records schedules. In accordance with NARA rules codified at 36 CFR 1225.16, we maintain unscheduled records until NARA approves an agency-specific records schedule or publishes a corresponding General Records Schedule.

    ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, AND PHYSICAL SAFEGUARDS:

    We retain electronic and paper files with personal identifiers in secure storage areas accessible only by our authorized employees and contractors who have a need for the information when performing their official duties. Security measures include, but are not limited to, the use of codes and profiles, PIN and password, and personal identification verification cards. We keep paper records in locked cabinets within secure areas, with access limited to only those employees who have an official need for access in order to perform their duties.

    We annually provide our employees and contractors with appropriate security awareness training that includes reminders about the need to protect PII and the criminal penalties that apply to unauthorized access to, or disclosure of, PII (5 U.S.C. 552a(i)(1)). Furthermore, employees and contractors with access to databases maintaining PII must sign a sanctions document annually, acknowledging their accountability for inappropriately accessing or disclosing such information.

    RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

    Individuals may submit requests for information about whether this system contains a record about them by submitting a written request to the system manager at the above address, which includes their name, SSN, or other information that may be in this system of records that will identify them. Individuals requesting notification of, or access to, a record by mail must include (1) a notarized statement to us to verify their identity or (2) must certify in the request that they are the individual they claim to be and that they understand that the knowing and willful request for, or acquisition of, a record pertaining to another individual under false pretenses is a criminal offense.

    Individuals requesting notification of, or access to, records in person must provide their name, SSN, or other information that may be in this system of records that will identify them, as well as provide an identity document, preferably with a photograph, such as a driver's license. Individuals lacking identification documents sufficient to establish their identity must certify in writing that they are the individual they claim to be and that they understand that the knowing and willful request for, or acquisition of, a record pertaining to another individual under false pretenses is a criminal offense.

    These procedures are in accordance with our regulations at 20 CFR 401.40 and 401.45.

    CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

    Same as record access procedures. Individuals should also reasonably identify the record, specify the information they are contesting, and state the corrective action sought and the reasons for the correction with supporting justification showing how the record is incomplete, untimely, inaccurate, or irrelevant. These procedures are in accordance with our regulations at 20 CFR 401.65(a).

    NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES:

    Same as record access procedures. These procedures are in accordance with our regulations at 20 CFR 401.40 and 401.45.

    EXEMPTIONS PROMULGATED FOR THE SYSTEM:

    None.

    HISTORY:

    None.

    [FR Doc. 2017-16331 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice: 10065] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Supplemental Questions for Visa Applicants ACTION:

    Notice of request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.

    DATES:

    The Department will accept comments from the public up to October 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Web: Persons with access to the Internet may comment on this notice by going to www.Regulations.gov. You can search for the document by entering “Docket Number: DOS-2017-0032” in the Search field. Then click the “Comment Now” button and complete the comment form.

    Email: [email protected].

    You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents to [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title of Information Collection: Supplemental Questions for Visa Applicants.

    OMB Control Number: 1405-0226.

    Type of Request: Extension of a Currently Approved Collection.

    Originating Office: Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Office (CA/VO).

    Form Number: DS-5535.

    Respondents: Certain immigrant and nonimmigrant visa applicants worldwide who have been determined to warrant additional scrutiny in connection with terrorism, national security-related, or other visa ineligibilities.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 65,000.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 65,000.

    Average Time per Response: 60 minutes.

    Total Estimated Burden Time: 65,000 annual hours.

    Frequency: Once per respondent's application.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to Obtain or Retain a Benefit.

    We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.

    • Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

    • Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.

    Abstract of Proposed Collection

    The Department proposes requesting the following information, if not already included in an application, from a subset of visa applicants worldwide, in order to more rigorously evaluate applicants for terrorism, national security-related, or other visa ineligibilities:

    • Travel history during the last fifteen years, including source of funding for travel;

    • Address history during the last fifteen years;

    • Employment history during the last fifteen years;

    • All passport numbers and country of issuance held by the applicant;

    • Names and dates of birth for all siblings;

    • Name and dates of birth for all children;

    • Names and dates of birth for all current and former spouses, or civil or domestic partners;

    • Social media platforms and identifiers, also known as handles, used during the last five years; and

    • Phone numbers and email addresses used during the last five years.

    Regarding travel history, applicants may be requested to provide details of their international or domestic (within their country of nationality) travel, if it appears to the consular officer that the applicant has been in an area while the area was under the operational control of a terrorist organization as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi). Applicants may be asked to recount or explain the details of their travel, and when possible, provide supporting documentation.

    This information collection continues implementation of the directive of the President, in the Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security of March 6, 2017, to implement additional protocols and procedures focused on “ensur[ing] the proper collection of all information necessary to rigorously evaluate all grounds of inadmissibility or deportability, or grounds for the denial of other immigration benefits.” Consular posts worldwide regularly engage with U.S. law enforcement and partners in the U.S. intelligence community to identify characteristics of applicant populations warranting increased scrutiny. The additional information collected will facilitate consular officer efforts to apply more rigorous evaluation of these applicants for visa ineligibilities. In accordance with existing authorities, visas may not be denied on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, political views, gender, or sexual orientation.

    In our emergency information collection request, we stated that relevant State Department officials estimate that 0.5% of U.S. visa applicants worldwide, or in the range of 65,000 individuals per annum, will present a threat profile, based on individual circumstances and information they provide, that will lead U.S. consular officers at posts around the world to conclude the applicant warrants enhanced screening for visa ineligibilities. At this time, this continues to represent the Department's best estimate. Given the short period since the collection's implementation, the data from consular posts at this time would not represent an accurate estimate of how many applicants might be subject to this collection annually. A lengthier period of post implementation will better inform this estimate, and the Department will update the estimate accordingly. An updated estimate that reflects post experience will be provided in the Department's 30 day notice.

    Failure to provide requested information will not necessarily result in visa denial, if the consular officer determines the applicant has provided a credible explanation why he or she cannot answer a question or provide requested supporting documentation, such that the consular officer is able to conclude that the applicant has provided adequate information to determine the applicant's eligibility to receive the visa. The collection of social media platforms and identifiers will not be used to deny visas based on applicants' race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, political views, gender, or sexual orientation.

    Methodology

    Department of State consular officers at visa-adjudicating posts worldwide will ask the proposed additional questions to resolve an applicant's identity or to vet for terrorism, national security-related, or other visa ineligibilities when the consular officer determines that the circumstances of a visa applicant, a review of a visa application, or responses in a visa interview indicate a need for greater scrutiny. The additional questions may be sent electronically to the applicant or be presented orally or in writing at the time of the interview. In furtherance of this collection, consular officers are directed not to request user passwords; engage or interact with individual visa applicants on or through social media when conducting assessments of visa eligibility; not to violate or attempt to violate individual privacy settings or controls; and not to use social media or assess an individual's social media presence beyond established Department guidance. Consular staff are also directed in connection with this collection to take particular care to avoid collection of third-party information.

    Edward Ramotowski, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16343 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD [Docket No. AB 290 (Sub-No. 388X)] Norfolk Southern Railway Company—Abandonment Exemption—in Atlanta, Ga.

    Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR) has filed a verified notice of exemption 1 under 49 CFR part 1152 subpart F—Exempt Abandonments to abandon approximately 1.0 mile of rail line between milepost DF 632.10 and milepost DF 633.10 in Atlanta, Ga. (the Line).2 The Line traverses United States Postal Service Zip Codes 30324 and 30309.

    1 NSR initially filed its verified notice on March 27, 2017. After submitting the filing, NSR discovered that its combined Environmental and Historic Reports (E&HR) contained an incorrect milepost designation which, when changed, impacted the E&HR. At the request of NSR, the proceeding was held in abeyance by a decision served on April 5, 2017. NSR now has corrected and reissued its E&HR. NSR filed its revised verified notice on July 14, 2017, which therefore is the official filing date.

    2 NSR states that the Line includes the portion of NSR's right-of-way that the Board found not to have been abandoned in Atlanta Development Authority—Verified Petition for a Declaratory Order, FD 35991, slip op. at 9 (STB served Dec. 15, 2016), reconsideration denied, FD 35591 (STB served May 26, 1017). NSR states that it plans to convey the easement and wye right-of-way to Atlanta BeltLine, Inc. for urban development and to improve the City's infrastructure upon consummation of the proposed abandonment.

    NSR has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) no overhead traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years and overhead traffic, if there were any, could be rerouted over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of a complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7(c) (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.

    As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under Oregon Short Line Railroad—Abandonment Portion Goshen Branch Between Firth & Ammon, in Bingham & Bonneville Counties, Idaho, 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979). To address whether this condition adequately protects affected employees, a petition for partial revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) must be filed.

    Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be effective on September 2, 2017, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,3 formal expressions of intent to file an OFA under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2),4 and interim trail use/rail banking requests under 49 CFR 1152.29 must be filed by August 11, 2017. Petitions to reopen or requests for public use conditions under 49 CFR 1152.28 must be filed by August 23, 2017, with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001.

    3 The Board will grant a stay if an informed decision on environmental issues (whether raised by a party or by the Board's Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) in its independent investigation) cannot be made before the exemption's effective date. See Exemption of Out-of-Serv. Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any request for a stay should be filed as soon as possible so that the Board may take appropriate action before the exemption's effective date.

    4 Each OFA must be accompanied by the filing fee, which is currently set at $1,700. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25). Effective September 1, 2017, the filing fee will be $1,800. See Regulations Governing Fees for Servs. Performed in Connection with Licensing & Related Servs.—2017 Update, EP 542 (Sub-No. 25) (STB served July 28, 2017).

    A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to William A. Mullins, Baker & Miller PLLC, 2401 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20037.

    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio.

    NSR has filed a combined environmental and historic report that addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. OEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by August 8, 2017. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to OEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling OEA at (202) 245-0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.

    Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.

    Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), NSR shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the Line. If consummation has not been effected by NSR's filing of a notice of consummation by August 3, 2018, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.

    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “WWW.STB.GOV.

    Decided: July 31, 2017.

    By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.

    Marline Simeon, Clearance Clerk.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16356 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0239] Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Hino Motors Manufacturing U.S.A., Inc. AGENCY:

    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of final disposition.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announces its decision to grant Hino Motors Manufacturing U.S.A., Inc.'s (Hino) application for a limited 5-year exemption allowing motor carriers operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) manufactured by the company to use an Automated Emergency Braking (AEB) system and a Lane Departure Warning (LDW) system camera mounted in the windshield area at a height lower than currently allowed. The Agency has determined that lower placement of the AEB/LDW system camera would not have an adverse impact on safety and that adherence to the terms and conditions of the exemption would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of safety provided by the regulation.

    DATES:

    This exemption is effective August 3, 2017 and ending August 3, 2022.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mrs. Amina Fisher, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-PSV, (202) 366-2782, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments submitted to notice requesting public comments on the exemption application, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The on-line Federal document management system is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. The docket number is listed at the beginning of this notice.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the request.

    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

    Hino's Application for Exemption

    Hino applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1) to allow an AEB/LDW system camera to be mounted lower in the windshield than is currently permitted by the Agency's regulations in order to utilize a mounting location that allows the system camera to function correctly. A copy of the application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.

    Section 393.60(e)(1)(i) of the FMCSRs prohibits the obstruction of the driver's field of view by devices mounted on the interior of the windshield. Antennas and similar devices must not be mounted more than 152 mm (6 inches) below the upper edge of the windshield, and outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals. However, § 393.60(e)(1)(i) does not apply to vehicle safety technologies, as defined in § 390.5 as including “a fleet-related incident management system, performance or behavior management system, speed management system, forward collision warning or mitigations system, active cruise control system, and transponder.” Section 393.60(e)(1)(ii) requires devices with safety technologies to be mounted (1) not more than 100 mm (4 inches) below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers; or (2) not more than 175 mm (7 inches) above the lower edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers; and (3) outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals.

    Hino's application stated:

    Hino is making this request so that it becomes possible to introduce an Automated Emergency Braking (AEB) system and a Lane Departure Warning (LDW) system as optional equipment on some Hino commercial motor vehicles. This system, like many other similar systems which FMCSA has granted exemptions for, requires that a camera be mounted to the upper center area of the windshield in an area where the windshield in an area where the windshield is swept by the windshield wipers to provide a clear view to the lane markings on the road.

    In the Hino installation, the camera housing supplied by Meritor Wabco is approximately 4.67 inches wide by 4.30 inches tall. We propose to mount the camera such that is in the approximate center of the windshield and such that the bottom edge of the camera is approximately 7 inches below the upper edge of the windshield, outside of the driver's and passenger's normal sight lines to all mirrors, highway signs, signals and view of the road ahead. This location will allow for the optimal functionality of the advanced safety systems supported by the camera.

    Without the proposed exemption, Hino stated that it will not be able to deploy the AEB/LDW system camera in vehicle models because (1) its “customers will be fined for violating the current regulation,” and (2) “the camera will not perform adequately to provide the safety benefit intended by the systems.”

    The exemption would apply to all Hino CMVs with the AEB/LDW system camera installed. Hino believes that mounting the AEB/LDW system camera within 7 inches below the upper edge of the windshield will allow it to function properly while maintaining an adequate field of view for the driver.

    Comments

    FMCSA published a notice of the application in the Federal Register on January 19, 2017, and asked for public comment (82 FR 6689).

    The Agency received one comment from Mr. Ken Tirone, supporting the exemption application.

    FMCSA Decision

    The FMCSA has evaluated the Hino exemption application. The Hino AEB/LDW system camera is mounted approximately 7 inches below the top of the windshield, and approximately 5.4 inches below the top of the area swept by the windshield wipers. Although the AEB/LDW system camera is approximately 4.3 inches tall, and mounted about 1 inch below the top of the area swept by the windshield wipers, the manner in which the camera system is installed on the windshield precludes it from being mounted (1) higher in the windshield and (2) within 4 inches from the top of the area swept by the windshield wipers in order to comply with § 393.60(e)(1)(ii)(A).

    The Agency believes that granting the temporary exemption to allow the placement of the AEB/LDW system camera lower than currently permitted by the Agency's regulations will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption because (1) based on the technical information available, there is no indication that the AEB/LDW system camera would obstruct drivers' views of the roadway, highway signs and surrounding traffic; (2) generally, trucks and buses have an elevated seating position that greatly improves the forward visual field of the driver, and any impairment of available sight lines would be minimal; and (3) the mounting location 5.4 inches below the top of the area swept by the windshield wipers (and 7 inches below the upper edge of the windshield) and out of the driver's normal sightline will be reasonable and enforceable at roadside. In addition, the Agency believes that the use of AEB/LDW system cameras by fleets is likely to improve the overall level of safety to the motoring public.

    This action is consistent with previous Agency action permitting the placement of similarly-sized devices on CMVs outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals. FMCSA is not aware of any evidence showing that the installation of other vehicle safety technologies mounted on the interior of the windshield has resulted in any degradation in safety.

    Terms and Conditions for the Exemption

    The Agency hereby grants the exemption for a 5-year period, beginning August 3, 2017 and ending August 3, 2022. During the temporary exemption period, motor carriers will be allowed to operate CMVs manufactured by Hino equipped with AEB/LDW system cameras mounted in the approximate center of the windshield such that the bottom edge of the camera is not more than 7 inches below the upper edge of the windshield and outside the driver's sight lines to all mirrors, highway signs, signals, and view of the road ahead. The exemption will be valid for 5 years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) Motor carriers and/or commercial motor vehicles fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).

    Interested parties possessing information that would demonstrate that motor carriers operating Hino CMVs equipped with the AEB/LDW system camera are not achieving the requisite statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any such information and, if safety is being compromised or if the continuation of the exemption is not consistent with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption.

    Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a firm or person operating under the exemption. States may, but are not required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in intrastate commerce.

    Issued on: July 26, 2017. Daphne Jefferson, Deputy Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16339 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0060] Decision That Certain Nonconforming Motor Vehicles Are Eligible for Importation AGENCY:

    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    ACTION:

    Grant of petitions.

    SUMMARY:

    This document announces decisions by NHTSA that certain motor vehicles not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the United States because they are substantially similar to vehicles originally manufactured for sale in the United States and certified by their manufacturers as complying with the safety standards, and they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards or because they have safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS.

    DATES:

    These decisions became effective on the dates specified in Annex A.

    ADDRESSES:

    For further information, contact Mr. George Stevens, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-5308).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and/or sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.

    Where there is no substantially similar U.S.-certified motor vehicle, 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B) permits a nonconforming motor vehicle to be admitted into the United States if its safety features comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS based on destructive test data or such other evidence as NHTSA decides to be adequate.

    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR part 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in the Federal Register.

    NHTSA received petitions from registered importers to decide whether the vehicles listed in Annex A to this notice are eligible for importation into the United States. To afford an opportunity for public comment, NHTSA published notice of these petitions as specified in Annex A. The reader is referred to those notices for a thorough description of the petitions.

    Comments: No substantive comments were received in response to the petitions identified in Appendix A.

    Conclusions: For each vehicle identified in Appendix A, NHTSA has reviewed the respective petition and concluded that the vehicle is either substantially similar to its U.S. certified counterpart and capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS, or that it is capable of being altered to conform to conform to all applicable FMVSS.

    NHTSA has also concluded that each RI who imports and modifies a vehicle under one of the subject vehicle eligibility numbers for the first time must include in the statement of conformity and associated documents (“conformity package”) it submits to the NHTSA under 49 CFR part 592.6(d) explicit proof to confirm that the vehicle was, where applicable, originally manufactured to conform to, or was successfully altered to conform to, FMVSS No. 101 Controls and Displays, FMVSS No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems, FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and FMVSS No. 301 Fuel System Integrity. This proof must include detailed descriptions of all modifications made, including a detailed description of systems in place (if any) on the vehicle as delivered to the RI, and a similarly detailed description of alterations made to the vehicle and said systems, including photographs of all required labeling. The descriptions must also include parts assembly diagrams and associated part numbers for all components that were removed from or installed in the vehicle, an accounting of any computer programming modifications undertaken and a description of how compliance was verified after alteration of the vehicle.

    NHTSA Decision: Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, NHTSA hereby decides that each motor vehicle listed in Annex A to this notice, which was not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable FMVSS, is either substantially similar to a motor vehicle manufactured for importation into and/or sale in the United States, and certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, as specified in Annex A, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS or has safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

    Vehicle Eligibility Number for Subject Vehicles: The importer of a vehicle admissible under any final decision must indicate on the form HS-7 accompanying entry the appropriate vehicle eligibility number indicating that the vehicle is eligible for entry. Vehicle eligibility numbers assigned to vehicles admissible under this decision are specified in Annex A.

    Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.7; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

    Jeffrey M. Giuseppe, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. Annex A—Nonconforming Motor Vehicles Decided To Be Eligible for Importation 1. Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0121 Nonconforming Vehicles: 2009 Jeep Compass Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2009 Jeep Compass Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles Notice of Petition Published at: 81 FR 64978 (September 21, 2016) Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-589 (effective date October 31, 2016) 2. Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0023 Nonconforming Vehicles: 2010 Chevrolet Camaro Passenger Cars Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2010 Chevrolet Camaro Passenger Cars Notice of Petition Published at: 82 FR 17508 (April 11, 2017) Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-591 (effective date June 15, 2017) 3. Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0041 Nonconforming Vehicles: 2008 Chevrolet Silverado Trucks Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2008 Chevrolet Silverado Trucks Notice of Petition Published at: 81 FR 71182 (October 14, 2016) Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-590 (effective date November 28, 2016) 4. Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0118 Nonconforming Vehicles: 2013 BMW R1200 GS Adventure Motorcycles Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2013 BMW R1200 GS Adventure Motorcycles Notice of Petition Published at: 82 FR 17082 (April 7, 2017) Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-592 (effective date June 15, 2017) 5. Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0130 Nonconforming Vehicles: 2014 EMU Camper Trailer 4 × 4 Extreme Adventure Because there is no substantially similar U.S.-certified version, the petitioner sought import eligibility under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B). Notice of Petition Published at: 82 FR 17068 (April 7, 2017) Vehicle Eligibility Number: VCP-63 (effective date June 15, 2017)
    [FR Doc. 2017-16384 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Revision; Comment Request; Comptroller's Licensing Manual AGENCY:

    Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on an information collection revision, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    The OCC is soliciting comment concerning a revision to its information collection titled, “Comptroller's Licensing Manual.”

    DATES:

    You should submit written comments by October 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0014, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to [email protected] You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling (202) 649-6700 or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, (202) 649-5597. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments.

    All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain prior approval from OMB for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of title 44 requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or revision of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the OCC is publishing notice of this revised collection of information.

    The changes to this information collection include revisions to four interagency forms,1 which are being made in conjunction with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Those agencies will issue a separate joint Federal Register notice before or shortly after this notice. The OCC is issuing its own notice so that it may renew its entire collection.

    1 Interagency Bank Merger Act, Interagency Biographical and Financial Report, Interagency Notice of Change in Control, and Interagency Notice of Change in Director or Senior Executive Officer.

    The OCC is requesting that OMB extend approval of this collection as revised. The entire collection is discussed in detail in the “Description” section, followed by a section highlighting the revisions.

    Title: Comptroller's Licensing Manual.

    OMB Control No.: 1557-0014.

    Description: The information collection requirements ensure that national banks and federal savings associations (FSA) (hereafter “bank” or “banks”) conduct their operations in a safe and sound manner and in accordance with applicable federal banking statutes and regulations. The information is necessary for regulatory and examination purposes.

    The Comptroller's Licensing Manual (Manual) sets forth the OCC's policies and procedures for the formation of a national bank or federal branch or agency, entry into the federal banking system by other institutions, and corporate expansion and structural changes by existing banks. The Manual includes sample documents to assist the applicant in understanding the types of information the OCC needs in order to process a filing. An applicant may use the format of the sample documents or any other format that provides sufficient information for the OCC to act on a particular filing, including the OCC's electronic filing system, the Central Application Tracking System.

    The Manual includes requirements for the following corporate filings:

    • Interagency Biographical and Financial Report—OCC regulations require the OCC to perform background investigations on proposed organizers, executive officers, directors, and principal shareholders of banks to determine if they have the experience, competence, integrity, character, financial ability, and willingness to direct or lead a bank's affairs in a safe, sound, and legal manner. 12 CFR 5.20, 5.50, 5.51, and 163.33; 28 CFR 16.34, and 20.33.

    • Public Notice and Comments—OCC regulations require an applicant to publish a public notice of its filing in a newspaper of general circulation in the community in which the applicant proposes to engage in business. 12 CFR 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, and 5.50.

    • Charter—OCC must approve the establishment of a bank. The application includes a business plan and an oath of a bank director. 12 CFR 5.20 and 7.2008.

    • All federally-chartered savings associations are required to file and receive prior approval for certain changes to their charter and/or bylaws. The charter and bylaws of an insured FSA are formal documents created when a savings association establishes its corporate existence. The charter states the scope, purpose, and duration for the corporate entity. 12 CFR 5.20, 5.21, 5.22, 5.25, and 5.33.

    • Banker's Bank—OCC regulations require that a banker's bank seeking a waiver of a statutory provision must request the waiver in a letter to the OCC. The letter must include information on why the waiver is requested and supporting legal analysis. 12 CFR 5.20.

    • Conversions—Institutions must request OCC permission to convert to a bank. OCC regulations require that a converting financial institution provide information related to its request to convert its charter. 12 CFR 5.23 and 5.24.

    • Federal Branches and Agencies—OCC regulations require that a foreign bank desiring to establish a federal branch or agency file an application or notice with the OCC. 12 CFR 5.70; 12 CFR part 28.

    • Branches and Relocations—A bank must obtain prior approval or give notice to the OCC to establish, acquire, or relocate a main office or branch. 12 CFR 5.30, 5.31, 5.40, 5.52, and 145.92; 36 CFR 800.1 et seq.; 40 CFR 1500.1 et seq.

    • Business Combinations and Failure Acquisitions—OCC approval is required for any merger, corporate reorganization, or acquisition of a failed institution that will result in a bank. 12 CFR 5.32 and 5.33.

    • Fiduciary Powers—OCC approval is required for a bank to exercise fiduciary powers. The request letter represents the bank's conformity with the governing statute and its commitment to retain qualified trust management. Additionally, a bank shall file a notice after opening a trust office in a state other than its home office state. 12 CFR 5.26.

    • Operating Subsidiaries—OCC regulations require that a bank obtain OCC approval prior to establishing, acquiring, or performing new activities in an operating subsidiary. In certain instances, a national bank may file a notice after commencing an operating subsidiary activity. 12 CFR 5.34, 5.38, 5.39, and 5.58.

    • Financial Subsidiaries—A national bank must obtain the approval of the OCC prior to acquiring control of, or holding an interest in, a financial subsidiary, and prior to commencing a new activity in an existing subsidiary. A national bank that intends to acquire control of, or hold an interest in, a financial subsidiary, or to commence a new activity in an existing financial subsidiary, may obtain OCC approval through filing a certification with subsequent notice or a combined certification and notice. 12 CFR 5.39.

    • Bank Service Companies—OCC regulations require that a bank notify the OCC prior to its investment in certain bank service companies. 12 CFR 5.35.

    • Investments—OCC regulations require a national bank that wishes to invest in an agricultural credit corporation, an eligible savings association, or any other equity investment authorized by statute after February 12, 1990, to provide notice to the appropriate OCC district office. The regulation also requires that a national bank or a federal branch making a non-controlling investment, directly or through an operating subsidiary, file a written notice or application. The regulations further require an FSA making a pass-through investment, directly or through its operating subsidiary, to file an after-the-fact notice or an application. 12 CFR 5.36 and 5.58.

    • Thrift Service Corporations—OCC regulations require that an FSA obtain OCC approval prior to establishing or acquiring a subsidiary or performing new activities in a thrift service corporation. 12 CFR 5.59.

    • Annual Report—The OCC requires that each national bank prepare an annual report as of December 31 on its operating subsidiaries and file the report by January 31 of the following year. 12 CFR 5.34.

    • Branch Closings—Federal law requires a bank to notify the OCC if it closes a branch or if it converts a brick and mortar branch to an ATM branch. 12 U.S.C. 1831r-1.

    • Termination of National Bank or FSA Charter—OCC regulations require a bank to notify the OCC of its intent to voluntarily liquidate, merge out, or convert out of the bank charter. 12 CFR 5.25, 5.33(k), and 5.48.

    • Capital and Dividends; Subordinated Debt—OCC regulations require that a bank obtain OCC approval or, in some cases, provide notice to the OCC in connection with a change in equity capital, an issuance or prepayment of subordinated debt, and the payment of dividends under certain circumstances. The applications are titled, “Increase in Permanent Capital,” “Reduction of Permanent Capital/Dividends Payable in Property Other Than Cash,” “Reverse Stock Split,” “Quasi-Reorganization,” “Reduction of Permanent Capital and Capital Distribution,” “Issuance of Subordinated Debt,” and “Prepayment of Subordinated Debt.” 12 CFR 5.45, 5.46, 5.47, 5.55, 5.56, 5.60, 5.61, 5.62, 5.63, 5.64, 5.65, 5.66, and 5.67.

    • Change in Control—Any individual, group, or company that proposes to acquire control of a bank must submit prior notice of that intent to the OCC. 12 CFR 5.50.

    • Change in Senior Executive Officer and Director—Whenever a change in control occurs, the bank must promptly report to the appropriate federal banking agency any changes or replacements of its senior executive officer or of any director occurring in the next 12-month period. Also, prior notice and approval is required for any additions to the board of directors or senior executive officers if: The bank is not in compliance with minimum capital requirements; is otherwise in troubled condition; or after OCC review of the plan required under section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, the OCC determines that prior notice is appropriate. 12 CFR 5.50(h) and 5.51.

    • Director Waivers—Every national bank director must be a citizen of the United States and a majority of the national bank directors must reside in the state where the bank is located. The OCC may waive the requirement of citizenship for not more than a minority of the total number of directors and the residency requirement for a majority or all of the directors. A national bank may file a letter requesting a waiver of the citizenship or residency requirements. See 12 U.S.C. 72.

    • Change of Corporate Title and Address—OCC regulations require a bank that changes its corporate title or address to inform the OCC of that change. 12 CFR 5.42 and 5.52.

    • Management Interlocks—Banks may apply to the OCC for exemption from the prohibitions on management interlocks that would not result in a monopoly or substantial lessening of competition and would not present safety and soundness concerns. 12 CFR 26.6.

    • Customer Satisfaction Survey—This survey information is collected as part of the OCC's quality assurance program.

    • Substantial Asset Change—OCC regulations require a bank to obtain prior written approval: For a change in the composition of all, or substantially all, of the bank's assets either through the sale or other disposition of assets; once having disposed of all or substantially all the assets, to reactivate its operations through the subsequent purchase, acquisition, or other expansion of its operations; for any other purchases, acquisitions or other expansions of operations that are part of a plan to increase the size of the bank by more than 25 percent in a one year period; for any other material increase or decrease in the size of the bank or a material alteration in the composition of the types of assets or liabilities of the bank; or for any change in the purpose of the bank's charter. 12 CFR 5.53.

    Changes to the Information Collection

    The following were updated, with burden increases only: Interagency Notice of Change in Control, Interagency Biographical and Financial Report, and Interagency Bank Merger Act Application.

    The following forms were updated with minor edits:

    • Application Amendments—Updated to remove reference to “CAIS.”

    • Authorization for Release of Information/Consent Form for Background Investigations—Updated to make language more clear, in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

    • Branches Requiring Authorization—Removed references to “OTS.”

    • Change of Address—Added a missing check box for change in address of a branch.

    • Other Equity Investments or Pass-Through Investments—Corrected a typographical error.

    • Individual Oath of FSA Director—Updated to correct typographical errors.

    • Reduction of Permanent Capital/Dividends Payable in Property Other Than Cash—12 CFR 5.66 requires national banks to obtain approval before paying a dividend-in-kind. Previous revisions to the form inadvertently omitted applicability of the form for this use.

    • Interagency Notice of Change in Director or Senior Executive Officer—Minor updates and further clarification of instructions and requirements.

    The following forms were updated to clarify the information requested:

    • Increase in Permanent Capital Notice—Generally an FSA is not required to apply for an increase in capital unless the method of increase itself requires a filing (such as issuance of a new class of stock). However, in certain circumstances, a federal stock savings association is required to submit an application and obtain OCC approval. National banks are required to give notice and receive OCC certification.

    • Interagency Biographical and Financial Report—Minor updates and further clarification of instructions and requirements. Includes additional questions typically asked during the application review process, such as information on lawsuits, suspensions, tax obligations, and liabilities.

    • Interagency Notice of Change in Control—Minor updates and further clarification of instructions and requirements. Includes additional questions typically asked during the application review process, such as information on non-voting shares, and whether the applicant is joining an existing group acting in concert.

    • Interagency Bank Merger Act—Updated to reflect new requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act, or otherwise necessary to evaluate statutory factors, as well as additional questions typically asked during the application review process. Requests financial projections for three years versus the current one year.

    The following forms were updated to delete requirements:

    • Citizenship and Residency Waivers—Removed applicability to FSAs and clarified that only the biographical portion of the form is required.

    • Commencement of Fiduciary Activities Notice, Fiduciary Powers After-the-Fact-Notice, Fiduciary Powers Application, and Surrender of Fiduciary Powers Notice—Removed requirement for a bank seal.

    Additional Requested Items

    The following are additions to the collection that capture existing requirements:

    • Conversion to National Bank Completion Certification and Conversion to FSA Completion Certification—Certification is submitted to indicate that all steps required to convert to a bank were taken, including execution of all documents required for organization, requisite shareholder or member approval, board of directors authorization, and adoption of bylaws. Upon receipt of the certification, the OCC issues the institution a new charter.

    • Reduction of Permanent Capital and Capital Distribution—Under 12 CFR 5.55, FSAs are required to obtain OCC approval before issuing a capital distribution under certain circumstances. The request is reviewed to determine whether the FSA's request is in accordance with existing statutory and regulatory criteria. The reporting requirements were previously included in OTS Form 1583. The new form was approved under OMB Control No. 1557-0338 and later merged into OMB Control No. 1557-0014.

    Transfer of a Collection

    Investment in Bank Premises—OCC regulations require a bank to obtain prior approval whenever an investment in bank premises will cause the total investment in bank premises to exceed the amount of the bank's capital stock, unless the bank is eligible for the premises notice process set forth in 12 CFR 5.37(d)(3). 12 CFR 5.37(d)(1) and 7.1000(c). This item has been merged into the collection covering part 7 (OMB Control No. 1557-0204).

    Type of Review: Regular.

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

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,715.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 3,715.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 12,533 hours.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:

    (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;

    (b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;

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

    (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection 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.

    Dated: July 28, 2017. Karen Solomon, Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16381 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Quarterly Publication of Individuals, Who Have Chosen To Expatriate, as Required by Section 6039G AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice is provided in accordance with IRC section 6039G of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) of 1996, as amended. This listing contains the name of each individual losing United States citizenship (within the meaning of section 877(a) or 877A) with respect to whom the Secretary received information during the quarter ending June 30, 2017. For purposes of this listing, long-term residents, as defined in section 877(e)(2), are treated as if they were citizens of the United States who lost citizenship.

    Last name First name Middle name/initials ABBUEHL BURKE PAMELA SUE ABCHEE ANTOINE BERNARD ABERG STEVEN NOWLIN ABROMOWICZ MARC RICHARD HEINRICH ABUDAWOOD EBTEHAL ANAS ABUDAWOOD ELAFF ANAS ABUDAWOOD ENAS ANAS ABUSAQ ABDULLAH HUSSAIN ACIKYUREK MUSTAFA ADAMA INGE MARCHIA ADAMOPOULOS LIANNE ADAMS LYNNE ROBERTS ADAMS SAMANTHA ZOE ADHAMI NORA AERTS RONNY AHAMED ADEEL AZIZDIN AHLBORN HEINZ GERHARD AIELLO FRANCESCO LUIGI AITKEN MICHAEL JAMES AJLAN SALAH SALIH AL-ATHEL SETTAH FAHAD ALBERS-HOUDE RENEE CHRISTEL AL-DHAHERI ALI OBAID ALEXANDRA JASMINE ALFRED NANCY JEAN ALGERA HENRY FREDERICK ALJALAJEL MOHAMMAD ABDULRAHMAN AL-KASSABI ABDULA ALKHABORI HUSSEIN SALEEM JAWAD ALLEN HEATHER ALLEN VICTORIA MARY ALLERBY ANDREW J. ALLRED NATHANIEL CHARLES AL-MANSOOR MASOOR AL-MAZROA SULTAN SULIMAN ALMOALLIM ABDULAZIZ MAZIN ALMOALLIM OMAR MAZIN ALSANEI SALEH ABDULLAH ALSUDIRI LATIFAH ABDULLAH AL-SULAIMAN BADR A AL-SURF MOHAMMED SAIED AL-THANI JASSIM MOHAMMAD ALTMAYER BERTRAND FRANCIS ALTUWAIJRI ESAM ALI AL-UBAID ANAS ABDULRHMAN ALVAREZ ALICIA MARIA ALVAREZ JOSE FRUCTUOSO AMADOR MOLLY M AMIN RYAN MOHAMMED R AMIRAULT-LANGLAIS DIANE LOUISE ANDERFUHREN-WAYNE CYNTHIA S ANDERSON CAROLYN FAYE ANDERSON JON BRADLEY ANDERSON MARIA ANDERSON NICOLE DIANNE ANDERSON WILLIAM GRIFFIN ANDREWS JILLIAN ANNELI ANDREWS JOHN TODD ANGKASA RONNY HADIANA ANNERINO JACQUELINE CATHERINE ANSONS OLIVER GUNARS ANTTURI MARJA HELENA ANWAR GARRETH CHRISTOPHER AQUINO SUZANNE SANTOS ARCENEAUX CLYDE GLYNN ARCENEAUX MONA JANE ARCHAVSKIJ LEONID M ARIF LAITH AWNI ARMSTRONG MAUREEN ELIZABETH ARONSON JEREMY MARK ARTEAGA MARCO SEBASTIAN ASHBY ROBERT JAMES ASHENHURST REBECCA LOSEE ASHMORE SCOTT CYRIL ASHRAQ KHALID ASHTON CHRISTOPHER KAWIKA ASSI MAUREEN ANNE SHADEED AW KAILER JONAH BAAR DAVID WILLIAM BABA KAORU BACHMANN PETER MATTHIAS BACKMAN-BEHARRY BRYAN DAVID BACON DIANE MICHELLE SEGUIN BACON GAIL AUDREY BACON SHELLEY JOHN BADENHERST GESINA BADER ANDREA JEAN BAENZIGER ALEC IAN BAENZIGER LOIC STEVE BAERTSCHI ANNE-MARIE BAHRT NICHOLE KATRINA BAKER GARNEY GLENN BAKER JASON BRIAN BAKER SUZANNE FARRYL BAKHSHIAN ERVIN BALDASSARRI JASON BALL MOLLY ELIZABETH BALSARA ANDREA KAY TORREY BAMBERGER KARIN LOUISE BAMRAH ALIA BANK BARBARA ELLEN BARKER JEAN BARNES CAROL ANN BARTELT SUSANNE BARTOO TIMOTHY GLENN BASILIUS LENTCER BATARSEH EID ISSA SALEM BATARSEH FOUZIEH ISSA BATCHELER FRANCIS DAVID BATCHELER ROSA BATT WILLIAM GERHARD BAUCKMAN STEPHEN ALLEN BAUMANN RYAN DANIEL BAXTER RACHEL ANNE BAYES AARON MARSHALL BEAUDOIN PAUL BECKERMANN CHRISTINE MARGARET BECKERMANN GABRIELLE JEAN BEDARD SHAWN ANDREW BEESLEY PIERS OLIVER BEETSTRA ANNE CHERYL LACEY BELANGER SUZANNE MARIE BELCHAM KELDA ALEXANDRA BELL ELIZABETH NADIA BELLANTONI STEPHEN J BELL-SMITH PHILIP PRESTON BENDIXSON STEPHEN BEN-ISRAEL NOGA BENNE KARL MARTIN TOBIAS HANSELMANN BENNETT PIA SEELI BENSON MADELEINE RUTH BERAHA NIKOLA BERGER CHRISTINE ANNE BERKELHEIMER WANDA KAY BERKLEY ANDREW JOSEPH BERNHARD DAVID STEVEN BERNSTEIN LARA ALEXANDRA A. R. K. BERTAGNA CHRISTINE DANIELE BERTHIER ANJA DOMINIQUE BEURSKENS GOVERT MATTHEUS BIELER LORAINE EMANUELLE BILODEAU VICKY RENETTE BINKERT PHILIPP DANIEL BIRRER DANA ELENA BISHOP HUGO BISHOP RANDALL CLARK BISSIG MARCO ANTONIO BLACK JOANNA MIRIAM BLAKE CHRISTOPHER JAMES BLAKE KEVIN JOHN BLAKE RAYMOND WILLIAM BLASER KATRIN SUSANNE BLOCH-NEVITTE SUSAN MARY BLOCK ANNE MARIE BLOEMHARD JEAN MARC BODOCZKY PETER ISTVAN BOGLE ARTHUR ANTHONY BOLLA JESSICA LEIGH BOLLIGER LINDA GAIL BOLTON VALERIE ANNE BOLTON WILLIAM JOHN BOND LINDA KAY BONICATTI PATRICIA WAINWRIGHT BONZON CORALIE MARIA BORRELLI FRANCES ROS BOSCOE POLLY LOUISE BOUCHILLOU LAURA CATHERINE BOUGARY ABDIA A BOUTIN GUY RICHARD MAXIME BOVE GUY THOMAS BOYD KIM MARIE BOYER JACQUELINE JOY BRADY CAROL E. BRADY JONATHON MARK EDWARD BRADY KIERAN M. BRANDT MARTHA DIS BRAZIER VERONIQUE MARIANNE VALENTINE BRENCIC ELIZABETH NICOLE BRENNAN AMANDA JANE BRENT MARTHA JEAN BRIDGES EMMA JANE BRIGGS KATHERINE THERESA BRISBOIS AMANDA JOHNSON BRISSY FRANCOIS YVON BRITTAN STEVEN LOUIS BROCKLEHURST SARAH LOUISE BROUSSEAU JOSEE PIERRETTE BROUWER GIJSBRECHT JACOBUS DIEDERICK BROWN WILLIAM THOMAS BRUNNER NINA EMILIA BRUS CECILE ELIANE BRYCE EMMA PATRICIA BUCK DEBORAH ELISE BUKOJEMSKY STEFAN J BULASWAD NOUWAF MUBARAK BULLER KIMBERLEY JEAN BURAWOY ROBERT GEORGE BURGER NICOLA RAFAEL BURGIN VICTOR BURKE PETER LUC RAYMOND BURNS BRANDON LAIRD BURNS-FIERLINGER HADLEY BURNSTAD JOELLE ELIZABETH BURTON ADAM GEOFFREY BURTON SHARON LOUISE BUSER KARIN BUTLER STEPHEN PATRICK BUTLER-JENKINS PAMELA BYE ROBERT EDWARD BYERLEY JOHN JOSEPH CAFLISCH DEE ANN JOY CAIADO CASSANDRA ELIZABETH CAJKO LARA ANNAMARIE CALDWELL BRENDA CALLANDER BOBBIE MAY CAMERON JOANNE SCHEUER CAOUKI ANTHONY JAMES CAPLAN LINDA HARI CAPLAN LISA CAPOGNA NANETTE LEE CAPT GLORIA COSTANZO CAREY SIKA CARNOCHAN DAINA ANDRA CARR ANN MAUREEN CARTER KIRSTEN JAYNE CARTIER LYSE MELOCHE CASEY MARY EILEEN CENTATIRMPO ANNA MARIA PUDDU CERIANI ALESSANDRO CHAI EPHREM CHAN ADA YUEN-FUN CHAN KARMEN CHANG ANDREW CHANG JOHN WEN JUN CHANG MARGARET Y S CHANG SUNNY JUNG-SHANG CHANG YAO-CHUNG CHAO SAMUEL CHI YEN CHARAMIS ALEXIA CHARLAND BERNARD CHARLES JOHN ELTON CHARLTON CELIA MARIAN CHARLTON SUSAN MARIE CHASSOT DENISE MARIA CHAU PHILIP TAK WING CHAVES KOEHLER PAULA MENEGHETTI CHAW PEGGY CHEN ANDREA C CHEN JEFF HUNGCHE CHEN LIANG YU CHEN LIMING CHEN PENELOPE YOSHIKO CHEN SHERRY CHEN WAYNE HWAY-TZE CHEN YONGSHUN JOHN CHENG PAUL LAP TAK CHENG SHU RONG JOANNA CHENG TIAN YOU CHEONG IVY CHEW STEPHANIE CHIARI JOAN MARIE CHIEN PO-HAN CHINNAPONGSE SITHIPHOL CHOI GRACE CHORN VERNON LIONEL CHOW DRAFUS CHUN-RAY CHOWNE EMILY LOUISE CHOYCE LESLEY WILLIS CHRISTIANSEN DEBRA ANN CHRISTOU NORMA ANN CHU ALISON LILLIAN CHU HOWARD HO HWA CHU LAI CHU MING-EN CHARISSA CHU TZU-HAO CHUANG SHIRLEY CHUDNOVSKY JOSHUA ALEXANDER CHUI KAR LAI CLARE CHUNG CHRISTINE P CHUNG JASON J CIUFFA SABINA CLARK AMIE NICOLE CLARK MATHEW KENT CLARK ROBYNNE DALE CLARKE LUCY MARIE CLATTENBURG MICHAEL PATRICK CLAY OLIVER KEATINGE CLEIS DANIA CLOUTIER PIERRE COALES UNA FRANCESCA COCHRAN CARRIE MAY COERS JOHATHAN DAVID COGNET BRUNO PASCOL COLE BIRGIT ANNA COLEMAN CHRISTOPHER LOUIS COLES JILLIANNE LYNETTE COLLON CLAUDINE JOHNSTON COLTON CHRISTOPHER JAMES CONDRON MARK JAMES CONNORS KAYLA ELENA CONNORS MARCI LYNNE COOK AMANDA MICHELE COOPER KARA SUZANNE COOPER KRISTIN ELIZABETH COPELOVITZ GARY ISAAC CORCORAN SUZANNE SHEEHAN CORDELL ELIZABETH KAITLIN COREN GOLDMAN DEBRALEE L CORMIER JED JOSEPH LA LUMIERE COUETTE OLIVER MARIE COUGHLIN HEIDI LOUISE COUTTS-ROUT MICHELE ANDREA COUTURE ELIZABETH JOST COWLEY DAVID CHARLES COWLEY DONNA GULLETTE CRAWFORD LINDA KAYE CREIGHTON BERNARD SYDNEY CRIGHTON-BUCK TAMMY CECILE CROISIER CHANTAL CRONIN ELISABETH CELESTE CROTTA AGNESE NERINA CRUESS ANDREW COCHRANE CUETO JAVIER CUETO PABLO CUNNINGHAM JANINE CURRIE MICHAEL JOSEPH CZEMPER-LIOPIS NILS D'ADAMO FRANCK ANTOINE DAHL PATRICIA JACQUELINE DAITZ ANDREW DAVID DALTON MATTHEW LYNN DAMJANOVIC NIKOLA DANESH HOMAYOUNDOKKHT JAHANSOUZI D'ANGELO, JR THOMAS DANIEL ANNE ELIZABETH DANIEL PETER DAVID D'ARI RICHARD ARTHUR DAUTERMANN JENNIFER JEAN DAVATZ STEFAN PHILIP DAVIS BENJAMIN JOEL DAVIS LILA DAVIS MARK STEVEN DAVIS RICHARD STANLEY MAURICE DAWSON ANSLEY VIRGINIA D'CRUZ EMILY MOULTON DE BARY CONSUELO ISABEL DE BOER KARRIN OBED DE HAAN TODD LEE DE JESUS MICHAEL OSMENA DE LA VALLIERE OLLIVIA MARIE DE LADURANTAYE MARC DAVID DE LADURANTAYE PHILIP LAURENT DE LADURANTAYE PHILIP LAURENT DE MONTJOYE DOUGLAS F C DE MOOR ANNICK LINE DE PASS NORMAN LESLIE DE PASSILLE CLAIRE MARIE DE SOUSA VASCO PHILLIP DEBHAKAM MILIN DEEN ROZANY R DEFEHR ROCHELLE JACQUELINE DEGELMAN JANET LEE DEL VALLE GEORGE CHRISTIAN DELCOURT MICHELE DENISE GERMAINE DELVAUX JEREMY OLIVIER DEMARET NANCY A DENEIKO KATHERINE MEGHAN DENIG JOHN FREDERIC DESCOURS JACQUES REGIS DEVANATHAN LATA DEVERALL LLOYD JAMES DEWALD ROSEMARY MARGARET DEWINTER ROBERT LEONARD DEWJI ADAM SOLOMON DEWJI ALLYKHAN SADRUDIN DEYOUNG PATRICIA ANN D'HUYSSE CHARLOTTE MYRIAM DELLA FAILLE DI DONATO LORENA DI STEFANO PAUL DIEPEVEEN SUSAN VAN LAAR DIERICKX PASCAL DIETRICH MONIQUE B DIGEMOSE CHRISTIAN ANDERS DIGGINS TIMOTHY ROBERT QUINN DILLMAN JOAN DIONISI MARCO FABIO DIOTTE MARIE AGATHE DISNEY CHRISTOPHER SCOTT DMYTRIEV OLEKSANDR DOBSON SHAUNA DEL DODDS MARY COLLEEN DOMES SAMUEL ALBERT DONALDSON (NEE: DAY) CAROLYN SUE DONZE JENNIFER PATRICIA DOOLEY PETER ELLIOTT DOUCET CYNTHIA ANN D'OUSSELGHEM ARNAUD DE KERCHOVE DRAZ ATTARID JAWEED DREYFUS MICHEL PIERRE DRIESSEN JOHANNES HENDRIK DRISKILL ALEXANDER MONTGOMERY DROUIN LISA MANON DRUEDENDAHL HARALD DUBENDORFER VERENA MONICA DUECK IRENE DUECK STEVEN KELLY DULCLOS DENISE JEANNE DULING RORY L DUNBAR JULLIET KATHLEEN NATASHA DUQUENNE ASTRID NATHALIE DZWONNIK BEATA LAURA EARLE NANCY LOUISE EARNHART STEPHEN LYNN EASTEP STEVEN DENNIS EBNER ROBERT PETER EDBROOKE-CHILDS JULIAN HAMPTON EDMONDS DANIEL HAO EDWARD JESSICA ALEXANDRA MARGARET EIRIKSON CARL HAAKON EISNER-CIUCCI ANN ELATTARY HUSSAM MOHAMED ELLIOTT GERALD SHANE ELLIOTT SEAN JAMES ELLIS WILLIAM MACKAY ELMER KARIN ELSBETH ELMIGER STEVEN RICHARD ELSAESSER DAMIAN SHELDON ELSENHANS MELANIE JEANINE ELTES JONATHAN RYAN ENGEL CAMILLE LIA ENOCH GAVIN SIMON EPP MANFRED WOLFGANG ERICKSON JON LAROY ESSES MAURICE I EVANS BARRY ALBERT FABBRI BEVERLEY P. FAHRENBRUCK JOY ANN FAIRHEAD TYRREL FALK BEATRICE INGRID FALTER THOMAS ERHARD FANCHER JR MICHAEL LYNN FANCHINI CATHERINE ADRIANA FANCHINI JACQUELINE FANG CHIA-YU FANTACCI MARIA VICTORIA FANTACCI MICHAEL MARCH FARRIS SAMUAL CHRISTOPHER SCOTT FEIST CHRISTIAN PETER FELLNER JOYCE ALISON FERBACHE CIARAN JAMES FERGUSON BRUCE ROBERT FERGUSON NANCY MARIE FERLAND CELINE FERLAND LUCIE CARMELLE FERNHOLM NICHOLAS JOHN FERRANDO DAVID ARREGUI FERRI JEAN LAURA FIELD DANIEL EUGENE FIELD LAURENCE HAMILTON FIELD TRENT CLIFFORD FIERLINGER PHILIP FILGUEIRAS CAROLINA ALESSANDRA GUERRA FISCHER STEFAN WALTER FISK BRENDA CORINNE FLAHERTY-REUSCH ERIN NOREEN FLECHTNER ROSWITHA BRIGITTE FLEMING KATHLEEN PATRICE RYAN FLURI MARIA DOROTHEA FORBES PATRICIA SETON FORCEY DANA STARR FORD ARCHIE RAYMOND FORSTER ROBERT BERNARD FORTIN JEAN MATHIEU FOSTER KELLEY ANNE FOSTER SYLVIA BRIGITTE FOWLER FRANK FONTENELE FOWLER SUZANNE STRATT FRANCK CARSTEN FRANKS SARAH CAROLINE FRANZEL ANKE MARIA FRASER RICHARD SPARLING FRASER TABITHA CHRISTIAN ANNAND FREEDMAN JODY MARCUS FREIMAN KATE MIRIAM FREMERY NIKOLAUS IVAN FRESCHI PAOLO FEDERICO GIUSEPPE FREY MIA ZOEY FREY-HASEGAWA ERIKA ANITA FRIESEN SARAH ELIZABETH FROEHLICHER MARC-ANDRE STEPHANE FROEHLICHER PASCAL ROLAND CHARLES FROEHLICHER SYLVIE NADINE VERA FROSCHMAYR RUDOLPH ANTON FROWEIN ALEXANDER R FRULLO MARSHA JEANNE FRY CATHERINE JEAN FRY WILLIAM GORDON FRYER RITA ANNE FULLER CHRISTOPHER RAY FUNG DANIEL YAN-WEI FURRER EVA MAE GABRIEL BRADEN FARREN GABRINI ANNE-MARIE ELIZABETH GAEDE WILLIAM LEE GALLUP RALPH LAWRENCE GAMA MELINDA MARIE GAMBOA (AKA BUJAZAN) SANDRA MARIE GANAN ESTER GANSEL KENNETH A GANZHORN THILO PETER GAO ZHONGXIANG GARDNER LON RAEBURN GARRETT DANIEL PATRICK GAUDER GLENN RICHARD GAUPMANN FERDINAND GAUTIER THIERRY GEORGE JAMES SAMUEL GERETH BETTINA GERMERAAD JASPER KEVIN GERVAIS MI RANG CHO GEVAERT JOAN NANCY GHESQUIERE KRISTEN JOY GIBBS MARGARET MARY GIBSON STEPHEN D GILBERT MARY MARGARET GILL GAYLE KATHLEEN HAMILTON GILL ROWENA AGNES GIROUX MARY JO GITTENS JARONE PATRICK SOUTHER GLAUSER ALEXANDER ANTHONY GLEN FIONA KATHERINE GLENDENNING CHRISTINE ANN GLICK YEHUDAH YEHOSHUA GLICKMAN SUSAN GLIDDEN CLINE ASTOR GLIDEWELL PETER CESARE GOETZKE LUC FRANCOIS TERRY GOGUEN JACQUELINE MICHELLE GOH ZACHARY KOON-HAN GOLDBACH BRIAN GOLDFINCH MARIE DIANN GONSER THOMAS GONZALEZ JORGE GONZALEZ RENE GOODMAN SHAUN GEOFFREY GORDEN ROBERT JOEL GORDON ANTHONY DAVID GOULET KRISTIAN BERNARD GRADENER NICOLETTE GRAHAM MARY GRAMMATIKOS THEOHARRY GRATTON SUZANNE GRAY ROSS WILLIAM GREENBERG HOWARD DAVID GREENMAN STEPHEN IAN GROSS FRANZ XAVER LAENGMUELLER GRUBER MARCEL-ANDRE RAPHAEL JUERGEN GRUBER MAUEL-RENE RICARDO GUENTHER GRULLON MELBA GUBITZ DOUGLAS ADAM GUIDA-NESTEL KAREEN MARIA THEORA GUIGUET KRISTINA MARIE GUPTA SHAILENDRA K GUSTAFSON CHRISTOPHER GEORGE GUTIERREZ-MATURANA BARBARA GWERDER NICOLE CARMEN GWILT DAWN ELIZABETH HABGOOD JOHN ALAN HACKBARTH ANN MARIE HACKEL ALESSIA SOPHIA HADDAD DIANA INES HAEFELI PATRICIA BRIGITTE HAGE SORINA MONIQUE HAILSTON JOSEPH STEVEN HAILSTONE LINDA ANN HAILSTONE SAMUEL NICHOLAS WALKER HAJNAL MARK NICHOLAS HALL ANDREW GRAHAM HALLBERG ANDERS HALLETT DEBORAH PETERSON HALVORSEN TORBEN HAMEL CHERIE AMM HAMILTON SCOTT JAMES HAMPSON DINAH MARIE HAN NI L HAN ZHEN FA HANABERGH MERCEDES MARIA HARMON PAUL ROBERT HARPP DAVID NOBLE HARRIS ROBERT PATRICK HARRIS STEPHEN JOEL HARRY CAROLYN DEAN HART CHRISTOPHER O'NEAL HART RITA JUDITH HARTEL ENE LISA HARTMAN CELINE S HARTMAN CRAIG THOMAS HARVEY STEPHANIE ELAINE HASHIMOTO MASAKO HAUPT SARAH HAUSER FRITZ ROBERT HAUSER PHILLIP JOHANNES HAY JAMES BRUCE HAYES RICHARD ALLEN HEALY CAROL ANN HEATHCOAT-AMORY SARAH ARABELLA MARJORIE HECKENDORN JUDITH DORIS HEDGES KATHERINE ANNE HEERSINK JOHANNA RUTH HEICK CAROLINE ELIZABETH HEIDE RANDAL SCOTT HEINRICH ELEN EMIKO HEITLAND IRENE HEITMANN MASA MARTHA HELFERT ANNE L HELLER CHARLES SEBASTIAN PAUL PA-SANGS HELLER MICHAEL HELLIWELL KATHARINA EVA HELMS HENRY CHRISTIAN HELTING HOLGER TORSTEN HEMSING LINDA RUTH HENSEN JOEL MATTHEW HENSON CONNIE DEE HENSON-LUKAS ALICE MARIE HERMAN SARETTA JOY HERMAN-SPARTINELLI DEBORAH ANN HERMANSSON LINDA MARIE HERZ KATHRYN RENATE HESSELVIK JAN FREDRIK HESSELVIK LENA MARGARETA HETHERINGTON BRUCE JAMES HEUMAN DANIEL SIDNEY HEUMAN JUDITH HEUMAN ROBERT HICKLENTON KYLIE ANN HIGGINS-POSEINGER ELIZABETH ANN HILDENBRAND-MALLORY ANN FRANCES HINCAPIE CARLOS ALBERTO HINCK JAMES ALAN HINES LORRA ANN HINES SAM J HIPPENMEYER MARGARET JANE HISLOP KRAIG RENE HISLOP STEPHEN KAYNE HOBBS KATHRYN RUTH HOBSON DAPHNE L HODGDON CELESTE ELAINE HODKIN BARBARA J HOEFFLEUR OLIVER CHARLES HOEGG JO ANDREA HOEGG JO LYNNE HOERLER REMO BEAT HOEVENAARS HENDRIKUS JOZEF MARIA MILAGROS RAPHAEL HOFFMAN FRANK STEPHEN HOFFMANN CYNTHIA BARCLAY HOHLFELD FRANCOIS EDOUARD HOLLENBERG ABRAHAM ANDREW HOLMES GEORGE ARCHIBALD HOLMES TYLER JUSTIN HONG LI HONNEYSETT ZAREK BRIAN HOP DENNIS JAY HORITA DAVID MCLEAN HORNER MATTHIEU HENRY HOWELLS ELIZABETH ANNE HSUI ALVIN YU WEN HUANG RANDY HUANG SHEN KAI HUANG SHUYIN HUANG VIVIAN H HUBER-KOIZUMI NEYSA ANNE HUDSON MARY ELIZABETH HUEBSCH GABRIEL MAX HUFFMAN-FERRIS LEE JANE HUG KERRY LYNN HUI CHING YING HUI RAPHAEL YULHAY HUNTER WILLIAM JACK HUOT FRANCOIS HUPPI OTTO EMIL HUR MARILYN MINKYUNG HURLSTONE RICHARD ANDREW HUSYIN AIMAN ABDULLAH HWANG YONGSUNG IKEDA MINORU ILS AMY YIN-MAN IMBACH JEFFREY DAVID INGLIS ANDREA SCOTT INGLIS VICTORIA MARIE IRVINE MATTHEW LEE ISHII MASATOSHI ISMAEL SHEREEN TAREQ IWAN BARBARA JACK HEATHER LINEA VUORINEN JACKLING JANE ALLEN JACKSON CAMILLE JACKSON MARK JACOBSON JOSEPH KYLE JAEGER JULIE ANN JANONIUS TERESA CECILIA JARVIS CAROLYN MANNERS JATIA GANESH NARAYAN JAVERI JEROME OMAR JAYAPRAKASH ANAND JEANTY BERNARD JEFFRIES DALE LOUIS JELINEK LARRY CHARLES JENNI KATALIN EVA JENNINGS ERIC THOMAS JODKA NICOLE ALEXANDRA JOHANNESEN KARIN EMILE JOHNSON AARON JAMES JOHNSON ALLISON ELIZABETH JOHNSON BEVERLY EDITH JOHNSON MARY EIKO JOHNSTON ELIZABETH JANE JOHNSTON GARY RAYMOND JONES ORIEL BRONWEN CHRISTINA JONES RAYMON NIGEL JONES TREVOR JOHN JOSELIN MARY LILIAS JOSHI DEVENDRA KUMAR JOST LESLIE MARGARET JUCHIMENKO VICTOR JOHN JUNKER ALIA ELIZABETH KADISHAY AMIR KAMMEIJER QUINTEN KAMPEN MARGIE KANAMOTO NORIKO ELLEN KANAZAWA YUKI KANG JI YOUNG KAPLAN DEBORAH SUSAN KAPP NEIL STEVEN KARRFELT YIVA KRISTINA KASHANSKI SUSAN HARVEY KASS PEARL PAULINE KATZ LAURIE MICHELE KAUR-SINGH MANJIT KAWOHL LINDA J KAYAMA AKIRA KAYAMA MISAKO KEANE SHEILA KECK NANCY JOAN KECKWICK VOLKERT KEIDEL WILLIAM PETER KEISER KEVIN KELLEHER MARY JANE KELLERSTEIN JENNIFER EVE KELLETT JAMES JEFFREY KELLNER GRETCHEN LEA KELLY PHILIP KENNEDY JOHN THOMAS KENNEDY LISA RENEE KENNIFF PATRICK JOHN KENYON VIRGINIA J KEPPER ARIATI KARINA IRINI KEPPER NATASHA RAUDIA I KERR HELENE PAULA KHOURY CYNTHIA EL KHOURY NAMEER SUHAIL KIBLER SUSAN GAIL KIERS WENDY ARENDINA KILIAN DANUTA KILLER DONNA AGRELL KIM HEE JIN KIM MICHELLE MIKYEONG KIM OK HEE KIM SIMON YUNG JIN KING BRADLEY A. KING ELIZABETH CAROL KING ROSALBA KING SUSAN AVERIL TAYLOR SMITH KINGSLEY JEMIMA KATHARINE KINGSLEY OCTAVIA ANNE KIPER JACQUELINE ANNE KIRK JULIA KIRK MOLLY KRISTIN KIRKPATRICK NEVEN JOHN KIRSCHNER PAUL ARTHUR KIRSCHNER TERESA JACAS KLEIN URSINA KLEPACKI BENJAMIN DAVID KLIJN MACHTELD CORNELIE KLINE HEY LAN KLINGE JOHN WILLIAM KOECHLIN LESLIE ANDREA KOELLE-SCHNEIDER PATRICIA IRINA KOGGEL CHRISTINE MARY KOH GLENN LIM-JIE KOHL ANNE MARIE KOIZUMI SHUN KOJIMA MAKIKO KOKA, JR ASDREN DREW KOLLER LAURA ELISABETH KON BRANDON RICKS JUNJIE KONSCHAK KLAUS KOO VICTOR WING CHEUNG KOPELMAN MAGGY KOTOK KORB EMILY JIHAE KORB KEVIN BURT KORODY KORNEL KORTE ANTHONY P KRAEMER MONIKA SUSAN KRAHN RHONDA FAYE KRALICEK CURTIS ALLAN KRAUS ERICH PRIDAY KRAUSSE MICHAEL HELMUT KRUEGER MARGARET ELSIE KRUSE DANIELE FRANCESCO KUFER KATRINA KUMAGAI KIMIKO KODANI KUPFERSCHMID DENISE MADISON KURDI IHSAN KIM KURIHARA YUKIE KURLAND DEBORAH JOY LIS KURODA ETSUKO KURODA NAGAAKI KURZDORFER BETTY B KWAG RICHARD HYUN KWAPIL URSULA KWOK ROY SHUN KEUNG LA CAZE JOHN THOMAS LABONTE NATHALIE DENISE LABONTE NATHALIE DENISE LACERDA MARIA ISABEL LACIN TOLGA LAFRANCE CHRISTINE MARION LAGUE GEORGES DENIS LAI KATHERINE LOUISE LAI PATTON LAI WANG-SUN PETER LAING MARTHA ZAVITZ LALLEMENT CLAIRE MARIE GABRIELLE LAMB MICHELLE KATIE ELIZABETH LANDY ALLYSON CAROL LANE BARBARA KAREN LANE BARBARA SUSAN LANE KIM MARIE KATHRYN LANGER SHELLEY MARIE LANGER VIRGINIA MARIE LANGLEY KARLA LEE LAPIDUS SAMUEL BENJAMIN LAPTUTA CHRISTINE LARRIEU-LE BELLER ELOA JADE LAUGHTON FAITH LOUISE LAUREANO PHILIP ANTHONY LAVRIL CARINE ANNE LAWLER LISA LORRAINE LE POIDEVIN CHARLOTTE ELIZABETH MASKERY LEBLANC PAULINE HELEN LEBLER MARCUS JAMES LEE ALICE LEE CHERYL SHI-YING LEE CLARK CHUN LEE DANIEL DAO-MING LEE EUGENE LEE HAROLD KWOK LEE JAY HEE LEE KEONHEE LEE KUG JAE LEE LILY LEE MICHAEL SUNGHYUN LEE RICHARD CHI KEUNG LEE SABRINA MAY CHU LEE SHAUN TZEN LEE SHEN-LING LEE SOO JIN LEE AHN HYE KYUNG LEEMANS JARI LEFAIVE DOUGLAS BRUCE LEIB STEPHEN LOUIS LEITMAN BRUCE HENRY LEMMON KELLY BENJAMIN LEOD-HUNTER NEILL SCOTT MAC LEROUX CELINE MARIANNE CLAUDINE LESHEM AVIV LESPINARD VICTOR MARIE LESTARI DORIS LEU JAMES LEUNG AMBROSE YIN-POK LEVESQUE NICOLE LYNNE LEVIANT MICHEL LEVY GREGORY DAVID LEVY ZEEVA LEWINS SHELAGH CHRISTINE LEWIS JONATHON J LEWIS LOIS ELAINE LEYENHORST ANNETTE KAYE LI ALFRED CHUN HEEN LI CHUN-YIN LI DONGXIAN LI GUO SUI LI HSIEN-CHUAN LI JEFFREY TING-HIM LI JING LI SIMON CHI MING LI YUE HUA LIM ELLEN LIM WESLEY W K LIN CHIEN JU LIN JAMES CHE YU LIN SAMUEL DAVID LINCKE CHRISTINA GABRIELE LINDEN FRANK ANDREAS LINDENMAIER MATTHIAS WALTER LINDON ANNE HOPE LINDSAY RICHARD LYNN LINDY MARE PHILLIP LING EDWARD LING KIRK YU-CHI LINNEMAYER LISA GAYLE LINSKER DURINDANA LINSKER ROBERTO LINSKY ANDREA JOAN LIPE ALEX LISS ANDRE LIU CHEN I LIU LEE-YU LO CARIN LO LOWELL KWOK LOABILE CHRISTINE LOCKE MICHAEL KA YUNG LOFSTRAND ANDERS O LONG FUYOU LONNEKER MARGARET SPRING LOPATINSKY ALEXANDRA YURIEVNA LOPEZ-APARICIO EVA M LORENCAK LENORE LEE LORZ PETER MICHAEL LOUGHEED ELIZABETH LEE LOVE MICHAEL LINDHART LOVINK ANTONY RANSOME LOW DAVID JOSEPH LOW SHIN YUN LOW STEVEN JUN-LIN LOWE JAMES LAWRENCE LOWES MIRANDA ARAMINTA LOWEY ELIOT LOZIER KARL DAVID LU AVIN CHI-WAI LU MEI HO CHEN LU SIDNEY LUCAS SUSAN KAY LUDOLPH RONALD JAMES LUI JOANNA CLAUDIA LUNDGREN ZACGARY LUNDIN WILLIAM AXEL WALTER LUNG JESSE CHEN LUPIEN CHRISTINE ANNE LUSTY DIANA VIVIAN LUU PETER LYNAR-REDERN SEBASTIAN DOMINIQUE PIUS ALBRECHT GRAF ZU MAC FARLAND CAROLINE JULIA MACAYA ROMAN F MACDONALD NANCY ELIZABETH MACHE SASI B MACKAY COLIN ROSS MACKENZIE THOMAS ARTHUR MACKLIN ADAM DONALD MACKLIN LAURA AYNSLEY MACMILLAN CHARLES ALEXANDER MACPHERSON MARJORIE ANN BOYD MADDEN ELAINE JEANETTE MAGALHAES MARIANNA CIDALE MAHMOOD SAIYEDA R MAI BODIL ANDERSEN MAID TERRY MARC MAINONE MATTHIAS MAIR KATHLEEN SHEEHAN MAJOR ANDREW JAMES MAJOR GALASSO (NEE: MAJOR) DANIELLE ELIZABETH MAK ERIC K MALANDRA ESTHER MARIE MALCOLM JAXQUELINE IRENE MALIKI LIDIA SYAHINDAH BINTI MOHD MAMA-O ABDULLAH DERUPONG MAMET FRANCOISE GABRIELLE MANN WILLIAM JAGGARD CAMPBELL MANZONI MICHELLE ANN MARANTA CARLA JEAN STANLEY MARBACH-HORISBERGER ANDREA ELISABETH MARGIE OLIVIA SAMANTHA MARGULIES OLIVER STEPHEN MARION CEDRIC TAKEMASA MARIZAN MUHAMMAD AZFAR BIN MARJORIBANKS CLAIRE MARQUES JANICE MASCARENHAS MARSDEN STEPHANIE ELIZABETH MARSHALL CHRISTOPHER J MARSHALL HANNAH MARSHALL LEONIE MARTEL MARIE MADELAINE JOCELYNE MARTEN WAYNE EDWIN MARTENS RACHELLE LYNN MARTIN DAVID KENDALL MARTIN ELENA MARTIN NANCY LOVELL MARTZ KRISTINA MARUSIC IVAN MASON FRANK STEVEN MASSEY JONATHON MAST ALLISON CHEYNNE MATHIS CHARLES BRUCE MATSON BEVERLY JO MATSON DONALD HENRY MATSUBARA AKIKO MATTHEWS JOSHUA DAVID MAUNULA TIMOTHY LAWRENCE MAXSON JACK DANIEL MAZZANTI VIRGINIA MARIA MC CLENNAN SUZANNE ELIZABETH MC INTURFF MARC TREMAYNE MC NAMARA PATRICIA ANN MCADAMS SHELBY LYNN MCCAIN HILARY JOAN NORRIE MCCLEAR MARY EILEEN MCCONNELL GEORGE MARK MCCORD KRIS ELAINE MCCREERY ELIZABETH KATHERINE ROSE MCDONALD KARLENE KAY MCDONALD SARAH DIANA MCDOWELL KENNETH GEORGE MCFARLANE JANA PATRICIA MCFETRIDGE BRENDA LEE MCGRAIL SHANN KATHLEEN MCINTOSH STUART B MCLAREN CANDACE JOYCE MCMURTRIE KATHLEEN ANNE MEGER CATHERINE MARIE MEGNET LIENHARD ANDREAS MEIJER EVELINE MEIJIDE MARIANA GARCIA MELO FEDERICO FERNANDO MENDES-SILVA ANDRE MENDEZ GLORIA P MENDEZ PATRICIA F. MENZ FRANCES GRAVES MERCER ASHLEY MEGAN MERCER CHERRIE MEREDITH PETER LOUDON MERREN SUZAN ELIZABETH MESHANKO TRACY LYNN MESSIG GERALDINE METZ EDUARDUS A MEUTER DEMIAN RICO MEYLAN JOELLE ELIZABETH FALCONNIER MICHAUD JAMES CARROLL MICHEL STEFAN MICHELSON SOPHIE ENOCH MICHENER ALICE BERYL MICHENER ROBERT ROWLAND MIGEM TOM VAN MIKUS CHRISTOPHER ALFONS MILFORD SIDNEY NEVIL MILLER BROOKE ANDERSON MILLER DARL EUGENE MILLER DAVID JONATHAN MILLS MARGARET JEAN MILNE JOHNNA MARIE MINARD PHILIPPE HUGUES PIERRE MINER ANNE BRIDGET MINIHAN SEAMUS MINZ PERL RACHEL MISSIG LEIGH ALEXANDRA MITCHELL CELINE BRUYETTE AKINER MITCHELL RAYMOND FLOYD MITTEN RICHARD CHARLES MIYAZAKI TAKASHI MODEL PHILIPPE DANIEL MOFFETT MICHAEL JAMES MOLLNAU NORA R MOLONEY ADRAIAN M MOLONEY PATRICIA H MONGES GUILLAMUE PAUL MONNIER ANTOINE BLAISE MONTGOMERY BENJAMIN P MONTGOMERY CARLA MARIE MOORE CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL MORAES THOMAS MOSANER DE SOUZA MORD JASON THOMAS MORET EDOUARD CLAUDE MORRIS ETHEL ANNE MORRIS LYNNE SUSAN MORRISON PETER KYLE MORRISROE JAMES JOSEPH MORTIER JOHANNES WILHELM MOSCONA TAMARA MOSHINSKY SIDRA KRANZ MOTOE TAICHIRO MOUNTS VICKI DEBRA MUELLER BRIGITTE SABINE MULGREW AYISHA MULLAN SUSAN LUCILLE MUNCK CAMILLE ANAIS MURRAY NICOLE MUSACCHIA CHRISTINA ANNE MUSITANO KORRIE ANN NADESWARI YEESHA NAEGELIN THOMAS NAGATA KEIKO NAGGIAR CAROLINE NAM LINDA YOOSEON NAM NAN SOOK NANCHEN BEATRICE ANNE KERN NAUGHTON DENIS PATRICK NAY BRETT KYLE NAYAR KAMALA ELIZABETH NAYAR-KINGWELL SUNITA MARIA NAZER HISHAM LOAY NEE EVGENYA NELSON NAOMI ALEXANDRA NEPI MONICA NESBITT CHERYL ANN NEUFELD MARJORY AMELIA NEUHAUS SCOTT RICHARD NEUMAN ARAVINDA DAVID NEUMAN JOSEPHINE ANN NEWCOMBE GIROUX PETER (AKA PIERRE) NEWMAN AMANDA JANE NG EVA YEE MAN NG MAN FUNG NG MATTHEW CHER-WAI NG NICHOLAS HON BOON NG SIMON SIU-MING NG SZE NOK SENIA NG, JR. MATTHEW TAM TAN NGUYEN ANDREWS LINH NIBLER JONATHAN MICHAEL NIDAY JODI MARIE NIDAY MICHAEL WALLACE NIDEROEST PETER DWIGHT NIGRO LEONARDO NIR MICHAL NISSEN CHRISTOPH PETER NONHOF ROBBERT FRANK NOTZ RYAN ANDREW NOVA ANDRE NOWICKI BROOKE HARMON NOWINA CYNTHIA ANN NOWINA KATHRYN DOROTHEA NUGENT PAUL NUZZI PETER ANTHONY O'CLEIRIGH MARGARET ELIZABETH O'CONNELL KEVIN ALLEN OCONNOR LARKEN O'DOWD MICHAEL PATRICK OESTERREICHER KATHARINA ALEXANDRA O'HARA ANDREW NEIL OHNO KEIKO OKAWA TERUMI TERESA OLIVARI RINALDO MICHELE OLIVEIRA ANA SOFIA TAVARES OLIVER-WORLF WYATT SIR RED OLSSON ERIK ALEXANDER OMMANNEY RAGNII INGELA OMURA EIKO ONDRACEK JAY LYLE OOI YU TING OPHEIM GILBERT EARL O'REILLY GERALD V ORSKI-SCHULE JOCELYNE OTT KAREN ELAINE OTT KENNETH RICHARD OTT MAUREEN AGNES OUBOTER JUDITH DE BRUYN OZAKI MIKIO PAEK ALEX HAEIN PAETKAU DAVID GEORGE PAIJENS KELLY S PAJAROLA RICCARDA CRISTINA PALLIER ANTHONY GILLES PALTIN OLEG PAN OLAI WILLIAM VANDER PANG JEAN SUI-KAM PANG MOIRA SZE-MIN PANU ANUKUL PAPIA LOUIS JOSEPH PARBHAKAR NEENA PARENT CLAUDE PARK EUN JOO PARK JIEUN PARK MARGARET MARY PARK SEAN PARK SUSAN ARAH PARKER MOIRA PARLETTE DIANE PASCAL PHYLLIS BARBARA PASQUIER MAXIME KILIAN LEO PASS DOUGLAS JOHN PATEL ANKIT PATEL PRAKASH CHANDRA PATEL VIDHYA H PATON SUSAN LINDA PATTERSON LIANE HOLLY PATTERSON ROBERT COLIN PEACOCK PAUL S PEGGS JONATHAN KENNETH PEI JINLIN PELLEGRAM ANDREA ANN PENNINGTON WILLIAM HAROLD PEPIN MICHELLE PEPPERDAY ANITA BEATRICE PERALTA LUIS FERNANDO PETRY JOSEPHINE DONNA PETTY STEVEN FABIO PETURSSON CLAIRE MARIE ELIZABETH PEYER ANN DOROTHY PHILLIPS REBECCA NOEL PIASECKI WOJCIECH PICARD PIERRE FRANCOIS PIETSCH JACQUELINE JEANETTE PILLOUD CHLOE MICHELLE ARLETTE PISTRANG NANCY ELLEN PIZANO OLGA PL CHEIN YAO PLANTE FRANCOISE YOLANDE MARIE PLENERT DELORES JEAN PLOUFFE LINDA MARIE POCZA VERONICA BLISS POLIKAR GREGOIRE LUCAS POLLACK SHOSHANA LISA POMMEPUY GILBERT JOSEPH POMPER RUDY POPOFF VICTOR ALPHONSE PORTER CAITLYN MARIE PORTER NINA I POSEN GAIL ESTHER POSTMA KARISSA EVELYN POSTMAN KAREN LORENE POULIN DANIEL JOSEPH POULIQUEN MAELAIG SANDY PREISWERK FRANK ANDREAS PRIETO LUIS PROUT BRINA LUDWIG PSYCHOYOS NICHOLAS ANTHONGY PURVIS KARI KRISTI PUTTICK JENNIFER LINDSAY QUADRI ROGER UGO QUAIL KEVIN STEVEN QUAN ANDREW KEO QUARTEY MONA HELEN KABUKI QUEK KARA TZE-MIN QURAINI SAMEER ABDUL MUTI RABSON YOKO RADFORD STEPHEN JAMES RAGGHIANTI BRETT ROBERTS RAGHAVAN VEERAVALLI RAGUSH SHEILA JEAN RAJU SANGEETA RAMAGE JOCELYN A RAMAGE WILLIAM D RAMANATHAN SRINIVAS RAMIREZ-AITKEN YAZMIN MARIA RAMSDEN JOYCE ELAINE RAMSMEIER ELVIRA DOLLY RANK ESTHER JEAN WILKINSON RAPPAPORT DANIEL CHARLES RASHEED AHMED MOHAMMED RAUM MARC RAYNER GEORGIA ALEXANDRA REED DANIEL HARRY REED RONALD RAY REGE-VOLPE-DEPIERRE FRANCES MARIE REHAK JOHANNES BLAKE REICHSTEIN ESTHER REILLY PAULA BRID REMBAUD MONIQUE ELIZABETH REMENYI LINDA JEAN RENAULT CATHERINE GISELE RENTROP CHRISTINE MARIA REUNIS MARC RENE BRUCK REUSSER PETER ULRICH REZNICK SHULAMITH RHEE WON JAI RIADY JOHN RICE THOMAS UMAR RICHARD MARIE-JEANNE OONA RICHER LAURIE PAMELA RICHESON DAVID RANDALL RIEBESELL MABEL VIOLET THELMA RING CURTIS PHILLIP RING JACQULINE KAE RIOUX GILES ROGER RITTER KARL THOMAS RITTER-GEKELER MARIELE JOYCE RIVET ALAIN CHRISTIAN ROGER M.Y.G ROBERTS CAMILLE M. ROBERTS JAMES A. ROBERTSON AMANDA JANE ROESEL TAMARA LISA ROESLER WILLIAM JAMES ROESSEL LILI MARIE ROGERS ERIN LYNNE CRYDERMAN ROMAIN KARINE MICHELINE-MARIE ROOLVINK SHAUNA LI ROOSDORP THOMAS NICOLAAS ROSEN JUDITH ROSE ROSENBAUM LEAH BLIMI ROSS KELLY-ANN ROSS ROBERT COLLINS ROSS TANNICE ROBERTA ROSSELLI MARK CHARLES ROSSELLINI EDVIGE FORTI ROSSETTI JOHN EDWIN ROSSI GERALD FRANCIS ROTH CATHERINE SYLVIA ROTHUIZEN LAURA EUGENIE ROUSE PETER E. ROUSSEAU ERIC JOSEPH ROUYER NATHALIE SHARLEEN ROVIRA FRANCISCO ARNER ROWE ALLISON MORGANNE RUBENSTEIN ANDREA DIANE RUDD GERIANNE RUFF MARCUS STEPHEN RUNDLE ELIZABETH GALE RUPP MARTIN WILLIAM RUSCH-MUELLER BARBARA CAROL RUTHER POLLYANN S RUTLEDGE JARED CLINTON RUTLEDGE JESSICA DIANNE RYAN MICHAEL EDWARD SABIDUSSI MENEGA JOHANNA SABRI ALAIN N SACHDEV ARJUNN SINGH SACKELA ROSE MARIE SALANT III ROBERT STEPHEN SALAS DENNIS MICHAEL SALERNO CORRIE LYNN SALKAUSKAS IISE SALTIEL MICHAEL ARI SAMAWI HISHAM SAMAWI MARGIT URSULA SAMAYOA-USHER ISABELLA CATARINA SAMBOL LINDA MARIE SAMOLUK SARAH ELIZABETH SANDERS DANIELA CATHERINE JANE SANTOS MARK DONALD SASAKI MANAMI SAUNDERS FRASER WORDEN SAUNDERS PHILLIP ROSS SAVANT JAYASHREE SAVANT SANDESH RAQHUNATH SAYER ROWANNE SCHERER NELLY SCHIESS CHRISTIAN DOUGLAS SCHIESS CHRISTOPHER ROBERT SCHIFF KALMAN SCHIFF LEORA ORA SCHILCHER OSKAR SCHILD BRIGITTE ANNEMARIE SCHILD MARLEN ELIZABETH SCHLESSINGER LAURA ANN SCHMID LUKAS ANDREAS SCHMIDLIN MOLLY MOORE SCHMIT FREDERIC HENRI SCHMITZ ROSINE MARIE SCHNEIDER HENRY SCHOCH ERIC GUSTAV SCHOENENBERGER MIRIAM JOHANNA SCHORNO KATHLEEN MARIE SCHORNO TAYLOR RYAN SCHRIEVER FOLKE SCHROEDER CARRIE ELIZABETH SCHROPP MANFRED SCHUBERT GERSENDE ANNE-AYMONE SCHULZ EUNICE JEAN SCHWARTZ ARNOLD SCHWARTZ ELLEN RAE SCHWARTZ WILLIAM SCHWEIZER-CARUSO JENNIFER SARAH SCHWOB MARC JOSEPH SCOTT RAYMOND JOHN SEATON SUSAN JANE SEHIC SABAN SEHN NOLA ROXANNE SELBIG BEATE LOTTE SELDON HENRY LEE SEMELMAN ELYSE NICOLE SEMELMAN STEVEN ALAN SERVAIS JUERGEN SERVAIS VIVIANE SHADEED GERALD NICHOLAS SHAH RAVIN MINESH SHAIKH-OMER MAJID ABDULRAZZAQ SHAIR TALAL KAMAL SHANNON JAMES WILLIAM ANTHONY SHAPS ALEXANDER PHILLIP KEN SHARMA KRISTINA SUE SHARP PATRICK RODNEY SHATZKES PAMELA JOY SHAW PAISLEY TERRA SHEETS ALAN WAYNE SHEN AI KEN SHEN MEI-MEI SHEPHERD MICHAEL ALAN SHETH MAHENDRA CHHOTALAL SHIELDS EDWARD SHIMMURA MITSUYO SHIN HYE JIN SHIN LAUREN SHIN SANG SHINER JOHN STEWART SHIPNOSKI ANDRE FRANCIS SHIU ANGELA YUEN YUEN SHLADOV TAL GOTTINER SHUI DI SHULTZ THOMAS RICHARD SHUM JERRY SIDDALL GERALD NOEL SIDDALL NAMICE MOIRA FLEEK SIDENBERG CHERYL LEIGH SIGNER CHRISTOPHER SILBERMAN MIA HELEN SIM SOON-SONG TIMOTHY SIMPSON MARYANN SINCLAIR KIRI VICTORIA SINCLAIR-LAPPI KRISTA STEPHANIE SINGAL SUNIL HEINEN SINGH GURDIP SKOLDEBRAND CATHARINA ELISABETH SANDSTROM SKREINIG MARILIA AISLYNN RIBEIRO SLATNER NICOLE A SLEESWIJK FRANCES CORINE WEGENER SLOAN SONNEN MARCELLA SLOAN GELDARD MILES ANTHONY SMALL CHARLES SMALLEY PAMELA SMITH BRUCE M SMITH DAVID SMITH INESE AUZINS SMITH JASON GERALD SMITH NANCY EILEEN ANNE-MARIE MORRISON SMITH RONALD CLINTON SMITH RUTH SMITH SAMUEL TRAINOR SMYKE PAUL JOSEPH SNIDER DUSTIN LEE SNOW SOMER JACLYN SNOWER DAVID BERNARD SO JANET KWAN SOLLBERGER CALVIN SOMMER JENNIFER JOANNE KAYS SOMMER LAURENT HUBERT SOMMERS KATJA SONG REY-LIN SOPHONPANICH SIRIPORN SORENSEN NIELS SORENSEN SUZANNE CAROL SORRELL EMMA JANE SOUKUP JULIAN HENDRIJ SPENCER KRISTEN LYNNE SPERBER DAWN LEIA SPILLER YUKO SPINGLER ROLF ARNOLD SPRINGATE CHARLOTTE A SPYROPOULOS CHRISTINE ST GEORGE FIONA MICHELLE ST LAURENT DENISE MARIE-EVELYNE STACEY ASHLEY LYNNETTE STADELMANN MARK BRIAN STALKER JOHN GARRETT STAMENOV VALENTIN I STAMP ALTHEA PATRICIA DAWES STANBURY SUSAN MARY STANIFORTH SEAN MICHAEL STANNER NICOLE MIMI STARINK INGRID E STCHEDROFF NIELS DANIEL STEEGMANN KEVIN RAY STEGGLES MARY ANN STEIG ASAKO STEINMETZ LINDA MAE STEINMETZ NICO PIERRE STEINREICH AUDREY STEINREICH GARY ABE STENIG JOHN MARC STERCK KATHERINE ELIZABETH STERRETT JAMES ROGER STEVENS MARIE ELISABETH STEWART GARY DOUGLAS STEWART JO-ANNE MARGARET STIENSTRA CAROLYN SUE STOBBE PAULINE GWEN STOCKDALE JANE CHURCHILL STOLL LIISA STORK FRANCOIS GERARD STORK PAUL JACOB STOUFFER DONALD JAMES STRATH LORIE BELL STRAUGHAN TIMOTHY ASHBY STREBEL STEPHEN CURT STRILCHUK GLADYS MARY STUART PHILIP FRAZER STUBBLEBINE ROBERT HARVEY STUBBS IAIN PATRICK STUBBS ROBERT LAWRENCE SUGASAWA CHIEKO SUGASAWA KIYOSHI SUHEIBANI JANAN ABDUL-RAHMAN SUKRI EDWIN SULLER GARETH DAVID SULZER ALFRED ROBERT SUN TIFFANY CHYI-HONG SUNG SOPHIA SUNG TAE RAN SUSSI GIAN MARCO SUTTER LYDIA MARIA SUZUKI TAMIKO LYNDA SWEENEY MARY ALETHA SWIFT KAREN JUDITH SWITZER ELINOR NATALIE TAJIRI MAI TAKEZAWA NAHOYA TALMAGE WILLIAM STUART JOHN TAM ALESSANDRA TAN AUDREY POH POH TAN LI CHING TAN SANDRA VUOCH HONG TANG SUSAN TANKOANO JEAN LUC TANNENBAUM JEREMY ADAM TARRANT SETH MICHAEL TATE STEPHEN ANDREW TATEISHI TOMONORI TATEISHI TOSHIKO TATHUM JR DANIEL RICHARD TAY BRYAN YAN KEAT TAY XI CHING TAYLOR CHLOE EMMA TAYLOR ELIZABETH COLSTON TAYLOR TANA MARIE MCCOY TAYMANS JOSEPH MARIE TEAL PATRICIA KATHLEEN TEBO STEPHEN L. TEGEL SUSAN LOUISE TEMES MARVIN JOHN TEO ANNABELLE XIANG-PING TERASHIMA HISASHI TESTERMAN DONNA MARIE THAI JULIE HONG-HANH THAM BRIAN KAR LEONG THERRIEN GUY ALYRE THERRIEN SUZANNE MARIETTE THOMANN ERIC VALENTIN THOMPSON IAIN ROY THOMPSON SARA JANE THOMPSON TANYA RACHEL TAUB THORNE LORRAINE MARY THORNTON ELISABETH ERIKA TING WENDY WAN-CHUN LIAO TIZ ATARA TOLOMEO DOMENICO PIETRO TRAN-BA-HUY SANDRINE OLIVIA TRAVIS TERRA RENAE TREMP MARTIN TREMP NELLY TRINE NATHALIE LUCIENNE TROTTIER JEAN-PAUL TROXEL BRIAN MARCEL TROXEL LINDA FAITH TSCHAN COLLEEN DURAN TSUI DENISE HIU TUNG TUCKER BENJAMIN CHARLES TUCKER DELTON RAY TUPE SAMBHAJI RAGHUNATH TURNBULL RICHARD BRIAN TURNOVSZKY HANS DOMINIC TUSCHER GABRIELLE TYLER LYNN KATHLEEN UEHARA NOBUYUKI UHE ROBERT ERICSON UHLIG DANIEL ALEXANDER UIKE KYOKO NADJA UNGER SHARON JOY URGOITI MARTIN MARIA UVIMOLCHAI CHAISIRI ALEX VACHON JACQUES PIERRE VAIO ERNEST LLOYD VALLECOCCIA GUGLIEMINA CLOTILDE VALLIERE VICTORIA J VAN BAKEL (NEE: CROWLEY) MARGARET ELLEN VAN DAM BRONWYN MARY VAN DER MEULEN BEVERLY J VAN DER MEULEN JOHN ERNEST VAN DER MEULEN MARK A VAN HOLST RUTH JANKE VAN LENT ANNE MARIETTE VAN OSTRAND CHRISTOPHER ALAN VANDENBERG ELEONORA CHRISTINA VANON CAROLINE VARADI STEPHANIE BEATRICE VAUGHN SARA THERESE MELIA VEHOVAR LARA TIA VEILLEUX LISA MARIE VELONA MADDALENA AGNESE VEREY KATRINA NICOLE VERNON PHILIP CLAUDE VICUNA RAFAEL AUGUSTO VILCHIS GIOIA FRANCESCA DEUCHER VILLANUEVA GIOVANNA VIRGILIO PATRICIA ANN VISSCHER SHARLA MARIE VIZCARRA RACHEL MARIE VOCKEROTH NADINE VOGT NICOLE BARBARA FERRIER VOITH STEPHAN GERHARD VOLIO JULIAN VOLLEY AXEL WERNER VOLLMER SEBASTIAN RALF VON DER SCHULENBURG FELICIA FREDERICA VON EUW NANCY VERNA VRBENSKY CYNTHIA MAY WACHTER-BODENSTEIN MARIA CHRISTINA WADY KATHRYN MAY WAEBER SABINE WAGSTAFF DAVID IAN WAHLBACK PETER RICHARD WAKEMAN JEFFREY ANDREW WAKEMAN OLGA WALDNER DAVID JOSEPH WALDSTEIN-WARTENBERG NICOLETTE ALICE WALFISH SHLOMO DAVID WALKER CHARLES TERRENCE WALKER GAY PARSONS WALKER JACQUELINE TALIA WALKER SCOTT BRADLEY WALL ANN MARIE WALL HENRY BENJAMIN WALLER JOAN RUTH WALSH NICHOLAS MATTHEW WALSH SUZETTE MARIE WANG ALVIN TSAIHSIANG WANG ANN-JIUN WANG ARTHUR X WANG BIN WANG DAVID WANG EDMOND WANG HUA FENG WANG JIMMY B WANG QINGGANG WANG SAMUEL SHAO-EN WANG YAJUN WANGSAWIDJAJA EILIEN WANTO GRACE WARDWELL DOROTHEA WARREN KEVIN MARION WILLIAM WASSMER MARTINA LINDA WASSMER PETER J WATCHUS-LANDIN MINERVA SIERRA WATKINS TRACEY L WATTS SETH ROBERT WEBER IEITH WILLIAM WEBER-FROBOESE IRENE M WEEKS JONI KAY WEEKS SUZANNE ELIZABETH WEIL BETTY MOLLY WEISS RICHARD WEITZ DANIEL SHEA MASTERSON WELLBELOVED LORELEI DIAN WELTER SALLY WEN ZHONG WENER SARAH WENG MICHAEL CHIA-TE WENNBERG INGA ELIZABETH WERNER LISE MARIE WEST ANTHONY PAUL WHALEN DIANA CAROLINE WHEATLEY SIMON CHARLES WHEELER MELANIE ANN WHETTER CHRISTINE RAE WHITE ANDREA LOUISE WHITE JUDITH ANNABELLE WHITE KATHERINE EVE WHITE LAURA ELIZABETH WHITE TYLER JAMES WIDERMAN JANE NANCY WIDMER STEPHAN WIENS CHERYL LYNN WIESENTHAL JOSHUA DANIEL WILHELM JANE ELISABETH WILLEMS THILO MARTIJN WILLIAMS RACHEL CARON WILLIAMS VICTORIA ROSE WILSON ALICE PO WILTSCHUT JOHN WINAND YVONNE LESLEY WINGERT CLARENCE JOHN WINGET CATHERINE GWEN WINSOR INA GAIL BLITZ WINTER AJKE NAOMI WINTER-DESCHAMPS SABINE CHRISTIANE WOGSBERG LA VERIA HATTIE WOLFE THOMAS WILLIAM WOLKEN GEORGE MATHEW WOLLEB ALFRED WONG CLAUDIA WONG WEI HENG BRYAN WOO LAWRENCE HING-KEUNG WOO TIFFANY TAK YUNN WOOD SCARLETT BURWELL WOODCOCK LINDA MARIE WORKUM JESSICA DORIS WRIGHT PATRICK LEE WRIGLEY KEVIN JOSEPH WU DENNIS WU SHU MEI WU YIO YING WUERMLI KAREN POTTER WYDER MARIAN LEONIE XU YING XU ZHIHAN XUEREB JOSEPHINE YAFFE DEBORAH RACHEL YAMAKI HIROSHI YAMAKI TOMOKO YANG CHIEH KAI YAO TIFFANY LU YAP KAH YEE YARISAL LENORE THERESA YEE HOWARD HO WAN YENNY FRANCOIS JACQUES YEO SAMANTHA KE WEN YETERIAN CHARLES YOO CHORONG YOUNESS AMRE ABDELHAMID YOUNG CHARLENE KATHARINE YOUNG JOHATHAN HOLMAN YOW RYAN YU ARTHUR YUNG LIN YU RANDY YUEN PETER CHARLES YUZAWA HIDEKO YUZAWA MUNEYASU ZACHARIAH LOIS CATHERINE ZAHEDIVASH FARIBA ZAHID FAISAL M ZAININGER LOUISA MARLEN ZALSMAN BARUCH NERI ZAPHIRIOU-ZARIFI HEBA JADE ZAVADIL ANNE DESIREE ZEASER DONALD BRUCE ZEE JENNIFER ZEHNDER BRANDON DILLON ZHAI JIANPING ZHANG JING zhang yuhong ZHANG ZISHU ZHU XUPING ZIADEH NEDA BASSEM ZIMMERLI-NING MAY KERMAI ZOBEL JILL ANNE ZOBELL MICHELE THOMSON ZUECKER NICHOLAS WERNER ZUKER GENEVIEVE LORRY ZURBRIGGEN LEA REBECCA ZURBRUEGG MARK ANDRE ZWEIFEL PATRICIA ERIKA Date: July 24, 2017. Maureen Manieri, Manager Classification Team 82413, Examinations Operations—Philadelphia Compliance Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16318 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning certain transfers of property to Regulated Investment Companies (RICs) and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs).

    DATES:

    Written comments should be received on or before October 2, 2017 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Certain Transfers of Property to Regulated Investment Companies (RICs) and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs).

    OMB Number: 1545-1672.

    Regulation Project Number: T.D. 9047.

    Abstract: The regulation applies with respect to the net built-in gain of C corporation property that becomes property of a Regulated Investment Company (RIC) or Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) by the qualification of a C corporation as a RIC or REIT or by the transfer of property of a C corporation to a RIC or REIT in certain tax-free transactions. Depending on the date of the transfer of property or qualification as a RIC or REIT, the regulation provides that either (1) the C corporation will recognize gain as if it had sold the property at fair market value unless the RIC or REIT elects section 1374 treatment or (2) the RIC or REIT will be subject to section 1374 treatment with respect to the net recognized built-in-gain, unless the C corporation elects deemed sale treatment. The regulation provides that a section 1374 election is made by filing a statement, signed by an official authorized to sign the income tax return of the RIC or REIT and attached to the RIC's or REIT's Federal income tax return for the taxable year in which the property of the C corporation becomes the property of the RIC or REIT. The regulation provides that a deemed sale election is made by filing a statement, signed by an official authorized to sign the income tax return of the C corporation and attached to the C corporation's Federal income tax return for the taxable year in which the deemed sale occurs.

    Current Actions: There are no changes being made to this existing regulation.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 140.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 30 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 70.

    The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

    Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

    Approved: July 26, 2017. L. Brimmer, Senior Tax Analyst.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16306 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    82 148 Thursday, August 3, 2017 Notices Part II Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration Proposed Exemptions From Certain Prohibited Transaction Restrictions; Notice DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration Proposed Exemptions From Certain Prohibited Transaction Restrictions AGENCY:

    Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Proposed Exemptions.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains notices of pendency before the Department of Labor (the Department) of proposed exemptions from certain of the prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or the Act) and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code). If granted, these proposed exemptions allow designated parties to engage in transactions that would otherwise be prohibited provided the conditions stated there in are met. This notice includes the following proposed exemptions: D-11869, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company; and D-11916, Russell Investment Management, LLC (RIM), Russell Investments Capital, LLC (RICap), and their Affiliates.

    DATES:

    All interested persons are invited to submit written comments or requests for a hearing on the pending exemptions, unless otherwise stated in the Notice of Proposed Exemption, within 45 days from the date of publication of this Federal Register Notice.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments and requests for a hearing should state: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the person making the comment or request, and (2) the nature of the person's interest in the exemption and the manner in which the person would be adversely affected by the exemption. A request for a hearing must also state the issues to be addressed and include a general description of the evidence to be presented at the hearing.

    All written comments and requests for a hearing (at least three copies) should be sent via mail to the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Office of Exemption Determinations, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20210. Attention: Application No. ___, stated in each Notice of Proposed Exemption or via private delivery service or courier to the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Office of Exemption Determinations, U.S. Department of Labor, 122 C St. NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20001. Attention: Application No. ___, stated in each Notice of Proposed Exemption. Interested persons are also invited to submit comments and/or hearing requests to EBSA via email or FAX. Any such comments or requests should be sent either by email to: [email protected], by FAX to (202) 693-8474, or online through http://www.regulations.gov by the end of the scheduled comment period. The applications for exemption and the comments received will be available for public inspection in the Public Documents Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-1515, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.

    Warning: All comments will be made available to the public. Do not include any personally identifiable information (such as Social Security number, name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments may be posted on the Internet and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice To Interested Persons

    Notice of the proposed exemptions will be provided to all interested persons in the manner agreed upon by the applicant and the Department within 15 days of the date of publication in the Federal Register. Such notice shall include a copy of the notice of proposed exemption as published in the Federal Register and shall inform interested persons of their right to comment and to request a hearing (where appropriate).

    The proposed exemptions were requested in applications filed pursuant to section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011).1 Effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type requested to the Secretary of Labor. Therefore, these notices of proposed exemption are issued solely by the Department.

    1 The Department has considered exemption applications received prior to December 27, 2011 under the exemption procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990).

    The applications contain representations with regard to the proposed exemptions which are summarized below. Interested persons are referred to the applications on file with the Department for a complete statement of the facts and representations.

    Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual or the Applicant) Located in Boston, MA [Application No. D-11869] Proposed Exemption

    The Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of 29 U.S.C. 1108 (section 408(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA or the Act)) and 26 U.S.C. 4975(c)(2) (section 4975(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code)), and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011).2 Effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type requested to the Secretary of Labor. Therefore, this notice of proposed exemption is issued solely by the Department. If the proposed exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A), 406(a)(1)(B), and 406(a)(1)(D) of ERISA and the sanctions resulting from the application of sections 4975(a) and 4975(b) of the Code, by reason of sections 4975(c)(1)(A), 4975(c)(1)(B), and 4975(c)(1)(D) of the Code, shall not apply to a transaction between a party in interest with respect to an employee benefit plan sponsored by Liberty Mutual or its affiliates (the Liberty Mutual