Federal Register Vol. 82, No.154,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 154 (August 11, 2017)

Page Range37511-37804
FR Document

82_FR_154
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 37617 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
82 FR 37626 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 37592 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 37583 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 37579 - Reopening; Applications for New Awards; Personnel Development To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities-Early Childhood Personnel CenterPDF
82 FR 37589 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 37611 - Luis C B Gomez, D.D.S. Decision and OrderPDF
82 FR 37651 - SMS Rail Service, Inc.-Abandonment Exemption-in Gloucester County, N.J.PDF
82 FR 37587 - Privacy Act of 1974; Matching ProgramPDF
82 FR 37590 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
82 FR 37591 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding CompaniesPDF
82 FR 37591 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
82 FR 37577 - Procurement List: Proposed DeletionsPDF
82 FR 37578 - Procurement List: Additions and DeletionsPDF
82 FR 37517 - Great Lakes-Regulated Navigation Areas and Safety ZonesPDF
82 FR 37563 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017PDF
82 FR 37565 - Certain Uncoated Paper From Indonesia: Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2017PDF
82 FR 37564 - Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances ReviewPDF
82 FR 37515 - Safety Zone; Demolition of SC-41 Bridge, Wando River, Charleston, SCPDF
82 FR 37562 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017PDF
82 FR 37650 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB ReviewPDF
82 FR 37566 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Exempted Fishing PermitsPDF
82 FR 37575 - Marine Conservation Plan for Pacific Insular Areas Other Than American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands; Western Pacific Sustainable Fisheries FundPDF
82 FR 37545 - Public Availability of Government Accountability Office RecordsPDF
82 FR 37574 - Marine Mammals; File No. 21158PDF
82 FR 37512 - Occupational Radiation ProtectionPDF
82 FR 37546 - Restrictions on the Importation of Fresh Pork and Pork Products From a Region in MexicoPDF
82 FR 37593 - Health Insurance Marketplace SMPDF
82 FR 37616 - Meeting of the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review BoardPDF
82 FR 37557 - Availability of an Environmental Assessment for Field Testing of a Vaccine for Use Against Canine LymphomaPDF
82 FR 37602 - Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the Morro Shoulderband Snail; Rothman Parcel, Community of Los Osos, San Luis Obispo County, CaliforniaPDF
82 FR 37578 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Health Education Assistance Loan (HEAL) Program: Lender's Application for Insurance Claim Form and Request for Collection Assistance FormPDF
82 FR 37520 - Safety Zone; Cleveland National Air Show, Cleveland, OHPDF
82 FR 37617 - Civil Service Retirement System Board of Actuaries MeetingPDF
82 FR 37613 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection, eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Previously Approved Collection ARCOS Transaction Reporting; DEA Form 333PDF
82 FR 37612 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Existing Collection in Use Without OMB Control Number Address Verification/Change Request Form (1-797)PDF
82 FR 37652 - Generalized System of Preferences (GSP): Initiation of the 2017 Annual GSP Product and Country Practices Review; Deadlines for Filing Petitions; Notice of Change in Country Practices HearingPDF
82 FR 37614 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New Collection; Submission for Review: Electronic Submission Form for Requests for Corrective Action, Whistleblower Protection for Federal Bureau of Investigation EmployeesPDF
82 FR 37615 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection: Annual Parole Survey, Annual Probation Survey, and Annual Probation Survey (Short Form)PDF
82 FR 37614 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Reinstatement, With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection for Which Approval Has Expired: National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2017-2018PDF
82 FR 37586 - Privacy Act of 1974; Matching ProgramPDF
82 FR 37582 - White Pine Waterpower, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing ApplicationsPDF
82 FR 37580 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-717); Comment Request; Revision and ExtensionPDF
82 FR 37581 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
82 FR 37582 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 37651 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of ArizonaPDF
82 FR 37649 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of IowaPDF
82 FR 37650 - National Small Business Development Centers Advisory BoardPDF
82 FR 37597 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 37598 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 37596 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 37603 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Receipt of Applications for PermitPDF
82 FR 37511 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International MAGNASTOR® Cask System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 7PDF
82 FR 37591 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Master Plan for the Consolidation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Headquarters at the Federal Research Center at White Oak, Located in Silver Spring, MDPDF
82 FR 37559 - Southwest Mississippi Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 37559 - Nevada and Placer Counties Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 37558 - Notice of Proposed New Fee SitesPDF
82 FR 37576 - Patent Examiner Employment ApplicationPDF
82 FR 37560 - Newspapers Used for Publication of Legal Notices by the Intermountain Region; Utah, Idaho, Nevada, and WyomingPDF
82 FR 37561 - Northern New Mexico Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 37561 - Ozark-Ouachita Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 37558 - Nevada and Placer Counties Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 37617 - New Postal ProductsPDF
82 FR 37574 - Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Post Data-Workshop Webinar Gulf of Mexico Gray Snapper; Public MeetingsPDF
82 FR 37588 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
82 FR 37647 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 6.49, C2 Trade Match SystemPDF
82 FR 37645 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use on Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.PDF
82 FR 37625 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change in Connection With the September 5, 2017 Compliance Date for the Shortening of the Standard Settlement Cycle From Three Business Days After the Trade Date to Two Business Days After the Trade DatePDF
82 FR 37618 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MIAX PEARL Rules 504, Trading Halts, and 521, Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions Including Obvious ErrorsPDF
82 FR 37639 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Chapter V, Section 6, Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions Including Obvious ErrorsPDF
82 FR 37627 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 720, Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions Including Obvious ErrorsPDF
82 FR 37633 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MIAX Options Rules 504, Trading Halts, and 521, Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions Including Obvious ErrorsPDF
82 FR 37616 - Proposal Review Panel for Computing and Communication Foundations; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 37610 - Advisory Committees on the Federal Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, and Criminal Procedure, and the Federal Rules of Evidence; Hearings on Proposed Amendments to the Appellate, Bankruptcy, Criminal, and Evidence Rules, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, and the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District CourtsPDF
82 FR 37595 - Office of the Secretary; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 37595 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 37651 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of WyomingPDF
82 FR 37610 - Ripe Olives From SpainPDF
82 FR 37604 - Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation ProjectsPDF
82 FR 37589 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
82 FR 37589 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
82 FR 37617 - Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978PDF
82 FR 37609 - Land Acquisitions; The Cherokee NationPDF
82 FR 37514 - Establishment of Class E Airspace, Hawthorne, NVPDF
82 FR 37555 - Evaluation of Existing RegulationsPDF
82 FR 37583 - Public Notice of State of Idaho National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program Submission for EPA ApprovalPDF
82 FR 37554 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
82 FR 37546 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
82 FR 37549 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
82 FR 37656 - Amendments to Federal Mortgage Disclosure Requirements Under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z)PDF
82 FR 37794 - Amendments to Federal Mortgage Disclosure Requirements Under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z)PDF
82 FR 37520 - TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) RequirementsPDF

Issue

82 154 Friday, August 11, 2017 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Forest Service

Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service PROPOSED RULES Restrictions on Importation of Fresh Pork and Pork Products From Region in Mexico, 37546 2017-16980 NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Field Testing of a Vaccine for Use Against Canine Lymphoma, 37557-37558 2017-16977 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection RULES Federal Mortgage Disclosure Requirements Under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z), 37656-37793 2017-15764 PROPOSED RULES Federal Mortgage Disclosure Requirements Under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z), 37794-37804 2017-15763 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37592-37593 2017-17020 Meetings: Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education, 37593-37595 2017-16979 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Regulated Navigation Areas and Safety Zones: Great Lakes, 37517-37520 2017-16997 Safety Zones: Cleveland National Air Show, Cleveland, OH, 37520 2017-16973 Demolition of SC-41 Bridge, Wando River, Charleston, SC, 37515-37517 2017-16993 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

Patent and Trademark Office

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 37577-37578 2017-16999 2017-17000 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Decisions and Orders: Luis CB Gomez, D.D.S., 37611-37612 2017-17011 Education Department Education Department PROPOSED RULES Evaluation of Existing Regulations, 37555-37556 2017-16876 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Health Education Assistance Loan Program—Lender's Application for Insurance Claim Form and Request for Collection Assistance Form, 37578-37579 2017-16974 Applications for New Awards: Personnel Development To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities-Early Childhood Personnel Center, 37579-37580 2017-17014 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

RULES Occupational Radiation Protection, 37512-37514 2017-16983
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Toxic Substances Control Act Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements, 37520-37544 2017-15736 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Weekly Receipts, 37583 2017-17018 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: Idaho Program Submission for EPA Approval, 37583-37586 2017-16822 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Establishment of Class E Airspace: Hawthorne, NV, 37514-37515 2017-16896 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: The Boeing Company Airplanes, 37546-37555 2017-16357 2017-16358 2017-16775 Federal Bureau Federal Bureau of Investigation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Address Verification/Change Request Form, 37612-37613 2017-16969 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37588-37589 2017-16932 Privacy Act; Matching Programs, 37586-37588 2017-16963 2017-17006 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Flood Hazard Determinations, 37597-37598 2017-16952 Flood Hazard Determinations; Changes, 37598-37601 2017-16951 Flood Hazard Determinations; Proposals, 37596-37597 2017-16948 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37580-37581 2017-16959 Combined Filings, 37581-37583 2017-16957 2017-16958 Preliminary Permit Applications: White Pine Waterpower, LLC, 37582 2017-16960 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37589-37590 2017-17012 Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Companies, 37589 2017-16909 Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 37590-37591 2017-17003 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 37589, 37591 2017-16908 2017-17001 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies, 37591 2017-17002 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Species: Receipt of Applications for Permit, 37603-37604 2017-16947 Incidental Take Permit; Applications: Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the Morro Shoulderband Snail; Rothman Parcel, Community of Los Osos, San Luis Obispo County, CA, 37602-37603 2017-16976 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Nevada and Placer Counties Resource Advisory Committee, 37558-37560 2017-16936 2017-16942 Northern New Mexico Resource Advisory Committee, 37561 2017-16938 Ozark-Ouachita Resource Advisory Committee, 37561-37562 2017-16937 Southwest Mississippi Resource Advisory Committee, 37559 2017-16943 New Fee Sites, 37558 2017-16941 Newspapers Used for Publication of Legal Notices by the Intermountain Region: Utah, Idaho, Nevada, and Wyoming, 37560-37561 2017-16939 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Proposed Master Plan for the Consolidation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Headquarters at the Federal Research Center at White Oak, Silver Spring, MD, 37591-37592 2017-16945 Government Accountability Government Accountability Office PROPOSED RULES Government Accountability Office Records, 37545-37546 2017-16986 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Land Acquisitions: The Cherokee Nation, 37609-37610 2017-16906 Rate Adjustments: Indian Irrigation Projects, 37604-37609 2017-16910 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand, 37562-37563 2017-16992 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 37563-37564 2017-16996 Certain Uncoated Paper From Indonesia, 37565-37566 2017-16995 Glycine From the People's Republic of China, 37564-37565 2017-16994 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Ripe Olives From Spain, 37610 2017-16911 Judicial Conference Judicial Conference of the United States NOTICES Hearings: Advisory Committees on the Federal Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, and Criminal Procedure, and the Federal Rules of Evidence, 37610-37611 2017-16916 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

See

Federal Bureau of Investigation

See

Justice Programs Office

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Annual Parole Survey, Annual Probation Survey, and Annual Probation Survey (Short Form), 37615-37616 2017-16965 ARCOS Transaction Reporting, 37613-37614 2017-16971 Electronic Submission Form for Requests for Corrective Action, Whistleblower Protection for Federal Bureau of Investigation Employees, 37614-37615 2017-16966 National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2017-2018, 37614 2017-16964
Justice Programs Justice Programs Office NOTICES Meetings: Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review Board, 37616 2017-16978 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 37595 2017-16914 Muscular Dystrophy Coordinating Committee, 37595-37596 2017-16915 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Exempted Fishing Permits, 37566-37574 2017-16990 Marine Conservation Plans: Pacific Insular Areas Other Than American Samoa, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands; Western Pacific Sustainable Fisheries Fund, 37575-37576 2017-16988 Meetings: Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review; Post Data-Workshop Webinar Gulf of Mexico Gray Snapper, 37574-37575 2017-16933 Permits: Marine Mammals; File No. 21158, 37574 2017-16985 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Antarctic Conservation Act Permits, 37617 2017-16907 Meetings: Proposal Review Panel for Computing and Communication Foundations, 37616 2017-16918 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International MAGNASTOR Cask System, 37511 2017-16946 NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 37617 2017-17158 Patent Patent and Trademark Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Patent Examiner Employment Application, 37576-37577 2017-16940 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Meetings: Civil Service Retirement System Board of Actuaries, 37617 2017-16972 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 37617-37618 2017-16935 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 37626-37627 2017-17070 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., 37645-37647 2017-16929 C2 Options Exchange, Inc., 37647-37649 2017-16930 Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, 37633-37639 2017-16924 MIAX PEARL, LLC, 37618-37625 2017-16927 Nasdaq ISE, LLC, 37627-37633 2017-16925 NYSE Arca, Inc., 37625-37626 2017-16928 The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 37639-37645 2017-16926 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37650-37651 2017-16989 2017-16991 Disaster Declarations: Arizona, 37651 2017-16956 Iowa, 37649-37650 2017-16955 Wyoming, 37651 2017-16913 Meetings: National Small Business Development Centers Advisory Board, 37650 2017-16954 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Abandonment Exemptions: SMS Rail Service, Inc., Gloucester County, N.J., 37651-37652 2017-17007 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES Public Hearings: Initiation of the 2017 Annual Generalized System of Preferences Product and Country Practices Review; Deadlines for Filing Petitions, 37652-37654 2017-16967 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 37656-37804 2017-15764 2017-15763 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.

82 154 Friday, August 11, 2017 Rules and Regulations NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 [NRC-2017-0008] RIN 3150-AJ89 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International MAGNASTOR® Cask System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 7 AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is confirming the effective date of August 21, 2017, for the direct final rule that was published in the Federal Register on June 6, 2017. The direct final rule amended the NRC's spent fuel storage regulations by revising the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 7 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1031 for the NAC International, MAGNASTOR® Cask System.

DATES:

Effective Date: The effective date of August 21, 2017, for the direct final rule published June 6, 2017 (82 FR 25931), is confirmed.

ADDRESSES:

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0008 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-2017-0008. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Keith McDaniel, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5252; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On June 6, 2017 (82 FR 25931), the NRC published a direct final rule amending § 72.214 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations by revising the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 7 to CoC No. 1031 for the NAC International, MAGNASTOR® Cask System. Amendment No. 7 provides a new Passive MAGNASTOR® Transfer Cask and associated Technical Specification (TS) changes in Appendices A and B (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML16295A248 and ML16295A252), and updates Section 4.3.1(i) in Appendix A of the TSs to include revised seismic requirements. Clarifying (non-technical) changes were also made to Appendices A and B.

In the direct final rule, the NRC stated that if no significant adverse comments were received, the direct final rule would become effective on August 21, 2017. As described more fully in the direct final rule, a significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change.

One comment on the direct final rule was submitted to Regulations.gov, however, the comment did not raise information related to this CoC and therefore was not posted. Because no significant adverse comments were received, the direct final rule will become effective as scheduled.

During the comment period for the direct final rule, the NRC identified missing change bars and formatting inconsistencies. Additionally, the NRC identified errors and omissions of text in the draft CoC and TSs associated with Amendment No. 7. In Appendix A, a number was accidently changed from 7 to 0 hours, in the table “PWR [Pressurized Water Reactor] TSC [Transportable Storage Canister] Transfer Using MTC [MAGNASTOR® Transfer Cask] Reduced Helium Backfill Time.” In Appendix B, footnote 3 omitted text; the footnote should read “0.4 years for RCC [Reactor Control Components] in the PMTC [Passive MAGNASTOR® Transfer Cask] (reduced storage location heat load). For all other cask types, 0.2 years for RCC with 10-year minimum cool time.” Additionally, the description of the PMTC was inadvertently omitted from the CoC. The NRC evaluated the figures and information provided in NAC's applications and presented its findings in Safety Evaluation Reports (SERs) (see Table 1, section 4.0 of the SER for Amendment 4 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15107A472) and sections 5.7 and 5.13 of the current SER (ADAMS Accession No. ML16295A258)), but the published draft CoC and TSs were in error. The administrative errors have been corrected in the final CoC and TSs. The final CoC, TSs, and SER for Amendment No. 7 for the MAGNASTOR® storage system can be viewed in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17013A466.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of August 2017.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Helen Chang, Acting Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017-16946 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 835 [AU-RM-16-ORP] RIN 1992-AA51 Occupational Radiation Protection AGENCY:

Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security, U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is publishing a final rule to amend values listed in two appendices to its current occupational radiation protection regulation. The amendment to appendix C corrects the air immersion derived air concentration value for any single radionuclide not listed in the appendix C table with a decay mode other than alpha emission or spontaneous fission and with radioactive half-life less than two hours, adjusted for an 8-hr work day. The amendments to appendix E correct the activity information of two radionuclides, Rh-102 and Rh-102m.

DATES:

This rule is effective September 11, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Dillard, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security, Mailstop AU-11, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: 301-903-1165. Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. Discussion of Amendments A. Appendix C—Derived Air Concentration (DAC) for Workers From External Exposure During Immersion in a Cloud of Airborne Radioactive Material B. Appendix E—Values for Establishing Sealed Radioactive Source Accountability and Radioactive Material Posting and Labeling Requirements III. Procedural Requirements A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act E. Review Under Executive Order 12988 F. Review Under Executive Order 13132 G. Review Under Executive Order 13175 H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 I. Review Under Executive Order 13211 J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 L. Congressional Notification IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary Appendix to the Preamble—References I. Background

The requirements in title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, part 835 (10 CFR part 835), Occupational Radiation Protection, are designed to protect the health and safety of individuals from ionizing radiation resulting from the conduct of U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) activities. One situation that DOE's regulations address is the exposure of workers to radioactive material dispersed in the air. Based on calculations involving doses to the organs of the body, levels of contamination in the air that will not cause the dose limits for workers to be exceeded are established for specified radionuclides. These values are provided in appendix C of part 835. On April 13, 2011, the Department published updated Derived Air Concentration (DAC) values in appendix C for determining radiation dose from inhaled radioactive material (76 FR 20489). The updated dose conversion factors were determined using International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 68 (ref. 1) effective dose rates for an 8-hour exposure period, instead of the previously assumed 24-hour calendar day exposure, which is consistent with other occupational scenarios, such as those used in developing appendix A DACs. The values were then rounded down to the nearest power of 10. In that update, the DAC values for radionuclides not listed in the appendix C table with a decay mode other than alpha emission or spontaneous fission and with radioactive half-life less than two hours were inadvertently not revised for the 8 hour work day exposure time. The amendment to appendix C provides the correct DAC values for this group of radioactive materials.

Title 10 CFR part 835 appendix E values were developed to ensure the proper accountability of sealed radioactive sources, as well as radioactive material posting and labeling requirements (63 FR 59662, November 4, 1998). DOE most recently amended the values of appendix E to part 835 on June 8, 2007 (72 FR 31904), using the ICRP Publication 60 methodology (ref. 1) and the same exposure scenarios discussed in a 1998 amendment to 10 CFR part 835 (63 FR 59662, November 4, 1998). The values were based on the more limiting of the quantity of radioactive material which results in either an external or internal whole body dose, from either inhalation or ingestion, of 100 millirems. However, the final rule incorrectly listed values for two radionuclides. This amendment to appendix E provides the correct activity values for these two radionuclides (Rh-102 and Rh-102m), calculated from internal exposure scenario derived from ICRP Publication 119 (ref. 2).

II. Discussion of Amendments

This section of the Supplementary Information responds to significant comments on the proposed amendments. All substantive changes from the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) are explained in this section.

DOE has determined that the requirements set forth in this final rule are those which, based on currently available data, are necessary to protect the health and safety of individuals from ionizing radiation resulting from the conduct of activities at DOE sites.

A. Appendix C—Derived Air Concentration (DAC) for Workers From External Exposure During Immersion in a Cloud of Airborne Radioactive Material. The amendment provides a correction to the derived air concentration value for any single radionuclide not listed in the Appendix C table with a decay mode other than alpha emission or spontaneous fission and with radioactive half-life less than two hours to 1E-06 μCi/mL (7E+04 Bq/m3). DOE did not receive any comments on the proposed amendment to this appendix, which remains unchanged in the final rule.

B. Appendix E—Values for Establishing Sealed Radioactive Source Accountability and Radioactive Material Posting and Labeling Requirements. The amendment corrects the activity for Rh-102 to 6.4E+05 μCi and the activity from Rh-102m to 3.0E+05 μCi. DOE did not receive any comments on the proposed amendment to this appendix, which remains unchanged in the final rule.

III. Procedural Requirements A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

This regulatory action has been determined to be “not significant” under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under that Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires that a Federal agency prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any regulation for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking is required, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 605(b)).

This rule updates DOE requirements for nuclear safety and occupational radiation protection at DOE sites. The requirements of part 835 are primarily implemented by contractors who conduct work at DOE facilities. DOE considered whether these contractors are “small businesses” as the term is defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601(3)). The Regulatory Flexibility Act's definition incorporates the definition of small business concerns in the Small Business Act, which the Small Business Administration (SBA) has developed through size standards in 13 CFR part 121. DOE expects that any potential economic impact of this rule would be negligible because DOE activities are conducted by contractors who are reimbursed through their contracts with DOE for the costs of complying with DOE nuclear safety and radiation protection requirements, including the costs of complying with the rule. For these reasons, DOE certifies that this rule, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared. DOE's certification and supporting statement of factual basis will be provided to the Chief Counsel of Advocacy of the SBA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not impose a collection of information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

DOE has concluded that this rule falls into a class of actions that will not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the human environment, as determined by DOE's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Specifically, this rule amends existing regulations without changing the potential environmental effect of the regulations being amended, and, therefore, is covered under the Categorical Exclusion in paragraph A5 of appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 12988

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, to be given to the regulation; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, to be given to the regulation; (5) defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of the standards. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. DOE has examined this rule and has determined that it will not preempt State law and will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

G. Review Under Executive Order 13175

Under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) on “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” DOE may not issue a discretionary rule that has “tribal” implications and imposes substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments. DOE has determined that the proposed rule will not have such effects and concluded that Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule.

H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), 2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., requires each Federal agency to prepare a written assessment of the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency regulation that may result in the expenditure by states, tribal, or local governments, on the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million in any one year. The Act also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officials of state, tribal, or local governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity to provide timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. DOE has determined that the final rule published does not contain any Federal mandates affecting small governments, so these requirements do not apply.

I. Review Under Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the OMB a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. This regulatory action will not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy and is therefore not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any proposed rule that may affect family well-being. The rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB.

OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

L. Congressional Notification

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will submit to Congress a report regarding the issuance of this final rule prior to the effective date set forth at the outset of this notice. The report will state it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Appendix—References 1. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), 1994. Dose Coefficients for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers. ICRP Publication 68. Ann. ICRP 24 (4). 2. ICRP, 2012. Corrigenda to ICRP Publication 119: Compendium of Dose Coefficients based on ICRP Publication 60. Ann. ICRP 41(suppl.). IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 835

Federal buildings and facilities, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Nuclear safety, Occupational safety and health, Radiation protection, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 31, 2017. Andrew C. Lawrence, Acting Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Energy amends part 835 of chapter III of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 835—OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION PROTECTION 1. The authority citation for part 835 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 2201, 7191, 50 U.S.C. 2410.

Appendix C to Part 835—[Amended] 2. In appendix C, the sentence following the table is amended by removing “6 E-06 μCi/mL (2 E+04 Bq/m3)” and adding in its place “1 E-06 µCi/mL (7 E+04 Bq/m3)”. Appendix E to Part 835—[Amended] 3. In appendix E, the activity value is amended in the second column of the table for the following nuclides: a. For Rh-102, remove the value of “3.0E+05” and add in its place “6.4E+05”; and b. For Rh-102m, remove the value of “6.4E+05” and add in its place “3.0E+05”.
[FR Doc. 2017-16983 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0297; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-4] Establishment of Class E Airspace, Hawthorne, NV AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hawthorne Industrial Airport, Hawthorne, NV, to support the development of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations under standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport, for the safety of aircraft and management of airspace within the National Airspace System.

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 extending upward from 700 feet above the earth at Hawthorne Industrial Airport, Hawthorne, NV, for the safety of aircraft and management of airspace within the National Airspace System.

History

On May 1, 2017, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (82 FR 20290) Docket No. FAA-2017-0297 to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hawthorne Industrial Airport, Hawthorne, NV. 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 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 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 extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 3.6-mile radius of Hawthorne Industrial Airport, Hawthorne, NV, and within 2 miles either side of a curved line extending southeast to approximately 15 miles east of the airport. This airspace is necessary to support IFR operations in standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the 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 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 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AWP NV E5 Hawthorne, NV [New] Hawthorne Industrial Airport, NV (Lat. 38°32′42″ N., long. 118°37′57″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within 3.6 miles of the Hawthorne Industrial Airport and within 2 miles each side of a line extending from lat. 38°32′25″ N., long. 118°37′26″ W.; to lat. 38°28′43″ N., long. 118°27′48″ W.; to lat. 38°28′49″ N., long. 118°24′19″ W.; to lat. 38°32′06″ N., long. 118°18′07″ W.

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August 2, 2017. Byron Chew, Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-16896 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0348] RIN 1625-AA-00 Safety Zone; Demolition of SC-41 Bridge, Wando River, Charleston, SC AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of the Wando River within a 500-yard radius of SC-41 Bridge, vessels and machinery in Charleston, South Carolina. The safety zone is needed to ensure the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by demolition work on the SC-41 Bridge. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective without actual notice from August 11, 2017 until August 30, 2017. For purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from August 4, 2017 until August 11, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0348 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule call or email Lieutenant Justin Heck, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740-3184, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code OMB Office of Management and Budget II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because insufficient time remains to publish an NPRM and to receive public comments, as the bridge demolition will occur before the rulemaking process would be completed. The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by demolition work on the bridge. For those reasons, it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to publish an NPRM.

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to public interest because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the demolition work on the SC-41 Bridge.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Charleston has determined that potential hazards associated with the bridge demolition starting August 4, 2017 will be a safety concern for anyone within a 500-yard radius of the bridge, vessels, and machinery. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the demolition is in progress.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a safety zone on the waters of the Wando River in Charleston, South Carolina during the SC-41 bridge demolition. The demolition will have two separate demolitions between August 4, 2017 and August 30, 2017 which will be enforced for approximately six hours each. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 500 yards of the bridge, vessels, and machinery being used for the demolition of the SC-41 Bridge. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without obtaining permission from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See the OMB Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled ‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs’ ” (February 2, 2017).

The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone will only be enforced for a total of twelve hours; (2) although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; and (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within a limited area surrounding the SC-41 Bridge on the waters of the Wando River for two six hour periods. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Record of Environmental Consideration are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.

2. Add § 165.T07-0348 to read as follows:
§ 165.T07-0348 Safety Zone; Demolition of SC-41 Bridge, Wando River, Charleston, SC.

(a) Location. All waters of the Wando River encompassed within a 500-yard radius of SC-41 Bridge, vessels and machinery.

(b) Definition. The term “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated areas.

(c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

(2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

(d) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from August 4, 2017 through August 30, 2017, during demolition activity.

Dated: August 3, 2017. G.G. Stump, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
[FR Doc. 2017-16993 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0084] RIN 1625-AA00, AA11 Great Lakes—Regulated Navigation Areas and Safety Zones AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is amending its Great Lakes Regulated Navigation Areas to include one additional regulated navigation area in Green Bay, WI and safety zones in the Lake Erie Islands, OH and Saginaw Bay, MI. These zones will apply during the winter months and are necessary to protect waterway users, vessels, and mariners from hazards associated with winter conditions and navigation.

DATES:

This rule is effective September 11, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2015-0084 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Matthew Stroebel, Ninth District Coast Guard Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 216-902-6060, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register LCA Lake Carrier's Association NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

On May 22, 2015, the Coast Guard proposed a rule to establish three regulated navigation areas (RNA) and two safety zones in its Great Lakes area. These zones were intended to improve the safety of both recreational users and commercial shipping in high use areas. During the comment period that ended July 6, 2015, we received a total of 6 comments. We received one comment from the Lake Carriers' Association stating that it found the rule unnecessary and expressed concern that the rule will impede vessels' ability to respond quickly and creatively to winter conditions. The comment suggested that COTP Orders specifically tailored to existing and forecasted conditions is a better way to respond to hazardous ice conditions. We agree that in Maumee Bay and the Straits of Mackinac, COTP orders can be used instead of an RNA since safety issues occur less frequently in these areas. Our determination is that in Green Bay an RNA is necessary due to the high concentration of recreational users and expected increased commercial vessel traffic in the zone.

Based on the comments received regarding the May 22, 2015 NPRM, we amended the proposed rule and issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) on April 21, 2017. This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking retracts the Coast Guard's proposals to create new regulated navigation areas in Maumee Bay and the Straits of Mackinac in accordance with the feedback received from the Lake Carriers Association. We also retracted our proposal to re-designate three existing regulated navigation areas as safety zones. Instead, this rulemaking proposed to add two safety zones in the Lake Erie Islands and Saginaw Bay to protect recreational ice users. We also proposed to add one regulated navigation area in Green Bay to manage increased commercial traffic in an area that typically experiences high volumes of recreational use.

We received one comment from the Lake Carriers Association (LCA). As a result of the LCA's comment to the original NPRM we modified the rule to not include zones in Maumee Bay or the Straits of Mackinac. LCA commented that zones in those locations would be detrimental to industry. In response to the SNPRM, LCA engaged with their member corporations and did not receive any feedback opposing the addition of a regulated navigation area in Green Bay.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The District Commander has determined that there are potential hazards associated with commercial shipping traffic in close vicinity to recreational ice use. These areas attract recreational ice users during the winter months. Vessel traffic would disrupt ice integrity in these areas and pose risks to these recreational waterway users, which may include people and vehicles falling through the ice. To mitigate these risks, the Coast Guard is establishing safety zones and a regulated navigation area.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

As noted above, we received one comment on our SNPRM published April 21, 2017. This comment was not in opposition to the rule. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the SNPRM.

This rule establishes two safety zones, one in Saginaw Bay, MI, and the other in the Lake Erie Islands, OH. The safety zones will be activated when ice conditions warrant and will be deactivated when the ice dissipates in the spring. During the time the safety zones are active, vessels will not be permitted to transit through the zones which will protect recreational ice users from the dangers associated with icebreaking.

This rule also establishes a regulated navigation area in southern Green Bay, WI. This RNA will allow the Coast Guard to regulate when commercial traffic is permitted in southern Green Bay and will give the public a minimum of 72 hours notice before a vessel is permitted to transit the area. This will best manage the risks associated with recreational ice users and vessels operating in Southern Green Bay.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

The proposed amendments involve closure areas and a vessel management area, designed to be implemented only during winter months, as ice conditions dictate. As to the impact of the closure area on Lake Erie near the South Channel and the Lake Erie Islands, OH, the Coast Guard notes that industry vessels have taken alternative routes bypassing the Lake Erie Islands when recreational ice users are present. The Coast Guard anticipates the same practice when this area is closed. Further, regarding the closure area on the waters of Lake Huron in Saginaw Bay, Michigan, the Coast Guard anticipates closing Saginaw Bay after giving due consideration to industry's need to traverse the area. Moreover, under certain circumstances, the Coast Guard may permit vessel traffic to transit the closure areas. Regarding the regulated navigation area in Green Bay, it is designed to regulate the conditions of vessel transit for safety. Overall, we expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be minimal and that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.

B. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order13132.

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves amendments to navigation regulations and establishment of a safety zones. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Revise § 165.901 to read as follows:
§  165.901 Great Lakes—regulated navigation areas and safety zones.

(a) The following are regulated navigation areas:

(1) Lake Huron. (i) The waters of Lake Huron known as South Channel between Bois Blanc Island and Cheboygan, Michigan; bounded by a line north from Cheboygan Crib Light (LL-1340) at 45°39′48″ N., 84°27′36″ W.; to Bois Blanc Island at 45°43′42″ N., 84°27′36″ W.; and a line north from the mainland at 45°43′00″ N., 84°35′30″ W; to the western tangent of Bois Blanc Island at 45°48′42″ N., 84°35′30″ W.

(ii) The waters of Lake Huron between Mackinac Island and St. Ignace, Michigan, bounded by a line east from position 45°52′12″ N., 84°43′00″ W.; to Mackinac Island at 45°52′12″ N., 84°39′00″ W.; and a line east from the mainland at 45°53′12″ N., 84°43′30″ W.; to the northern tangent of Mackinac Island at 45°53′12″ N., 84°38′48″ W.

(2) Lake Michigan. (i) The waters of Lake Michigan known as Gray's Reef Passage bounded by a line from Gray's Reef Light (LL-2006) at 45°46′00″ N., 85°09′12″ W.; to White Shoals Light (LL-2003) at 45°50′30″ N., 85°08′06″ W.; to a point at 45°49′12″ N., 85°04′48″ W.; then to a point at 45°45′42″ N., 85°08′42″ W.; then to the point of beginning.

(ii) The waters of Lake Michigan known as Green Bay from Rock Island Passage or Porte Des Morts Passage north to Escanaba Light at 45°44′48″ N., 087°02′14″ W.; south to the Fox River Entrance at 44°32′22″ N., 088°00′19″ W., to the Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal from Sherwood Point Light at 44°53′34″ N., 087°26′00″ W.; to Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal Light at 44°47′42″ N., 087°18′48″ W.; and then to the point of beginning.

(b) Regulations:

(1) In the RNAs under paragraph (a) of this section, the District Commander or respective COTP may issue orders to control vessel traffic for reasons which include but are not limited to: Channel obstructions, winter navigation, unusual weather conditions, or unusual water levels. Prior to issuing these orders, the District Commander or respective COTP will provide advance notice as reasonably practicable under the circumstances. The respective COTP may close and open these regulated navigation areas as ice conditions dictate.

(2) Prior to the closing or opening of the regulated navigation areas, the COTP will give interested parties, including both shipping interests and island residents, not less than 72 hours notice of the action. This notice will be given through Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, and press releases to the media (radio, print and television), local COTP will ensure widest dissemination. No vessel may navigate in a regulated navigation area which has been closed by the COTP. The general regulations in 33 CFR 165.13 apply. The District Commander or respective COTP retains the discretion to authorize vessels to operate outside of issued orders.

(c) The following are safety zones:

(1) Lake Erie. The area known as the Lake Erie Islands which is defined as the U.S. waters of Lake Erie at the intersection of the International Border at 082°55′00″ W., following the International Border eastward to the intersection of the International Border at 082°35′00″ W., moving straight south to position 41°25′00″ N., 082°35′00″ W., continuing west to position 41°25′00″ N., 082°55′00″ W., and ending north at the International Border and 082°55′00″ W.

(2) Lake Huron. The waters of Lake Huron known as Saginaw Bay, Michigan; bounded by a line from Port Austin Reef Light (LL-10275) at 44°04′55″ N., 082°58′57″ W.; to Tawas Light (LL-11240) at 44°15′13″ N., 083°26′58″ W.; to Saginaw Bay Range Front Light (LL-10550) at 43°38′54″ N., 083°51′06″ W.; then to the point of beginning.

(d) Enforcement:

(1) The District Commander or respective Captain of the Port (COTP) will enforce these safety zones as ice conditions dictate. Under normal seasonal conditions, only one closing each winter and one opening each spring are anticipated.

(2) Prior to closing or opening these safety zones, the District Commander or respective COTP will give the public advance notice, not less than 72 hours prior to the closure. This notice will be given through Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, and press releases to the media (radio, print and television), and the local COTP will ensure widest dissemination. The general regulations in 33 CFR 165.23 apply. The District Commander or respective COTP retains the discretion to permit vessels to enter/transit a closed safety zone under certain circumstances.

Dated: June 12, 2017. J.E. Ryan, Commander, RADM, U.S. Coast Guard, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-16997 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0259] Safety Zone; Cleveland National Air Show, Cleveland, OH AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the Cleveland National Air Show, Lake Erie and the Cleveland Harbor, Cleveland, OH from 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. each day from August 31, 2017 through September 4, 2017. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life and property on navigable waters during this event. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the respective safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port Buffalo.

DATES:

The regulation in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(35) will be enforced from 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m., each day from August 31, 2017, through September 4, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this notice of enforcement, call or email LT Ryan Junod, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 216-937-0124, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(35) for the Cleveland National Air Show, Cleveland, OH from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. each day from August 31, 2017 through September 4, 2017. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life and property on navigable waters during this event. Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these safety zones during an enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated representative. Those seeking permission to enter one of these safety zones may request permission from the Captain of Port Buffalo via channel 16, VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter this safety zone shall obey the directions of the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated representative. While within the safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.

This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.939 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of these enforcement periods via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port Buffalo determines that this safety zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice; he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the respective safety zone.

Dated: August 7, 2017. Joseph S. Dufresne, Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2017-16973 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 710 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0426; FRL-9964-22] RIN 2070-AK24 TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) require EPA to designate chemical substances on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory as either “active” or “inactive” in U.S. commerce. To accomplish that, EPA is establishing a retrospective electronic notification of chemical substances on the TSCA Inventory that were manufactured (including imported) for nonexempt commercial purposes during the 10-year time period ending on June 21, 2016, with provision to also allow notification by processors. EPA will use these notifications to distinguish active substances from inactive substances. EPA will include the active and inactive designations on the TSCA Inventory and as part of its regular publications of the Inventory. EPA is also establishing procedures for forward-looking electronic notification of chemical substances on the TSCA Inventory that are designated as inactive, if and when the manufacturing or processing of such chemical substances for nonexempt commercial purposes is expected to resume. On receiving forward-looking notification, EPA will change the designation of the pertinent chemical substance on the TSCA Inventory from inactive to active. EPA is establishing the procedures regarding the manner in which such retrospective and forward-looking activity notifications must be submitted, the details of the notification requirements, exemptions from such requirements, and procedures for handling claims of confidentiality.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on August 11, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0426, is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. 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 OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical information contact: Myrta R. Christian, Chemistry, Economics, and Sustainable Strategies Division (Mailcode 7406M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8498; email address: [email protected]

For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary A. Who does this action apply to?

You may be affected by this action if you domestically manufactured, imported, or processed a chemical substance listed on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory for nonexempt commercial purpose during the 10-year time period ending on June 21, 2016. You may also be affected by this action if you intend to domestically manufacture, import, or process in the future a chemical substance listed on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory.

The following North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this action may apply to them:

• Chemical manufacturing or processing (NAICS code 325).

• Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing (NAICS code 324).

In addition, the discussion in Unit II.A. describes in more detail which chemical substances will and will not be subject to reporting under this action. You may also consult the regulatory text in this document for further information on the applicability of exemptions to this rule.

Note that TSCA's statutory definition of “manufacture” includes importing. Accordingly, the regulatory definition of “manufacture” for this rule includes importation. Since “manufacture” is itself defined (in this rule and in TSCA) to include “import,” it is clear that importers are a subset of manufacturers. All references to manufacturing in this notice should be understood to also encompass importing. Where EPA's intent is to specifically refer to domestic manufacturing or importing (both activities constitute “manufacture”), this rule will do so expressly.

B. What action is the Agency taking?

On January 13, 2017 (82 FR 4255, FRL-9956-28) (Ref. 1), EPA proposed procedural reporting requirements for persons who manufactured (including imported) in the past or intend to manufacture in the future chemical substances on the TSCA Inventory (hereafter referred to as the “Inventory”). EPA received numerous public comments on the proposed rule. This final rule is based on that proposal and the consideration of the public comments received.

This TSCA section 8(b) rule requires electronic reporting of chemical identity from persons who manufactured a chemical substance for nonexempt commercial purpose during the 10-year time period ending on June 21, 2016. EPA will accept notices for substances that were processed during the same ten-year time period. EPA will use the chemical identity information obtained from this retrospective reporting to designate as active those substances on the Inventory for which notices were received. If no notice is received during this retrospective reporting for a substance subject to designation on the Inventory, then that substance will be designated as inactive.

This rule also requires electronic reporting of certain information from persons who in the future intend to manufacture or process an inactive substance on the Inventory for nonexempt commercial purpose. The information to be reported includes chemical identity and the date when manufacturing or processing is anticipated to resume. Upon receipt of such notices, EPA will change the designation on the Inventory from inactive to active.

This rule includes procedures for persons who co-manufacture or co-process a reportable chemical substance. These procedures will allow the submission of a single commercial activity notice where there has been co-manufacturing or co-processing of a particular volume of a substance. These procedures are similar to TSCA Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule requirements (40 CFR 711.22) when two or more persons are involved in a particular manufacture or import transaction.

This rule also includes a simplified procedure for filing a submission, including when specific chemical identity information is claimed to be confidential business information (CBI) by a supplier, and finalizes the proposed procedure for filing a joint submission. See response to Comment 14 in Unit III. EPA expanded its electronic reporting system to include a pick list from which persons can select chemicals for reporting. The pick list will include only reportable chemical substances and will not include CBI. Substances that are on the confidential portion of the Inventory will be listed on the pick list by EPA accession numbers and generic names, as they appear on public versions of the Inventory. In cases where specific chemical identity is claimed CBI by a supplier, a submitter can provide a single notice to EPA for a CBI substance if it has in its possession the corresponding non-CBI chemical identifiers (EPA accession number and generic name).

If a manufacturer or processor cannot provide the specific chemical identity of a reportable chemical substance to EPA because the information is claimed CBI by a supplier, and therefore is unknown to the importer, the submitter will be required to ask the supplier to provide the CBI chemical identity information directly to the Agency in a joint submission. EPA will only accept joint submissions that are submitted electronically using CDX. This requirement is similar to CDR rule requirements (40 CFR 711.15) and will allow EPA to obtain the information necessary to identify the specific chemical identity of a reportable substance and designate it as active on the Inventory.

This rule also finalizes proposed changes to 40 CFR 710.3 definitions. These changes were proposed to conform the definitions applicable to these reporting requirements with those that apply to CDR rule requirements (definitions found at 40 CFR 704.3 and 711.3) and the submission of Premanufacture Notices (PMNs) (definitions found at 40 CFR 720.3). Finally, this rule finalizes recordkeeping requirements as required by TSCA section 8(b)(9)(B). Records relevant to retrospective notification must be retained for a period of 5 years beginning on the last day of the submission period. Records relevant to forward-looking notification must be retained for a period of 5 years beginning on the day that the notice was submitted.

C. Why is the Agency taking this action?

TSCA section 8(b)(4)(A) requires EPA to issue a final rule for retrospective reporting by June 22, 2017. This rule will enable EPA to fulfill a statutory obligation to designate chemical substances on the Inventory as active or inactive in U.S. commerce. TSCA section 8(b)(5)(B) further establishes a forward-looking reporting requirement that goes into effect as soon as EPA designates inactive substances. This rule also establishes the procedural framework whereby manufacturers and processors will discharge their notice obligations under this section of TSCA.

This rule and designations under the rule are not intended to indicate conclusions about the risks of chemical substances on the Inventory. Nonetheless, the designation of a substance as active or inactive will be relevant to the Agency's prioritization of substances in U.S. commerce under TSCA section 6(b).

D. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

EPA is issuing this rule under TSCA section 8(b), 15 U.S.C. 2607(b). TSCA was amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, Public Law 114-182. The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), 44 U.S.C. 3504, provides that, when practicable, Federal organizations use electronic forms, electronic filings, and electronic signatures to conduct official business with the public.

Under section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d), the Agency may make a rule immediately effective “for good cause found and published with the rule.” EPA finds that there is “good cause” to make this rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register because the deadline for manufacturers to submit retrospective reports under this rule is fixed by statute at “180 days after the date on which the final rule is published in the Federal Register.” TSCA section 8(b)(4)(A)(i). Because the submission deadline is tied by statute to the date of the rule's publication, rather than the effective date of the rule, delaying the effective date of this rule would not afford any additional time for manufacturers to comply with reporting requirements. Rather, delaying the effective date of the rule would push back the start of the submission period for retrospective reporting, but not the end of the submission period (which remains fixed by statute), leaving manufacturers with a shorter period (less than 180 days) during which notices may be submitted. Thus, any impact on the regulated community of making the rule immediately effective is expected to be beneficial, given that an immediate effective date provides manufacturers with the greatest possible timing discretion regarding when to submit retrospective reports.

E. What are the estimated incremental impacts of this action?

EPA has reevaluated the potential costs of establishing the reporting requirements for manufacturers and processors in response to comments received. This analysis, which is available in the docket, is discussed in Unit V. and briefly summarized here (Ref. 2).

During the retrospective (or “start-up”) period, between approximately June 2017 and June 2018, typical costs per firm are estimated at $1,188 per submission (with an estimated eighteen chemicals per submission), with possible additional costs at $41.55 per CDX registration in the event that the submitter is not currently registered in CDX. Among manufacturers, an estimated 5,322 firms will undertake rule familiarization with 1,585 completing compliance determination, form completion, and recordkeeping. For manufacturers, the total burden during start-up is estimated at 38,613 hours with an associated total cost of $3.09 million. For processors, an estimated 283,993 firms will undertake rule familiarization, with 100 completing compliance determination, form completion, and recordkeeping.

For processors completing rule familiarization only, the cost entails 3.30 hours on average per firm (under $300 per firm). For processors who complete a submission, typically involving one chemical, the burden for rule familiarization, compliance determination, form completion and recordkeeping during the start-up year is estimated at 500 hours with an associated cost of $0.04 million. Lastly, for 169 new CDX registrations (for individuals lacking previous experience with electronic reporting to EPA), burden during start-up is estimated at 90 hours with an associated cost of $0.007 million.

The rule has minimal burden and cost implications related to ongoing reporting with the typical cost per firm estimated at $889 per submission after the start-up year. The forward-looking (or “ongoing”) reporting after June 2018 involves compliance determination, form completion, and recordkeeping for twenty manufacturers and/or processors per year. Burden and cost are estimated to total 225 burden hours per year with an associated cost of $17,779 per year.

Agency activities due to the rule include CDX and Chemical Information Submission System (CISS) capacity expansions, time to manage commercial activity notices, and increased costs incurred when making revisions to the Inventory. Associated costs are estimated at $3.62 million during start-up, and $0.22 million annually thereafter.

Combining Industry and Agency cost estimates, and annualizing over a 10-year period, the total cost of the rule is estimated at $9.7 million per year using a 3% discount rate, and at $11.8 million per year using a 7% discount rate.

II. Summary of the Final Rule

EPA is describing in this unit the reporting requirements for manufacturers and processors of chemical substances pursuant to TSCA section 8(b). EPA developed two versions of a Notice of Activity (NOA) reporting form for submitting the information described in this rule for the two reporting scenarios, retrospective and forward-looking (Ref. 3). The Notice of Activity Form A (EPA Form No. TBD-1) will be used for retrospective reporting, and the Notice of Activity Form B (EPA Form No. TBD-2) will be used for forward-looking reporting.

EPA intends that the provisions of this rule be severable. In the event that any individual provision or part of the rule is invalidated, EPA intends that this would not render the entire rule invalid, and that any individual provisions that can continue to operate will be left in place.

A. What chemical substances and activities are reportable under this rule?

1. Reportable chemical substances. The retrospective reporting requirements of this rule apply to chemical substances listed on the Inventory that were manufactured for nonexempt commercial purposes during the 10-year period ending on June 21, 2016. This 10-year period, referred to here as the “lookback period,” is set by statute. The forward-looking reporting requirements apply to substances listed as inactive on the Inventory that are to be reintroduced into U.S. commerce for nonexempt purposes. The Inventory is available at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-inventory.

2. Exemptions from reporting. i. Excluded chemical substances. The scope of chemical substances covered under this rule is reflected in the definitions of “chemical substance subject to commercial activity designation,” and “reportable chemical substance,” at 40 CFR 710.23, which exclude substances that are not chemical substances and substances that are not listed on the Inventory. For example, a substance that is not considered a “chemical substance” (as provided in subsection 3(2)(B) of TSCA and in the definition of “chemical substance” in 40 CFR 710.3(d)) is not a “chemical substance subject to commercial activity designation” or a “reportable chemical substance” and it thus cannot become an “active substance” or an “inactive substance.” A similar analysis applies with respect to a mixture (as defined in 40 CFR 710.3(d)), although individual Inventory-listed substances present in the mixture may be subject to reporting. Additionally, a substance that has not been added to the Inventory because it is manufactured solely under a TSCA section 5(h) exemption (e.g., low releases and low exposures exemption, low volume exemption, polymer exemption, research and development exemption, test marketing exemption) is not a “chemical substance subject to commercial activity designation” or a “reportable chemical substance” and it cannot become an “active substance” or an “inactive substance.” See response to Comment 1 in Unit III.

Naturally occurring chemical substances also are excluded from reporting under this rule, as long as the manufacturing and processing of such substances meet the criteria set forth in 40 CFR 710.27(b). Naturally occurring substances are considered to be automatically included on the Inventory as the category “Naturally Occurring Chemical Substances” (42 FR 64578). EPA is designating the whole category of Naturally Occurring Chemical Substances as active substances by this rule, thereby excluding them from reporting under this rule.

ii. Manufacturing or processing for an exempt commercial purpose. Manufacturing or processing a chemical substance listed on the Inventory solely for an exempt commercial purpose is not subject to reporting requirements under TSCA section 8(b)(4) or 8(b)(5). The statute limits these notification obligations to manufacturing and processing for “nonexempt commercial purpose.” The scope of manufacturing or processing for an exempt commercial purpose is set forth in 40 CFR 710.27(a). While EPA expects that many chemical substances manufactured or processed for exempt commercial purposes will not be listed on the Inventory (due to similar exemptions under PMN regulations), and therefore are already excluded from reporting under this rule, the activity exemptions listed at 40 CFR 710.27(a) clarify circumstances under which a person is exempt from reporting requirements for the manufacturing or processing of a chemical substance that has been listed on the Inventory (e.g., due to another manufacturer's actions). For example, the manufacturing or processing of impurities or byproducts that have no subsequent commercial purpose will not trigger reporting obligations under this rule. See 40 CFR 710.27(a)(3). Additionally, manufacturing or processing in small quantities solely for research and development is exempt as described in 40 CFR 710.3(d) and 40 CFR 710.27(a)(1). Furthermore, the import or processing of substances solely as part of articles is not subject to reporting under this rule. See 40 CFR 710.27(a)(2) and response to Comment 2 in Unit III. In response to comments, EPA revised the rule to clarify that manufacturing or processing a chemical substance solely for export from the United States or for test marketing purposes are also exempt commercial purposes not subject to reporting requirements under this rule. See 40 CFR 710.27(a)(4) and (5) and response to Comment 1 in Unit III.

iii. Chemical substances for which EPA already has an equivalent notice. EPA is establishing an exemption from the retrospective reporting requirement for three different circumstances in which EPA has already received equivalent notice that a chemical substance was manufactured during the lookback period, and further requirement to submit a notice would therefore be inconsistent with TSCA section 8(a)(5)(B).

First, chemical substances that are on the interim list of active substances described in TSCA section 8(b)(6) will be designated as active substances, by operation of this rule, and they are exempted from retrospective notification requirements under this rule. The interim list will be available on the TSCA Inventory Web page (see https://www.epa.gov/tsca-inventory), and is comprised of all chemical substances reported in 2012 or 2016 under the CDR rule, 40 CFR part 711. See 82 FR 4259. A CDR notice from 2012 or 2016 provides equivalent notice to EPA that the substance was manufactured during the lookback period. In response to comments, this exemption now applies irrespective of whether the substance is on the confidential portion of the Inventory. See 40 CFR 710.23 for revised definition of “interim active substance” and response to Comment 3 in Unit III.

Second, chemical substances that were added to the Inventory during the ten-year time period ending on June 21, 2016, pursuant to a Notice of Commencement (NOC) under 40 CFR 720.102 received by the Agency between June 21, 2006 and June 21, 2016, will be designated as active substances, by operation of this rule, and they are exempted from retrospective notification requirements under this rule. An NOC is required to be submitted on or no later than 30 calendar days after the first day of manufacture for commercial purpose. Additionally, an NOC substance is considered to be added to the Inventory on the date the NOC is received by EPA, provided that the EPA determines the NOC to be valid during its review. Therefore, a processed NOC provides equivalent notice that the substance was manufactured or processed during the lookback period. This exemption applies irrespective of whether the substance is on the confidential portion of the Inventory. See 40 CFR 710.23 for revised definitions of “active substance,” “chemical substance subject to commercial activity designation,” and response to Comment 4 in Unit III.

Third, a manufacturer is exempt from the retrospective notification requirements under this rule, for a particular chemical substance, if the manufacturer has evidence in the form of a CDX receipt, documenting EPA's receipt of an NOA Form A from another manufacturer. See 40 CFR 710.25(a) and response to Comment 6 in Unit III. Manufacturers should keep in mind, however, that they bear the risk of failing to submit a required forward-looking notification (NOA Form B) notice if they rely on this Form A exemption, and the Form A notice (for which they have a CDX receipt) is later withdrawn, leading to the substance being designated as inactive. Furthermore, one manufacturer's expectation that another manufacturer will later submit an NOA Form A is not an acceptable basis for relying on this exemption. Since it is only submitters who will be notified of errors, manufacturers relying on the exemption are responsible for assuring their substance is designated as commercially active.

iv. Inapplicability of exemptions to persons seeking to maintain an existing CBI claim for specific chemical identity. Persons who manufactured or processed a chemical substance on the confidential portion of the Inventory, that was added to the Inventory prior to June 22, 2016, should recognize that they must submit an NOA Form A to EPA if they wish to indicate that they “seek to maintain an existing claim for protection against disclosure of the specific chemical identity of the substance as confidential.” See TSCA 8(b)(4)(B)(ii) and response to Comment 3 in Unit III. This includes persons that, during the lookback period, manufactured or processed a confidential substance on the Inventory for which EPA already has an equivalent notice (as described in paragraph A.2.iii. of this Unit). It may also potentially include persons that, during the lookback period, manufactured or processed a confidential substance on the Inventory for an exempt commercial purpose (as described in paragraph A.2.ii. of this Unit), if such substance is designated active due, for instance, to EPA's receipt of an equivalent notice (such as an NOC or CDR report). In connection with extending manufacturers' reporting exemptions to cover substances on the confidential portion of the Inventory, EPA has revised 40 CFR 710.25(b) to clarify manufacturers' and processors' discretion to report. If manufacturers elect not to submit a notice because they are availing themselves of one of the exemptions described previously, then they are foregoing their opportunity to maintain an existing claim for protection against disclosure of the specific chemical identity of the substance as confidential. EPA is required, by statute, to move from the confidential to the public portion of the Inventory any active chemical substance for which no request is received to maintain an existing CBI claim for chemical identity. See TSCA section 8(b)(4)(B)(iv) and 40 CFR 710.37(a).

3. Chemical substances added to the Inventory on or after June 22, 2016. Chemical substances added to the Inventory on or after June 22, 2016 will be designated as active, by operation of this rule. Such substances are not subject to reporting under this rule. Furthermore, such substances are beyond the scope of the CBI claim maintenance provision under TSCA section 8(b)(4)(B)(ii). This CBI maintenance provision is intended to address “existing claim[s] for protection against disclosure of the specific chemical identity.” EPA interprets this to be a reference to CBI claims asserted prior to June 22, 2016. See 40 CFR 710.23 for revised definition of “active substance.”

B. When will reporting be required?

1. Retrospective reporting period for manufacturers. Manufacturers must report to EPA not later than 180 days after the final rule is published in the Federal Register. The 180-day time period for this retrospective reporting for manufacturers is the maximum time allowed under TSCA section 8(b)(4)(A). Following this retrospective reporting for manufacturers, EPA will include the active designations, determined by the notices received, on a draft of the Inventory. EPA will publish this draft Inventory with the active designations as soon as is practicable following the close of the 180-day submission period for manufacturers. This draft Inventory with active designations will not have the legal effect of actually designating any chemical substance as inactive. EPA, therefore, does not construe this draft Inventory as the list with “designations of active substances and inactive substances” (TSCA section 8(b)(5)(A)) from which forward-looking reporting commences (TSCA section 8(b)(5)(B)). EPA concludes that the statute is referring in both sections to the completed product of the initial cycle of sorting between active and inactive substances, not the preliminary product of the initial cycle of such sorting (i.e., a draft Inventory released between manufacturer and processor reporting).

2. Retrospective reporting period for processors. Processors may report to EPA not later than 420 days after the final rule is published in the Federal Register. EPA originally proposed that processors may report not later than 360 days after the final rule is published in the Federal Register. EPA's rationale was that the additional 180-day time period for processors would allow processors to search EPA's publication of the draft Inventory with active designations, based on the retrospective reporting by manufacturers, and to report only those chemical substances not already reported. In response to comments received that the additional 180-day submission period for processors should begin on the date on which the draft Inventory is published, which EPA anticipates will likely occur approximately 60 days after the 180-day submission period for manufacturers closes, and to a comment that the rule should specify a fixed date on which the processor submission period will end, EPA is finalizing the rule such that processors may report not later than 420 days, rather than 360 days, after the final rule is published in the Federal Register. See 40 CFR 710.30(a)(2) and response to Comment 7 in Unit III.

Processors have the option to simply not report under TSCA section 8(b)(4) and continue processing until the effective date of EPA's designation of a chemical substance as inactive on the Inventory. At such time, any further processing of the substance for a nonexempt commercial purpose, without prior notification to EPA, will be prohibited by TSCA section 8(b)(5). Earlier notification under TSCA section 8(b)(4) will allow EPA to add the substance to the Inventory as an active substance, so that processing can continue without the need for a later notification under TSCA section 8(b)(5).

3. Forward-looking reporting. The forward-looking reporting period begins on the effective date of EPA's final active/inactive substance designations. Manufacturers and processors intending to reintroduce into U.S. commerce for a nonexempt commercial purpose a chemical substance designated as inactive on the Inventory must report to EPA not more than 90 days before the anticipated date of manufacturing or processing. EPA originally proposed that forward-looking notices would be required to be submitted not more than 30 days before the date of manufacturing or processing. EPA agrees with commenters that notices should be submitted based on the anticipated (not actual) date of manufacturing or processing. EPA also finds that extending such submission period from 30 to 90 days prior to resuming manufacturing or processing will afford manufacturers and processors additional time to adjust to information and schedule changes and will not significantly impact the accuracy of notices submitted. See 40 CFR 710.29(c)(2), 40 CFR 710.30(b)(1), and response to Comment 8 in Unit III.

4. Transitional period reporting and effective date for inactive substance designations. The structure of the reporting requirements under TSCA sections 8(b)(4)(A) and 8(b)(5)(B) results in a transitional period beginning on June 22, 2016 (the day after the lookback period for retrospective reporting ends) and ending on the date that EPA designates chemical substances on the Inventory as active or inactive (the day that forward-looking reporting begins). It is possible that substances that were not manufactured or processed during the lookback period—and therefore cannot be designated as active through retrospective reporting—may be reintroduced into U.S. commerce during this transitional period. In response to comments expressing concern that persons who began manufacturing or processing such substances during the transitional period might be obliged to curtail manufacturing or processing on the date that EPA publishes an inactive substance designation, or else find themselves in violation of the forward-looking notice requirement, EPA is establishing an effective date provision for the designation of a chemical substance as an inactive substance. As “inactive substance” is now defined, a substance is not designated as an “inactive substance” until 90 days after EPA has identified the substance for inactive designation. EPA will identify chemical substances for inactive designation in a signed action accompanying the first version of the Inventory with all finalized active-inactive listings. EPA expects to publish this first version of the Inventory with all listings identified as active or inactive as soon as practicable after compilation, in a posting on EPA's TSCA Inventory Web page (see https://www.epa.gov/tsca-inventory). See 40 CFR 710.23 for revised definition of “inactive substance” and response to Comment 9 in Unit III.

Accordingly, the rule clarifies that the obligation to submit an NOA Form B does not arise until 90 days after EPA has identified chemical substances for the inactive designation. The rule also clarifies that manufacturers and processors will be permitted to submit an NOA Form B for a substance that EPA has identified for inactive designation, even before the effective date of such designation has arrived, and thus before the substance has the legal status of being inactive. Thus, persons manufacturing or processing a substance for nonexempt commercial purpose during the transitional period are afforded time to react to an inactive substance identification and are permitted to file an NOA Form B prior to the effective date of the substance being designated as inactive. Similarly, persons that anticipate reintroducing a substance into U.S. commerce for nonexempt commercial purpose shortly after EPA identifies such substance as inactive are afforded time to react to an inactive substance identification and are permitted to file an NOA Form B prior to the effective date of the inactive designation, so long as such form is filed no more than 90 days before the anticipated date of manufacturing or processing. See 40 CFR 710.30(b)(2) and response to Comment 10 in Unit III.

C. What information will be reported?

1. Information reported by manufacturers during retrospective reporting. This rule will require that manufacturers reporting for the retrospective reporting period provide chemical identity information and indicate whether they seek to maintain an existing claim for protection against disclosure of a CBI chemical identity, if applicable. In response to comments stating concern with burden associated with information required to be reported, EPA removed the proposed requirements to report commercial activity type and date range, as EPA determined these requirements are unnecessary to achieve the objective of designating substances as active or inactive on the Inventory. See 40 CFR 710.29(b) and response to Comment 11 in Unit III. In response to comments stating concern for availability of information required to be reported, EPA clarified that persons required to report under this rule will provide information to the extent it is known to or reasonably ascertainable by them. See 40 CFR 710.29(a) and response to Comment 12 in Unit III. In response to comments requesting that a manufacturer be able to correct or withdraw an NOA Form A in the event that it discovers errors in the notice, EPA is not establishing a formal corrections provision in the regulation, but will allow a manufacturer or processor to withdraw an NOA Form A, provided that the withdrawn notice is submitted prior to the end of the submission period for processors, i.e., not later than 420 days after the final rule is published in the Federal Register. See response to Comment 13 in Unit III. The manufacturer may effect a correction by filing a new NOA Form A following withdrawal, so long as the new Form A is filed within the time provided in the rule for the initial filing (i.e., no later than 180 days after the final rule is published in the Federal Register).

2. Information reported by processors during retrospective reporting. Processors that choose to report for the retrospective reporting period will be required to provide chemical identity information and whether they seek to maintain an existing claim for protection against disclosure of a CBI chemical identity, if applicable. In response to comments received, EPA removed the proposed requirements to report commercial activity type and date range as these requirements were deemed unnecessary to achieve the objective of designating substances as active or inactive on the Inventory. See 40 CFR 710.29(b) and response to Comment 11 in Unit III. EPA is not establishing a formal corrections provision in the regulation for an NOA Form A, but will allow a processer to withdraw an NOA Form A, provided that the withdrawn notice is submitted not later than 420 days after the final rule is published in the Federal Register. See 40 CFR 710.30(a)(3) and response to Comment 13 in Unit III. As with manufacturers, processors can effectuate a correction by filing a new Form A within the time provided in the rule for the initial filing (i.e., no later than 420 days after the final rule is published in the Federal Register).

3. Information reported during forward-looking reporting. This rule will require that persons that intend to manufacture or process an inactive substance for nonexempt commercial purpose provide chemical identity information, the anticipated date of manufacturing or processing for nonexempt commercial purpose, and whether they seek to maintain an existing claim for protection against disclosure of a CBI chemical identity, if applicable. In response to comments, EPA removed the proposed requirement to report commercial activity type as this requirement was deemed unnecessary to achieve the objective of re-designating inactive substances as active, and revised the date of manufacturing or processing for nonexempt commercial purpose from actual to anticipated date. See 40 CFR 710.29(c) and response to Comment 11 in Unit III. Persons that have already commenced manufacturing or processing for nonexempt commercial purpose (e.g., during the transitional period prior to the effective date of a substance's inactive designation) may provide the most recent date of manufacturing or processing in lieu of an anticipated future date, if the forward-looking notice is submitted prior to the effective date of the substance's inactive designation. See 40 CFR 710.29(c).

EPA's proposed rule related the timing of the reporting to a future “actual date of manufacturing and processing.” See 82 FR 4267. In response to comments about the need for greater flexibility regarding the timing of a forward-looking notice, under the rule the validity of the notice does not depend on whether the intended manufacturing or processing actually occurs by the anticipated date. Therefore, manufacturers or processors need not supplement a forward-looking notice with confirmation of whether the intended manufacturing or processing of the chemical substance actually occurred by the anticipated date. By the same token, EPA will designate such substances as active, irrespective of subsequent changes in the intentions of the submitter of the forward-looking notice. Consistent with the regulatory definition of “active substance,” an inactive substance becomes an active substance “based on the receipt of a notice under this subpart,” 40 CFR 710.23, and the factual basis for the notice is the submitter's intent, expressed at time of notification, to manufacture or process an inactive substance for a nonexempt commercial purpose within 90 days of notification. See 40 CFR 710.25(c) and 40 CFR 710.30(b)(2). This simplified approach reduces burdens for both submitters and EPA, is consistent with the statute, and furthers the orderly and efficient implementation of the Inventory. See TSCA section 8(b)(5)(B)(iii) (requiring EPA to take certain definite actions “on receiving” the notice). With respect to substances re-designated as active for which the intended manufacturing or processing has not been actualized after an extended period of time and not corrected, EPA may later adjust the status of such substances, through procedures that would be established by future rulemaking, to further implement TSCA section 8(b)(5)(A).

Finally, in response to comment requesting that submitters be able to withdraw an NOA Form B if their intent to re-commence manufacture or process a chemical substance later changes, EPA is allowing a submitter to request to withdraw its NOA Form B, and EPA may do so, if EPA has not yet altered the Inventory status of the substance in response to the original submission (i.e., EPA has neither re-designated the substance from inactive to active nor moved the substance from the confidential portion of the Inventory to the public portion Inventory as a result of a request in the original submission for a CBI claim to be withdrawn). Because another person may have commenced manufacturing or processing for non-exempt commercial purpose in reliance of a substance being re-designated as active, the rule does not allow for EPA to revert a substance re-designated as active back to inactive status based on a request to withdraw an NOA Form B, or for EPA to revert a non-CBI substance back to a CBI substance based on a request to withdraw a Form B. It would be burdensome and potentially impossible to implement such an approach. See 40 CFR 710.30(b)(3) and response to Comment 13 in Unit III.

4. Reporting forms. The NOA Form A will be used by manufacturers for the retrospective reporting period. It will also be used by processors who choose to report for the retrospective reporting period. The NOA Form B will be used by manufacturers and processors for forward-looking reporting, which includes reporting chemical substances reintroduced into U.S. commerce during the transitional period. For the sake of clarity, the final rule now defines the terms `Notice of Activity Form A' and `Notice of Activity Form B', consistent with the use of these terms in the proposal. The new NOA forms are based on EPA's NOC form (Ref. 4), since the information required in an NOA form is the same or similar to the information in the NOC form.

D. How will information be submitted to EPA?

The rule requires electronic reporting similar to the requirements established in 2013 for submitting other information under TSCA (see 40 CFR 704.20(e)) and in accordance with section 3.2000 of 40 CFR part 3 (CROMERR) (Ref. 5). Submitters will use EPA's CDX, the Agency's electronic reporting portal, and EPA's Chemical Information Submission System (CISS), a web-based reporting tool, for all reporting under this rule. EPA expects that electronic reporting will minimize time requirements, support improved data quality, and provide efficiencies for both the submitters and the Agency.

In 2013, EPA finalized a rule to require electronic reporting of certain information submitted to the Agency under TSCA sections 4, 5, 8(a) and 8(d). (Ref. 6) The rule follows two previous rules requiring similar electronic reporting of information submitted to EPA for CDR and PMNs.

This rule will require persons submitting notices of activity to EPA under TSCA section 8(b) to follow the same electronic reporting procedures used for other TSCA submissions, i.e., to register with EPA's CDX (if not already registered) and use CISS to prepare a data file for submission. Registration enables CDX to authenticate identity and verify authorization. To register, the CDX registrant (also referred to as “Electronic Signature Holder” or “Public/Private Key Holder”) agrees to the Terms and Conditions, provides information about the submitter and organization, and selects a user name and password. Users who have previously registered with CDX for other TSCA submissions will be able to add the “Submission for Chemical Safety and Pesticide Program” (CSPP) service to their current registration in CDX and use the CISS web-based reporting tool.

EPA developed the CISS for use in submitting data under TSCA sections 4, 5, 8(a), and 8(d) to the Agency electronically. The web reporting tool is available for use with Windows, iOS, Linux, and UNIX based computers and uses “Extensible Markup Language” (XML) specifications for the efficient transfer of data across the Internet when notices are submitted to EPA. CISS works with CDX to secure online communication, provides user-friendly navigation, creates a completed document in Portable Document Format (PDF) for review prior to submission, and enables information to be submitted easily in XML format or as PDF attachments.

The NOA forms described in this rule are included in an e-NOA software module in CISS. Once a user completes entry of the relevant data fields and metadata information in the appropriate NOA form, the CISS reporting tool validates the submission by performing a basic error check. CISS also allows the user to choose “Preview,” “Save,” or “Submit.” When “Submit” is selected, the user is asked to provide the user name and password that was created during the CDX registration process. CISS then submits the data via CDX. Upon successful receipt of the submission by EPA, the status of the submissions will be flagged as “Submitted.” The user can also login to the application and download their Copy of Record.

Any person submitting a reporting form can claim any part or all of the form as confidential. Except as otherwise provided in this rule, any information that is claimed as CBI will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent and by the means of the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

E. How will CBI claims and requests be handled?

Notices pursuant to this rule may contain two different types of CBI assertions: claims for protection of information other than specific chemical identity, and requests to maintain existing claims for protection of specific chemical identity. In response to comments received, EPA has extensively re-written the substantiation questions from the proposed rule in a manner intended to more succinctly secure responses for CBI assertions of discrete data elements as well as CBI concerns on the linkage of data elements. See 40 CFR 710.31 and response to Comment 17.

1. Information other than specific chemical identity. For all new claims for protection (i.e., for all CBI assertions under this rule other than requests to maintain existing claims for protection of specific chemical identity), TSCA section 14(c)(1)(B) and 14(c)(5) require that persons claiming CBI must provide a specific certification statement regarding the basis for the CBI claims. In addition, TSCA section 14(c)(3) and this rule require that all such claims be substantiated at the time of submission. EPA will review a representative subset of these claims as specified by TSCA section14(g)(1).

2. Requests to maintain existing CBI claims for chemical identity. Any manufacturer or processor submitting an NOA under TSCA section 8(b)(4)(A) may seek to maintain an existing CBI claim for specific chemical identity, regardless of whether that person asserted the original claim that caused the specific chemical identity to be listed on the confidential portion of the Inventory. EPA believes this is the correct interpretation of “a manufacturer or processor . . . that seeks to maintain an existing claim for protection against disclosure” of specific chemical identity in TSCA section 8(b)(4)(B)(ii). A number of manufacturers and processors may legitimately benefit from the confidential status of a specific chemical identity, even when such persons did not originally report that chemical identity to EPA and therefore were not in a position to assert a CBI claim for that chemical identity. Congress could not have intended that such companies would be forced to rely on another company to request to maintain the claim. For example, the initial claimant may no longer exist or may no longer manufacture or process the chemical substance, or may simply fail to file the required NOA. EPA does not believe that Congress intended for specific confidential chemical identities to be disclosed without providing the opportunity for manufacturers and processors to make a request that the identities should remain confidential simply because the original claimants did not file under TSCA section 8(b)(4)(B)(ii).

Pursuant to TSCA section 8(b)(4)(B)(iv), EPA will move an active substance from the confidential portion of the Inventory to the non-confidential portion if no manufacturer or processor submitting an NOA under TSCA section 8(b)(4)(A) requests to maintain the existing CBI claim for the specific chemical identity of that chemical substance. See 40 CFR 710.37(a). As a courtesy, EPA practice is to notify original claimants and/or the public when it has moved substances from the confidential portion of the Inventory to the public portion of the Inventory, e.g., through direct contact with the original claimant or publication of a Federal Register notice. A chemical substance for which EPA has received a request to maintain an existing CBI claim for specific chemical identity will remain on the confidential portion of the Inventory pending EPA's review of the claim pursuant to a review plan to be promulgated at a later date in accordance with TSCA section 8(b)(4)(C)-(D).

While this rule requires submitters to indicate whether they seek to maintain an existing CBI claim for specific chemical identity, this rule does not include mandatory substantiation requirements for CBI requests for specific chemical identity on an NOA Form A. TSCA section 8(b)(4)(B)(iii) stipulates that EPA shall “require the substantiation of those claims pursuant to section 14 and in accordance with the review plan described in subparagraph C.” EPA will be conducting a separate rulemaking to establish this review plan. The review plan will include mandatory requirements for substantiating a CBI request for specific chemical identity reported in an NOA Form A and specify when such substantiation is to be provided. If EPA receives an NOA Form A in which the submitter requests to maintain an existing CBI claim for specific chemical identity but chooses not to substantiate such at the time of filing, EPA will continue to list the chemical substance on the confidential portion of the Inventory pending the submission of any substantiation required under the review plan and EPA's review of the claim pursuant to the review plan.

However, in this rule the Agency is allowing companies to submit substantiation for the CBI claims for specific chemical identity at the same time that the NOA Form A is filed, if they so choose. As long as the period between the date these earlier substantiations are received and the due date to be established in the review plan (yet to be proposed) is not more than five years, these substantiations will exempt the company from the requirement to submit additional substantiation under the terms of the review plan. See TSCA section 8(b)(4)(D). EPA will review requests to maintain CBI claims for specific chemical identity in accordance with the TSCA section 8(b)(4)(D) review plan in the timeframe mandated by TSCA section 8(b)(4)(E).

With respect to requests to maintain existing CBI claims that are submitted on an NOA Form B, TSCA section 8(b)(5)(B) stipulates that such requests must be substantiated not later than 30 days after submitting Form B. See TSCA section 8(b)(5)(B)(ii)(II). Substantiation requirements for NOA Form B CBI claims for specific chemical identity are found in 40 CFR 710.37(a)(2).

The Agency will allow companies to submit substantiation at the same time that their NOA Form B is filed, if they so choose. Persons submitting an NOA Form B may find it more efficient to provide the substantiation for a CBI claim for specific chemical identity at the time of filing.

III. Summary of Response to Comments Including Changes and Clarifications From the Proposed Rule

This unit summarizes EPA's responses to comments for several general areas from multiple stakeholders. EPA also discusses any changes to and clarifications from the proposed rule, and where responses are particularly relevant to the requirements of the final rule. A separate document that summarizes the comments relevant to the proposal and EPA's responses to those comments has been prepared and is available in the docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 7).

Comment 1: Several commenters indicated that EPA should clarify the activities for which notification is not required under the rule, and should confirm that all substances and activities that are exempt from premanufacture notification requirements are also exempt from reporting requirements under this rule. The commenters make reference to the following PMN exemptions: export-only exemption, low volume exemption, low releases/low exposures exemption, test marketing exemption, and polymer exemption. One commenter elaborated that substances exempted from listing on the TSCA Inventory and other substances exempt from premanufacture notification are exempt from this rule but are ambiguously stated as such. Two commenters elaborated that substances listed on the Inventory but manufactured under a low volume exemption should be exempt from reporting under this rule by a person manufacturing the substance under the exemption. One commenter recommended that all categories of substances for which no reporting is required pursuant to the CDR rule should be exempt from reporting under this rule.

Several commenters indicated that EPA should clarify or confirm that polymers are exempt from reporting under this action. One commenter requested that EPA clarify whether polymers manufactured under the pre-1995 polymer exemption rule need to be reported, as technically such polymers are listed on the Inventory. A few commenters stated that polymers listed on the Inventory, including polymers with a “Y” designation, should be included on the interim list of active substances. One commenter elaborated that polymers on the Inventory are not subject to CDR, that many were placed on the Inventory before EPA promulgated the TSCA section 5 polymer exemption rule and would likely meet the current standard for the polymer exemption, and that such low risk polymers should be on the interim active Inventory.

One commenter expressed concern that, without an explicit reporting exemption in the rule, a company manufacturing a chemical substance under a polymer, low volume, or test marketing exemption could inadvertently violate the reporting requirements if (without the company's knowledge) another company manufacturing the same substance added that substance to the confidential portion of the Inventory, then ceased manufacturing, causing the substance to be designated inactive. Another commenter expressed concern that, in the absence of an explicit reporting exemption in the rule for all companies manufacturing chemical substances under a PMN exemption, the rule would appear to require such companies to submit an inquiry to EPA to ascertain whether the chemical substances in question had been added to the confidential portion of the Inventory by another manufacturer.

Response: In response to the comment to clarify the reporting status under this rule of a substance manufactured under a TSCA section 5 exemption and not listed on the Inventory, EPA confirms that such substance is not subject to reporting under this action. The scope of chemical substances covered under this rule excludes substances that are not listed on the Inventory. See definition of “reportable chemical substance” at 40 CFR 710.23. A substance that has not been added to the Inventory because it is manufactured solely under a PMN exemption is not a “reportable chemical substance” and, therefore, cannot become an “active substance” or an “inactive substance.”

EPA recognizes that in certain cases, chemical substances manufactured by a company under a PMN exemption may nevertheless be added to the Inventory voluntarily, or may subsequently be added to the Inventory by another company. Accordingly, in the proposed rule, EPA listed reporting exemptions for the following activities, which EPA construed as exempt commercial purposes: The manufacture or processing of a substance as described in 720.30(g) or (h), the manufacture or processing of a substance solely in small quantities for research and development, and the import of a substance as part of an article. EPA finalized the rule to include these exemptions and, based on comments, revised the rule to include additional exemptions: the manufacture or processing of a substance solely for test marketing purposes, and the manufacture or processing of a substance solely for export from the United States, except where the Administrator has made a finding described in TSCA section 12(a)(2). See 40 CFR 710.27(a)(4) and (5). EPA believes that these two additional activities also qualify as exempt commercial purposes based on the limited nature of these commercial activities and the exemptions from PMN reporting under TSCA sections 5(h)(1) and 12(a)(1) for substances manufactured solely for these purposes. While TSCA section 12(a)(1) authorizes EPA to include substances manufactured or processed solely for export in TSCA section 8 reporting, EPA construes manufacturing or processing solely for export to be an exempt commercial purpose, given that section 12(a)(1) broadly exempts such activities from other TSCA provisions, including PMN requirements under section 5.

EPA declined to add additional reporting exemptions in the final rule for activities that are exempt from PMN reporting based on rules promulgated under TSCA section 5(h)(4) (i.e., low volume, low releases/low exposures, and polymer exemptions). EPA disagrees with comments that a substance manufactured under a TSCA section 5(h)(4) exemption but nevertheless listed on the Inventory should be exempt from reporting under this rule. EPA does not believe that manufacturing or processing under a low volume, low releases/low exposures, or polymer exemption (1984 or 1995 polymer exemption) qualify as exempt commercial purposes under TSCA section 8(b), despite the exemptions from reporting under TSCA section 5(h)(4) for such substances. This is because exemptions promulgated under section 5(h)(4) are predicated upon a risk determination, rather than the particular commercial purpose for which manufacturing is undertaken. Unlike the other activities that EPA has exempted from reporting requirements under this rule (e.g., research and development, test marketing, export-only), the activities exempt from PMN reporting pursuant to rules promulgated under section 5(h)(4) need not be undertaken for any specific and limited commercial purpose. Because the commercial purpose for which a substance is manufactured is not integral to an exemption under section 5(h)(4), and in consideration of the statutory objective of TSCA section 8(b)(4)-(5) to enable EPA to determine which chemical substances on the Inventory are active in U.S. commerce, EPA does not construe activities undertaken pursuant to a section 5(h)(4) exemption to be exempt “commercial purposes” within the meaning of section 8(b)(4)(A)(i) and 8(b)(5)(B)(i). EPA emphasizes, however, that substances which (based on such PMN exemptions) have never been added to the Inventory are excluded from any reporting requirements under this rule.

EPA also disagrees with comments that this rule should provide reporting exemptions for polymers and other categories of Inventory-listed substances that are exempt from CDR for reasons unrelated to the specific commercial purpose for which they are manufactured or processed. A statutory objective supported by reporting under this rule is to enable EPA to determine which chemical substances on the Inventory are active in U.S. commerce. This statutory objective under TSCA section 8(b) is distinct from the statutory objective for CDR under TSCA section 8(a). Whereas polymers and certain other categories of substances listed on the Inventory are exempt from reporting under CDR, these substances nevertheless require designation as active or inactive under TSCA section 8(b), and are therefore subject to reporting under this rule if they were or are anticipated to be manufactured for nonexempt commercial purpose. Exempting polymers and other categories of substances under this TSCA section 8(b) rule for no other reason than that they are exempt from CDR under TSCA section 8(a) would not accomplish the statutory objective of designating substances on the Inventory manufactured for non-exempt commercial purposes as active or inactive. EPA does not believe Congress intended for an entire category of substances (such as polymers), that were listed on the Inventory as of June 22, 2016, to be designated inactive despite the fact that such substances were manufactured or processed for wide-ranging commercial purposes during the 10-year lookback period.

EPA furthermore disagrees with comments that polymers should be included on the interim list of active substances. The interim list is defined by TSCA section 8(b)(6) to include only substances reported under CDR during the reporting period that most closely preceded the date of enactment of the TSCA amendments. Substances such as polymers that are exempt from reporting under CDR, therefore, are not eligible to be included on the interim list. Moreover, unless these substances were the subject of an NOC received during the lookback period, EPA has no equivalent notice that such substances were manufactured during the lookback period, and therefore no justification for designating the substances as active in this rule.

Finally, in response to comments expressing concern that a person manufacturing under a PMN exemption may be unaware that another person subsequently added the same substance to the confidential portion of the Inventory, EPA notes that it revised 40 CFR 710.25(a) and (c) to clarify that reporting is not required where it is not “known to or reasonably ascertainable by” a company that it manufactured a chemical substance subject to commercial activity designation during the lookback period, or that it intends to manufacture or process an inactive substance on the confidential portion of the Inventory. EPA anticipates that the presence of a substance on the confidential portion of the Inventory may be information that is not “known to or reasonably ascertainable by” a person who is operating under a PMN exemption and who did not submit the confidentiality claim for the specific chemical identity of that substance.

Changes to Activities that are Exempt from Reporting in the Final Rule: EPA revised the rule to exempt additional commercial activities from reporting requirements: The manufacture or processing of a substance solely for test marketing purposes, and the manufacture or processing of a substance solely for export from the United States, except where the Administrator has made a finding described in TSCA section 12(a)(2). See 40 CFR 710.27(a)(4) and (5).

Comment 2: One commenter stated that substances processed as part of an article should be exempt from reporting. One commenter indicated that substances contained within imported articles should be subject to reporting if and when they are released from the article during use and perform a separate end-use function.

Response: The proposed rule included an exemption from reporting requirements for persons importing a chemical substance as part of an article. EPA agrees with commenter that the processing of a chemical substance as part of an article should likewise be exempt from reporting under this rule on the grounds that it is processing for an exempt commercial purpose, following the logic of the exemption for manufacture of a chemical as part of an article through import. Under TSCA, the import of a chemical substance as part of an article does not require new chemical reporting. Consequently, the Inventory does not list all chemical substances that are processed as part of articles since it does not include the processing of chemical substances as part of imported articles. More generally, the processing of a chemical as part of an article is not a basis to add a chemical substance to the Inventory. EPA believes it would be incongruous to identify a chemical substance as active solely based on the fact that it is processed as part of an article, when that would not be a basis to add the chemical substance to the Inventory in the first place if there were no manufacture reportable under TSCA section 5. In addition, EPA is concerned that an approach under which chemical substances are listed as active simply because they are components of articles that are processed in some fashion could undermine the purpose of meaningfully distinguishing active from inactive chemicals. It should be noted that the extraction of a chemical substance from an article would not be considered processing a chemical substance as part of an article and so would not be exempt from reporting under this provision. EPA therefore revised 40 CFR 710.27(a)(2) to exempt persons processing a chemical substance as part of an article from reporting requirements for that substance.

Regarding the comment that substances contained within imported articles should be subject to reporting if and when they are released from the article during use and perform a separate end-use function, no regulatory change is necessary. The final rule at 40 CFR 710.27(a)(2) refers to “[t]he import or processing of a chemical substance as part of an article.” EPA's longstanding interpretation of this phrase is that a chemical substance is only considered to be imported “as part of an article” if the substance is not intended to be removed from that article and it has no end use or commercial purpose separate from the article of which it is a part. See 42 FR 64583 (1977). Thus, for the kinds of articles from which a contained chemical substance would be released during use and perform a separate end-use function, the chemical substance would not be considered to be part of the article and would not qualify for exemption on that basis. In any event, as stated previously, even in the case where a chemical substance is part of an article, the extraction of a chemical substance from an article would not be considered processing a chemical substance “as part of an article” and so would not be exempt from reporting on this basis. See also TSCA Chemical Data Reporting Fact Sheet: Imported Articles, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/cdr_fact_sheet_imported_articles_-_final_dec2015.pdf. (Ref. 8)

Changes to Activities that are Exempt from Reporting in the Final Rule: EPA amended the rule to reflect that both importing and processing a chemical substance as part of an article are exempt from reporting requirements under this rule. See 40 CFR 710.27(a)(2).

Comment 3: Numerous commenters stated that CBI substances reported to the 2016 or 2012 CDR should be made active on the interim Inventory and should not be subject to retrospective reporting. Several commenters also stated that CBI substances reported to the 2016 CDR should also not be subject to further substantiation of CBI claims because the claims have already been substantiated.

Response: EPA agrees in part with the comments involving CBI substances. EPA confirms that it had proposed that both CBI and non-CBI substances reported to the 2012 or 2016 CDR would be made active on the interim list. EPA finalized this aspect of the rule. Furthermore, EPA revised the rule to reflect that both CBI and non-CBI substances reported to the 2012 or 2016 CDR will be eligible for exemption from retrospective notification requirements under this rule. See 40 CFR 710.23 and 710.25.

However, a company that seeks to maintain an existing CBI claim for specific chemical identity cannot avail itself of this exemption, and must submit an NOA Form A that includes such request, because TSCA section 8(b)(4)(B)(ii) requires a specific request to maintain the CBI claim. Pursuant to TSCA section 8(b)(4)(B)(iv), EPA must move to the non-confidential portion of the Inventory any active substance for which no request is received to maintain an existing CBI claim for specific chemical identity. EPA recognizes in the final rule that there may be circumstances where a company, which had previously sought a CBI claim for a specific chemical identity, may no longer view the CBI status as necessary or currently defendable. In such circumstance, the company may take advantage of any retrospective reporting exemption for which it is eligible, and decline to submit a retrospective notice to EPA.

Regarding substantiation, pursuant to TSCA section 8(b)(4)(D)(i), a previously submitted substantiation may satisfy the section 8(b)(4)(B)(iii) substantiation requirement if the prior substantiation was submitted to EPA within five years of a deadline to be established in the forthcoming review plan described in section 8(b)(4)(C)-(D). EPA does not expect that a 2012 CDR submission will satisfy the five-year substantiation requirement. Because the deadline for submitting substantiation in the review plan has not yet been set, EPA does not currently know whether substantiation submitted for a 2016 CDR submission will satisfy the TSCA section 8(b)(4)(B)(iii) five-year substantiation requirement. Note that a voluntary substantiation submitted with Form A might also not fall within the five-year period, depending upon the deadline that is set.

Changes to Chemical Substances That Are Exempt from Retrospective Reporting in the Final Rule: EPA changed the exemptions from retrospective reporting requirements to reflect that both CBI and non-CBI chemical substances reported to the 2012 or 2016 CDR will be eligible. See 40 CFR 710.23 for revised definition of “interim active substance.” TSCA section 8(b)(4)(B)(ii) requires a notice to be submitted only by those manufacturers or processors that seek to maintain an existing CBI claim for the specific chemical identity of a reportable substance.

Comment 4: Several commenters stated that non-CBI substances added to the Inventory during the ten-year retrospective reporting period via an NOC should be exempt from notification.

Response: EPA agrees with this comment. An NOC is required to be submitted to EPA on or no later than 30 calendar days after the first day of manufacture of a new chemical substance for commercial purpose and an NOC substance is considered to be added to the Inventory on the date the NOC is received by EPA, provided that the EPA determines the NOC to be valid during its review. Requiring retrospective reporting of substances for which an NOC was received during the lookback period would be duplicative because EPA already has an equivalent report (the NOC itself) indicating that the substance was manufactured or processed during the lookback period. EPA furthermore concludes (consistent with its response to comments about the availability of the interim list exemption for CBI substances) that the analogous reasoning applies with respect to CBI substances added to the Inventory during the lookback period. EPA revised the rule to reflect that both CBI and non-CBI substances reported in an NOC during the lookback period will be eligible for exemption from retrospective notification requirements under this rule. EPA was able to compile this list of substances and designate them as active substances by the deadline for publication of the rule. EPA's June 2017 posting of the Inventory will include these NOC substances designated as active (see https://www.epa.gov/tsca-inventory). See 40 CFR 710.23 for revised definitions of “active substance” and “chemical substance subject to commercial activity designation.”

However, a company that seeks to maintain an existing CBI claim for specific chemical identity cannot avail itself of this exemption because TSCA section 8(b)(4)(B)(ii) requires a specific request to maintain the CBI claim. See response to Comment 3 for additional discussion on CBI substances.

Additionally, substantiation of a CBI claim for chemical identity submitted with an NOC may or may not satisfy the TSCA section 8(b)(4)(B)(iii) substantiation requirement. Pursuant to TSCA section 8(b)(4)(D)(i), a previously submitted substantiation may satisfy the section 8(b)(4)(B)(iii) substantiation requirement if the prior substantiation was submitted to EPA within 5 years of the deadline to be established in the forthcoming review plan described in section 8(b)(4)(C)-(D). NOCs submitted more recently may satisfy the 5-year substantiation requirement, while NOCs submitted earlier in the 10-year lookback period for retrospective reporting may not satisfy the 5-year substantiation requirement. Note that a voluntary substantiation submitted with an NOA Form A might also not satisfy the 5-year substantiation requirement, depending upon the deadline that is set in the review plan.

Changes to Chemical Substances That Are Exempt from Retrospective Reporting in the Final Rule: EPA added an exemption from retrospective reporting requirements for chemical substances added to the Inventory via an NOC during the ten-year retrospective reporting period. See 40 CFR 710.23 for revised definitions of “active substance” and “chemical substance subject to commercial activity designation.”

Comment 5: Several commenters stated that EPA should update the interim list and/or publish submissions frequently or in real time in order for potential submitters to see what is being submitted and to avoid or reduce duplicative submissions during retrospective reporting.

Response: EPA has determined that publishing submissions frequently or in real time is not feasible. In order to publish notices frequently or in real time, EPA would need to develop, test, and implement an electronic platform that would be able transfer non-CBI notices from the Agency's confidential repository to a public system. EPA has not to date developed nor implemented such an electronic platform for TSCA purposes and does not believe that it could do so by the time it would be needed to support this action in a manner suggested by these comments. Additionally, because non-CBI notices suitable for publication would include those submitted with no CBI claims and those submitted with claims but for which CBI would be redacted, EPA would need to ensure that such an electronic platform would appropriately transfer only non-CBI notices to a public system. Furthermore, in order for published information to be accurate and reliable, EPA believes that notices would necessarily need to be fully processed and reviewed, which would not allow the Agency to publish notices in real time or even frequently, especially since the number of notices submitted may increase, possibly sharply, as the submission deadline approaches.

Comment 6: Several commenters disagreed with the proposal that each manufacturer must report every nonexempt chemical manufactured during the retrospective lookback period. Commenters stated that, for purposes of designating substances as active, EPA need only receive one notice for each reportable substance. Commenters elaborated that EPA should allow a “one-and-done” approach for retrospective reporting, i.e., once a notice is received by EPA for a particular substance, and either the notice is published and/or the interim list is updated and published, other manufacturers need not report the same substance. One commenter stated that EPA appropriately proposed to require that each company that has manufactured a chemical substance on the Inventory during the lookback period must notify EPA of such manufacture. The commenter elaborated that “one-and-done” reporting is legally impermissible.

Response: EPA disagrees with the statement of one commenter that a “one-and-done” reporting exemption is impermissible under TSCA section 8(b)(4)(A)(i). Section 8(b)(4)(A)(i) states that the Administrator “shall require manufacturers . . . to notify the Administrator” of each chemical substance that the manufacturer has manufactured during the 10-year lookback period. The statute does not state that the Administrator shall require all manufacturers to submit such a notice. Had Congress intended to preclude the Administrator from implementing a “one-and-done” reporting process, Congress could have done so by specifying that the Administrator shall require all manufacturers to submit a notice for each chemical manufactured during the lookback period. Furthermore, EPA believes the commenter incorrectly discounts the significance of language in TSCA section 8(b)(4)(A)(i) admonishing EPA to issue the rule “subject to the limitations under subsection (a)(5)(A).” TSCA section 8(a)(5)(A) provides that “the Administrator shall, to the extent feasible . . . not require reporting which is unnecessary or duplicative.” EPA does not agree with the commenter's assertion that subsection (a)(5)(A) is solely concerned with the manner of reporting, such that the scope of reporting would be unaffected. It is difficult to see how one could make a notification requirement less unnecessary or less duplicative except by tailoring the scope of persons who are required to submit the notification.

EPA agrees in part with the other commenters that a “one-and-done” approach should be allowed for retrospective reporting. Accordingly, EPA has revised the rule to exempt a manufacturer from the retrospective notification requirements for a particular chemical substance, if the manufacturer has evidence in the form of a CDX receipt, documenting EPA's receipt of an NOA Form A from another manufacturer. As discussed further in Comment 5 in this Unit, it is infeasible for EPA to supply “real-time” reports to the public during the manufacturers' submission period for retrospective reporting by listing the particular substances for which it has already received an NOA Form A. However, manufacturers who possess an NOA Form A CDX receipt for a substance (e.g., obtained through a consortium arrangement), documenting that an NOA Form A has already been received by EPA, may avail themselves of this exemption for that substance. Manufacturers should keep in mind, however, that they bear the risk of failing to submit a required forward-looking notification (NOA Form B) notice if they rely on this Form A exemption, and the Form A notice (for which they have a CDX receipt) is later withdrawn, leading to the substance being designated as inactive. Furthermore, one manufacturer's expectation that another manufacturer will later submit an NOA Form A is not an acceptable basis for relying on this exemption. If such an approach were allowed as a basis for exemption, then EPA would risk receiving no notification at all for an active substance, based on each manufacturer expecting that some other manufacturer would later submit an NOA Form A. Since it is only submitters who will be notified of errors, manufacturers relying on the exemption are responsible for assuring their substance is properly designated as commercially active.

However, a company that seeks to maintain an existing CBI claim for specific chemical identity cannot avail itself of this exemption because TSCA section 8(b)(4)(B)(ii) requires a specific request to maintain the CBI claim. See response to Comment 3 for additional discussion on CBI substances.

Changes to Chemical Substances That Are Exempt from Retrospective Reporting in the Final Rule: EPA added an exemption from retrospective reporting requirements in the rule for manufacturers that have evidence in the form of a copy of a CDX receipt documenting EPA's receipt of an NOA Form A from another person for the same chemical substance. See 40 CFR 710.25(a). However, as noted in Unit II and in 40 CFR 710.25(a), any manufacturer relying on another person's notice remains responsible for confirming that their substance becomes designated as active.

Comment 7: Several commenters requested that processors be allowed to report for an additional 180 days that begins when the draft Inventory is published and not when the 180-day submission period for manufacturers closes. One commenter questioned whether EPA had legal authority to extend the submission period for processors beyond 180 days, but accepted EPA's rationale for providing processors with additional reporting time after EPA's publication of the draft Inventory, provided that the extra time for processor reporting remains a short (i.e., no more than 180 days) and fixed period, as proposed.

Response: With respect to EPA's legal authority to establish a voluntary retrospective submission period for processors beyond 180 days, EPA believes this is implicit in its authority to establish a mandatory reporting period for manufacturers during the first 180 days. EPA notes that TSCA does not require that the rule impose any retrospective reporting requirements at all on processors. Nor does TSCA section 8(b)(4) establish a deadline for the publication of the Inventory designating active and inactive substances. Furthermore, allowing processors additional time to report is consistent with the manner in which the original Inventory was assembled, it advances the statutory objective of efficiently dividing active substances from inactive substances, and it advances the statutory objective under TSCA section 8(a)(5) of avoiding (to the extent feasible) unnecessary reporting. Processors may be able to identify certain active substances that manufacturers would not, but requiring them to report during the same time period as manufacturers might lead them to duplicate the reports of manufacturers.

EPA originally proposed that processors may report not later than 360 days after the final rule is published in the Federal Register. EPA's rationale was that the additional 180-day submission period for processors, beyond the 180-day submission period for manufacturers, would allow processors to search EPA's publication of the draft Inventory with active designations, based on the retrospective reporting by manufacturers, and to report only those substances not already reported. EPA agrees with comments that the purpose of affording the additional 180 days for processors is best served if that 180-day submission period begins on the date on which processors would actually be able to review the draft Inventory. EPA also agrees with the comment that the rule should specify a fixed date on which the processor submission period will end, as originally proposed, but which would not be the case if the 180-day submission period were to begin on the unknown date of the publication of the draft Inventory. EPA intends to publish the draft Inventory with active designations as soon as is practicable following the close of the 180-day submission period for manufacturers, which is anticipated to be approximately 60 days after the 180-day submission period for manufacturers ends. Based on this anticipated timeframe for publishing the draft Inventory and in consideration of these comments, EPA is finalizing the rule to allow processors to report not later than 420 days after the publication of the rule in the Federal Register. See 40 CFR 710.30(a)(2). This revised submission period for processors provides a fixed date on which the processor submission period will end and is anticipated to provide an approximate 180-day period for processor reporting from the date by which EPA expects to publish the draft Inventory.

Changes to Processor Submission Period for Retrospective Reporting: EPA changed the retrospective reporting submission period for processors to end not more than 420 days after the publication of the rule in the Federal Register. See 40 CFR 710.30(a)(2).

Comment 8: Two commenters stated that an estimated date of re-commercialization should be able to be provided rather than an actual date. Two commenters stated that there is no need to limit the submission period for forward-looking reporting (NOA Form B) to not more than 30 days prior to manufacturing or processing, as proposed by EPA, citing that the statute only requires notification to take place “before” commercialization resumes. One commenter suggests that persons be permitted to submit an NOA Form B up to 90 days before re-commercialization instead of 30 days. Another commenter suggested that the Agency require an NOA Form B to be submitted not less than 90 days prior to manufacturing or processing to allow sufficient time for the Agency to evaluate the chemical and determine whether a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) is needed. Another commenter was supportive of the proposed 30-day requirement.

Response: EPA agrees that the date that must be provided on an NOA Form B should be the anticipated date of reintroduction of a chemical substance in U.S. commerce, rather than the actual date. EPA recognizes that any reporting required in advance of actual commercialization is based on information and schedules that are subject to change, and providing an actual date of commercialization in advance, therefore, is not always practical. EPA believes that providing an anticipated date of commercialization should lessen concerns expressed by commenters. See 40 CFR 710.29(c)(2).

EPA has also decided to modify the date requirement from originally proposed, extending it to allow notice up to 90 days ahead of time, in addition to basing the date requirement on the anticipated date of manufacturing or processing rather than the actual date of manufacturing or processing. EPA decided to retain some limitation on the submission period because EPA's experience with other reporting under TSCA (e.g., PMNs) is that the earlier a notice is submitted, the higher the likelihood is that the schedule for commercialization will change or that a chemical substance might not be commercialized at all. EPA believes that retaining a limitation on the submission period for future reporting will reduce the number of notices submitted for substances whose schedule for commercial re-introduction changes appreciably. EPA also believes that extending the submission period to begin from 90 days, rather than 30 days, prior to resuming manufacturing or processing will afford manufacturers and processers additional time to adjust to information and schedule changes and will not significantly impact the accuracy of notices submitted. See 40 CFR 710.30(b)(1).

Regarding changing the deadline for submission of an NOA Form B to be at least 90 days prior to resuming manufacturing or processing for the purposes of Agency action (e.g., SNUR), EPA disagrees with the commenter's interpretation that by requiring advance notification, Congress wanted to provide EPA an opportunity to take action to delay the resumption of manufacturing or processing if it had concerns about the subject chemical. To the contrary, the statute clearly reflects that the obligation to submit a section 8(b)(5)(B) notification was not intended as a tool to impede the resumption of manufacturing or processing. Specifically, the statute does not authorize EPA to structure the rule in such a manner that if a manufacturer or processor submits an NOA Form B, the manufacturer or processor could be obliged to wait longer than the next day to commence manufacturing and processing the chemical substance. See TSCA section 8(b)(5)(B)(i). EPA believes the most plausible explanations for why Congress imposed the advance notification requirement were: (1) To ensure that EPA actually receives the notices (by making the lawful resumption of manufacturing or processing contingent on the notification) and; (2) to support EPA's subsequent prioritization efforts under TSCA section 6(b). See TSCA section 8(b)(5)(B)(iii)(IV).

Changes to the Date Requirement for Forward-looking Reporting: EPA changed the limitation on submitting an NOA Form B to be not more than 90 days prior to the anticipated date of manufacturing or processing. See 40 CFR 710.29(c)(2) and 40 CFR 710.30(b)(1).

Comment 9: A few commenters asked EPA to clarify in the rule how it would implement the requirements of TSCA section 8(b)(7). For example, commenters requested that EPA confirm in the final rule when the draft and final lists of active and inactive substances will be published. One commenter indicated that EPA should identify all substances on the Inventory as active or inactive not later than 15 months after promulgation of this final rule. Another commenter indicated that EPA should publish an updated version of the Inventory, with all substances designated as active or inactive, not later than six months after the completion of the retrospective notification process. Commenters also stated that EPA should specify in the rule the date when substances will be designated as inactive. One commenter stated that EPA should publish a Federal Register notice every 90 days listing all substances that EPA has designated as active following receipt of an NOA Form B.

Response: TSCA section 8(b)(7) requires EPA to make active and inactive designations available to the public, but it gives EPA discretion as to the manner and timing of doing so. EPA intends to publish a draft Inventory as soon as practicable after the close of the 180-day submission period for manufacturers, which will include only active designations (based on interim list designations, NOCs, and manufacturer reporting); chemicals that have no designation on this draft Inventory should not be assumed to be inactive. EPA intends to publish the first Inventory identifying both active and inactive substances as soon as practicable after the close of the retrospective submission period for processors, in a web posting of the Inventory on EPA's Inventory Web page (see https://www.epa.gov/tsca-inventory). Given that the statute does not mandate a specific deadline for the publication of the first Inventory identifying both active and inactive substances, and given the challenges of foreseeing precisely how much time will be necessary to review and compile the data it will receive from retrospective reporting, EPA has chosen not to impose a regulatory deadline on the publication of this first Inventory.

The obligation to submit an NOA Form B under TSCA section 8(b)(5)(B)(i) does not arise until a chemical substance has been “designated as an inactive substance.” EPA is establishing an effective date provision for the designation of a substance as an inactive substance. EPA revised the rule so that an “inactive substance” designation becomes effective 90 days after the date that EPA identifies the substance for inactive designation. See 40 CFR 710.23 for revised definition of “inactive substance.” EPA will identify substances for inactive designation in a signed action accompanying the first version of the Inventory with all active-inactive listings following the close of the retrospective submission period for processors. EPA intends to publish this signed action together with the Inventory in a web posting on EPA's Inventory Web page (see https://www.epa.gov/tsca-inventory).

With respect to Inventory updates based on forward-looking reporting, the statute does not specifically require that EPA inform the public of the reintroduction of chemical substances by issuing Federal Register notices every 90 days, indicating what substances (if any) have been reactivated. EPA intends to include substances submitted in forward-looking notices and re-designated as active on the Inventory in its regular publications of the Inventory, which occur approximately every six months.

Changes to the Final Rule to Establish the Date When a Chemical Substance Will Be Designated as Inactive: EPA revised the rule so that an inactive substance designation is not effective until 90 days after the date that EPA identifies a substance for inactive designation. See 40 CFR 710.23 for revised definition of “inactive substance.”

Comment 10: A few commenters expressed concerns about the status of substances manufactured or processed in the period between June 22, 2016 and the date the first Inventory with active and inactive designations is finalized and published. These commenters requested that EPA clarify the status of such substances.

Response: EPA clarified the status of these chemical substances in Unit II and the final rule. The structure of the reporting requirements under TSCA sections 8(b)(4)(A) and 8(b)(5)(B) results in a transitional period beginning on June 22, 2016 (the day after the lookback period for retrospective reporting ends) and ending on the date the forward-looking reporting period begins (i.e., the effective date that chemical substances are designated as inactive, which is 90 days after EPA publishes the first Inventory with listings identified as active or inactive). A person who did not manufacture or process a particular chemical substance during the lookback period (June 21, 2006 through June 21, 2016) is not subject to the retrospective reporting provisions of this rule with respect to that substance, and should not submit an NOA Form A for that substance regardless of whether the person manufactured or processed the substance on or after June 22, 2016. If that substance is ultimately designated by EPA as inactive, however, any person who intends to manufacture or process that substance after it is designated as inactive must submit an NOA Form B.

To address concerns about substances reintroduced into U.S. commerce during the transitional period and potential interruptions in commercial activity that could arise upon EPA's designation of such substances as inactive, EPA revised the rule to reflect that an inactive designation only becomes effective 90 days after EPA identifies the substance for such designation. EPA is clarifying that the obligation to submit an NOA Form B does not begin until the effective date of an inactive substance designation. Because EPA revised the rule so that an inactive substance designation is not effective until 90 days after the date that EPA identifies a substance for inactive designation, manufacturers and processors are afforded time to react to an inactive substance identification. Persons who are already manufacturing or processing a substance for nonexempt commercial purpose (e.g., during the transitional period), and wish to continue doing so without interruption after EPA's designation of such substance as inactive, are permitted to submit an NOA Form B for such substance prior to the effective date of the inactive designation, which is the date that the substance attains the legal status of being inactive. Similarly, persons that anticipate reintroducing a substance into U.S. commerce for nonexempt commercial purpose shortly after EPA identifies the substance for inactive designation are also afforded time to react to the inactive substance identification and are permitted to file an NOA Form B prior to the effective date of the substance's inactive designation, as long as such form is filed no more than 90 days before the anticipated date of manufacture or processing. Manufacturers should be aware that the timely filing of an NOA Form B does not remedy an earlier failure to comply with the retrospective reporting requirement; it merely ensures that the manufacturer will not also be in violation of the forward-looking reporting requirement.

Changes to the Final Rule to Clarify the Status of Chemical Substances Manufactured or Processed in between the Retrospective and Forward-Looking Reporting Periods: EPA revised the rule to clarify that manufacturers and processors are permitted to submit an NOA Form B for a chemical substance that EPA has identified for inactive designation, even though the effective date of such designation has not yet arrived, and thus the substance does not yet have the legal status of being inactive. See 40 CFR 710.30(b)(2).

Comment 11: Numerous commenters stated that certain data requirements should be eliminated or reduced. Two commenters stated that EPA should reduce the proposed requirement for a date range from retrospective notification by not requiring exact dates for the date range for retrospective notification, and instead suggested that the first and last dates of the range be reported by month and year. Numerous commenters stated that EPA should eliminate the proposed requirement for a date range from retrospective notification, indicating that such information would be burdensome to retrieve and evaluate and, in certain cases, may not be available due to record retention policies. Commenters further indicated that such information is not required to meet the statutory objective and that the certification statement should be sufficient to support data accuracy. Similarly, several commenters also stated that EPA should eliminate the proposed requirement for type of commercial activity from retrospective notification; one commenter indicated that the proposed requirement should also be eliminated from forward-looking notification. A few commenters suggested reducing the proposed requirement for type of commercial activity from retrospective notification by combining “Domestically manufactured” and “Imported” into one category for reporting. One commenter was supportive of requiring type of commercial activity.

Response: EPA has decided not to require date range and activity type for retrospective notification. EPA had proposed such information to serve the objective of verifying and validating notices submitted. However, in response to comments received, EPA has been persuaded that the collection of a date range of manufacture, as well as the collection of information to differentiate between domestic manufacture, import, and processing, is unnecessary to serve the underlying objective of reliably differentiating active and inactive substances. EPA is also mindful that TSCA section 8(b)(4)(A)(i) specially admonishes the Agency to avoid, to the extent feasible, the collection of unnecessary information in this rule. As an alternative to requiring date and information, EPA has revised the NOA Form A certification statement to require an affirmation that manufacturing or processing of the chemical substance occurred during the lookback period. If EPA needs to verify the basis for such a certification, it can obtain and evaluate the documentation that submitters are required to maintain under 40 CFR 710.35.

EPA has similarly removed the activity type requirement for forward-looking notification. This is consistent with the evidence of Congressional intent motivating the notification requirement. See S. Rep. 114-67 at 20 (purpose is to categorize the chemical substances on the Inventory as “active or inactive,” and “[m]anufacturers of an inactive substance may return the substance to the active inventory with a simple notification to EPA”). In response to comments received, EPA has been persuaded that information on activity type is not necessary to accomplish the purpose of the rule regarding differentiating inactive substances from active substances. EPA has also revised the NOA Form B certification statement to require an affirmation that persons submitting an NOA Form B have forward-looking intent to manufacture or process for nonexempt commercial purpose. If EPA needs to verify the basis for such a certification, it can obtain and evaluate the documentation that submitters are required to maintain under 40 CFR 710.35.

Changes to Required Reporting Elements in the Final Rule: EPA removed the date range and commercial activity type requirements from retrospective notification, and revised the certification statement on the NOA Form A to clarify that persons submitting the form are certifying that manufacturing or processing of the chemical substance occurred during the lookback period. EPA also removed the commercial activity type requirement from forward-looking notification, and revised the certification statement on the NOA Form B to clarify that persons submitting the form are certifying that they have forward-looking intent to manufacture or process the substance. See 40 CFR 710.29(b) and 40 CFR 710.29(c).

Comment 12: Numerous commenters stated that EPA should clarify the meaning of “known or reasonably ascertainable,” particularly in the context of scenarios involving mergers and acquisitions (e.g., corporate predecessors and successors) that occurred during or after the ten-year reporting period, and in such scenarios, who is responsible for reporting under the rule. Some commenters further elaborated that if a company no longer has a legal obligation to retain particular records, or if the records are no longer in the possession of the company (e.g., they are not available due to company document retention policies or are in the possession of an acquiring company), the information should be considered to be not “Known or Reasonably Available/Ascertainable” and reporting should not be required. One commenter suggested amending 40 CFR 710.25 to add a new paragraph (b) to address entities formed during the lookback period that may not have historical records in their possession or control. Another commenter stated that EPA's proposal was still silent as to the level of diligence that must be used to determine which substances must be reported under NOA Form A and Form B, and suggested that EPA assign a “readily obtainable” standard to that level of diligence for the Form A's.

Response: CFR 40 part 704 defines “Known to or reasonably ascertainable by” as all information in a person's possession or control, plus all information that a reasonable person similarly situated might be expected to possess, control, or know. In response to commenters' request for clarification of possession or control as it relates to corporate mergers and acquisitions, EPA has added to 40 CFR 710.23 the definition of “Possession or Control” from 40 CFR 704.3. Consistent with its use in Part 704, “Possession or Control” is defined as meaning in the possession or control of any person, or of any subsidiary, partnership in which the person is a general partner, parent company, or any company or partnership which the parent company owns or controls, if the subsidiary, parent company, or other company or partnership is associated with the person in the research, development, test marketing, or commercial marketing of the chemical substance in question. Information is in the possession or control of a person if it is: (1) In the person's own files including files maintained by employees of the person in the course of their employment, (2) in commercially available data bases to which the person has purchased access, or (3) maintained in the files in the course of employment by other agents of the person who are associated with research, development, test marketing, or commercial marketing of the chemical substance in question.

EPA believes it is appropriate to construe what “a reasonable person similarly situated might be expected to possess, control, or know,” based on the totality of pertinent factors. Prior loss of records consistent with document retention policies and the other individual factors cited by the commenters could be pertinent in construing what information is known or reasonably ascertainable, but they are not replacements for the regulatory standard. In any event, if a person actually knows information, then it is known or reasonably ascertainable.

In the context of the CDR rule, EPA has published extensive guidance on the application of the “known to or reasonably ascertainable by” standard and how to address retrospective reporting in the case of corporate succession. See, e.g., TSCA Chemical Data Reporting Fact Sheet: Reporting After Changes to Company Ownership or Legal Identity, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/cdr_fact_sheet_company_changes.pdf (Ref. 9). See also 2016 Chemical Data Reporting Frequent Questions, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/documents/cdr_fq_final_july_11_2016.pdf (Ref. 10). EPA finds that guidance issued on these topics in the context of the CDR rule is also instructive in the context of this rule.

EPA agrees with one commenter that the level of diligence that must be used to determine which chemical substances must be reported using an NOA Form A should be clarified, but disagrees with the suggestion that manufacturers need not report their manufacture of substances during the lookback period if the knowledge that they conducted the prior manufacture is reasonably ascertainable by them but not “readily obtainable” by them. EPA revised 40 CFR 710.25(a) to clarify that if it is not “known to or reasonably ascertainable by” a manufacturer that the person manufactured a particular substance during the lookback period, then the person is not obligated to report that substance on an NOA Form A. EPA believes that the authority to limit retrospective reporting to information that is known or reasonably ascertainable at the time of the reporting obligation is implicit in the grant of rulemaking authority under TSCA section 8(b)(4), consistent with TSCA section 8(a) and the overall statutory objectives of TSCA section 8(b), and consistent with past practice for retrospective reporting on the CDR rule. The commenter set forth little basis for adopting a “readily obtainable” standard and EPA continues to believe (see proposal at 82 FR 4256) that it is appropriate to base this rule on basic reporting concepts that the public is already familiar with from the CDR. It would be confusing to have one standard governing the need to submit an NOA Form A (“readily obtainable”) and another standard (“known to or reasonably ascertainable by”) governing the information elements that need to be reported on the NOA Form A. Finally, EPA has already significantly addressed commenters' broader concern about the potential burden of conducting an information search by eliminating the requirement to report the specific start and end dates of manufacture.

EPA also disagrees with one commenter that 40 CFR 710.25 should be amended to specifically address entities formed during the lookback period that do not have historical records in their possession. The revision to 40 CFR 710.23 to add the definition of “Possession or Control,” and the revision to 40 CFR 710.25(a) to clarify application of the “known to or reasonably ascertainable by” standard in the context of retrospective reporting, apply to all persons subject to reporting under 40 CFR 710.25(a). It is not necessary to separately address a specific type of entity, e.g., entities formed during the lookback period, in 40 CFR 710.25.

With respect to the standard of diligence for determining whether a chemical substance is subject to forward-looking reporting on an NOA Form B, EPA revised 40 CFR 710.25(c) to clarify that if it is not “known to or reasonably ascertainable by” a person that the substance being manufactured or processed is listed on the confidential portion of the Inventory as an inactive substance, then the person is not obligated to report that substance on an NOA Form B. This may be the case, for instance, if one person manufactures a polymer under a PMN exemption, but another manufacturer subsequently adds the same polymer to the confidential portion of the Inventory and then ceases manufacturing before the lookback period, resulting in the confidential substance being designated inactive. EPA anticipates that only persons operating under PMN exemptions will be able to avail themselves of this revision, since other persons will have no basis to manufacture an Inventory chemical without knowing the Inventory identity of the chemical.

With respect to the information that must be reported on an NOA Form B, believes that the question of the information reporting standard and the standard of diligence has become moot, with the elimination of all information submission requirements other than those that EPA can reasonably expect the submitter to know. By direct operation of the statute and consistent with proposed procedural rules at 40 CFR 710.25, any person who intends to manufacture or process an inactive substance, except for a nonexempt commercial purpose, must submit an NOA Form B alerting EPA to “designate the applicable chemical substance as an active substance.” TSCA section 8(b)(5)(B). Thus, irrespective of any rulemaking, TSCA itself requires the identity of the substance to be placed on the active Inventory to be specified. The proposed requirement to report the type of intended commercial activity has been eliminated, along with the “actual date” by which the inactive substance is to be manufactured or processed. If a person does not know the date by which it anticipates that the inactive substance is to be manufactured or processed, then filing NOA Form B would be inconsistent with the timing requirements of 40 CFR 710.30. Finally, EPA can reasonably expect the submitter to know its own identity. Accordingly, EPA has removed, as moot, the proposed specification in 40 CFR 710.29(c) that a person required to submit information on an NOA Form B must report information to the extent that such information is known or reasonably ascertainable by that person.

Changes to the Final Rule to Clarify “Known or Reasonably Ascertainable” and to Add a Definition for “Possession or Control:” EPA added a definition for “Possession or Control” in the rule to clarify the existing definition of “Known to or reasonably ascertainable by.” See 40 CFR 710.23. EPA also revised 40 CFR 710.25(a) to clarify that if it is not “known to or reasonably ascertainable by” a manufacturer that the person manufactured a particular chemical substance during the lookback period, then the person is not obligated to report that substance on an NOA Form A. EPA revised 40 CFR 710.25(c) to clarify that if it is not “known to or reasonably ascertainable by” a person that the substance being manufactured or processed is listed on the confidential portion of the Inventory as an inactive substance, then the person is not obligated to report that substance on an NOA Form B. EPA removed, as moot, the proposed specification in 40 CFR 710.29(c) that a person required to submit information on an NOA Form B must report information to the extent that such information is known to or reasonably ascertainable by that person.

Comment 13: Numerous commenters stated that EPA should provide a reasonable opportunity or a formal process to amend or correct retrospective notices. Several commenters suggested a time frame for corrections, e.g., up until the date that the first Inventory with active and inactive designations is published; for manufacturers, during the additional 180-day submission period for processors; and for processors, 180 days from the date that the first Inventory is published. Two commenters stated that EPA should also allow forward-looking notices to be corrected or rescinded. Several commenters indicated that corrections should be non-punitive.

Response: EPA agrees in part with these comments. The 180-day retrospective submission period for manufacturers is the maximum time provided for by the statute. While EPA is not providing a formal corrections process for retrospective reporting to the regulatory text, EPA will allow retrospective reporting notices submitted by manufacturers during the 180-day submission period for manufacturers to be withdrawn not later than 420 days after the publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. EPA will allow retrospective reporting notices submitted by processors during the 420-day submission period for processors to be withdrawn not later than October 5, 2018, should processors discover errors in their original notices. See 40 CFR 710.30(a)(3).

With respect to forward-looking reporting, EPA is not providing a formal corrections process but has revised the regulatory text to allow forward-looking reporting notices submitted by manufacturers or processors to be withdrawn if EPA has not yet altered the Inventory status of the chemical substance in response to the original submission (i.e., EPA has neither re-designated the substance from inactive to active nor moved the substance from the confidential portion of the Inventory to the public portion of the Inventory as a result of a request in the original submission for a CBI claim to be withdrawn). See 40 CFR 710.30(b)(3). Because a forward-looking notice will be processed even if the intended manufacture and processing does not occur as originally anticipated, and because it would be burdensome and potentially impossible to implement such an approach, the rule does not allow for EPA to revert a re-activated substance back to inactive status based on a request to withdraw a Form B, or for EPA to revert a non-CBI substance back to a CBI substance based on a request to withdraw a Form B.

EPA appreciates that retrospective withdrawals should be non-punitive. However, after the period allowed for withdrawal, incorrect information would be considered a prohibited act under Section 15(1) and 15(3). Similarly, incorrect information in forward-looking notices would also be considered a prohibited act under Section 15(1) and 15(3), if not withdrawn prior to EPA altering the Inventory status of the chemical substance in the original notice. Persons making corrections after these retrospective and forward-looking timeframes and seeking future penalty mitigation considerations may disclose within 21 days after they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that a violation has, or may have, occurred, pursuant to EPA's Self-Disclosure policies. See: https://www.epa.gov/compliance/epas-edisclosure.

Changes to the Final Rule to Allow Withdrawal of a Notice of Activity Form A or Form B: EPA revised the rule to allow retrospective notices to be withdrawn if done so not later than October 5, 2018. See 40 CFR 710.30(a)(3). EPA revised the rule to allow forward-looking notices to be withdrawn if EPA has not yet altered the Inventory status of the substance in response to the original submission. See 40 CFR 710.30(b)(3).

Comment 14: A few commenters requested clarification on the proposed procedures for joint submissions. One commenter requested that EPA provide a different reporting option that avoids the need for a joint submission. Two commenters requested clarification on the reporting responsibilities of manufacturers, importers, and processors when a supplier fails to submit its information.

Response: EPA proposed procedures for joint submissions that will enable a company to submit a commercial activity notice for a chemical substance on the confidential portion of the Inventory in situations where the submitter does not know the specific chemical identity of the substance because a portion of the specific chemical identity is held CBI by a supplier. This rule includes such joint submission procedures that allow the submitter to provide information on the specific chemical identity that it has in its possession, and the supplier to separately provide information on the specific chemical identity that it has in its possession, in a manner that protects the supplier's CBI from the submitter of the NOA.

Additionally, since publication of the proposed rule, EPA expanded its electronic reporting system to include a pick list from which persons can select chemicals for reporting. The pick list will include only reportable substances and will not include CBI. Non-CBI substances will be listed by CASRNs and CA index names, as they appear on the Inventory, and CBI substances will be listed by EPA accession numbers and generic names, as they appear on public versions of the Inventory. Submitters can identify substances from the pick list and, therefore, do not have to manually enter chemical identity information. Because the chemical identity information selected from the pick list and transmitted on the NOA form will not be CBI, there is no need for submitters who use this pick list to supply CBI to EPA. In cases involving third party CBI, a submitter can provide a single notice to EPA for a CBI substance, provided they have in their possession the corresponding non-CBI chemical identifiers, EPA accession number and generic name, by selecting the non-CBI identifiers from the pick list, thereby avoiding the need for a joint submission. If a submitting company does not know the EPA accession number and generic name, they can use existing mechanisms (e.g., Inventory Correspondence) to request such information from EPA.

A submitting company that does not know the CBI chemical identity of the substance that it is required to report because of third party CBI, therefore, has two options for reporting. Such submitter can utilize the joint submission functionality in the electronic reporting tool. Alternatively, such submitter can select from the pick list based on the corresponding non-CBI chemical identifiers, EPA accession number and generic name, provided they have this information.

Changes to Reporting Options for Joint Submissions: EPA revised the final rule to add a description of the pick list that will be provided in the electronic reporting system and which can serve as an alternative to a joint submission, should submitters have in their possession non-CBI chemical identifiers (EPA accession number and generic name) for a reportable CBI substance.

Comment 15: A few commenters stated that the estimated reporting burden and costs are too low or unrealistic, citing the following universe estimates as underestimated: Number of chemicals that are not reported under CDR because of exemptions or reporting threshold (including ten percent basis for nonexempt low volume chemicals and polymers) and total burden for processors. One commenter recommended that EPA revise the number of processors or better explain the origins of EPA's estimation of 161,000 affected processors. Additionally, a few commenters stated that unit burden estimates per activity and/or respondent are too low, including: Cost per industry submission, time needed for data gathering, time needed for due diligence, and rule familiarization (for processors).

Response: EPA agrees in part with these comments. After considering these comments, EPA adjusted the universe estimates and certain unit burden estimates. Regarding the number of chemicals and associated firms, EPA adds a group of chemicals termed “XU Chemicals” that was not included in estimates for the proposed rule. XU chemicals are defined in 40 CFR 711.6 and largely consist of polymers. This group of chemicals is listed on the Inventory, but is exempt from the reporting requirements of the CDR rule. Given that the CDR database is the primary source from which this rule's economic analysis draws measurements for counts of chemicals and firms, the XU Chemicals needed to be added. Regarding the number of processors, the origin for the proposed rule estimate of 161,550 processors was derived using the total chemical count for the initial reporting period combined with a model for “processors per chemical.” The model is based on a previous analysis for a different proposed rule (and cited in this proposed rule's Burden and Cost Report.) For the final rule, the model is updated using the more current CDR 2016 data; detailed methodology is provided in Table 2 footnote (Ref. 2). Due to the increased value of the model coupled with the higher chemical counts (discussed previously), processors are estimated for the final rule at 283,993 firms

Regarding unit burden estimates, EPA developed estimates for typical scenarios during start up and ongoing reporting to use as the representative average and then apply universe estimates to yield total burden estimates. Individual respondents may experience lower or higher levels of burden. The activities of “time for data gathering,” and “time needed for due diligence” are included in the unit burden estimate for compliance determination. Similarly, unit burden estimate for rule familiarization is based on the activities expected: “. . . becoming familiar with the full requirements of the rule, which includes reading the rule, understanding the various reporting and administrative requirements, and determining the manner in which reporting requirements will be met for each chemical substance” (Ref. 2). EPA also developed a range of burden hours estimates for processors' rule familiarization during start up at one to four hours, based on EPA judgment of how processors will familiarize themselves with the rule.

Changes to the Burden and Cost Estimates in the Final Rule: EPA revised the universe estimates to add XU Chemicals, and to incorporate a revised, larger estimate for the number of processor firms. EPA also revised the unit burden for processors' rule familiarization during start up.

Comment 16: One commenter indicated that EPA should justify why certification is required for non-CBI notices. Another commenter suggested the following changes to the proposed regulatory text for certification: 40 CFR 710.37(b)(3) should be corrected to “[a]n authorized official of a person” instead of “person,” 40 CFR 710.29(d)(5) should be extended to substantiations as well as to claims and notices, and 40 CFR 710.37(b)(3) should be replicated in 40 CFR 710.37(a) so that it also applies to CBI claims for chemical identity in addition to other CBI claims.

Response: Certification statements are required under TSCA section 8(b)(9)(A) and are essential whenever information is submitted to the EPA. Certification statements are routinely required for data submitted to the EPA under TSCA as well as other statutes for both CBI and non-CBI submissions. Such statements ensure that the data the EPA ultimately relies on are valid and accurate. It also puts the submitter on notice of the consequences of submitting false, inaccurate, or incomplete information to the Agency.

EPA agrees in large part with the comment recommending specific corrections to 40 CFR 710.37(b)(3) and 710.29(d)(5), the proposed regulatory provisions for certifications. EPA has revised the certification provisions in the rule, which currently appear at 40 CFR 710.37(e) (applicable to CBI claims and associated substantiations) and 710.29(d)(5) (applicable to all information reported on NOA Forms A and B). The rule clarifies that an “authorized official” submitting or substantiating any new or existing CBI claim must provide a certification, consistent with the requirements of TSCA section 14(c)(5).

While EPA does not agree with the commenter's implication that a request to maintain an existing CBI claim for specific chemical identity is subject to all of the same requirements and procedures that would apply to the assertion of a new claim under TSCA section 14(c), EPA finds it appropriate under the circumstances to require a certification statement for such requests that is consistent with TSCA section 14(c)(5), in addition to meeting the certification requirement of TSCA section 8(b)(9)(A). The earlier assertion of the CBI claim for specific chemical identity may have predated current provisions under TSCA subsections 14(c)(5) and (c)(1)(B) pertaining to the certification of a specific statement required for the assertion of a CBI claim. EPA does not believe that Congress intended the Agency to review existing CBI claims for chemical identity under TSCA section 8(b) without having the benefit of this certified statement.

Changes to the Certification Statements in the Final Rule. EPA revised the certification statement applicable to CBI claims to substitute “authorized official” for “person,” and to address substantiation of claims, consistent with TSCA sections 8(b)(9)(A) and 14(c)(5).

Comment 17: One commenter indicated that the CBI claims process should be better defined, particularly with regard to substantiation. Two commenters stated that the substantiation questions should be reduced in scope.

Response: EPA has extensively re-written the substantiation questions from the proposal in a manner intended to more succinctly secure answers for the basis of the CBI assertions for each data element as well as the CBI concerns on the linkage of data elements.

Changes to Substantiation Questions in the Final Rule: EPA has rewritten the substantiation questions to more succinctly secure answers for the basis of the CBI assertions for each data elements as well as the CBI concerns on the linkage of data elements.

IV. References

The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these references and other information considered by EPA. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. 2017. EPA. TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements; Proposed Rule. Federal Register (82 FR 4255, January 13, 2017) (FRL 9956-28). 2. 2017. EPA. Burden and Cost Report for the Final Rule: TSCA Inventory Notification Requirements (RIN 2070-AK24, June 19, 2017). 3. 2017. EPA. Notice of Activity Form A and Form B; Final. 4. 2009. EPA. Notice of Commencement Form; Final. 5. 2005. EPA. Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR); Final Rule. Federal Register (70 FR 59848, October 13, 2005) (FRL 7977-1). 6. 2013. EPA. Electronic Reporting Under the Toxic Substances Control Act; Final Rule. Federal Register (78 FR 72818, December 4, 2013) (FRL 9394-6). 7. 2017. EPA. Response to Comments to the Proposed Rule, TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements; RIN 2070-AK24. Docket # EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0426. 8. 2016. EPA. TSCA Chemical Data Reporting Fact Sheet: Imported Articles. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/cdr_fact_sheet_imported_articles_-_final_dec2015.pdf. 9. 2016. EPA. TSCA Chemical Data Reporting Fact Sheet: Reporting After Changes to Company Ownership or Legal Identity. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/cdr_fact_sheet_company_changes.pdf. 10. 2016. EPA. Chemical Data Reporting Frequent Questions. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/documents/cdr_fq_final_july_11_2016.pdf. 11. 2017. EPA. Information Collection Request for the TSCA section 8(b) Reporting Requirements for TSCA Inventory Notifications (EPA ICR No. 2562.02). 12. 2017. EPA. Small Entity Analysis Report for the Final Rule: TSCA Inventory Notification Requirements (May 30, 2017). V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/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 that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

The information collection activities associated with this rule have been submitted to OMB for review and approval under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Specifically, EPA has prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) (identified under EPA ICR No. 2565.01 (OMB Control No. 2070-0201), that estimates the potential burden and costs associated with the paperwork requirements contained in this rule (Ref. 11). You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.

Start-up year burden/cost (Retrospective). Covers respondents/affected entities, i.e., persons who manufacture chemical substances.

Respondents' obligation to respond: Mandatory.

Estimated number of respondents: 1,685.

Manufacturers: 5,322.

Processors: 283,993.

Frequency of response: Once and on occasion.

Estimated burden: The term “burden” is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Manufacturers: 38,613 hours.

Processors: 937,347 hours.

Estimated cost:

Manufacturers: $3.09 million.

Processors: $75.8 million.

Start-up year CDX Registrations burden/cost.

Respondents' obligation to respond: Mandatory.

Estimated number of respondents: (169 registrations).

Frequency of response: Once and on occasion.

Estimated burden: 90 hours.

Estimated cost: $7,022.

Ongoing annual burden/cost (Forward-looking): Covers respondents/affected entities, i.e., persons who manufacture or process chemical substances.

Respondents' obligation to respond: Mandatory.

Estimated number of respondents: 20.

Frequency of response: On-occasion.

Total estimated burden: 225 hours.

Total estimated cost: $17,779.

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and included on any related collection instrument (e.g., the form). When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection activities contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

EPA certifies under section 605(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule has a very small level of impact on the small entities subject to the rule.

The entities subject to the requirements of this action are manufacturers, and processors of chemical substances, i.e., small businesses in NAICS 325: Chemical Manufacturing, and 324: Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing. The most burdensome conditions are incurred during the start-up year, when all manufacturers are expected to report, and all processors are expected to become familiar with the requirements, but only a small number of the processors will likely also report. EPA has prepared a detailed analysis to evaluate the potential impacts quantitatively, a copy of which is available in the docket (Ref. 12).

The quantitative analysis addresses the “most affected” subset of entities who are expected to incur the highest potential burden under the rule (18 hours and $1,188 per firm) are the small entities manufacturing (or importing) chemicals that must submit NOAs involving an average of eighteen chemicals per entity in the start-up year. Although all processors are assumed to experience burden from becoming familiar with the requirements, only a small subset are expected to experience the burdens associated with submitting the NOAs.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action is not expected to impose enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments, and the requirements imposed on the private sector are not expected to result in annual expenditures of $100 million or more for the private sector. As such, EPA has determined that the requirements of UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 do not apply to this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it does not have any effect on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it is not expected to have any effect on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.

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

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of Executive Order 13045 has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

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

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on energy

supply, distribution, or use.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

Since this action does not involve any technical standards, NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, does not apply to this action.

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

This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), because EPA has determined that this action would not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. This action does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA will submit a rule report to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 710

Chemicals, Confidential Business Information, Environmental Protection, Hazardous Substances, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements.

Dated: June 22, 2017. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator.

Therefore, 40 CFR Chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 710—[AMENDED] 1. Revise the authority citation for part 710 to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 2607(a) and (b).

2. Designate §§ 710.1 through 710.4 as subpart A, and add a heading for subpart A to read as follows: Subpart A—General Provisions 3. In § 710.1, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 710.1 Scope and compliance.

(b) This part applies to the activities associated with the compilation of the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (Inventory) and the designation of chemical substances on the TSCA Inventory as active or inactive in U.S. commerce.

4. In § 710.3, revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 710.3 Definitions.

(d) The following definitions also apply to this part:

Act means the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

Administrator means the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, any employee or authorized representative of the Agency to whom the Administrator may either herein or by order delegate his/her authority to carry out his/her functions, or any other person who will by operation of law be authorized to carry out such functions.

Article means a manufactured item:

(1) Which is formed to a specific shape or design during manufacture,

(2) Which has end use function(s) dependent in whole or in part upon its shape or design during end use, and

(3) Which has either no change of chemical composition during its end use or only those changes of composition which have no commercial purpose separate from that of the article and that may occur as described in § 710.4(d)(5); except that fluids and particles are not considered articles regardless of shape or design.

Byproduct means a chemical substance produced without a separate commercial intent during the manufacture, processing, use, or disposal of another chemical substance(s) or mixture(s).

CASRN means Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number.

Chemical substance means any organic or inorganic substance of a particular molecular identity, including any combination of such substances occurring in whole or in part as a result of a chemical reaction or occurring in nature, and any chemical element or uncombined radical; except that “chemical substance” does not include:

(1) Any mixture;

(2) Any pesticide when manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce for use as a pesticide;

(3) Tobacco or any tobacco product, but not including any derivative products;

(4) Any source material, special nuclear material, or byproduct material;

(5) Any pistol, firearm, revolver, shells, and cartridges; and

(6) Any food, food additive, drug, cosmetic, or device, when manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce for use as a food, food additive, drug, cosmetic, or device.

Commerce means trade, traffic, transportation, or other commerce:

(1) Between a place in a State and any place outside of such State or

(2) Which affects trade, traffic, transportation, or commerce between a place in a State and any place outside of such State.

Customs territory of the United States means the 50 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.

Distribute in commerce and distribution in commerce means to sell in commerce, to introduce or deliver for introduction into commerce, or to hold after its introduction into commerce.

Domestic means within the geographical boundaries of the 50 United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United States.

EPA means the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Importer means any person who imports any chemical substance, including a chemical substance as part of a mixture or article, into the customs territory of the United States. “Importer” includes the person primarily liable for the payment of any duties on the merchandise or an authorized agent acting on his or her behalf. The term also includes, as appropriate,

(1) The consignee,

(2) The importer of record,

(3) the actual owner if an actual owner's declaration and superseding bond has been filed in accordance with 19 CFR 141.20, or

(4) The transferee, if the right to draw merchandise in a bonded warehouse has been transferred in accordance with subpart C of 19 CFR 144.

Impurity means a chemical substance which is unintentionally present with another chemical substance.

Intermediate means any chemical substance that is consumed, in whole or in part, in chemical reaction(s) used for the intentional manufacture of other chemical substance(s) or mixture(s), or that is intentionally present for the purpose of altering the rate(s) of such chemical reaction(s).

Inventory means the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory, which is EPA's comprehensive list of confidential and non-confidential chemical substances manufactured or processed in the United States for nonexempt commercial purpose that EPA compiled and keeps current under section 8(b) of the Act.

Manufacture means to manufacture, produce, or import, for commercial purposes. Manufacture includes the extraction, for commercial purposes, of a component chemical substance from a previously existing chemical substance or complex combination of chemical substances. When a chemical substance, manufactured other than by import, is: (1) Produced exclusively for another person who contracts for such production, and (2) that other person specifies the identity of the chemical substance and controls the total amount produced and the basic technology for the plant process, then that chemical substance is co-manufactured by the producing manufacturer and the person contracting for such production.

Manufacture for commercial purposes means: (1) To manufacture, produce, or import with the purpose of obtaining an immediate or eventual commercial advantage, and includes, among other things, the “manufacture” of any amount of a chemical substance or mixture (i) for commercial distribution, including for test marketing, or (ii) for use by the manufacturer, including use for product research and development or as an intermediate. (2) The term also applies to substances that are produced coincidentally during the manufacture, processing, use, or disposal of another substance or mixture, including byproducts that are separated from that other substance or mixture and impurities that remain in that substance or mixture. Byproducts and impurities without separate commercial value are nonetheless produced for the purpose of obtaining a commercial advantage, since they are part of the manufacture of a chemical substance for commercial purposes.

Manufacturer means a person who manufactures a chemical substance.

Mixture means any combination of two or more chemical substances if the combination does not occur in nature and is not, in whole or in part, the result of a chemical reaction; except that “mixture” does include (1) any combination which occurs, in whole or in part, as a result of a chemical reaction if the combination could have been manufactured for commercial purposes without a chemical reaction at the time the chemical substances comprising the combination were combined, and if all of the chemical substances comprising the combination are not new chemical substances, and (2) hydrates of a chemical substance or hydrated ions formed by association of a chemical substance with water, so long as the nonhydrated form is itself not a new chemical substance.

New chemical substance means any chemical substance which is not included on the Inventory.

Person includes any individual, firm, company, corporation, joint-venture, partnership, sole proprietorship, association, or any other business entity; any State or political subdivision thereof; any municipality; any interstate body; and any department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government.

Process means to process for commercial purposes. Process includes the preparation of a chemical substance or mixture, after its manufacture, (1) in the same form or physical state as, or in a different form or physical state from, that in which it was received by the person so preparing such substance or mixture, or (2) as part of a mixture or article containing the chemical substance or mixture.

Process for commercial purposes means the preparation of a chemical substance or mixture after its manufacture for distribution in commerce with the purpose of obtaining an immediate or eventual commercial advantage for the processor. Processing of any amount of a chemical substance or mixture is included in this definition. If a chemical substance or mixture containing impurities is processed for commercial purposes, then the impurities also are processed for commercial purposes.

Processor means any person who processes a chemical substance or mixture.

Site means a contiguous property unit. Property divided only by a public right-of-way will be considered one site. More than one manufacturing plant may be located on a single site.

(1) For chemical substances manufactured under contract, i.e., by a toll manufacturer, the site is the location where the chemical substance is physically manufactured.

(2) The site for an importer who imports a chemical substance described in § 710.25 is the U.S. site of the operating unit within the person's organization that is directly responsible for importing the chemical substance. The import site, in some cases, may be the organization's headquarters in the United States. If there is no such operating unit or headquarters in the United States, the site address for the importer is the U.S. address of an agent acting on behalf of the importer who is authorized to accept service of process for the importer.

Small quantities solely for research and development (orsmall quantities solely for purposes of scientific experimentation or analysis or chemical research on, or analysis of, such substance or another substance, including such research or analysis for the development of a product”) means quantities of a chemical substance manufactured, imported, or processed or proposed to be manufactured, imported, or processed solely for research and development that are not greater than reasonably necessary for such purposes.

State means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, or any other territory or possession of the United States.

Technically qualified individual means a person:

(1) Who because of his/her education, training, or experience, or a combination of these factors, is capable of appreciating the health and environmental risks associated with the chemical substance which is used under his/her supervision,

(2) Who is responsible for enforcing appropriate methods of conducting scientific experimentation, analysis, or chemical research in order to minimize such risks, and

(3) Who is responsible for the safety assessments and clearances related to the procurement, storage, use, and disposal of the chemical substance as may be appropriate or required within the scope of conducting the research and development activity. The responsibilities in this paragraph may be delegated to another individual, or other individuals, as long as each meets the criteria in paragraph (1) of this definition.

Test marketing means the distribution in commerce of no more than a predetermined amount of a chemical substance, mixture, or article containing that chemical substance or mixture, by a manufacturer or processor to no more than a defined number of potential customers to explore market capability in a competitive situation during a predetermined testing period prior to the broader distribution of that chemical substance, mixture, or article in commerce.

United States, when used in the geographic sense, means all of the States, territories, and possessions of the United States.

5. Add a new subpart B to read as follows: SUBPART B—COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY NOTIFICATION Sec. 710.23 Definitions. 710.25 Persons subject to the notification requirement. 710.27 Activities for which notification is not required. 710.29 Information required in the notification. 710.30 When to submit notifications. 710.33 Co-manufacturers and co-processors. 710.35 Recordkeeping requirements. 710.37 Confidentiality claims. 710.39 Electronic filing.
§ 710.23 Definitions.

The following definitions also apply to subpart B of this part.

Active substance means any interim active substance, any naturally occurring chemical substance as defined by § 710.27(b), any chemical substance that was added to the Inventory on or after June 21, 2006 pursuant to a Notice of Commencement under § 720.102 received by the Agency on or after June 21, 2006, and any chemical substance subject to commercial activity designation that the Administrator designates as active based on the receipt of a notice under this subpart.

Central Data Exchange or CDX means EPA's centralized electronic document reporting portal, or its successors.

Chemical substance subject to commercial activity designation means a chemical substance that requires a designation as either an active or an inactive substance. A chemical substance is subject to commercial activity designation if it is not an interim active substance, it was added to the Inventory before June 21, 2006, it is not a naturally occurring chemical substance as defined by § 710.27(b), and it has not yet been designated by the Administrator as either an active or an inactive substance.

Chemical Information Submission System or CISS means EPA's web-based reporting tool for preparing and submitting a Notice of Activity.

e-NOA means EPA's software module within CISS for generating and completing Notice of Activity Forms A and B.

Existing claim for protection of specific chemical identity against disclosure is a claim for protection of the specific chemical identity of a chemical substance that is listed on the confidential portion of the Inventory, asserted prior to June 22, 2016.

Inactive substance means any chemical substance subject to commercial activity designation, that the Administrator designates as inactive based on the lack of receipt of a notice under this subpart, effective 90 days after the Administrator identifies the chemical substance for such designation.

Interim active substance means any chemical substance that was reported, pursuant to 40 CFR part 711, as having been manufactured in and of the calendar years: 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015.

Known to or reasonably ascertainable by means all information in a person's possession or control, plus all information that a reasonable person similarly situated might be expected to possess, control, or know.

Notice of Activity Form A means the form for supplying retrospective notification under TSCA section 8(b)(4), for which the submission obligation is described in § 710.25(a).

Notice of Activity Form B means the form for supplying forward-looking reporting under TSCA section 8(b)(5), for which the submission obligation is described in § 710.25(c).

Lookback period means the period beginning on June 21, 2006 and ending on June 21, 2016.

Possession or Control means in the possession or control of any person, or of any subsidiary, partnership in which the person is a general partner, parent company, or any company or partnership which the parent company owns or controls, if the subsidiary, parent company, or other company or partnership is associated with the person in the research, development, test marketing, or commercial marketing of the chemical substance in question. Information is in the possession or control of a person if it is:

(1) In the person's own files including files maintained by employees of the person in the course of their employment.

(2) In commercially available data bases to which the person has purchased access.

(3) Maintained in the files in the course of employment by other agents of the person who are associated with research, development, test marketing, or commercial marketing of the chemical substance in question.

Reportable chemical substance means a chemical substance that is listed on the Inventory and that is either:

(1) A chemical substance subject to commercial activity designation for which notification is required or allowed under § 710.25(a) and § 710.25(b),

(2) A chemical substance that was added to the confidential portion of the Inventory before June 22, 2016, or (3) an inactive substance for which notification is required under § 710.25(c).

Submission period means the applicable period for submitting a Notice of Activity under § 710.25.

§ 710.25 Persons subject to the notification requirement.

The following persons are subject to the requirements of this subpart.

(a) Who must submit the Notice of Activity Form A? Any person who manufactured (including imported) a chemical substance subject to commercial activity designation at any time during the lookback period, except as provided in § 710.27, must submit a Notice of Activity Form A as specified under § 710.29 and § 710.30(a), unless such person has evidence in the form of a CDX receipt, documenting EPA's receipt of a Notice of Activity Form A from another person, for the same chemical substance, or unless the prior manufacturing of such a substance is not known to or reasonably ascertainable by the person. Evidence in the form of a CDX receipt for a Notice of Activity Form A is not a basis for exemption from the requirements of § 710.25(c) if the chemical substance is ultimately designated as inactive due to withdrawal of the Notice of Activity Form A.

(b) Who else may submit the Notice of Activity Form A? Any person not required to submit a Notice of Activity Form A under § 710.25(a), who manufactured (including imported) or processed a reportable chemical substance, at any time during the lookback period, may submit a Notice of Activity Form A as specified under § 710.29 and § 710.30(a).

(c) Who must submit the Notice of Activity Form B? Any person who intends to manufacture (including import) or process an inactive substance, except as provided in § 710.27, after the effective date of the Administrator's designation of such chemical substance as an inactive substance, must submit a Notice of Activity Form B as specified under § 710.29 and § 710.30(b), unless the presence of the inactive substance on the confidential portion of the Inventory is not known to or reasonably ascertainable by the person.

§ 710.27 Activities for which notification is not required.

(a) In general. The following activities do not trigger notification requirements under this subpart:

(1) The manufacturing or processing of a chemical substance in small quantities solely for research and development.

(2) The import or processing of a chemical substance as part of an article.

(3) The manufacturing or processing of a chemical substance as described in § 720.30(g) or (h).

(4) The manufacturing or processing of a chemical substance solely for export from the United States as described in § 720.30(e) or § 721.3, except where the Administrator has made a finding described in TSCA section 12(a)(2).

(5) The manufacturing or processing of a chemical substance solely for test marketing purposes.

(b) Manufacturing or processing naturally occurring chemical substances. The following activities do not trigger notification requirements under this subpart:

(1) The manufacture of a naturally occurring chemical substance, as described in § 710.4(b). Some chemical substances can be manufactured both as described in § 710.4(b) and by means other than those described in § 710.4(b). If a person manufactures a chemical substance by means other than those described in § 710.4(b), this exemption is inapplicable, regardless of whether the chemical substance also could have been produced as described in § 710.4(b). This exemption does not cover the manufacture of a chemical substance from a naturally occurring chemical substance.

(2) The processing of a naturally occurring chemical substance only by manual, mechanical, or gravitational means; by dissolution in water; by flotation; or by heating solely to remove water.

§ 710.29 Information required in the notification.

(a) Reporting information to EPA. A person who reports information to EPA under this subpart must do so using the e-NOA software module, the CISS reporting tool, and the CDX electronic reporting portal provided by EPA at the addresses set forth in § 710.39. For notices of activity under § 710.25(a) and § 710.25(b), the submission must include all information described in paragraph (b) of this section. For a Notice of Activity under § 710.25(c), the submission must include all information described in paragraph (c) of this section. A person must submit a separate notice for each chemical substance that the person is required to report. Using e-NOA and CISS and registering in CDX are described in instructions available from EPA at the Web sites set forth in § 710.39.

(b) Information to be reported on the Notice of Activity Form A. A person submitting a Notice of Activity Form A under § 710.25(a) or § 710.25(b) must submit the information specified in § 710.29(d) for each reportable chemical substance. A person submitting information under § 710.25(a) or § 710.25(b) must report information to the extent that such information is known to or reasonably ascertainable by that person.

(c) Information to be reported on a Notice of Activity Form B. Any person submitting a Notice of Activity Form B under § 710.25(c) must provide the information described in this paragraph for each inactive substance intended to be manufactured or processed.

(1) Information specified in § 710.29(d).

(2) The anticipated date by which the inactive substance is to be manufactured or processed in the United States. If the Notice of Activity Form B is filed prior to the effective date of the chemical substance's inactive designation, the most recent date of manufacturing or processing may be provided in lieu of an anticipated date.

(d) Information to be reported on either the Notice of Activity Form A or Form B.

(1) Company. The name and address of the submitting company.

(2) Authorized official. The name and address of the authorized official for the submitting company.

(3) Technical contact. The name and telephone number of a person who will serve as technical contact for the submitting company and who will be able to answer questions about the information submitted by the company to EPA.

(4) Chemical-specific information. The system described under § 710.29(a) will provide a list of reportable chemical substances from which a person can select his or her chemical. The list will include the correct CASRN and CA Index name used to list a non-confidential chemical substance on the Inventory. For confidential substances on the Inventory, the list will include the TSCA Accession Number and generic name.

(i) If an importer submitting a notice cannot provide the information specified in § 710.29(d)(4) because it is unknown to the importer and claimed as confidential by the supplier of the chemical substance or mixture, the importer must ask the supplier to provide the specific chemical identity information directly to EPA in a joint submission using the same e-NOA software module used for commercial activity reporting. Such request must refer the supplier to EPA's instructions for submitting chemical identity information electronically, using e-NOA, CISS, and CDX (see § 710.39), and for clearly referencing the importer's submission. Contact information for the supplier, a trade name or other name for the chemical substance or mixture, and a copy of the request to the supplier must be included with the importer's submission.

(ii) If a manufacturer or processor submitting a notice cannot provide the information specified in § 710.29(d)(4) because the reportable chemical substance is manufactured or processed using a reactant having a specific chemical identity that is unknown to the manufacturer or processor and claimed as confidential by its supplier, the manufacturer or processor must ask the supplier of the confidential reactant to provide the specific chemical identity of the confidential reactant directly to EPA in a joint submission using the same e-NOA software module used for commercial activity reporting. Such request must refer the supplier to EPA's instructions for submitting chemical identity information electronically using e-NOA, CISS, and CDX (see § 710.39), and for clearly referencing the manufacturer's or processor's submission. Contact information for the supplier, a trade name or other name for the chemical substance, and a copy of the request to the supplier must be included with the manufacturer's or processor's submission with respect to the chemical substance.

(iii) Joint submissions must be submitted electronically using e-NOA, CISS, and CDX (see § 710.39).

(5) Certification statements. The authorized official must certify that the submitted information has been completed in compliance with the requirements of this part as described in this paragraph.

(i) The certification must be signed and dated by the authorized official for the submitting company.

(ii) The following is required certification language for an authorized official submitting a Notice of Activity Form A under § 710.25(a) or § 710.25(b): “I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision and the information contained therein, to the best of my knowledge, is true, accurate, and complete. I also certify that I have manufactured, imported, or processed the above chemical between the dates of June 21, 2006 and June 21, 2016. I am aware it is unlawful to knowingly submit incomplete, false and/or misleading information, and there are significant criminal penalties for such unlawful conduct, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.”

(iii) The following is required certification language for an authorized official submitting a Notice of Activity Form B under § 710.25(c): “I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision and the information contained therein, to the best of my knowledge, is true, accurate, and complete. I also certify that I have intent to manufacture, import, or process the above chemical within 90 days of submission. I am aware it is unlawful to knowingly submit incomplete, false and/or misleading information, and there are significant criminal penalties for such unlawful conduct, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.”

§ 710.30 When to submit notifications.

(a) When must a Notice of Activity Form A be submitted? The Notice of Activity Form A required to be submitted under § 710.25(a) must be submitted during the applicable submission period.

(1) Manufacturers. The submission period for manufacturers under § 710.25(a) and § 710.25(b) begins on August 11, 2017 and ends on February 7, 2018.

(2) Processors. The submission period for processors under § 710.25(b) begins on August 11, 2017 and ends on October 5, 2018.

(3) Withdrawal of a Notice of Activity Form A. A Notice of Activity Form A submitted under § 710.30(a)(1) or § 710.30(a)(2) may be withdrawn by the submitter no later than October 5, 2018. If EPA receives a timely request to withdraw a previously submitted Notice of Activity Form A for a chemical substance subject to commercial activity designation, and EPA has not received a Notice of Activity Form A from another submitter for the same chemical substance, EPA will not designate the chemical substance as active. A Form A withdrawn under this paragraph will not satisfy the obligation under this rule to submit a Form A.

(b) When must a Notice of Activity Form B be submitted? (1) Manufacturers and processors. The Notice of Activity Form B required to be submitted under § 710.25(c) must be submitted before a person manufactures or processes the inactive substance, but not more than 90 days prior to the anticipated date of manufacturing or processing.

(2) When else may a Notice of Activity Form B be submitted? A Notice of Activity Form B that will later be required to be submitted under § 710.25(c) may be submitted during the 90-day period between EPA's identification of a chemical substance for inactive designation and the effective date for such designation, by a person who is currently manufacturing or processing such chemical substance or who anticipates manufacturing or processing such chemical substance within 90 days following submission.

(3) When may EPA execute a request to withdraw a Notice of Activity Form B? If EPA receives a request to withdraw a previously submitted Notice of Activity Form B from the submitter of the Notice of Activity Form B and EPA has neither yet moved the subject chemical substance from the inactive to the active Inventory nor yet moved the subject chemical substance from the confidential portion of the Inventory to the public portion of the Inventory as a result of the original submission, then EPA may execute the request.

§ 710.33 Co-manufacturers and co-processors.

(a) Notice of Activity submitted by co-manufacturers. When, in a single instance of manufacturing or importing a particular volume of a chemical substance during the lookback period, two or more persons qualify as the manufacturer or importer of that volume, they may determine among themselves who should make the required submission under § 710.25(a). If no notice is submitted as required under this subpart, EPA will hold each such person liable for failure to submit a notice.

(b) Notice of Activity by prospective co-manufacturers or co-processors. If two or more persons intend to manufacture, import, or process a particular volume of an inactive substance, such that multiple persons would qualify as the manufacturer, importer, or processor of that volume, they may determine among themselves who will submit the required notice under § 710.25(c). If no notice is submitted as required under this subpart, all of the persons remain subject to the reporting requirements, and EPA will hold each such person liable for a failure to submit a notice prior to the date of manufacturing, importing, or processing.

§ 710.35 Recordkeeping requirements.

Each person who is subject to the notification requirements of this part must retain records that document any information reported to EPA. Records relevant to a Notice of Activity under § 710.25(a) and § 710.25(b) must be retained for a period of 5 years beginning on the last day of the submission period. Records relevant to a Notice of Activity under § 710.25(c) must be retained for a period of 5 years beginning on the day that the notice was submitted.

§ 710.37 Confidentiality claims.

(a) Chemical identity. A person submitting information under this part may request to maintain an existing claim of confidentiality for the specific chemical identity of a reportable chemical substance, but may do so only if the identity of the chemical substance is listed on the confidential portion of the Inventory as of the time the notice is submitted for that chemical substance under this part. A request to maintain an existing claim of confidentiality must be made at the time the information is submitted. If no person submitting the information specified in § 710.29(d)(4) for a particular chemical substance requests that the claim be maintained, EPA will treat the specific chemical identity of that chemical substance as not subject to a confidentiality claim and will move the chemical substance to the public portion of the Inventory. Except as set forth in this subsection, information claimed as confidential in accordance with this section will be treated and disclosed in accordance with the procedures in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

(1) Notice of Activity Form A. A person requesting to maintain an existing claim of confidentiality for specific chemical identity may submit with the notice answers to the questions in paragraphs (c)(1) and(c)(2) of this section, signed and dated by an authorized official. If these answers are submitted less than five years before the date on which substantiation is due pursuant to TSCA section 8(b)(4)(D)(i), the answers will be deemed to be substantiations made under TSCA section (8)(b)(4)(D)(i) and the person will be exempt from further substantiation requirements under TSCA section (8)(b)(4)(D)(i). Answers that do not include the answers to all applicable questions in paragraph (c) of this section will not be deemed to be substantiations made under the TSCA section (8)(b)(4)(D)(i) requirement.

(2) Notice of Activity Form B. A person requesting to maintain an existing claim of confidentiality for specific chemical identity must submit answers to the questions in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section within 30 days of submitting the notice, signed and dated by an authorized official. If this information is not submitted within 30 days of submitting the notice, EPA will consider the confidentiality claim as deficient, so that the specific chemical identity is not subject to a confidentiality claim, and may make the information public without further notice.

(b) Information other than specific chemical identity. A person submitting information under this part may assert a claim of confidentiality for information other than specific chemical identity. Any such confidentiality claim must be made at the time the information is submitted. Except as set forth in this section, information claimed as confidential in accordance with this subsection will be treated and disclosed in accordance with 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. A person asserting a claim of confidentiality under this subsection must submit with the notice answers to the questions in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, signed and dated by an authorized official. If no claim is asserted at the time the information is submitted, or if the answers to the questions in paragraph (c)(1) of this section are not provided, EPA will consider the information as not subject to a confidentiality claim and may make the information public without further notice.

(c) Substantiation questions. Persons asserting that information is exempt from substantiation pursuant to TSCA section 14(c)(2) must answer only the question in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section.

(1) Substantiation questions for any confidentiality claim. For any information with a confidentiality claim that you assert is exempt from substantiation pursuant to TSCA section 14(c)(2), answer only the question in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section. For all other information with a confidentiality claim, answer the questions in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) through (vi) of this section. If more than one data element on Form A or Form B is claimed as confidential, you must answer the applicable questions individually for each data element. If the answer to a question applies for all confidentiality claims on the form, indicate this in your substantiation response.

(i) Do you believe that the information is exempt from substantiation pursuant to TSCA section 14(c)(2)? If you answered yes, you must individually identify the specific information claimed as confidential and specify the applicable exemption(s).

(ii) Will disclosure of the information likely result in substantial harm to your business's competitive position? If you answered yes, describe with specificity the substantial harmful effects that would likely result to your competitive position if the information is made available to the public.

(iii) To the extent your business has disclosed the information to others (both internally and externally), what precautions has your business taken? Identify the measures or internal controls your business has taken to protect the information claimed as confidential: Non-disclosure agreement required prior to access; access is limited to individuals with a need-to-know; information is physically secured; other internal control measure(s). If yes, explain.

(iv) Does the information appear in any public documents, including (but not limited to) safety data sheets, advertising or promotional material, professional or trade publication, or any other media or publications available to the general public? If you answered yes, explain why the information should be treated as confidential.

(v) Is the claim of confidentiality intended to last less than 10 years? If so, indicate the number of years (between 1-10 years) or the specific date/occurrence after which the claim is withdrawn.

(vi) Has EPA, another federal agency, or court made any confidentiality determination regarding information associated with this chemical substance? If you answered yes, explain the outcome of that determination and provide a copy of the previous confidentiality determination or any other information that will assist in identifying the prior determination.

(2) Substantiation for confidentiality claims for chemical identity. Is the confidential chemical substance publicly known to have ever been offered for commercial distribution in the United States? If you answered yes, explain why the information should be treated as confidential.

(d) Confidentiality of substantiation. If any of the information contained in the answers to the questions listed in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section is claimed as confidential business information, the submitter must clearly indicate such by marking the substantiation as confidential business information as provided in a Notice of Activity Form A or Form B.

(e) Certification statement for claims. An authorized official of a person submitting or substantiating a claim of confidentiality or a request to maintain an existing claim of confidentiality for specific chemical identity must certify that the submission complies with the requirements of this part by signing and dating the following certification statement: “I certify that all claims for confidentiality made or sought to be maintained with this submission are true and correct, and all information submitted herein to substantiate such claims is true and correct. Any knowing and willful misrepresentation is subject to criminal penalty pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001.” I further certify that it is true and correct that:

(1) My company has taken reasonable measures to protect the confidentiality of the information;

(2) I have determined that the information is not required to be disclosed or otherwise made available to the public under any other Federal law;

(3) I have a reasonable basis to conclude that disclosure of the information is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of my company; and

(4) I have a reasonable basis to believe that the information is not readily discoverable through reverse engineering.

§ 710.39 Electronic filing.

(a) EPA will accept information submitted under this subpart only if submitted in accordance with this section. All information must be submitted electronically to EPA via CDX. Prior to submission to EPA via CDX, Notices of Activity and any associated information must be generated and completed using the e-NOA software module.

(b) Obtain instructions for registering in CDX as follows:

(1) Web site. The CDX Registration User Guide is available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/cdx_registration_guide_v0_02.pdf. To register in CDX, go to https://cdx.epa.gov and follow the appropriate links.

(2) Telephone. Contact the EPA CDX Help Desk at 1-888-890-1995.

(3) Email. Email the EPA CDX Help Desk at [email protected]

(c) Obtain instructions for using CISS and the e-NOA software module as follows:

(1) Web site. Go to the EPA New Chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act Web site at https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicalsunder-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/how-submit-e-pmn and follow the appropriate links.

(2) Telephone. Contact the EPA TSCA Hotline at 1-202-554-1404.

(3) Email. Email the EPA TSCA Hotline at [email protected]

[FR Doc. 2017-15736 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
82 154 Friday, August 11, 2017 Proposed Rules GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 4 CFR Part 81 Public Availability of Government Accountability Office Records AGENCY:

Government Accountability Office.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

These proposed revisions would clarify procedures to obtain Government Accountability Office (GAO) records. Specifically, the proposed revisions would add procedures for requesting records of GAO's Office of Inspector General. The proposed revisions would also clarify that documents prepared by GAO or GAO's Office of Inspector General for referral to another agency for law enforcement purposes are not subject to the regulations in this Part. The existing regulatory language on this point is imprecise.

DATES:

Comments must be received on or before September 25, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Email: [email protected]

Mail: Government Accountability Office, Office of the General Counsel, Attn: Legal Services, Room 7838, 441 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20548.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John A. Bielec, Assistant General Counsel, 202-512-2846.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

GAO is not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act and accordingly is not required by law to seek comments before issuing a final rule. However, GAO has decided to invite interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments regarding the proposed revisions. Application of the Administrative Procedure Act to GAO is not to be inferred from this invitation for comments.

GAO will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments. GAO may change the proposed revisions based on the comments received.

GAO proposes to amend section 81.2 by specifically providing that GAO's Office of Inspector General (OIG) will process any requests under this Part for OIG records. The OIG, which was established by statute in 2008, audits and investigates matters related to GAO's operations. The OIG executes its responsibilities independently of and free from interference or control by any other office or body within GAO. In keeping with and to best preserve this independence, the OIG itself should process requests for its records. In doing so, consistent with its independent role and section 81.5(a), when the OIG receives a request for records that originated in GAO, the OIG will refer the requester to GAO. These revisions would provide that with respect to any request for OIG records, throughout this Part the term “Counsel to the Inspector General” would be substituted for “Chief Quality Officer” and the term “Inspector General” would be substituted for “Comptroller General”.

In addition, paragraph 81.6(g) would be amended to clarify that documents prepared by GAO for referral to another agency for law enforcement purposes are exempt from the procedures in this Part. Paragraph 81.6(g) currently provides that records that GAO has already provided to another agency for law enforcement purposes are exempt. However, paragraph 81.6(g) does not specifically address requests for records that GAO, including the OIG, created for referral to another agency for law enforcement purposes, but has not yet provided to another agency. For instance, during an investigation into possible criminal activity, the GAO OIG creates documents that may be forwarded to another agency for law enforcement purposes at the conclusion of the OIG's investigation. The current regulations are unclear as to whether such records, which have not yet been forwarded to another agency, would be subject to this Part if requested before the conclusion of the investigation. The proposed changes would clarify that records compiled for referral to another agency for law enforcement purposes are exempt from this Part.

List of Subjects in 4 CFR Part 81

Administrative practice and procedure, Archives and records, Freedom of information, Requests for records.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Government Accountability Office proposes to amend 4 CFR part 81 as follows:

PART 81—PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE RECORDS 1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority:

31 U.S.C. 711.

2. Amend § 81.2 as follows: a. redesignate the existing text as paragraph (a); b. add paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 81.2 Administration.

(b) Requests for records of GAO's Office of Inspector General (OIG) shall be processed by the Counsel to the Inspector General in accordance with this Part. The Inspector General will decide any administrative appeals of decisions of the Counsel to the Inspector General concerning such requests. Accordingly, with regard to any public request to inspect or copy records of the OIG, in this Part the term “Counsel to the Inspector General” is to be substituted for “Chief Quality Officer” and the term “Inspector General” is to be substituted for “Comptroller General”. All requests to inspect or obtain a copy of an identifiable record of the OIG must be submitted in writing to the Counsel to the Inspector General, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Suite 1808, 441 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20548 or emailed to [email protected]

3. Amend § 81.6 by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
§ 81.6 Records which may be exempt from disclosure.

(g) Records compiled for law enforcement purposes that originate in another agency, or records prepared for referral to and/or provided by GAO or the OIG to another agency for law enforcement purposes.

Dated July 27, 2017. Susan A. Poling, General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2017-16986 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1610-02-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 94 [Docket No. APHIS-2013-0061] RIN 0579-AD96 Restrictions on the Importation of Fresh Pork and Pork Products From a Region in Mexico AGENCY:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY:

We are withdrawing a proposed rule that would have defined a low-risk classical swine fever region in Mexico from which we would have allowed the importation of fresh pork and pork products into the United States under certain conditions. We are taking this action after reopening our risk evaluation of the classical swine fever status of Mexico using updated information.

DATES:

As of August 11, 2017, the proposed rule published on July 29, 2014, at 79 FR 43974, is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Chip Wells, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Regionalization Evaluation Services, National Import Export Services, VS, APHIS, USDA, 4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; [email protected]; (301) 851-3317.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On July 29, 2014, we published in the Federal Register (79 FR 43974-43980, Docket No. APHIS-2013-0061) a proposal 1 to amend the regulations by recognizing a new Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)-defined low-risk classical swine fever (CSF) region that would consist of all Mexican States except the nine States we currently recognize as CSF-free and the State of Chiapas, which we did not propose to recognize as CSF-free or low risk. We proposed to allow imports of pork and pork products from the APHIS-defined Mexican CSF region into the United States under certain conditions. The proposed requirements were intended to ensure that the pork and pork products were derived from swine housed on farms that met strict biosanitary standards and were not subject to contamination by means of commingling with animals or animal products that did not meet our requirements.

1 To view the proposed rule, supporting documents, and the comments we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0061.

We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending September 29, 2014. We received 10 comments by that date. They were from producers' associations, the Government of Mexico, and individuals. The commenters addressed a number of issues, including the possible CSF risk posed by allowing such imports, our plans for implementing and enforcing the provisions of the proposed rule, and whether our requirements for imports from the proposed CSF low-risk region in Mexico were equivalent to those in place for the existing CSF low-risk region in the European Union.

In 2015, the World Organization for Animal Health recognized Mexico as CSF-free. The Government of Mexico then requested that APHIS suspend its rulemaking and instead continue evaluating Mexico for CSF status.

In response to that request, APHIS reopened its evaluation of the CSF status of Mexico, conducting a site visit in 2015. Findings from the resulting 2015 site visit report, along with updated surveillance data and information submitted by the Government of Mexico, led APHIS to determine that concerns identified in the earlier risk assessment that supported the July 2014 proposed rule had been addressed and that current conditions would support CSF-free recognition for all of Mexico.

Therefore, we are withdrawing the July 29, 2014, proposed rule referenced above.

Authority:

7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, 7781-7786, and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.

Done in Washington, DC, August 7, 2017. Michael C. Gregoire, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-16980 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0766; Product Identifier 2017-NM-046-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY:

We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the gore web lap splices of the aft pressure bulkhead are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of the gore webs, gore web lap splices, and repair webs, as applicable, of the aft pressure bulkhead, and applicable on-condition actions. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 25, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0766.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0766; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lu Lu, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6478; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0766; Product Identifier 2017-NM-046-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

Discussion

Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane. This condition is known as WFD. It is associated with general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.

The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.

The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by ADs through separate rulemaking actions.

In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.

We have received reports of cracks in critical fastener rows of the gore web lap splices that are outside of the inspection area specified in AD 2012-18-13 R1, Amendment 39-17429 (78 FR 27020, May 9, 2013) (“AD 2012-18-13 R1”), which extends approximately 7 inches radially outboard from the center of the aft pressure bulkhead.

Cracks in the critical lap splice fastener rows of the hidden forward gore web were found on airplanes with 37,000 to 66,000 total flight cycles. Cracks in the critical lap splice fastener rows of the visible aft gore web were also found on airplanes with 42,000 to 62,000 total flight cycles. Cracking in the gore web lap splices of the aft pressure bulkhead could result in possible rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity of the airplane.

Related AD

AD 2012-18-13 R1 requires repetitive inspections to detect cracking in the web of the aft pressure bulkhead at body station 1016 at the aft fastener row attachment to the “Y” chord, various inspections for discrepancies at the aft pressure bulkhead, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. The inspection areas of AD 2012-18-13 R1 and the proposed inspections of this proposed AD are both related to the aft pressure bulkhead. However, this proposed AD would require separate inspections on a subset of the aft pressure bulkhead inspections required by AD 2012-18-13 R1.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1355, dated March 10, 2017. The service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections of the gore web in Zone 1 (i.e., inspections around fastener locations in the gore web lap splices and around fastener locations in the apex area outside the gore web lap splices) and gore web lap splices in Zone 2 (i.e., inspections around fastener locations in the gore web lap splices) of the aft pressure bulkhead, and applicable on-condition actions. The service information also describes, for airplanes with an existing single gore web repair, procedures for repetitive inspections of the gore web (i.e., inspections around fastener locations in the gore web lap splices) and repair webs (i.e., inspections around fastener locations in the gore web lap splices and around fastener locations in the apex area outside the gore web lap splices); and, for airplanes with an existing all gore web repair, procedures for repetitive inspections of the repair webs (i.e., inspections around fastener locations in the repair gore web lap splices and around fastener locations in the apex area outside the repair gore web lap splices); and procedures for applicable on-condition actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

This proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service information described previously, except for differences between this proposed AD and the service information that are identified in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0766.

Difference Between Proposed AD and Service Bulletin

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1355, dated March 10, 2017, specifies to contact the manufacturer for certain instructions, but this proposed AD would require using repair methods, modification deviations, and alteration deviations in one of the following ways:

• In accordance with a method that we approve; or

• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 281 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspection 46 work-hours × $85 per hour = $3,910 per inspection cycle $0 $3,910 per inspection cycle $1,098,710 per inspection cycle.

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Inspection of previous single gore web repair 8 work-hours × $85 per hour = $680 $0 $680 Inspection of previous all gore web repair 10 work-hours × $85 per hour = $850 0 850

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the repairs specified in this proposed AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2017-0766; Product Identifier 2017-NM-046-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 25, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53; Fuselage.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the gore web lap splices of the aft pressure bulkhead are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the gore webs, gore web lap splices, and repair webs of the aft pressure bulkhead, which could result in possible rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Required Actions for Group 1 Airplanes

    For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1355, dated March 10, 2017: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the airplane, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (h) Actions Required for Compliance

    Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD: For airplanes identified as Group 2 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1355, dated March 10, 2017, at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1355, dated March 10, 2017, do all applicable actions identified as required for compliance (“RC”) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1355, dated March 10, 2017.

    (i) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1355, dated March 10, 2017, uses the phrase “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD, the phrase “after the effective date of this AD” must be used.

    (2) Although Boeing Service Bulletin Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1355, dated March 10, 2017, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

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

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (4) Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.

    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.

    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Lu Lu, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6478; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (2) For information about AMOCs, contact George Garrido, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5232; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 26, 2017. Jeffrey E. Duven, Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16358 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9523; Product Identifier 2016-NM-134-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    We are revising an earlier notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-12-13, which applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This action revises the NPRM by expanding the inspection area. This action also revises the NPRM by no longer proposing to supersede AD 2014-12-13. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Since these actions impose an additional burden over that proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2017 (82 FR 1254), is reopened.

    We must receive comments on this SNPRM by September 5, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this SNPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9523.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9523; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this SNPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Payman Soltani, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5313; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-9523; Product Identifier 2016-NM-134-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this SNPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this SNPRM because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On June 6, 2014, we issued AD 2014-12-13, Amendment 39-17874 (79 FR 39300, July 10, 2014) (“AD 2014-12-13”). AD 2014-12-13 requires actions to address an unsafe condition on all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. AD 2014-12-13 requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the aft support fitting for the main landing gear (MLG) beam, and the rear spar upper chord and rear spar web; and repair if necessary.

    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD to supersede AD 2014-12-13 that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2017 (82 FR 1254) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of additional cracking in the inspar upper skin at Wing Buttock Line (WBL) 157 and in the skin at two holes common to the rear spar in the same area, and by reports of rear spar web cracks on both wings. Subsequent inspections revealed that the right rear spar upper chord was almost completely severed and the left rear spar upper chord was completely severed. The NPRM proposed to expand the inspection area and add applicable related investigative and corrective actions.

    Actions Since NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM, we have determined it is necessary to expand the inspection area because the NPRM did not adequately identify the inspection area. We have also determined that it is necessary for operators to do the inspections in this proposed AD (in the SNPRM) before the inspections in AD 2014-12-13 can be terminated. In the NPRM, we proposed to supersede AD 2014-12-13 and referred to the compliance times in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016, which would have given operators an additional 4,500 flight cycles to do the next inspection. However, operators must do the inspections at the compliance times required by AD 2014-12-13 until the actions required by this proposed AD (in the SNPRM) are done. Therefore, we are no longer superseding AD 2014-12-13. However, we have included paragraph (k)(2) in this proposed AD (in the SNPRM) to specify terminating action for AD 2014-12-13.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016. The service information describes procedures for repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) open hole inspections for any cracking in the forward support fitting, the aft support fitting, the rear spar upper chord, and the rear spar web at the 12 fastener holes (locations 1-12). The service information also describes procedures for optional HFEC open hole inspections for any cracking in the forward support fitting, the aft support fitting, the rear spar upper chord, and the rear spar web, and HFEC surface inspections for any cracking in the rear spar upper chord and rear spar upper web, as applicable. The service information also describes procedures for related investigative and corrective actions.

    We also reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1328, dated July 22, 2016. The service information describes procedures for repetitive eddy current inspections of the left and right wing for any cracking in the inspar upper skin and at the repair parts if applicable, and related investigative and corrective actions.

    This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the NPRM. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

    Request To Include Other Inspection Areas

    Boeing requested that the NPRM be revised to include other inspection areas during the HFEC open hole inspection. Boeing stated that, as written, the NPRM implies that in some options the upper chord and web do not need to be inspected during the HFEC open hole inspection.

    We agree with the commenter's request for the reasons stated above. We have revised the introductory text to paragraph (h) of this proposed AD (in the SNPRM) to include an HFEC inspection of the forward support fitting, the aft support fitting, the rear spar upper chord, and the rear spar web.

    Request To Revise the NPRM or Service Information To Allow Installation of the Same Type and Size of Fasteners

    All Nippon Airlines (ANA) requested that paragraph (h) of the NPRM or the service information be revised to allow installation of the same type and size of fasteners previously removed from the airplane after the open hole HFEC inspection. ANA stated that for group 7 airplanes, figures 25 and 26 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, May 15, 2013, specify that oversized fasteners are installed at fastener holes after the open hole HFEC inspection has been accomplished. ANA stated that, however, for the same group 7 airplanes, figures 29 and 30 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016, specify that standard size fasteners are installed at fastener holes after the open hole HFEC inspection has been accomplished. ANA stated that as a result, operators will have to request alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) for all airplanes on which the actions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, May 15, 2013, have already been done because paragraph (h) of the NPRM states to do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016, which includes the installation of the standard size fasteners. ANA stated that this would be a burden for operators, Boeing, and the FAA.

    We agree with the commenter's request to revise this proposed AD. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016, should have called out the correct fastener size to be installed after the fastener holes have been inspected and oversized as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, May 15, 2013. Group 7 has two configurations: Configuration 1 is for airplanes without a repair; Configuration 2 is for airplanes with a repair. We added paragraph (h)(2) to this proposed AD (in the SNPRM) to state, “For group 7, configuration 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016: Install the same type and same size fasteners as those previously removed from the airplane after accomplishing the open hole HFEC inspection specified in the introductory text of paragraph (h) of this AD.”

    Request for AMOC Approval

    ANA requested that the NPRM be revised to allow approved AMOCs for AD 2014-12-13. ANA stated that airplanes have AMOCs for AD 2014-12-23 for certain repairs done using certain Boeing 737-300/-400/-500 structural repair manuals or certain Boeing ODA forms. ANA stated that existing AMOCs should be considered for AMOC approval in the NPRM.

    We agree with the commenter's request for the reasons provided above. We have redesignated paragraph (l)(4) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) as paragraph (l)(5) in this proposed AD (in the SNPRM). We have added paragraph (l)(4) to this proposed AD (in the SNPRM) to allow AMOCs approved previously for AD 2014-12-13, Amendment 39-17874 (79 FR 39300, July 10, 2014), as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

    Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM.

    We concur. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) as paragraph (c)(1) in this proposed AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this proposed AD to state that “Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.”

    Request To Clarify the NPRM for Historical Accuracy

    Boeing requested that the NPRM be revised to clarify the content for historical accuracy. Boeing stated that in the “Actions Since AD 2014-12-13 and 2015-21-08 Were Issued” paragraph of the preamble of the NPRM, the first paragraph described that a 2.375-inch long crack in the inspar upper skin was discovered since the issuance of AD 2014-12-13 and AD 2015-21-08. Boeing stated, however, the discovery of the crack led to the issuance of AD 2015-21-08 and not AD 2014-12-13. Boeing stated that the AD will become a reference for prior events, and therefore, historical accuracy is essential.

    We agree with the commenter to clarify the historical accuracy of this SNPRM. While the paragraph, “Actions Since AD 2014-12-13 and 2015-21-08 Were Issued,” is not carried over in the SNPRM, we acknowledge that the discovery of a 2.375-inch long crack in the inspar upper skin led to the issuance of AD 2015-21-08. We have not changed this SNPRM regarding this issue.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this SNPRM because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.

    Proposed Requirements of This SNPRM

    This SNPRM would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.” For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9523.

    The phrase “related investigative actions” is used in this SNPRM. Related investigative actions are follow-on actions that (1) are related to the primary action, and (2) further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.

    The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this SNPRM. Corrective actions correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

    Differences Between This SNPRM and the Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1328, dated July 22, 2016; specify to contact the manufacturer for certain instructions, but this proposed AD would require accomplishment of repair methods, modification deviations, and alteration deviations in one of the following ways:

    • In accordance with a method that we approve; or

    • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 471 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators HFEC open hole inspections 82 work-hours × $85 per hour = $6,970 per inspection cycle $0 $6,970 per inspection cycle $3,282,870 per inspection cycle. Eddy current inspection 14 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,190 per inspection cycle $0 $1,190 per inspection cycle $560,490 per inspection cycle. Estimated Costs for Optional Actions Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Inspection Up to 41 work-hours × $85 per hour = $3,485 per inspection cycle $0 Up to $1,641,435 per inspection cycle.

    We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this SNPRM.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-9523; Product Identifier 2016-NM-134-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by September 5, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2014-12-13, Amendment 39-17874 (79 FR 39300, July 10, 2014), and AD 2015-21-08, Amendment 39-18301 (80 FR 65921, October 28, 2015).

    (c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of additional cracking in the inspar upper skin at Wing Buttock Line (WBL) 157 and in the skin at two holes common to the rear spar in the same area, and rear spar web cracks were also noted on both wings. Subsequent inspections revealed that the right rear spar upper chord was almost completely severed and the left rear spar upper chord was completely severed. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the forward and aft support fittings for the main landing gear (MLG) beam, and the rear spar upper chord and rear spar web in the area of rear spar station (RSS) 224.14, which could grow and result in a fuel leak and possible fire.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Required Actions for Group 1 Airplanes (MLG Support Fittings and Rear Spar)

    For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016: At the applicable time specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016, except as required by paragraph (j)(3) of this AD, do applicable inspections and corrective actions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

    (h) Required Actions for Groups 2-7 Airplanes (MLG Support Fittings and Rear Spar)

    For airplanes identified as Groups 2-7 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016: At the applicable time specified in table 2 through table 9 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016, except as required by paragraph (j)(3) of this AD, do high frequency eddy current (HFEC) open hole inspections for any cracking in the forward support fitting, the aft support fitting, the rear spar upper chord, and the rear spar web at the 12 fastener holes (locations 1-12); or HFEC open hole inspections for any cracking in the forward support fitting, the aft support fitting, the rear spar upper chord, and the rear spar web, and an HFEC surface inspection for any cracking in the rear spar upper chord and rear spar upper web; as applicable; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016, except as provided by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, and except as required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Thereafter, repeat the HFEC inspection at the applicable time specified in table 2 through table 9 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016.

    (1) Options provided in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016, for accomplishing the inspection are acceptable for the corresponding requirements in the introductory text of paragraph (h) of this AD, provided that the inspections are done at the applicable times in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016.

    (2) For Group 7, Configuration 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016: Install the same type and same size fasteners as those previously removed from the airplane after accomplishing the open hole HFEC inspection specified in the introductory text of paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (i) Eddy Current Inspection (Inspar Upper Skin)

    For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1328, dated July 22, 2016: At the applicable time specified in table 1 and table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1328, dated July 22, 2016, except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, do an eddy current inspection of the left and right wings for any cracking in the inspar upper skin, and at the repair parts if installed, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1328, dated July 22, 2016, except as required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Do all related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Thereafter, repeat the eddy current inspection at the applicable time specified in table 1 and table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1328, dated July 22, 2016.

    (j) Exceptions to the Service Information

    (1) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1328, dated July 22, 2016; specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1328, dated July 22, 2016, specifies a compliance time “after the Original Issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (3) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016, specifies a compliance time “after the Revision 1 date of this service bulletin, whichever occurs later,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (k) Terminating Action

    (1) Accomplishing the initial inspections and applicable related investigative and corrective actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD, as applicable, terminates all requirements of AD 2015-21-08.

    (2) Accomplishing the initial inspections and applicable related investigative and corrective actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, as applicable, terminates all requirements of AD 2014-12-13.

    (l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

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

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (4) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2014-12-13, Amendment 39-17874 (79 FR 39300, July 10, 2014), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

    (5) Except as required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (l)(5)(i) and (l)(5)(ii) of this AD apply.

    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or sub-step is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or sub-step. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.

    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.

    (m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Payman Soltani, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5313; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Staff, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 26, 2017. Jeffrey E. Duven, Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16357 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6417; Product Identifier 2015-NM-134-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    The FAA withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published on May 10, 2016. Since the NPRM was issued, we have determined that the identified unsafe condition is adequately addressed by existing actions. Accordingly, the NPRM is withdrawn.

    DATES:

    As of August 11, 2017, the proposed rule, which was published in the Federal Register on May 10, 2016 (81 FR 28770), is withdrawn.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6417; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD action, the NPRM (81 FR 28770, May 10, 2016) (“the NPRM”), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Serj Harutunian, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5254; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]ov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We proposed to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) with an NPRM for a new AD for all The Boeing Company Model DC-10-10 and DC-10-10F airplanes, Model DC-10-15 airplanes, Model DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes, Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F airplanes, Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F airplanes, and Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 10, 2016 (81 FR 28770). The proposed AD would have required replacement of the fuel pump housing electrical connector or replacement of the fuel pump housing; repetitive inspections for proper operation of the fuel pump, and corrective actions if necessary; and revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new airworthiness limitations. The proposed AD also would have required, for certain airplanes, a general visual inspection of the protective cap and replacement if necessary. The NPRM was prompted by results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer and multiple reports of fuel pump housing electrical connector failures related to ingress of airplane fluids. The proposed actions were intended to prevent failure of the fuel pump housing electrical connector, which could result in a potential ignition source in a fuel tank and consequent fire or explosion.

    Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM, we have determined that the identified unsafe condition is adequately addressed by existing actions.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in considering the NPRM. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and the FAA's response to each comment. Multiple commenters (Boeing, FedEx, United Parcel Service (UPS), and Lufthansa Cargo) requested certain changes to the NPRM that are considered moot in light of this withdrawal.

    Requests To Withdraw the NPRM

    UPS stated that the unsafe condition identified in the NPRM is addressed by Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-145, dated July 15, 2014 (installation of sealed terminal lugs on the existing GEN 1 fuel pump connector), in combination with repetitive inspections, which accomplishes the same intent as having installed the GEN 4 fuel pump connector. UPS stated that AD 2016-04-16, Amendment 39-18410 (81 FR 12806, dated March 11, 2016) (“AD 2016-04-16”), also addresses issues with the fuel system. UPS concluded that sealing of the current GEN 1 fuel pump connector via Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-145, dated July 15, 2014, in conjunction with the installation of the fault current detectors installed via Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A133, dated June 5, 2014 (referenced as an appropriate source of service information in AD 2016-04-16), including a repetitive 24-month inspection of the connectors as required by paragraph (j) of AD 2016-04-16, addresses the unsafe condition described by the NPRM. UPS stated that, furthermore, the installation of the “uncommanded on” system via Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-137, dated June 24, 2014 (referenced as an appropriate source of service information in AD 2016-04-16), provides an additional level of safety in all pump positions where the tanks normally empty and can potentially support a combustible environment. UPS stated that the other pump positions on the airplane remain submerged in fuel, thus not providing a combustible environment.

    FedEx stated that according to the fire pyramid or fire triangle, three elements—oxygen, fuel (jet fuel), and heat (ignition)—are needed in order to have fire or explosion. FedEx noted that all of the main fuel pumps on MD11/DC10 airplanes are covered by fuel during all flight phases. FedEx stated that these pumps do not meet the aforementioned condition where fuel vapors are present surrounding the pump. FedEx remarked that only pumps in fuel tanks that become empty during flights, i.e., auxiliary tanks and tail tanks, should be affected by the proposed AD. Based on this logic, FedEx concluded that the proposed AD should mandate the replacement of only the connector assemblies in any fuel tank that might normally be empty during flight. FedEx noted that AD 2016-04-16 has already addressed this safety concern and required the installation of fault current detectors in all fuel pumps. FedEx also noted that AD 2002-13-10, Amendment 39-12798 (67 FR 45053, dated July 8, 2002), requires repetitive inspections until a new connector assembly is certified.

    We infer that FedEx and UPS are requesting we withdraw the NRPM because those commenters stated that the identified unsafe condition is already addressed.

    We agree to withdraw the NPRM because the identified unsafe condition is adequately addressed by existing actions. When we issued the NPRM, we had determined that the NPRM was necessary to comply with the regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).

    Subsequently, we have determined the fuel pump connector redesign/improvement issue is adequately addressed by the actions required by AD 2016-04-16. The risk of the unsafe condition developing during the remaining life of the airplanes identified in the applicability of the proposed AD (e.g., the TriJet fleet) has been greatly reduced by the installation of additional ignition prevention design features such as fault current detectors, automatic pump shutoff, and uncommanded dry running detection systems, which are mandated by AD 2016-04-16. The risk of a fuel tank explosion in a Trijet airplane with low flammability exposure time fuel tanks is not foreseeable.

    We are considering further rulemaking to revise AD 2016-04-16 to include an optional replacement, i.e., installing the new connectors introduced in Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-264, dated May 15, 2015, and Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-146, dated May 15, 2015, as specified in the NPRM. Accomplishing this option would end the 24-month repetitive inspections required by paragraph (j) of AD 2016-04-16 for that airplane.

    FAA's Conclusions

    Upon further consideration, we have determined that the NPRM is not necessary to address the identified safety concern. Accordingly, the NPRM is withdrawn.

    Withdrawal of the NPRM does not preclude the FAA from issuing another related action or commit the FAA to any course of action in the future.

    Regulatory Impact

    Since this action only withdraws an NPRM, it is neither a proposed nor a final rule and therefore is not covered under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    This withdrawal of an NPRM is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Withdrawal

    Accordingly, we withdraw the NPRM, Docket No. FAA-2016-6417, Product Identifier 2015-NM-134-AD, which was published in the Federal Register on May 10, 2016 (81 FR 28770).

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 2, 2017. Jeffrey E. Duven, Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16775 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Subtitle A and Chapters I Through VII [Docket ID: ED-2017-OS-0074] Evaluation of Existing Regulations AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Request for comments; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 22, 2017, we published in the Federal Register a request for input on regulations that may be appropriate for repeal, replacement, or modification. That request established a 60-day comment period beginning on June 22, 2017, and closing on August 21, 2017. We are extending the public comment period for 30 days, until September 20, 2017.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the request for comments published on June 22, 2017 (82 FR 28431), is extended. We must receive your comments on or before September 20, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments by fax or email. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under the “Help” tab.

    Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: The Department strongly encourages commenters to submit their comments electronically. However, if you mail or deliver your comments in response to this request, address them to Hilary Malawer, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 6E231, Washington, DC 20202.

    Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly available.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information on this document, please contact Hilary Malawer, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 6E231, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 401-6148 or by email: [email protected]

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On June 22, 2017, in accordance with Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” we published in the Federal Register a request for input on regulations that may be appropriate for repeal, replacement, or modification (82 FR 28431). That request established a 60-day comment period beginning on June 22, 2017, and closing on August 21, 2017. To ensure that all interested parties are provided ample time and opportunity to submit comments, we are extending the public comment period for an additional 30 days. Written comments must be submitted to us no later than September 20, 2017.

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site, you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: August 7, 2017. Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16876 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    82 154 Friday, August 11, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2017-0054] Availability of an Environmental Assessment for Field Testing of a Vaccine for Use Against Canine Lymphoma AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has prepared an environmental assessment concerning authorization to ship for the purposes of field testing, and then to field test, an unlicensed Canine Lymphoma Vaccine, Live Listeria Vector. Based on the environmental assessment, risk analysis, and other relevant data, we have reached a preliminary determination that field testing this veterinary vaccine will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. We are making the documents available to the public for review and comment.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before September 11, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0054.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2017-0054, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0054 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 7997039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Donna Malloy, Operational Support Section, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Policy, Evaluation, and Licensing, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 148, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; phone (301) 851-3426, fax (301) 734-4314.

    For information regarding the environmental assessment or the risk analysis, or to request a copy of the environmental assessment (as well as the risk analysis with confidential business information redacted), contact Dr. Patricia L. Foley, Risk Manager, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Policy, Evaluation, and Licensing, VS, APHIS, 1920 Dayton Avenue, P.O. Box 844, Ames, IA 50010; phone (515) 337-6100, fax (515) 337-6120.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act (21 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is authorized to promulgate regulations designed to ensure that veterinary biological products are pure, safe, potent, and efficacious before a veterinary biological product license may be issued. Veterinary biological products include viruses, serums, toxins, and analogous products of natural or synthetic origin, such as vaccines, antitoxins, or the immunizing components of microorganisms intended for the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of diseases in domestic animals.

    APHIS issues licenses to qualified establishments that produce veterinary biological products and issues permits to importers of such products. APHIS also enforces requirements concerning production, packaging, labeling, and shipping of these products and sets standards for the testing of these products. Regulations concerning veterinary biological products are contained in 9 CFR parts 101 to 124.

    A field test is generally necessary to satisfy pre-licensing requirements for veterinary biological products. Prior to conducting a field test on an unlicensed product, an applicant must obtain approval from APHIS, as well as obtain APHIS' authorization to ship the product for field testing.

    To determine whether to authorize shipment and grant approval for the field testing of the unlicensed product referenced in this notice, APHIS considers the potential effects of this product on the safety of animals, public health, and the environment. Based upon a risk analysis and other relevant data, APHIS has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) concerning the field testing of the following unlicensed veterinary biological product:

    Requester: Antelope Valley Bios, Inc.

    Product: Canine Lymphoma Vaccine, Live Listeria Vector.

    Possible Field Test Locations: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Texas.

    This list of possible field test locations includes States with veterinary clinics or oncology centers that will treat dogs, as well as States with resident dogs that receive treatment in another State then return home.

    The above-mentioned product consists of a highly attenuated Listeria monocytogenes strain that expresses a human survivin fusion protein. It induces a strong cell-mediated immune response as an aid in the treatment of dogs with lymphomas. It will be administered only in a veterinary clinic or veterinary oncology center by trained personnel.

    The EA has been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

    We are publishing this notice to inform the public that we will accept written comments regarding the EA from interested or affected persons for a period of 30 days from the date of this notice. Unless substantial issues with adverse environmental impacts are raised in response to this notice, APHIS intends to issue a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) based on the EA and authorize shipment of the above product for the initiation of field tests following the close of the comment period for this notice.

    Because the issues raised by field testing and by issuance of a license are identical, APHIS has concluded that the EA that is generated for field testing would also be applicable to the proposed licensing action. Provided that the field test data support the conclusions of the original EA and the issuance of a FONSI, APHIS does not intend to issue a separate EA and FONSI to support the issuance of the associated product license, and would determine that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. APHIS intends to issue a veterinary biological product license for this vaccine following satisfactory completion of the field test, provided no adverse impacts on the human environment are identified and provided the product meets all other requirements for licensing.

    Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 151-159.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 7th day of August 2017. Michael C. Gregoire, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16977 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of Proposed New Fee Sites AGENCY:

    Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Proposed New Fee Sites.

    SUMMARY:

    The Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest is proposing new recreation fee sites. The Chequamegon-Nicolet's proposal includes: A $75 nightly fee for the Franklin Lake Caretaker Cabin, and adding nine day-use sites to the Forest's day-use fee program. Sites proposed are: Ada Lake Beach, Bear Lake Beach, Bear Lake Boat Landing, Beck Road Trailhead, Block House Boat Landing, Gordon Lake Beach, Mondeaux Pines Picnic Site, Smith Rapids Picnic Area and Wanoka Trailhead.

    Fees are assessed based on the level of amenities and services provided, cost of operations and maintenance and market assessment. These fees are proposed and will be determined upon further analysis and public comment. Funds from fees would be used for the continued operation and maintenance and improvements to the facilities within the recreation areas.

    An analysis of nearby recreation facilities with similar amenities shows that the proposed fees are reasonable and typical of similar sites in the area.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted through September 5. New fees would begin May 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Paul I.V. Strong, Forest Supervisor, Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, 500 Hanson Lake Road Rhinelander, WI 54501

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Hilary Markin, Public Affairs Officer, 715-362-1354. Information about these and other proposed fee changes can also be found on the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest Web site: https://www.fs.usda.gov/CNNF

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, P.L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new recreation fee areas are established.

    All proposed day-use sites have the six amenities required under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act and are similar to other fee sites on the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. Franklin Lake Caretakers Cabin is a unique overnight opportunity not provided elsewhere on the forest. These proposed new fees are part of a larger fee proposal that includes campground increases and a change in the price of the annual day-use fee. For more information on these sites and the full proposal, visit https://www.fs.usda.gov/CNNF/.

    Dated: July 18, 2017. Jeanne M. Higgins, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16941 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Nevada and Placer Counties Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Nevada and Placer Counties Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Truckee, California. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (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 Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: http://cloudapps-usda-gov.force.com/FSSRS/RAC_Page?id=001t0000002JcwUAAS.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday, August 24, 2017, at 9:00 a.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 Truckee Ranger Station, Conference Room, 10811 Stockrest Springs Road, Truckee, 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 Truckee Ranger Station.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Woodbridge, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 530-478-6205 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. Welcome and oriententation of members,

    2. Federal Advisory Committee Act overview,

    3. Development of project ranking citeria and voting process,

    4. Elect a RAC chairperson,

    5. Project proponent presentations, and

    6. Review and selection of 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 submit a request in writing at least one week prior to the meeting 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 Michael Woodbridge, RAC Coordinator, 631 Coyote Street, Nevada City, California 95959; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 530-478-6109.

    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 17, 2017. Jeanne M. Higgins, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16936 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Southwest Mississippi Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Southwest Mississippi Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Meadville, Mississippi. 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://www.fs.usda.gov/mississippi/.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on September 19, 2017, at 6:00 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 Franklin County Public Library, 106 First Street, Meadville, Mississippi.

    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 Homochitto Ranger District. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bill Meriwether by phone at 601-384-5876 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. Call to order and welcome new members,

    2. Elect a new chairperson,

    3. Updates on RAC,

    4. Title II Funds availabile for projects,

    5. Discussion project proposals and make recommendations, and

    6. Public comments.

    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 14, 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 Bill Meriwether, RAC Coordinator, Homochitto Ranger District, 1200 Highway 184 East, Meadville, Mississippi 39653; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 601-384-2172.

    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.

    Leslie Weldon, Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16943 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Nevada and Placer Counties Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Nevada and Placer Counties Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Truckee, California. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (the Act) as reauthorized by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) 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 Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: http://cloudapps-usda-gov.force.com/FSSRS/RAC_Page?id=001t0000002JcwUAAS.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday, August 17, 2017, at 9:00 a.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 Truckee Ranger Station, Conference Room, 10811 Stockrest Springs Road, Truckee, 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 Truckee Ranger Station.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Woodbridge, RAC Coordinator, by phone at (530) 478-6205 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. Welcome and oriententation of members,

    2. Federal Advisory Committee Act overview,

    3. Development of project ranking citeria and voting process,

    4. Elect a chairperson,

    5. Project proponent presentations, and

    6. Review and selection of 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 submit a request in writing at least one week prior to the meeting 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 Michael Woodbridge, RAC Coordinator, 631 Coyote Street, Nevada City, California 95959; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 530-478-6109.

    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 17, 2017. Jeanne M. Higgins, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16942 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Newspapers Used for Publication of Legal Notices by the Intermountain Region; Utah, Idaho, Nevada, and Wyoming AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA

    ACTION:

    Notice

    SUMMARY:

    This notice lists the newspapers that will be used by the ranger districts, forests and regional office of the Intermountain Region to publish legal notices required under our regulations. The intended effect of this action is to inform interested members of the public which newspapers the Forest Service will use to publish notices of proposed actions and notices of decision. This will provide the public with constructive notice of Forest Service proposals and decisions provide information on the procedures to comment, object or appeal, and establish the date that the Forest Service will use to determine if comments or appeals/objection were timely.

    DATES:

    Publication of legal notices in the listed newspapers will begin on or after July 2017. The list of newspapers will remain in effect until June 2018, when another notice will be published in the Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kris Rutledge, Regional Planning Specialist, Intermountain Region, 324 25th Street, Ogden, UT 84401 and phone (801) 625-5146.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The administrative procedures at 36 CFR 214, 219, and 218 require the Forest Service to publish notices in a newspaper of general circulation. The content of the notices is specified in 36 CFR 214, 219 and 218. In general, the notices will identify: the decision or project, by title or subject matter; the name and title of the official making the decision; how to obtain additional information; and where and how to file comments or appeals/objection. The date the notice is published will be used to establish the official date for the beginning of the comment or appeal/objection period. The newspapers to be used are as follows:

    Regional Forester, Intermountain Region Regional Forester decisions affecting National Forests in Idaho: Idaho Statesman Regional Forester decisions affecting National Forests in Nevada: Reno Gazette-Journal Regional Forester decisions affecting National Forests in Wyoming: Casper Star-Tribune Regional Forester decisions affecting National Forests in Utah: Salt Lake Tribune Regional Forester decisions that affect all National Forests in the Intermountain Region: Salt Lake Tribune Ashley National Forest Ashley Forest Supervisor decisions: Vernal Express District Ranger decisions for Duchesne, Roosevelt: Uintah Basin Standard Flaming Gorge District Ranger for decisions affecting Wyoming: Rocket Miner Flaming Gorge and Vernal District Ranger for decisions affecting Utah: Vernal Express Boise National Forest Boise Forest Supervisor decisions: Idaho Statesman Cascade District Ranger decisions: The Star-News Emmett District Ranger decisions: Messenger-Index District Ranger decisions for Idaho City and Mountain Home: Idaho Statesman Lowman District Ranger decisions: Idaho World Bridger-Teton National Forest Bridger-Teton Forest Supervisor and District Ranger decisions: Casper Star-Tribune Caribou-Targhee National Forest Caribou-Targhee Forest Supervisor decisions for the Caribou portion: Idaho State Journal Caribou-Targhee Forest Supervisor decisions for the Targhee portion: Post Register District Ranger decisions for Ashton, Dubois, Island Park, Palisades and Teton Basin: Post Register District Ranger decisions for Montpelier, Soda Springs and Westside: Idaho State Journal Dixie National Forest Dixie Forest Supervisor decisions: The Spectrum District Ranger decisions for Cedar City, Escalante, Pine Valley and Powell: The Spectrum. Fremont (formerly Teasdale) District Ranger decisions: Richfield Reaper Fishlake National Forest Fishlake Forest Supervisor and District Ranger decisions: Richfield Reaper Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Humboldt-Toiyabe Forest Supervisor decisions that encompass all or portions of both the Humboldt and Toiyabe National Forests: Reno Gazette-Journal Humboldt-Toiyabe Forest Supervisor decisions for the Humboldt portion: Elko Daily Free Press Humboldt-Toiyabe Forest Supervisor decisions for the Toiyabe portion: Reno Gazette-Journal Austin District Ranger decisions: The Battle Mountain Bugle Bridgeport and Carson District Ranger decisions: Reno Gazette-Journal Ely District Ranger decisions: The Ely Times District Ranger decisions for Jarbidge, Mountain City and Ruby Mountains: Elko Daily Free Press Santa Rosa District Ranger decisions: Humboldt Sun Spring Mountains National Recreation Area District Ranger decisions: Las Vegas Review Journal Tonopah District Ranger decisions: Tonopah Times Bonanza-Goldfield News Manti-La Sal National Forest Manti-La Sal Forest Supervisor decisions: Sun Advocate Ferron District Ranger decisions: Emery County Progress Moab District Ranger decisions: Times Independent Monticello District Ranger decisions: San Juan Record Price District Ranger decisions: Sun Advocate Sanpete District Ranger decisions: Sanpete Messenger Payette National Forest Payette Forest Supervisor decisions: Idaho Statesman Council District Ranger decisions: Adams County Record District Ranger decisions for Krassel, McCall and New Meadows: Star News Weiser District Ranger decisions: Signal American Salmon-Challis National Forest Salmon-Challis Forest Supervisor decisions for the Salmon portion: The Recorder-Herald Salmon-Challis Forest Supervisor decisions for the Challis portion: The Challis Messenger District Ranger decisions for Lost River, Middle Fork and Challis-Yankee Fork: The Challis Messenger District Ranger decisions for Leadore, North Fork and Salmon-Cobalt: The Recorder-Herald Sawtooth National Forest Sawtooth Forest Supervisor decisions: The Times News District Ranger decisions for Fairfield and Minidoka: The Times News Ketchum District Ranger decisions: Idaho Mountain Express Sawtooth National Recreation Area: The Challis Messenger Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest Forest Supervisor decisions for the Uinta portion, including the Vernon Unit: Provo Daily Herald Forest Supervisor decisions for the Wasatch-Cache portion: Salt Lake Tribune Forest Supervisor decisions for the entire Uinta-Wasatch-Cache: Salt Lake Tribune District Ranger decisions for the Heber-Kamas, Pleasant Grove and Spanish Fork Ranger Districts: Provo Daily Herald District Ranger decisions for Evanston and Mountain View: Uinta County Herald District Ranger decisions for Salt Lake: Salt Lake Tribune District Ranger decisions for Logan: Logan Herald Journal District Ranger decisions for Ogden: Standard Examiner Dated: July 18, 2017. Jeanne M. Higgins, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16939 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Northern New Mexico Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Northern New Mexico Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Santa Fe, New Mexico. 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://www.fs.usda.gov/main/santafe/workingtogether/advisorycommittees.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on August 29-30, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 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 at the Santa Fe National Forest (NF) Supervisor's Office, 11 Forest Lane, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

    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 Santa Fe NF Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reuben Montes, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 505 438-5356 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 recommend projects 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 25, 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 Reuben Montes, RAC Coordinator, Sante Fe NF Supervisor's Office, 11 Forest Lane, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87508; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 505 438-5391.

    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 17, 2017. Jeanne M. Higgins, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16938 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Ozark-Ouachita Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Ozark-Ouachita Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Russellville, Arkansas. 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=001t0000002JcwBAAS.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on August 22, 2017, beginning at 2:00 p.m., Central Standard Time.

    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 Ozark-St. Francis National Forests (NF) Supervisor's Office, 605 West Main, Russellville, Arkansas. Participants who would like to attend by teleconference 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 Ouachita NF Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Caroline Mitchell, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 501-321-5318 or via email at [email protected]; or Terry Krasko, Designated Federal Officer, by phone at 479-964-7234 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 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 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 for oral comments must be sent to Caroline Mitchell, RAC Coordinator, Ouachita NF Supervisor's Office, Post Office Box 1270, Hot Springs, Arkansas; or via facsimile to 501-321-5399.

    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 17, 2017. Jeanne M. Higgins, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16937 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-549-822] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand for the period February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017, based on the timely withdrawal of all requests for review.

    DATES:

    Applicable August 11, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alice Maldonado or David Crespo, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4682 or (202) 482-3693, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On February 8, 2017, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand for the period February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017.1 In February 2017, the Department received timely requests, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), to conduct an administrative review of this antidumping duty order from the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (the petitioner), the American Shrimp Processors Association (ASPA), and certain individual companies.2 Based upon these requests, on April 10, 2017, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation listing 159 companies for which the Department received timely requests for review.3

    1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 82 FR 9709 (February 8, 2017).

    2See Good Luck Product Co., Ltd.'s (Good Luck's) February 16, 2017, Request for Administrative Review; Petitioner's February 23, 2017; Request for Administrative Review; May Ao Foods Co., Ltd./A Foods 1991 Co., Ltd.'s (collectively, Mayao's), Ongkorn Cold Storage Co., Ltd./Thai-Ger Marine Co., Ltd.'s (Ongkorn/Thai-Ger's), Thai Royal Frozen Food Co., Ltd.'s (Thai Royal's), Thai Union Frozen Products Public Co. Ltd.'s/Thai Union Seafood Co., Ltd.'s/Pakfood Public Company Limited/Asia Pacific (Thailand) Co., Ltd/Chaophraya Cold Storage Co. Ltd./Okeanos Co. Ltd./Okeanos Food Co. Ltd./Takzin Samut Co. Ltd.'s (collectively, Thai Union/Pakfood's), and Xian-Ning Seafood Co., Ltd.'s (Xian-Ning's) February 24, 2017, Requests for Administrative Review; and ASPA's and Charoen Pokphand Foods Public Company Limited's (CP Foods') February 28, 2017, Requests for Administrative Review.

    3See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 17188 (April 10, 2017).

    In July 2017, all parties timely withdrew their requests for an administrative review.4

    4See CP Food's July 6, 2017, Withdrawal of Administrative Review Request; ASPA's, Petitioner's, Mayao's, Thai Union/Pakfood's, Ongkorn/Thai-Ger's, Thai Royal's, and Xian-Ning's July 7, 2017, Withdrawals of Administrative Review Request, and Good Luck's July 10, 2017, Withdrawal of Administrative Review Request.

    Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. As noted above, all parties withdrew their requests for review by the 90-day deadline. Accordingly, we are rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand covering the period February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed 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). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a 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 Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751 of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: August 7, 2017. James Maeder, Senior Director performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16992 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-552-802] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding the administrative review, in part, of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) for the period February 1, 2016 through January 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    Applicable August 11, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6905.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On April 10, 2017, based on timely requests for review of 55 companies by the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (the petitioner) 1 and of 88 companies by the American Shrimp Processors Association (ASPA) 2 and various Vietnamese companies,3 the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam covering the period February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017.4

    1See Petitioner's Request for Administrative Review, dated February 24, 2017.

    2See ASPA's Request for Administrative Review, dated February 28, 2017.

    3See VASEP's Request for Administrative Review, dated February 27, 2017. See also Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company's Request for Administrative Review, dated February 22, 2017; Viet I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.'s Request for Administrative Review, dated February 28, 2017.

    4See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 17188 (April 10, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

    On July 7, 2017, Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company withdrew its request for administrative review.5 On July 7, 2017, the petitioner and ASPA withdrew their respective requests for an administrative review of Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company and its various name iterations, as were listed in the Initiation Notice. 6 Subsequently, on July 10, 2017, the petitioner and ASPA also withdrew their respective requests for administrative review of Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing Trading and Import-Export Co., Ltd., Viet I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd., and Seavina Joint Stock Company and their various name iterations, as were listed in the Initiation Notice. 7 On July 10, 2017, Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing Trading and Import-Export Co., Ltd. and Viet I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. withdrew their respective requests for an administrative review; there are no remaining review requests on the record with respect to these companies.8 Additionally, because Seavina Joint Stock Company did not request a review of itself, there are no remaining review requests for Seavina Joint Stock Company.

    5See Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company's Submission, “Stapimex Withdrawal of Request for Review,” dated July 7, 2017.

    6See Petitioners' Submission, “Domestic Producers' Partial Withdrawal of Review Requests,” dated July 7, 2017; and ASPA's Submission, “Partial Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review,” dated July 7, 2017.

    7See ASPA's Submission, “Partial Withdrawal of Review Requests,” dated July 10, 2017; and Petitioner's Submission, “Partial Withdrawal of Review Requests,” dated July 10, 2017.

    8See Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing Trading and Import-Export Co., Ltd. and Viet I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.'s Submissions, “Partial Withdrawal of Review Requests,” dated July 10, 2017.

    Partial Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Because the petitioner, ASPA, and the individual companies all withdrew their requests for administrative review within 90 days of the date of publication of the Initiation Notice, and no other interested party requested a review of these companies, the Department is rescinding this review with respect to these companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).9 The administrative review remains active with respect to all other companies for whom a review was initiated.

    9 Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing Trading and Import-Export Co., Ltd., and Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing Trade and Import-Export Co., Ltd. (“Quoc Viet Co. Ltd.”); Seavina Joint Stock Company; Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company (“STAPIMEX”); Viet I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd., and Viet I-Mei Frozen Foods Co. Ltd (“Viet I-Mei”).

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, if appropriate.

    Notifications

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

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: August 7, 2017. James Maeder, Senior Director performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16996 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-836] Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    On November 17, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated a changed circumstances review (CCR) of the antidumping duty order on glycine from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The Department preliminarily determines that Salvi Chemical Industries Ltd. (Salvi) is eligible to participate in a certification process, because Salvi has demonstrated that glycine produced by Salvi is no longer processed from Chinese-origin glycine. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Effective August 11, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Madeline Heeren, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-9179.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On December 10, 2012, the Department published its final anti-circumvention inquiry determination, where the record indicated that Salvi was processing Chinese glycine and labeling it to be of Indian origin.1 The Department determined that glycine processed in India of Chinese origin does not change country of origin, and, therefore, Salvi had circumvented the Order. 2 As part of our determination, we stated that Salvi could not take part in a certification process, whereby Salvi's importers could certify that they had not imported Chinese-origin glycine and would not be subject to the antidumping duty rate for Chinese glycine.3 Additionally, we stated that Salvi could also request a CCR if it could show that its exports of glycine to the United States were not processed from Chinese-origin glycine.4 On July 18, 2016, the Department received a request from Salvi to initiate a CCR in order for the Department to determine that the glycine produced by Salvi is no longer processed from Chinese-origin glycine.5 Additionally, Salvi requested that the Department determine that importers of glycine from Salvi are eligible to participate in a certification process.6 On November 16, 2017, the Department initiated this CCR, pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216(d), upon finding that there is sufficient information to warrant a review of the Order. 7

    1See Memorandum, “Final Scope Ruling Concerning the Antidumping Duty Order on Glycine from the People's Republic of China,” dated December 3, 2012 (Final Scope Ruling) at 14.

    2See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 73426 (December 10, 2012) (Circumvention Notice) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination of the Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping Duty Order on Glycine from the People's Republic of China; see also Antidumping Duty Order: Glycine from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 16116 (March 29, 1995) (Order); see also Final Scope Ruling.

    3See Circumvention Notice and Final Scope Ruling.

    4See Circumvention Notice.

    5See Letter, “Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Request for Changed Circumstances Review,” dated July 18, 2016.

    6Id.

    7See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 81 FR 81064 (November 17, 2016).

    Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this antidumping duty order is glycine, which is a free-flowing crystalline material, like salt or sugar. Glycine is produced at varying levels of purity and is used as a sweetener/taste enhancer, a buffering agent, reabsorbable amino acid, chemical intermediate, and a metal complexing agent. This proceeding includes glycine of all purity levels. Glycine is currently classified under subheading 2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).8 Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive.9

    8 In separate scope rulings, the Department determined that: (a) D(-) Phenylglycine Ethyl Dane Salt is outside the scope of the order and (b) PRC-glycine exported from India remains the same class or kind of merchandise as the PRC-origin glycine imported into India. See Notice of Scope Rulings and Anticircumvention Inquiries, 62 FR 62288 (November 21, 1997) and Circumvention Notice, respectively.

    9See Order.

    Methodology

    We are conducting this CCR in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.10 A list of topics in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as an appendix to this notice.

    10See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review of Glycine from the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public 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 Department's Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Preliminary Results of the Changed Circumstances Review

    We preliminarily determine that, since the Circumvention Notice and Final Scope Ruling were issued, Salvi has demonstrated that glycine produced by Salvi is no longer processed from Chinese-origin glycine.

    If the Department upholds these preliminary results in the final results, we will notify U.S. Customs and Border Protection and allow Salvi's importers of subject merchandise to certify that the glycine being produced and exported is not processed Chinese-origin glycine.

    Public Comment

    Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review in the Federal Register.11 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed by no later than five days after the deadline for filing case briefs.12 Parties that submit case or rebuttal briefs 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.13 All briefs are to be filed electronically using ACCESS.14 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the day on which it is due.15

    11See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). The Department has exercised its discretion under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) to alter the time limit for submission of case briefs.

    12See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1).

    13See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

    14See 19 CFR 351.303(b) and (f).

    15See 19 CFR 351.303(b).

    Any interested party may submit a request for a hearing to the Assistant Secretary of Enforcement and Compliance using ACCESS within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.16 Hearing requests should contain the following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.17 If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date of the hearing, which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.18

    16See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    17Id.

    18See 19 CFR 351.310(d).

    Final Results of the Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.302(b), the Department extended the deadline of the final results of this CCR to November 3, 2017.19

    19See Memorandum, “Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review,” dated August 4, 2017.

    Notification to Parties

    The Department is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3)(i).

    Dated: August 7, 2017. Carole Showers, Executive Director, Office of Policy performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Preliminary Results of the Changed Circumstances Review
    [FR Doc. 2017-16994 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-560-828] Certain Uncoated Paper From Indonesia: Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2017 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    On May 9, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated an administrative review of the (AD) antidumping duty order on certain uncoated paper (uncoated paper) from Indonesia for two companies for the period August 26, 2015, through February 28, 2017. Based on a timely withdrawal of a request for review, we are now rescinding this administrative review with respect to one company, PT. Indah Kiat Pulp and Paper Tbk, PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kirnja Tbk, and PT. Pindo Deli Pulp and Paper Mills (PD) (collectively, APP).

    DATES:

    Applicable August 11, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Blaine Wiltse or Manuel Rey, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6345 or (202) 482-5518, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On March 6, 2017, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the AD order on uncoated paper from Indonesia.1 On March 31, 2017, the Department received timely requests to conduct an administrative review of two companies: (1) PT. Indah Kiat Pulp and Paper Tbk, PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kirnja Tbk, and Pindo Deli Pulp and Paper Mills (PD) (collectively, APP); and (2) PT Anugerah Kertas Utama, PT Riau Andalan Kertas, and APRIL Fine Paper Macao Offshore Limited (collectively APRIL).2 Based upon these requests, on May 9, 2017, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review covering the period August 26, 2015, through February 28, 2017, with respect to two companies.3 On June 12, 2017, APP withdrew its request for an administrative review.

    1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 82 FR 12551 (March 6, 2017).

    2See Letter from APP, “Certain Uncoated Paper from Indonesia: Request for Administrative Reviews,” dated March 31, 2017; and Letter from APRIL, “Uncoated Paper from Indonesia,” dated March 31, 2017.

    3See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 21513 (May 9, 2017), as corrected by Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 26444, 26445, 26451 (June 7, 2017).

    Partial Rescission

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. APP timely withdrew its request for an administrative review of itself and no other party requested a review of this company. Accordingly, we are rescinding this review with respect to APP, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For APP, the company for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed 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). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a 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 doubled antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751 and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: August 7, 2017. James Maeder, Senior Director performing the duties of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16995 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF086 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Exempted Fishing Permits AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of a final environmental assessment to issue an exempted fishing permit.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces the availability of a Final Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzing the impacts of issuing an exempted fishing permit (EFP) to Dr. David Kerstetter of Nova Southeastern University to evaluate pelagic longline (PLL) catch and bycatch rates from within two different sub-areas in the northern portion of the East Florida Coast (EFC) Pelagic Longline (PLL) Closed Area (north and south of 29°50′ N. lat.) and compare those rates to rates obtained by authorized samplers from an area outside the EFC PLL Closed Area, with certain terms and conditions. The overall purpose of the research project is to evaluate the effectiveness of existing area closures at meeting current conservation and management goals under current conditions using standardized PLL gear on a specified number of commercial vessels. In response to terms and conditions established by NMFS, the research project is also structured to maximize the survival of shark species, collect data on shark species identification, collect data on PLL soak times to reduce bycatch mortality of species such as dusky sharks, and to increase the Agency's understanding of data poor shark stocks to improve future management of these species. NMFS considered public comments and decided to issue the EFP given the need to assess and compare current catch and bycatch rates during normal commercial fishing operations from areas inside and outside the EFC PLL Closed Area.

    DATES:

    The Final EA will be available on August 11, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of the Final EA may be requested by contacting Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Management Division (F/SF1), NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Craig Cockrell at (301) 427-8503 or Rick Pearson at (727) 824-5399.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    NMFS published a notice of intent to issue EFPs, Scientific Research Permits, Letters of Acknowledgement, and Chartering Permits for Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) in 2017 (81 FR 80646, November 16, 2016). Although that notice anticipated a variety of such applications, it also stated that occasionally NMFS receives applications for research activities that were not anticipated, or for research that is outside the scope of general scientific sampling and tagging of Atlantic HMS, or rarely, for research that is particularly controversial and that NMFS will provide additional opportunity for public comment, consistent with the regulations at 50 CFR 600.745 if that were to occur.

    As discussed in the November 2016 notice of intent to issue EFPs and related permits, issuance of EFPs and related permits are necessary because HMS regulations (e.g., fishing seasons, prohibited species, authorized gear, closed areas, and minimum sizes) sometimes otherwise prohibit activities that could be undertaken for scientific data collection or other valuable purposes. Thus, under 50 CFR 635.32, and consistent with 50 CFR 600.745, the Director of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries may, through issuance of an EFP, authorize for certain purposes the target or incidental harvest of species managed under a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) or fishery regulations that would otherwise be prohibited. Among the purposes of EFPs are the “conduct of scientific research, the acquisition of information and data, . . . [and] the investigation of bycatch, economic discard and regulatory discard.” 50 CFR 635.32(a)(1). These permits exempt permit holders from the specific portions of the regulations (e.g., fishing seasons, prohibited species, authorized gear, closed areas, and minimum sizes) that may otherwise prohibit the collection of HMS for public education, public display, or scientific research. The terms and conditions of individual permits are unique. EFPs and related permits are issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and/or the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA) (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.).

    NMFS closed the EFC area to PLL gear year-round in early 2001 (65 FR 47213, August 1, 2000). The closure was implemented to reduce bycatch and incidental catch of overfished and protected species by PLL fishermen who target HMS because there was a noticeable difference in the bycatch of some non-target species (mainly undersized swordfish) between the EFC area and open areas. At the time, Atlantic blue marlin, white marlin, sailfish, West Atlantic bluefin tuna, North Atlantic albacore tuna, and swordfish were overfished with overfishing occurring, and bycatch reduction was a component of rebuilding efforts. In particular, the United States was implementing a 1999 swordfish rebuilding plan, and the closure helped reduce bycatch of undersized swordfish. Several other laws required that NMFS address bycatch in the HMS fisheries, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which required reductions in sea turtle bycatch in the PLL fishery. National Standard 9 of the MSA also requires that fishery management plans minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable.

    The closure has been in place for more than 15 years now and, since 2001, a number of changes in stock status and fishery management measures have occurred. Specifically, North Atlantic swordfish and North Atlantic albacore tuna have been rebuilt, current international assessments of white marlin and West Atlantic sailfish indicate that overfishing is likely not occurring, and Western Atlantic bluefin tuna is not subject to overfishing, Additionally, the PLL fishery has been required since 2004 to use circle hooks instead of J-hooks to reduce sea turtle bycatch, and individual bluefin tuna quota (IBQ) allocations were implemented in the PLL fishery through Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan in 2014 (79 FR 71509, December 2, 2014). Allowing limited access to the EFC PLL Closed Area for research purposes via an EFP would provide important data from the closed area under these changed conditions. NMFS has not obtained scientific data related to catch and bycatch rates from this area since 2010, and that data suggested that more research was needed due to the small sample size and poor spatial distribution of PLL sets in the research area conducted from 2008-2010. The data resulting from the research under this EFP would be used to assess current bycatch rates during typical commercial fishing operations and to evaluate the effectiveness of the closed area in continuing to reduce bycatch of non-target species (e.g., billfish, undersized swordfish, prohibited species, and protected species). It would also provide more current data about the socio-economic impact of reduced catches of target species (swordfish and tunas) as a result of the closure, assess changes in species availability and distribution over time, and contribute to future stock assessments or other fishery management measures. Among the purposes of EFPs in the regulations are the “conduct of scientific research, the acquisition of information and data . . ., [and] the investigation of bycatch, economic discard and regulatory discard,” and such an EFP would be in furtherance of those purposes (§ 635.32(a)(1)).

    NMFS received an application to conduct research from within two different sub-areas in the northern portion of the EFC PLL Closed Area (north and south of 29°50′ N. lat.) and compare those rates to rates obtained from one portion of the open area (for comparative purposes) and published a notice of availability in the Federal Register for a Draft EA and a 30-day public comment period (82 FR 4856; January 17, 2017). On February 15, 2017 (82 FR 10746), NMFS extended the public comment period from February 16, 2017, until March 29, 2017. The EFP application is available for review on the HMS Management Division's Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/compliance/efp/index.html.

    Availability of a Final Environmental Assessment

    NMFS announces the availability of a Final EA that analyzes the potential impacts to the human environment of granting this EFP application for experimental PLL fishing within two sub-areas of the EFC PLL Closed Area and one area outside the Closed Area. Among other analyzed impacts, the Final EA projects the annual catches of all HMS species, as well as some non-HMS species interactions, from within two sub-areas of the EFC PLL Closed Area and one open area that could be expected to occur. Additionally, the Final EA describes NMFS' rationale for the preferred alternative and other alternatives considered for this research and includes responses to public comments on the Draft EA. The Final EA may be found on the HMS Management Division's Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/compliance/efp/index.html.

    Response to Comments

    During the public comment period NMFS received over 500 comments. The majority of the comments were submitted by recreational fishing constituents opposed to the research project. These commenters stated that the current EFC Closed Area has been effective at rebuilding several fish stocks and increasing recreational fishing opportunities and that it should remained closed to maintain those results and benefits. Several environmental organizations were opposed to the research project primarily because of concerns about what they considered to be excessive levels of bycatch (sharks, billfish, and undersized swordfish) at the level of effort proposed by the EFP applicant, although some groups recognized the need for the research. Comments from HMS commercial fishing industry participants and organizations recognized the need for the research, but expressed reservations that only one company (Day Boat Seafood LLC) would conduct and benefit from the project. As described below, NMFS has made changes to the preferred alternative described in the Final EA, based in part on public comments.

    A. Purpose & Need for Proposed Research Project

    Comment 1: There is no legitimate need for the proposed research project because the effect of pelagic longline (PLL) fishing within the closed area (a nursery for juvenile swordfish) is well-known. Conditions have not changed in the last 15 years.

    Response: The EFC PLL Closed Area has been in place for more than 15 years. Since 2001, a number of changes in stock status and fishery management measures have occurred. Specifically, North Atlantic swordfish has been rebuilt since 2009, current international assessments of white marlin and West Atlantic sailfish indicate that overfishing is likely not occurring, West Atlantic bluefin tuna is not subject to overfishing, and North Atlantic albacore tuna has been rebuilt. Additionally, the PLL fishery has been required since 2004 to use circle hooks instead of J-hooks to reduce sea turtle bycatch, and IBQ allocations were implemented in the PLL fishery through Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP in 2014 (79 FR 71509, December 2, 2014). Environmental conditions may have changed thereby affecting migratory patterns and species distributions of Atlantic HMS. Allowing limited access to the EFC PLL Closed Area for research purposes through an EFP would provide important data from the closed area under all of these changed conditions. Thus, the purpose of the research project is to evaluate PLL catches and catch rates of target and non-target species within two sub-areas in the northern portion of the EFC PLL Closed Area and an open area to evaluate the effectiveness of existing area closures at meeting current conservation and management goals under current conditions using standardized PLL gear on a specified number of commercial vessels. Vessels participating in this project would be required to submit electronic logbooks at the end of each set to NOVA Southeastern University; and these data would be available to NMFS upon request. During the project period, 40 percent of all sets would be observed by NMFS-approved observers or scientific research staff. Finally, NMFS would review 100 percent of electronic video monitoring data for all sets conducted under this EFP. The research is of limited scope and would be conducted in only a portion of the EFC PLL Closed Area and, therefore, is not expected to negate the known conservation benefits of the closed area. Among the purposes of EFPs in federal regulations are “the investigation of bycatch, economic discard and regulatory discard,” and this EFP would be in furtherance of those purposes (50 CFR 635.32(a)).

    Comment 2: This scientific research project will help to revitalize the U.S. highly migratory species (HMS) PLL fishery. It holds significant promise in evaluating responsible and sustainable ways to catch a larger percentage of swordfish quota allocated to the United States by ICCAT. We support efforts to assess the efficacy of the current closed areas and integrate new technologies into fisheries and fisheries research. Since the closure was implemented, many technological advances have been made in gear modifications, vessel monitoring, and bycatch mitigation tools and techniques that largely mitigate the duration and/or size of the PLL closed areas. Over the 15 years that the closure has been in place, little research has been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the existing closure in meeting current conservation and management goals.

    Response: In the short-term, this project is anticipated to provide economic benefit to the vessels participating in the research and could increase U.S. North Atlantic swordfish landings by approximately seven percent, thus more fully utilizing the U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota. In the long-term, this project is anticipated to provide scientific fisheries data to assess current bycatch rates during normal commercial fishing operations and to evaluate the effectiveness of the closed area in continuing to reduce bycatch of non-target species (e.g., billfish, undersized swordfish, prohibited species, and protected species). It will also provide current data about the socio-economic impact of reduced catches of target species (swordfish and tunas) as a result of the closure, electronic vessel monitoring, changes in species availability and distribution over time, and contribute to future stock assessments or other fishery management measures.

    B. Support for Alternative 1 (No Action)

    Comment 3: The recovery of a once-overfished species (swordfish) does not warrant returning to the kind of fishing that caused overfishing (excessive harvest of juveniles) and created the need for closures in the first place. If closing the EFC area to PLL gear resulted in a stock rebound, then that area is obviously vital to the overall Western Atlantic swordfish stock and should remain permanently closed to PLL vessels.

    Response: Issuance of this EFP would not represent a return to the level of fishing that contributed to overfishing of swordfish (including excessive harvest of juveniles). Specifically, this project is limited to six PLL vessels and 720 sets (with 480 sets distributed between two sub-areas of the EFC PLL Closed Area and the remainder occurring in the open area). Additionally, a historical comparison of the PLL fishery prior to 2001 to current conditions indicates a very different situation. The overall number of vessels landing swordfish has declined from 168 in 2001 to 90 vessels in 2016/2017 (to date). There has also been a decline in the number of PLL hooks fished from 7.6 million to 5.8 million. Several other time/area closures and gear restricted areas (GRAs) have been implemented since 2001, including the Desoto Canyon, Charleston Bump, and Northeastern closures, and the Cape Hatteras and Gulf of Mexico GRAs. Circle hooks now are required throughout the PLL fishery and weak hooks are required in the Gulf of Mexico. Electronic video monitoring systems (EM) are installed and must be utilized on all PLL vessels. Finally the individual bluefin quota (IBQ) program, which requires that sufficient IBQ be possessed prior to PLL fishing, may further limit effort in some circumstances. As described in Section 8.5 of the 2016 HMS SAFE Report, the result is that reported numbers of swordfish kept and discarded, large coastal sharks kept, and BAYS tunas kept from 2005-2015 decreased by more than the predicted values developed in Regulatory Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP. Reported discards of pelagic sharks and all billfish also declined by more than the predicted values developed in Regulatory Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP (swordfish kept: −41 percent; swordfish disc. −63 percent; LCS kept: −93 percent; BAYS kept: −36 percent; pelagic sharks disc. −32 percent; billfish disc. −53 percent).

    Comment 4: NMFS should support conservation and sustainable fishing activities related to recreational fishing. Please do not reverse the progress that the EFC PLL Closed Area has made to recreational fisheries.

    Response: Fishing activity conducted under this EFP is not anticipated to reduce recreational fishing opportunities for Atlantic HMS or to adversely affect the stocks that are recreationally fished. Recreational fishermen will still be able to go fishing off the eastern Florida coast, and the limited activities in this EFP are not expected to result in negative effects for recreationally-fished stocks. Successful recreational and commercial PLL fishing activities currently occur simultaneously in many areas of the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean.

    C. Range of Alternatives in Draft Environmental Assessment

    Comment 5: The Draft EA has not evaluated or discussed a number of possible reasonable alternatives that would meet the purpose and the need of the research project and could have less adverse impact to the human environment. The duration of the research should be reduced and data combined with data from the research conducted in the closed area from 2008-2010. The research project should be limited to the minimal number of sets and hooks necessary for statistical validity.

    Response: NMFS analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives that are feasible to accomplish the purpose and need of the project, which is to evaluate PLL catches and catch rates of target and non-target species within two sub-areas of the northern portion of the EFC PLL Closed Area and compare those to an open area. These included not issuing an EFP (no action) and a smaller and larger geographic area (Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively). NMFS also analyzed both the level of effort proposed by the applicant and a lesser amount of fishing effort commensurate with current fishing effort. In the Final EA and EFP, NMFS has reduced the number of sets authorized from the requested (and previously-preferred) level of 1,080 sets/year to 720 sets/year and the number of hooks per set from 750 hooks/set to 600 hooks/set. These numbers are commensurate with current levels of fishing effort by the participating vessels.

    A reduction in the duration of the project would not provide adequate sampling over time to account for seasonal variations in environmental conditions that may occur and thus would not meet the purpose and need of the EFP. Analysis of research data collected from 2008-2010 was used to develop projections for this EFP; however, changes in conditions since 2008-2010 prevent the combination of data sets. Although the previous research did obtain some significant results, the sample size was small and the spatial distribution of sets was poor. These results suggested that additional research was needed, and the current project size was designed to correct the errors in sample size and spatial distribution in the previous research.

    D. Utilization of U.S Swordfish Quota

    Comment 6: There is an implication that if the United States does not catch every swordfish allotted to it, then it will lose its quota to other nations. Although this argument has been around for years, the United States has not lost any swordfish quota.

    Response: The United States has, to date, been successful in protecting its North Atlantic swordfish quota at ICCAT, despite significant underharvest of the quota in recent years. The United States has argued that restrictions on the U.S. fishery, such as the required use of circle hooks, contributed significantly to the stock's rebuilding and that in light of those sacrifices and the strict conservation measures that benefitted all countries fishing on the stock, the United States should be given some time to revitalize its fishery. The threat of losing quota to other countries without the same conservation measures remains real, and NMFS continues to work with stakeholders to find ways to revitalize the stock while effectively managing the stock and other affected species. NMFS also is required under ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide U.S. fishing vessels with a reasonable opportunity to harvest the ICCAT-recommended quota. In 2016, preliminary data indicate that approximately 37 percent of the U.S. swordfish baseline quota and 33 percent of the adjusted quota was landed. Thus, the commenter's suggestion that our concern is catching “every fish” mischaracterizes and understates the quota issue. In the short-term, this research project provides an additional opportunity to harvest the swordfish quota while providing economic benefit to the vessels participating in the research. It is projected to increase U.S. landings of swordfish by approximately seven percent, thus more fully utilizing the U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota. This is not the primary reason for issuing the EFP, which will gather much-needed research from the EFC PLL Closed Area, but the project will help revitalize the North Atlantic swordfish fishery in the near-term.

    E. Project Design

    Comment 7: If this EFP is authorized, it would allow more than 1,000 longlines to be set per year, with over 750 hooks per longline. This means that over 2.25 million additional hooks will be floating off of Florida's coast.

    Response: While the preferred alternative in the Draft EA would have authorized up to 1,080 sets per year with 750 hooks per longline, NMFS has modified the preferred alternative in the Final EA and EFP to limit the number of sets to be commensurate with current effort in the open area. NMFS would authorize 720 longline sets per year with up to 600 hooks per set under this EFP. Of those, 480 sets would be authorized to be deployed between two sub-areas in the EFC PLL Closed Area. Thus, 288,000 hooks would be authorized in the EFC PLL Closed Area. NMFS emphasizes that these hooks would not be “additional” hooks, as they would otherwise be deployed in areas currently open off Florida's east coast. This EFP only authorizes an amount of fishing effort commensurate with current levels of effort by participating vessels.

    Comment 8: An initial adjustment period should be provided for fishermen participating in the study area to allow them to learn how to fish the Gulf Stream waters and `normalize' techniques and catches before data are collected or used for the purposes of the study. This will allow data to be reflective of experienced fishing practices in the EFC PLL Closed Area, rather than being influenced by data collected while fishermen are learning how to fish in the area.

    Response: The vessels and captains authorized to participate in this research project are experienced with fishing in areas immediately adjacent to the EFC PLL Closed Area. It would not be prudent to authorize fishing activities in the closed area without collecting the resultant data. NMFS believes that the participating captains will more quickly adjust their fishing practices while fishing under the provisions and terms and conditions of the EFP, rather being allowed to fish in the closed area without the EFP restrictions. In addition, pending annual review, if the EFP is authorized for an additional two years, variations between years could be recorded to see if changes in catch or bycatch rates occur due to improvements in fishing techniques.

    Comment 9: Data collection during this study should be at as high a resolution as possible in order to determine fine-scale differences in catch and bycatch in time and space.

    Response: Vessels participating in this project would be required to submit electronic logbooks, including date, time, location, and basic oceanographic conditions, at the end of each set to the research applicant at NOVA Southeastern University. These data would be available to NMFS upon request. The electronic logbook data would be audited every three months by the researcher who would compare randomly selected capture events in the electronic logbook to these events as recorded by electronic video data. NMFS will review one hundred percent of the electronic video data during the project. In addition, all existing reporting requirements would apply to participating vessels including logbook reporting and observer coverage requirements, which include latitude and longitude fields.

    Comment 10: We recommend a maximum mainline length of 5 miles, allowable soak times no longer than 3-4 hours, and retrieval of the gear in the order in which it was deployed. Reducing the amount of time that hooks are in the water could enhance the survival of fish and other animals caught incidentally or that must be released according to regulation.

    Response: The purpose of this study is to collect commercial fishery data from PLL vessels using normal fishing methods to effectively assess the difference between the closed and open area effects during such operations. Reducing the mainline length and soak times would not be representative of how commercial PLL vessels normally fish their gear. However, research investigating shorter mainline lengths, soak times, and gear retrieval techniques would be valuable and NMFS will consider these recommendations for future research.

    F. Observer Coverage Rates and Vessel Monitoring

    Comment 11: Some commenters stated that, if the project were to take place, it should have an unbiased observer coverage rate of 100 percent of all sets and that the EA must be supplemented with a defensible observer coverage rate to support the proposed project. Conversely, other commenters stated that the level of monitoring is excessive, because observer coverage is expensive, and a 33 percent coverage rate, in addition to 100 percent electronic video monitoring, may unnecessarily increase project costs and create an expensive precedent for future similar research.

    Response: We recognize that authorizing access to the EFC PLL Closed Area by commercial fishing vessels to conduct research warrants a high degree of oversight and monitoring. NMFS believes that an observer coverage rate of 40 percent is appropriate, given that additional funding has been obtained to ensure that 100 percent of electronic video monitoring data for all sets conducted under this EFP would be reviewed and the costs of 100 percent observer coverage would be prohibitive. Furthermore, 100 percent observer coverage is unnecessary given the other monitoring measures in place for this project. Forty percent observer coverage in addition to these other measures will ensure sufficient monitoring and accurate data collection and verification.

    Comment 12: Some commenters stated that this project should evaluate expanding the use of EM to all catch and bycatch species. Optimizing the configuration of EM for all catch could improve the reliability of data collected, especially for bycatch species like sharks, and ultimately allow for additional accountability at a reduced cost. Conversely, other commenters stated that this project is not sufficient in scale or scope to support any future decision by NMFS to use EM to record and analyze all catch and bycatch for the purpose of managing the PLL fishery as a whole in open areas. Yet other commenters stated that the project will also evaluate electronic logbooks for more streamlined and real-time reporting that combines catch data with oceanographic information. These data could help better understand where and under what conditions bycatch species occur and how fishermen can best avoid them.

    Response: EM equipment became required on all HMS PLL vessels on June 1, 2015. Thus, NMFS has approximately two years' worth of experience using the equipment and analyzing the data. In this project, NMFS will be reviewing one hundred percent of electronic video (EM) data. Thus the project will provide additional experience and data that could help better evaluate the effectiveness and limitations of EM data in recording and identifying all species of catch and bycatch.

    G. Project Participation

    Comment 13: This EFP would give the applicant a distinct competitive market advantage with respect to some species, which other boats in the PLL fleet will not have during the project period.

    Response: The research project is temporary and relatively short in duration (one year, with a possibility to renew annually twice pending annual review). The vessels fishing in this project would be fishing in the open areas absent this EFP, and there are costs associated with participation in this project. Some increased catch in target species is expected and will, in part, compensate the vessel owners for their participation in the project. Any financial advantages will be limited. The research applicant, not NMFS, selected and worked with the commercial fishing entity to develop this particular research project. Other entities may submit similar applications for EFPs at any time for consideration by NMFS. Such applications would be reviewed and evaluated for merit, based upon a sound scientific study design and other criteria.

    Comment 14: This project should engage the participation of captains and crew with the greatest level of experience, including especially those that have prior experience fishing in this EFC area before it was closed. Failure to do this may generate catch and bycatch results that are not truly representative of the entire U.S. HMS PLL fleet. NMFS should allow other vessels or companies to apply and compete for the privilege to participate in the fishing activity specified in the EFP.

    Response: The EFP application indicates that experienced PLL fishermen would participate in the project. These vessels and captains are currently fishing in areas immediately adjacent to the EFC PLL Closed Area. NMFS did not select the participating vessels. The EFP applicant and principal investigator selected the participants based upon their experience and the amount of fishing effort and methods needed to accomplish the objectives of the research.

    H. Catch and Bycatch Impacts

    Comment 15: Allowing PLL vessels in the EFC Closed Area will likely drive down stock abundance by killing dusky sharks, white sharks, undersized swordfish, marlin, sailfish, sea turtles, marine mammals, and many other species. PLL fishing is indiscriminate and was a major cause of the collapse of the swordfish fishery over 20 years ago.

    Response: NMFS received many comments expressing concern about excessive levels of bycatch that could occur as a result of issuing the EFP. Given the size, scope, duration, and strict research protocols associated with the research project, NMFS does not anticipate that issuance of the EFP would result in any significant ecological economic impacts. The participating vessels are already fishing in areas that are currently open. The EFP would authorize the same amount of fishing effort compared to the baseline of normal operations that occur in open areas. There would be no overall increase in fishing effort as a result of the project, although fishing would occur in different areas and certain catches and interactions would be expected to increase. None of these increases are expected to adversely affect the stocks or to have significant environmental impacts. The management measures that have been implemented in the PLL fishery since 2001, (including, but not limited to, circle hooks, gear restrictions, careful release equipment and training, individual bluefin tuna quotas, catch quotas, prohibited species, and electronic video monitoring) in combination with the strict research protocols associated with the research project are expected to mitigate any unforeseen ecological impacts such as unexpected bycatch levels. Discards of blue and white marlin are projected to remain largely unchanged. The amount of sailfish catch projected for this research project (226 individual sailfish) is not expected to lead to overfishing or have negative effects on the stock, as the overall TAC recommended by ICCAT (Rec. 16-11) for this stock is 1,030 mt. Similarly, the amount of swordfish projected to be caught is not expected to lead to overfishing as it would remain well within the 2017 adjusted U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota which is expected to be 3,359.4 mt (equivalent to the 2016 adjusted quota). Although discards (dead and alive) of undersized swordfish are projected to increase, this would not be desirable for the vessel captain who would likely change fishing areas and modify fishing techniques to avoid such bycatch. NMFS intends to monitor this project carefully, and will consider the amount of undersized swordfish and other bycatch captured during annual review of the EFP. NMFS has added additional terms and conditions to the EFP, including individual vessel limits, to address dusky shark and other shark bycatch. While a commenter noted concerns about white shark interactions, no interactions with white sharks are expected. If white shark interactions do occur, they are not expected to have ecological impacts as recent research indicates white shark populations are apparently increasing in abundance since the 1990s when a variety of conservation measures were implemented. This also would be considered during annual review of the EFP. Sea turtle bycatch is projected to be reduced and marine mammal bycatch is expected to remain unchanged.

    Comment 16: Allowing research fishing in depths of 100 fathoms and less will likely lead to interactions with unwanted and undersized species.

    Response: Historically, some fishermen working with the principal investigator have fished a portion of their longline gear in slower water on the west side of the Gulf Stream and a portion of their longline gear in the faster moving waters of the Gulf Stream. This allows their gear to “swing” with the current. The principal investigator has indicated that the slower water along the west side of the Gulf Stream is in proximity to the 100 fathom contour. A purpose of the project is to collect data about PLL catch and bycatch that will help address questions such as the one mentioned in this comment. The answer would not be known until fishery data are collected and analyzed through this research project.

    I. Support for Bycatch Limits

    Comment 17: The EFP must include bycatch limits, either individual vessels or fleetwide, for target and non-target finfish species including shark and billfish species. EFP investigators should be required to cease operations if and when any species-specific catch limit is reached.

    Response: Bycatch limits are applied as a precautionary measure for certain shark species due to the current stock status of dusky sharks and problems of misidentification with silky and night sharks. Bycatch limits for other species are not necessary because of differences in stock status (i.e., not overfished, no overfishing), low projected catches, or easier identification during monitoring. However, NMFS will closely monitor the catches during the project duration and has the ability to modify the conditions of the EFP, and to end the research project, to address bycatch as warranted.

    Comment 18: The EFP must include limits on interactions, takes and catches of species protected under the ESA and/or the MMPA.

    Response: Sea turtle interactions are projected to decline and marine mammal interactions are projected to remain the same under this EFP, versus if all fishing effort were in the open area. All existing ESA and MMPA requirements otherwise applicable to PLL fishing are applicable to the fishing activities conducted under this EFP. The PLL fishery is governed by the ITS contained in the 2004 PLL BiOp. Sea turtle interactions (all species) have remained well below the incidental take statement (ITS) established in the 2004 PLL BiOp since its implementation. With regards to marine mammals, the PLL fishery must comply with the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan and the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan. These plans include broad-based gear modifications and time/area closures.

    Comment 19: What bycatch numbers will be deemed acceptable? The levels of acceptable bycatch must be at or below those achieved by the closures.

    Response: Any bycatch derived from within the EFC PLL Closed Area under this EFP would be above the level achieved by the closure because there is currently no PLL fishing activity in the area. NMFS has not determined the level of bycatch that would be considered acceptable, except for dusky sharks which are overfished and may be confused with other shark species. A general benchmark for fish species would be the likely projected annual catch levels analyzed in chapter four of the Final EA. However, these would also need to be assessed on an event by event basis. NMFS, in cooperation with the principal investigator, would determine if the catch of a certain species was unusually large and/or unexpected. The use of electronic logbooks, 100 percent video monitoring, increased observer coverage (40 percent), and communication with the principal investigator would help enable this determination. Then, it would be necessary to assess whether the catch could lead to, or exacerbate, overfishing of the species. Extra precaution would be necessary for currently overfished species including blue and white marlin and certain shark species. Based upon this information, the principal investigator and NMFS would coordinate an appropriate response (e.g., relocation, soak time reduction, temporary or permanent suspension of fishing activities). NMFS will closely monitor catches during the project duration and has the ability to modify the conditions of the EFP, and to end the research project, to address bycatch as warranted.

    J. Economic Impacts

    Comment 20: The issuance of an EFP would have an adverse indirect socio-ecological effect resulting from a reduction in catches of HMS and other species. This adverse indirect impact would affect recreational billfish anglers, recreational tournament operators, and all of those industries which are connected to the recreational fishery (marinas, tackle stores, boat manufacturers, etc.). The money spent on recreational fishing far outweighs any benefit commercial fishing may bring.

    Response: Issuance of an EFP is not anticipated to cause or contribute to overfishing of HMS or other species as described in the ecological effects analysis in the Final EA. Recreational fishing for HMS is an important social and economic activity. Mandatory reporting of recreational swordfish and billfish landings became effective in 2001. However, a comparatively small amount of swordfish and billfish were reported as landed from recreational anglers in the state of Florida in 2016. Data indicate that 290 swordfish, 102 sailfish, 2 blue marlin, and 1 white marlin were reported landed. Reporting of releases is optional, but only 1 blue marlin was reportedly released in Florida in 2016. Collecting commercial fisheries data under this EFP is not anticipated to reduce the economic benefits of recreational fishing.

    Comment 21: Data derived from the issuance of an EFP could benefit the U.S. PLL fleet. The PLL closures have had profound economic impacts on the fishery.

    Response: This research project could benefit the management of all U.S. HMS fisheries by allowing for improved management decision making based upon current and accurate information.

    Comment 22: The Draft EA does not provide adequate information and/or a determination whether a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) can be made. The Draft EA determined that the proposed activity will have a potential adverse socioeconomic impact due to gear conflicts and a reduction in recreational catch. This adverse impact does not support a FONSI.

    Response: A determination that there could be adverse indirect socio-economic impacts to the recreational fishing community does not, by itself, indicate that the overall impact of the research project is significant. NMFS anticipates that these impacts should be partially mitigated because the research area is located far offshore, and well north of where the vast majority of Florida anglers are concentrated. Also, the strict research protocols and limits associated with the research project should mitigate impacts on recreational anglers. Thus, the finding of no significant impact was warranted.

    K. Gear Conflicts With Other Fisheries

    Comment 23: There is an overlap of the areas in the EFP and areas utilized in the royal red shrimp, rock shrimp, golden crab, and golden tilefish fisheries. These fisheries employ trawl, trap, and bottom longline gear respectively that are not compatible with the presence of pelagic longlines. Similarly, PLL gear fished in the same area where recreational and commercial hook-and-line fishing activity is occurring for dolphin or wahoo could create user conflicts, both through potential interaction with the PLL gear as well as a real or perceived localized depletion of these and other pelagic species.

    Response: This EFP would authorize a limited number of PLL sets by up to six vessels at one time in the project area. This level of fishing effort is not anticipated to result in a substantial number of interactions with fishing gears in other fisheries. These other fisheries also occur in other areas of the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico where PLL fishing occurs, and these other fisheries occurred in the EFC area prior to its closure to PLL gear. In those areas and times, fishermen on the vessels have been able to communicate and work to minimize the potential for gear interactions. NMFS anticipates that this communication and coordination will continue to occur during the EFP project period.

    L. Impacts on ESA & MMPA Listed Species

    Comment 24: The Draft EA does not include a detailed assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed action on ESA-listed species or marine mammals. Interactions with marine mammals must be carefully considered by the agency to ensure that the project is consistent with the existing Take Reduction Plan for this fishery and the requirements of the MMPA to manage fisheries interactions with marine mammals.

    Response: Interactions with listed species and marine mammals were considered by the agency to ensure that the research project is consistent with the existing Take Reduction Plan for this fishery and the requirements of the MMPA. As described in the response to Comment 18, all requirements otherwise applicable to PLL fishing are applicable to fishing activities conducted under this EFP. Although a limited amount of fishing effort under this EFP would occur in areas currently closed to PLL gear, the analysis in the EA shows that sea turtle interactions are projected to decline and marine mammal interactions are projected to remain the same under either Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 of this EFP, with effort relocated to the closed area versus if fishing effort were to occur solely in the open area. The level of fishing activity that would be authorized under this EFP in Preferred Alternative 3 does not represent any increase in fishing effort or methods other than those currently deployed in the U.S. PLL fishery, as analyzed in the 2004 PLL BiOp. Relocating part of the effort to the closed area does not alter that analysis. No additional take or quota use beyond that already authorized and analyzed in previous consultations on the PLL fishery is authorized by this permit. Similarly, the PLL fishery must comply with the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan and the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan. These plans include broad-based gear modifications and time/area closures. Additionally, the terms and conditions of the EFP require that any interactions with sea turtles or marine mammals must immediately be reported to the HMS Management Division, and the project terms and conditions may be altered or the project stopped if interactions are at problematic levels in relation to the established limits and protections.

    Comment 25: The EFP should include a full discussion of consideration of reinitiating ESA Section 7 Consultation to consider the effect of the proposed EFP on the findings of the 2004 PLL Biological Opinion (BiOp).

    Response: Fishing activity authorized under this EFP would be conducted using the same fishing methods and at the same level of fishing effort as currently exists outside of the project area. Furthermore, catches of sea turtles are projected to decrease as a result of this EFP. The 2004 PLL BiOp states that if the fishing type is similar, and the associated fishing effort does not represent a significant increase over the effort levels for the overall fishery considered in this BiOp, then issuance of some EFPs would be expected to fall within the level of effort and impacts considered in the BiOp. For example, issuance of an EFP to an active commercial vessel likely does not add additional effects than would otherwise accrue from the vessel's normal commercial activities. Thus, this research project is consistent with the findings of the 2004 BiOp.

    M. Cumulative Impacts Assessment

    Comment 26: NMFS has not demonstrated its methodology or Region of Influence (ROI) for conducting its cumulative impacts analysis for the proposed action. As the ROI for HMS includes the south Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico (recent swordfish tag data from The Billfish Foundation shows juvenile swordfish migrating from the DeSoto Canyon to the Atlantic coast of south Florida), other actions in the ROI such as Department of Defense and offshore oil & gas operations should be addressed as part of the cumulative impacts analysis.

    Response: Cumulative impacts are the impacts on the environment which result from the incremental impacts of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). The cumulative impacts assessment contained in the draft EA for this research project describes all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions for all fish stocks interacting with PLL gear across the range of those stocks (or their region of influence) which, for many, includes the entire Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Although offshore oil and gas operations and Department of Defense activities may affect HMS, the incremental effect of authorizing a limited number of commercial PLL vessels that are currently fishing in open areas to fish and conduct research in two sub-areas of the EFC PLL Closed Area, when added to these other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, is not expected to produce adverse significant cumulative impacts.

    N. Impacts on Dolphin Fishery

    Comment 27: A reasonable trip limit of no more than 4,000 lbs of dolphin should be applied to the participating vessels while fishing in this area under the EFP. This will prevent the EFP fishery from using an excessive amount of the commercial dolphin quota before the rest of the PLL fleet has an opportunity when the Charleston Bump area opens on May 1st. Further, this will minimize conflicts with the interests of the recreational fishery. Finally, this is consistent with the trip limit currently applied to the commercial dolphin harvest when landings reach 75 percent of the commercial quota. NMFS should also implement a limit of 25,000 pound whole weight on the total amount of dolphin that can be landed with PLL gear from the EFC PLL Closed Area.

    Response: Under 50 CFR part 622.274, if pelagic longline gear is on board a vessel, a person aboard such vessel may not fish for or retain a dolphin or wahoo in the EFC PLL Closed Area. An exemption from this regulation has been submitted to the Southeast Regional Office (SERO) of NMFS under their EFP requirements to enable vessels to retain dolphin and wahoo during research operations, subject to otherwise applicable commercial fishing restrictions for the stocks. As recommended by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC), a dolphin and wahoo exemption has been approved by the SERO Regional Administrator pending approval of this EFP by the HMS Management Division. Participating vessels would be limited to a 4,000 pound whole weight trip limit for dolphin when any portion of the trip occurs in the EFC PLL Closed Area. Additionally, participating vessels would be limited to the existing 500-pound trip limit for wahoo specified at 50 CFR 622.278(a)(1)(i). All other commercial dolphin and wahoo regulations, including the requirement to be issued a commercial dolphin-wahoo permit, would also apply. The environmental effects of this exemption have been analyzed in the Final EA. NMFS has determined that issuance of the EFP should not affect dolphin or wahoo in any way not already considered and analyzed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery of the Atlantic and it would not result in exceeding the annual catch limits for those species. Thus, the 25,000 pound whole weight total dolphin landing limit requested by the commenter is determined to not be necessary at this time.

    Comment 28: If the Charleston Bump area continues to be closed from February 1st to April 30th, there should be no special access during that same time frame given to the area immediately south of the 31 °N. Lat. line where all the HMS are migrating from unless the Charleston Bump was reopened at the same time.

    Response: The purpose of this research project is to evaluate PLL catches and catch rates of target and non-target species within a portion of the EFC PLL Closed Area on a year-round basis to evaluate the effectiveness of existing area closures at meeting current conservation and management goals. Therefore, prohibiting research activities in the area for three months would prevent the collection of important seasonal catch rate information that could potentially be used to address this issue in the future.

    O. Essential Fish Habitat

    Comment 29: The Draft EA notes that essential fish habitat (EFH) for HMS (including species targeted by PLL gear) exists within the EFC PLL Closed Area, but no EFH Assessment has been completed for the proposed action. NMFS must conduct an EFH Assessment in order to determine if the proposed action would adversely affect EFH. Both alternatives would co-occur within the Stetson Miami Terrace coral habitat area of particular concern (CHAPC) and Preferred Alternative 3 would also overlap with the Oculina Bank CHAPC. If PLL gear fished in these areas unintentionally comes into contact with the bottom, the gear may damage this fragile coral habitat. The Oculina Bank and Stetson Miami Terrance are considered EFH-HAPC.

    Response: An EFH assessment has been conducted for the proposed and final actions. As stated in the EFH assessment in the Draft and Final EA, issuance of the EFP is not anticipated to have an impact on EFH. The only gear to be deployed is PLL gear which has minimal or no impact on EFH for HMS or other species. PLL gear is typically fished in the water column where it does not come into contact with the benthic substrate. Thus, no impacts to benthic habitat or other EFH are anticipated.

    P. Suggestions for Additional Research

    Comment 30: NMFS should develop a hook and line survey to collect important population dynamics information from recreational and for-hire anglers.

    Response: NMFS appreciates this comment; however it is outside the scope of alternatives addressed in the Draft EA. NMFS notes that the current Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) collects some of this information.

    Comment 31: NMFS should conduct research into shorter sets and soak-times for longlines and how they might enhance survival of incidentally-caught fish and undersize target fish.

    Response: NMFS appreciates this comment and agrees that research investigating shorter mainline lengths, soak times, and gear retrieval techniques would be valuable. In a document entitled “Atlantic HMS Management Based Research Needs and Priorities” (2014), examining the feasibility of gear alternatives in Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean to reduce bycatch while maintaining target catch was identified as a high priority.

    Description of Preferred Alternative in Final Environmental Assessment

    The research conducted within the EFC PLL Closed Area and in the open area would be carried out by no more than six PLL vessels at any one time. An additional six “backup” vessels could be used to conduct research as replacements if any mechanical or technical issues arise on the other six vessels. The research project would be authorized for 12 months and, pending annual analysis review for any changed environmental conditions or impacts and of catches and catch rates of all species, as well as individual vessel performance, may be re-authorized for two additional 12-month periods. A maximum of 720 sets per year (12 months) would be authorized to occur between the six vessels, and sets would be distributed evenly between two sub-areas of the EFC PLL Closed Area and the open area. Each set would consist of a maximum of 600 16/0 or larger circle hooks. During the research project, 40 percent of sets occurring in both portions of the EFC PLL Closed Area and in the open area would be observed by scientific research staff or NMFS-approved observers.

    The commercial vessels that would be participating in this EFP project are otherwise authorized to fish and, absent this EFP, would be conducting normal PLL fishing operations in open areas consistent with their past practices. NMFS conducted an analysis that compared projected catches if the vessels were to continue fishing only in open areas (i.e., all effort in open areas) versus projected catches from fishing operations under the EFP (i.e., 2/3 effort in closed areas and 1/3 effort in the open area). The analysis indicated that fishing operations under the EFP could result in comparatively higher interactions with dusky, silky, and night sharks, whether fishing occurred at the level requested by the applicant or at the reduced level commensurate with past fishing activity. Therefore, many of the terms and conditions in the EFP are structured to limit interactions with and maximize the survival of these shark species, collect data on shark species identification, collect data on PLL soak times to reduce bycatch mortality, such as dusky sharks, and to increase the Agency's understanding of these data poor stocks to improve future management of these species. The terms and conditions include:

    • NMFS would review 100 percent of electronic monitoring data for 100 percent of sets occurring in both portions of the EFC PLL Closed Area and in the open area.

    • After three dusky sharks are caught dead at haulback by a vessel participating in the EFP, that vessel or its replacement vessel would be required to reduce the soak time of the gear to no longer than 10 hours when conducting fishing operations under the EFP. If, after reducing the soak time to no longer than 10 hours, an additional three dusky sharks are caught dead at haulback, then that vessel or its replacement vessel would no longer be authorized to fish in the EFC PLL Closed Area under this EFP, if issued, for the remainder of the 12-month project period, unless otherwise permitted by NMFS.

    • All live sharks caught but not being retained must be safely sampled (e.g., fin clip) and photographed without removing the shark from the water. All fin clips and photographs would be sent to the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) for identification purposes.

    • All sharks that are dead at haulback, including prohibited species, and all sharks being retained for sale must be biologically sampled (i.e., vertebra and reproductive organs removed) to facilitate species identification and collection of life history information. All biological samples would be sent to an address specified by the SEFSC.

    • Sets inside and outside of the two sub-areas of the EFC PLL Closed Area would be equipped with hook timers, in accordance with protocols established by NMFS, to determine when animals were captured and when mortality occurs. This will help determine appropriate PLL soak time to minimize dusky and other shark mortality.

    • To assist in current research efforts on shortfin mako sharks, observers are requested to place a specified number of pop-up satellite archival tags (PSATS) on shortfin mako sharks that are released alive.

    • NMFS will closely monitor the catches during the project duration and has the ability to modify the conditions of the EFP, and end the research project, to address bycatch as warranted.

    Authority:

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

    Dated: August 4, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16990 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF592 Marine Mammals; File No. 21158 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that Robert Garrott, Ph.D., Montana State University, 310 Lewis Hall, Bozeman, MT 59717, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on Weddell seals (Leptoncychotes weddellii).

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before September 11, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page, https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting File No. 21158 from the list of available applications.

    These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to [email protected] Please include the File No. in the subject line of the email comment.

    Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sara Young or Carrie Hubard, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

    The applicant proposes to continue long-term studies of the Erebus Bay, Antarctica, Weddell seal population to evaluate how temporal variation in the marine environment affects individual life histories and the population dynamics of long-lived mammal. Research involves the annual capture of up to 675 Weddell seal pups at 1-4 days after birth, flipper tagging, and release. A maximum of 150 of these pups would also receive a temperature recording flipper tag, be physically weighed, and have a skin biopsy taken for genetics when initially tagged. These pups would be re-captured again at 20 days of age to be weighed, and again at weaning for weighing and to remove the temperature tags. The applicant also proposes to capture up to 285 adults Weddell seals using the head-bagging technique to flipper tag previously untagged seals or replace lost or damaged tags of previously tagged individuals. An additional 100 previously tagged adult Weddell seals would be captured to obtain a skin biopsy for genetics. Up to 75 adult female Weddell seals would be photographed on the 3 occasions when their pup is weighed to obtained an estimate of the mother's mass through photogrammetry. An additional 15 females would be physically weighed when their pups were initially tagged and weighed. The applicant proposes to conduct up to eight mark-resight surveys, approaching animals to read their flipper tags. The applicant also requests incidental take of crabeater seals (Lobodon carcinophagus) and leopard seals (Hydrurga leptonyx) that may be unintentionally harassed. This permit would be valid for five years.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

    Dated: August 8, 2017. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16985 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF596 Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Post Data-Workshop Webinar Gulf of Mexico Gray Snapper; Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of SEDAR 51 assessment webinar II for Gulf of Mexico gray snapper.

    SUMMARY:

    The SEDAR 51 assessment process of Gulf of Mexico gray snapper will consist of a Data Workshop, a series of assessment webinars, and a Review Workshop.

    DATES:

    The SEDAR 51 assessment webinar II will be held August 21, 2017 from 1 p.m.-3 p.m. Eastern Time.

    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) a series of assessment webinars, and (3) A Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The assessment webinars produce a 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 product of the Review Workshop is an Assessment 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 during the assessment webinar I are as follows:

    1. Using datasets and initial assessment analysis recommended from the Data Workshop, 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

    These meetings are 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 2 business days prior to each workshop.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 7, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16933 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF518 Marine Conservation Plan for Pacific Insular Areas Other Than American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands; Western Pacific Sustainable Fisheries Fund AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of agency decision.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces approval of a Marine Conservation Plan (MCP) for Pacific Insular Areas other than American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

    DATES:

    This agency decision is valid from August 4, 2017, through August 3, 2020.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may obtain a copy of the MCP, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0077, from the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal, http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0077, or from the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808-522-8220, www.wpcouncil.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melanie Brown, Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office, 808-725-5171.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 204(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) authorizes the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), and at the request and in consultation with the Council, to negotiate and enter into a Pacific Insular Area fishery agreement (PIAFA). A PIAFA would allow foreign fishing within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) adjacent to a Pacific Insular Area other than American Samoa, Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands, that is, in the EEZ around the Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA). The PRIA are Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Island, Wake Island, and Palmyra Atoll. Before entering into a PIAFA for the PRIA, the Council must develop and submit to the Secretary a 3-year MCP that details the uses for funds collected by the Secretary under the PIAFA. NMFS is the designee of the Secretary for MCP review and approval.

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires any payments received under a PIAFA, and any funds or contributions received in support of conservation and management objectives for the PRIA MCP, to be deposited into the Western Pacific Sustainable Fisheries Fund (Fund) for use by the Council. Additionally, amounts received by the Secretary attributable to fines and penalties imposed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act for violations by foreign vessels occurring in the EEZ off the PRIA are deposited into the Fund for use by the Council. Section 204(e)(7)(C) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act also authorizes the Council to use the Fund to meet conservation and management objectives in the State of Hawaii, if funds remain after implementing the PRIA MCP.

    An MCP must be consistent with the Council's fishery ecosystem plans (FEPs), identify conservation and management objectives (including criteria for determining when such objectives have been met), and prioritize planned marine conservation projects. Although no foreign fishing in the PRIA is being considered at this time, the Council reviewed and approved the draft MCP for PRIA in June 2017 and sent the MCP to NMFS for review on July 7, 2017.

    The PRIA MCP contains five conservation and management objectives, consistent with the PRIA and Pelagic FEPs:

    1. Support quality research and monitoring to obtain the most complete scientific information available to assess and manage fisheries within an ecosystem approach.

    2. Conduct education and outreach to foster good stewardship principles and broad and direct public participation in the Council's decision-making process.

    3. Promote regional cooperation to manage domestic and international fisheries.

    4. Encourage development of technologies and methods to achieve the most effective level of monitoring, control, and surveillance, and to ensure safety at sea.

    5. Support Western Pacific community demonstration projects and Western Pacific Community Development Program to promote participation and access to fisheries for eligible communities.

    In addition, the PRIA MCP contains seven conservation and management objectives, consistent with the Hawaii FEP:

    1. Support quality research and monitoring to obtain the most complete scientific information available to assess and manage fisheries within an ecosystem approach.

    2. Promote an ecosystem approach to fisheries management including reducing bycatch in fisheries, minimizing impacts on marine habitats and protected species, and addressing climate change adaptation and mitigation.

    3. Conduct education and outreach to foster good stewardship principles and broad and direct public participation in the Council's decision-making process.

    4. Recognize the importance of island cultures and traditional fishing practices in managing fishery resources and foster opportunities for participation.

    5. Promote responsible domestic fisheries development to provided long-term economic growth and stability by reducing foreign imports and increasing local seafood production.

    6. Promote regional cooperation and capacity-building to manage domestic and international fisheries.

    7. Encourage development of technologies and methods to achieve the most effective level of monitoring, control, and surveillance, and to ensure safety at sea.

    Please refer to the MCP for planned projects and activities designed to meet each conservation and management objective, for the evaluative criteria, and for the priority rankings.

    This notice announces that NMFS has reviewed the MCP for the PRIA, and has determined that it satisfies the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Accordingly, NMFS has approved the MCP for the 3-year period from August 4, 2017, through August 3, 2020. This MCP supersedes the MCP previously approved for the period August 4, 2014, through August 3, 2017 (79 FR 44753, August 1, 2014).

    Dated: August 8, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16988 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Examiner Employment Application ACTION:

    Proposed extension of an existing information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites comments on a proposed extension of an existing information collection: 0651-0042 (Patent Examiner Employment Application).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before October 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include “0651-0042 comment” in the subject line of the message.

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

    Mail: Marcie Lovett, Records and Information Governance Division Director, Office of the Chief Technology Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Request for additional information should be directed to LaRita Jones, Chief of the Workforce Employment Division, Office of Human Resources, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-145; by telephone at 571-272-6196; or by email to [email protected] with “0651-0042 comment” in the subject line. Additional information about this collection is also available at http://www.reginfo.gov under “Information Collection Review.”

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    In the current employment environment, information technology professionals and engineering graduates are in great demand. The USPTO is in direct competition with private industry for the same caliber of candidates with the requisite knowledge and skills to perform patent examination work. The use of automated online systems during recruitment allows the USPTO to remain competitive, meet hiring goals, and fulfill the agency's Congressional commitment to reduce the pendency rate for the examination of patent applications.

    The USPTO uses the Monster Hiring Management (MHM) system to rapidly review applications for employment of entry-level patent examiners. Using MHM saves time by eliminating paper applications; reducing by several weeks the time Office of Human Resources staff need to spend processing and reviewing applications. Given the time sensitive hiring needs of the Patent Examining Corps, the MHM system provides increased speed and accuracy during the employment process.

    The MHM online application collects supplemental information to an candidate's USAjobs application. This information assists the Human Resource Specialists and hiring managers in determining whether an applicant possesses the basic qualification requirements for the patent examiner position. From the information collected, the MHM system creates an electronic real-time candidate inventory on applicants' expertise and technical knowledge, which allows the USPTO to instantaneously review applications from multiple potential applicants.

    The use of the MHM online application fully complies with 5 U.S.C. 2301, which requires adequate public notice to assure open competition by guaranteeing that necessary employment information will be accessible and available to the public on inquiry. It is also fully compliant with Section 508 (29 U.S.C. 794(d)), which requires agencies to provide disabled employees and members of the public access to information that is comparable to the access available to others.

    II. Method of Collection

    With the use of MHM, the applicant's information is collected electronically from the application. The USAJobs.gov Web site provides the online job announcement that links the applicant to the application and the MHM system. The application is completed online and then transmitted to the USPTO via the Internet.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0651-0042.

    IC Instruments and Forms: There are no forms associated with this collection.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 10,660 responses per year.

    Estimated Time per Response: The USPTO estimates that the employment application takes approximately 30 minutes (0.50 hours) to complete (See Table 1 below). This includes the time to gather the necessary information, respond to the MHM prompts, and submit the completed request to the USPTO.

    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 5,330 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Respondent (Hourly) Cost Burden: $239,690. The USPTO expects that engineers and scientists will complete these applications. The professional hourly rate for these respondents is estimated at an hourly rate of $44.97. This rate is the median hourly wage in May 2016 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) program estimates for engineers ($43.75; OES 17-2000) and scientists ($46.19; OES 19-2099). Using this hourly rate, the USPTO estimates that the total respondent cost burden for this collection is $239,690.00 per year.

    Table 1—Annual Hourly Cost Burden IC # Item Estimated time for response
  • (hr)
  • Estimated
  • annual
  • responses
  • Estimated
  • annual
  • burden
  • Estimated
  • hourly
  • rate
  • Estimated
  • annual
  • hourly cost
  • (a) (b) (c)
  • (a) × (b)
  • (d) (e)
  • (c) × (d)
  • 1 Patent Examiner Employee Application 0.50 (30 minutes) 10,660 5,330 $44.97 $239,690.00 Total 10,660 5,330 $239,690.00

    Estimated Total Annual (Non-hour) Respondent Cost Burden: $0.00. There are no filing fees or start-up, maintenance, record keeping, or postage costs associated with this information collection.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.

    Comments are invited on:

    (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have the practical utility;

    (b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection of information;

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

    (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, e.g., the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Marcie Lovett, Records and Information Governance Division Director, Office of the Chief Technology Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16940 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List: Proposed Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to delete products and a service from the Procurement List that were previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information or to submit comments contact: Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Deletions

    The following products and service are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 4820-00-052-4653—Valve, Ball Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Opportunity Center Easter Seal Facility—The Ala ES Soc, Inc., Anniston, AL Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7045-01-599-5296—Privacy Filter, iPad 7530-01-515-7902—Paper, Printer, Ink Jet, Photo Quality, Double Side, 26 lb., Letter, 94 Bright White Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Wiscraft, Inc., Milwaukee, WI Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7520-01-648-3552—Pen, Biobased, Gel Stick, Cushion Grip, Medium Point, Blue 7520-01-648-3553—Pen, Biobased, Gel Stick, Cushion Grip, Medium Point, Black 7520-01-648-3554—Pen, Biobased, Gel Stick, Cushion Grip, Medium Point, Red Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Alphapointe, Kansas City, MO Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Service Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Mandatory for: Pennington Memorial U.S. Army Reserve Center: 2164 Harding Highway East, Marion, OH Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: MARCA Industries, Inc., Marion, OH Contracting Activity: DEPT OF THE ARMY, W6QM MICC FT MCCOY (RC) Patricia Briscoe, Deputy Director, Business Operations (Pricing and Information Management).
    [FR Doc. 2017-17000 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List: Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds products and a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes a service from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agency.

    DATES:

    Date added to and deleted from the Procurement List: September 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Additions

    On 5/26/2017 (82 FR 24308-24309) and 6/9/2017 (82 FR 26780), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and service and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and service listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and service to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products and service are added to the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7125-01-151-5435—Cabinet, Key, Wall Mounting, 30 Key, Gray Steel 7125-00-132-8973—Cabinet, Key, Wall Mounting, 70 Key, Grey 7125-00-285-3049—Cabinet, Key, Wall Mounting, 90 Key Mandatory for: Total Government Requirement Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: LC Industries, Inc., Durham, NC Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Philadelphia, PA Distribution: A-List Service Service Type: Records Information Management Service Mandatory for: NAVSUP, GLS, Personal Property/Household Goods (HHG) Program, 937 N. Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Mississippi Industries for the Blind, Jackson, MS Contracting Activity: DEPT OF THE NAVY, NAVSUP FLT LOG CTR, SAN DIEGO Deletion

    On 6/30/2017 (82 FR 29852), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletion from the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the service listed below is no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to provide the service to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the service deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following service is deleted from the Procurement List:

    Service Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Mandatory for: U.S. Army Reserve Center: 10541 Calle Lee, Building 2, Los Alamitos, CA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Elwyn, Aston, PA Contracting Activity: DEPT OF THE ARMY, W6QM MICC-MOFFETT FIELD Patricia Briscoe, Deputy Director, Business Operations (Pricing and Information Management).
    [FR Doc. 2017-16999 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2017-ICCD-0077] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Health Education Assistance Loan (HEAL) Program: Lender's Application for Insurance Claim Form and Request for Collection Assistance Form AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 11, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2017-ICCD-0077. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 216-34, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Title of Collection: Health Education Assistance Loan (HEAL) Program: Lender's Application for Insurance Claim Form and Request for Collection Assistance Form.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0127.

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

    Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 4,613.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 875.

    Abstract: The HEAL Lender's application for Insurance Claim and the request for Collection Assistance forms are used in the administration of the Health Education Assistant Loan (HEAL) program. The HEAL program provided federally insured loans to students in certain health professions disciplines, and these forms are used in the administration of the HEAL program. The Lender's Application for Insurance Claim is used by the lending institution to request payment of a claim by the Federal Government. The Request for Collection Assistance form is used by the lender to request proclaims assistance from the Department. Section 525 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, transferred the collection of the Health Education Assistance Loan (HEAL) program loans from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to the U.S. Department of Education (ED).

    Dated: August 8, 2017. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16974 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.325B] Reopening; Applications for New Awards; Personnel Development To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities—Early Childhood Personnel Center AGENCY:

    Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 19, 2017, we published in the Federal Register (82 FR 18447) a notice inviting applications (NIA) for the Personnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities—Early Childhood Personnel Center competition. The NIA established a deadline date of June 5, 2017, for the transmittal of applications. This notice reopens the competition until September 11, 2017.

    DATES:

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: September 11, 2017.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    No applications received in response to the NIA were funded because the applicants did not adequately address the selection criteria for the competition. Therefore, we are reopening the competition to allow applicants to submit or resubmit applications that meet the requirements in the NIA, in order to ensure that State Part C and Part B, section 619 programs receive the technical assistance necessary to implement high-quality Comprehensive Systems of Personnel Development.

    We have eliminated the formatting and page-limit requirements specified in the NIA. Further, the specification in the NIA that the Secretary will not consider budgets above the maximum award amount is no longer applicable. However, we will only fund a successful application up to $2,000,000 for any single budget period of 12 months.

    Applicants that have already submitted applications under the FY 2017 competition are encouraged to review their applications and determine whether they have met all eligibility requirements and adequately addressed the selection criteria in the NIA and the application package, which is available at www.grants.gov.

    Applications that were previously deemed ineligible for review must be resubmitted to be considered for review. If a new application is not submitted by an applicant whose application was reviewed, the Department will use the application that was submitted before 4:30:00 p.m., Washington DC time, on June 5, 2017, 4:30:00 p.m.

    Finally, this competition is subject to intergovernmental review as set forth in Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. However, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental review in order to make an award by the end of FY 2017.

    Note:

    All information in the NIA for this competition remains the same, except for the deadline for the transmittal of applications, the formatting and page limit requirements, the mandatory page limit, the eligibility of applications that exceed the maximum award amount, and the intergovernmental review requirements.

    Program Authority:

    20 U.S.C. 1462 and 1481.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tracie Dickson, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5181, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-7844.

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the Management Support Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5113, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington DC 20202-2500. Telephone: (202) 245-7363. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: August 8, 2017. Kimberly M. Richey, Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17014 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC17-13-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-717); Comment Request; Revision and Extension AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of revised information collection and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on a revision to the information collection, FERC-717, (Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocol) which will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a review of the information collection requirements.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due October 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by Docket No. IC17-13-000 by either of the following methods:

    eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], telephone at (202) 502-8663, and fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: FERC-717, Open Access Same-Time information System and Standards for Business Practices & Communication Protocols.

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0173.

    Type of Request: Three-year approval of the FERC-717 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

    Abstract: The Commission directs all public utilities that own, control or operate facilities for transmitting energy in interstate commerce to provide certain types of information regarding their transmission operations on an Open Access Same-time Information System (OASIS). The Commission does not believe that open-access nondiscriminatory transmission services can be completely realized until it removes real-world obstacles that prevent transmission customers from competing effectively with the Transmission Provider. One of the obstacles is unequal access to transmission information. The Commission believes that transmission customers must have simultaneous access to the same information available to the Transmission Provider if truly nondiscriminatory transmission services are to be a reality.

    The Commission also established Standards of Conduct requiring that personnel engaged in transmission system operations function independently from personnel engaged in marketing functions. The Standards of Conduct were designed to prevent employees of a public utility (or any of its affiliates) engaged in marketing functions from preferential access to OASIS-related information or from engaging in unduly discriminatory business practices. Companies were required to separate their transmission operations/reliability functions from their marketing/merchant functions and prevent system operators from providing merchant employees and employees of affiliates with transmission-related information not available to all customers at the same time through public posting on the OASIS.

    Type of Respondents: Transmission Owners and Transmission Operators.

    Estimate of Annual Burden:1 The Commission estimates a reduction in the annual public reporting burden for the FERC-717. The numbers comport two separate entities: Transmission Owners and Transmission Operators. The respondent estimate provide corresponds to 170 Transmission Operators. The rational is that many Transmission Owners have elected to turn over operational control of their collective transmission systems to Transmission Operators, including RTOs/IS0s (as authorized in 18 CFR 37.5). These Transmission Operators offer OASIS access to the collective systems facilitating a single OASIS transmission request serving multiple transmission systems. As a result of these efficiency gains, the lower respondent count is appropriate. For completeness, we ascribe the reduction in Transmission Owners to mergers and acquisitions occurring during the time periods examined.

    1 Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, refer to 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

    Many Transmission Owners have turned over operational control of their collective transmission systems to Transmission Operators, including RTOs/ISOs. As a result of the efficiency gains, and an overestimate of the respondents in our past request, we are submitting a more accurate number of respondents. The changes in business practice standards from version to version requires a different number of hours each time a respondent submits there response. The estimate below reflects the work associated with the most recent version of the standards:

    FERC-717, Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards for Business Practices & Communication Protocols Information collection requirements Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses
  • per
  • respondent
  • Total number of
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden hours and cost per response 2
  • Total annual burden hours and
  • total annual cost
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) FERC-717 170 1 170 30
  • $2,295
  • 5,100
  • $390,150
  • Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    2 The Commission staff thinks that the average respondent for this collection is similarly situated to the Commission, in terms of salary plus benefits. Based upon FERC's 2017 annual average of $158,754 (for salary plus benefits), the average hourly cost is $76.50/hour.

    Dated: August 7, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16959 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1966-001.

    Applicants: NRG Wholesale Generation LP.

    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing Regarding Planned Transfer to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 8/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170807-5112.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2572-004.

    Applicants: GenOn Energy Management, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing Regarding Planned Transfer to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 8/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170807-5108.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2573-004.

    Applicants: GenOn Energy Management, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing Regarding Planned Transfer to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 8/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170807-5109.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-209-004.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: Central Power Electric Cooperative Formula Rate Compliance Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170807-5144.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1774-003.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Formula Rate Compliance Filing to be effective 7/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170807-5152.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2665-003.

    Applicants: NRG Power Midwest LP.

    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing Regarding Planned Transfer to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 8/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170807-5111.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-274-002.

    Applicants: GenOn Energy Management, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing Regarding Planned Transfer to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 8/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170807-5110.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1342-001.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Correct Loss Factor Tariff Records to be effective 5/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170807-5077.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2250-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-08-07_SA 2523 ITC-Pheasant Run 4th Revised GIA (J075 J466) to be effective 7/24/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170807-5078.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2251-000.

    Applicants: GenOn Energy Management, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 to be effective 9/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170807-5093.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2252-000.

    Applicants: NRG Power Marketing LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 to be effective 9/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170807-5094.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2253-000.

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.

    Description: NorthWestern Corporation submits Average System Cost Filing for Sales of Electric Power to the Bonneville Power Administration, FY 2018-2019.

    Filed Date: 8/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170807-5121.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2254-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notices of Cancellation IFA & DSA Mid Valley Landfill Project SA Nos. 73 & 74 to be effective 12/3/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170807-5127.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2255-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement No. 4758, Queue Position No. AA2-177 to be effective 7/10/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170807-5139.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF17-1266-000.

    Applicants: Escondido Bioenergy Facilty, LLC.

    Description: Form 556 of Escondido Bioenergy Facilty, LLC.

    Filed Date: 8/3/17.

    Accession Number: 20170803-5043.

    Comments Due: None Applicable.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 7, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16958 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14851-000] White Pine Waterpower, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On July 13, 2017, White Pine Waterpower, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the White Pine Pumped Storage Project to be located near the town of Ely in White Pine, Nevada. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.

    The applicant proposes to study two alternative closed-loop pumped storage alternatives at the site: One sized to 250 megawatts (MW) and the other to 500 MW. The 500-MW alternative would consist of the following: (1) A new upper reservoir with a surface area of 52 acres and a storage capacity of 2,400 acre-feet at a surface elevation of approximately 8,530 feet above mean sea level (msl) created through construction of a new earth or rock-filled dam; (2) a new lower reservoir with a surface area of 40 acres and a total storage capacity of 2,400 acre-feet at a surface elevation of 6,290 feet msl; (3) 10,600 feet of tunnel and penstock connecting the upper and lower reservoirs; (5) a new underground powerhouse containing three turbine-generator units; (6) a new 1.5 mile transmission line connecting the powerhouse to a nearby electric grid interconnection, (7) appurtenant facilities. The 500-MW alternative would have an annual generation of 502,717 megawatt-hours (MWh).

    For the 250-MW alternative, the new upper and lower reservoirs would be sized to have half of the storage of the 500-MW alternative (1,200 acre-feet), reducing the dam size needed to impound the reservoirs. The alternative would require 11,700 feet of tunnel and penstock and have 2 pump-generating units. The 250-MW alternative would require the same transmission line and would have an estimated annual generation of 547,500 MWh.

    Applicant Contact: Matthew Shapiro, CEO, Gridflex Energy, LLC, 1210 W. Franklin Street, Suite 2, Boise, ID 83702.

    FERC Contact: Jim Fargo; phone: (202) 502-6095.

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-14851-000.

    More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the eLibrary link of the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-14851) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: August 7, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16960 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC17-151-000.

    Applicants: Waverly Wind Farm LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization for Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities and Request for Expedited Action of Waverly Wind Farm LLC.

    Filed Date: 8/4/17.

    Accession Number: 20170804-5211.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/25/17.

    Docket Numbers: EC17-152-000.

    Applicants: GenOn Energy, Inc.

    Description: Application of GenOn Energy, Inc. and Its Public Utility Subsidiaries for Approval Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Action.

    Filed Date: 8/4/17.

    Accession Number: 20170804-5214.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/25/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-328-004; ER10-2196-004; ER10-2740-012; ER10-2742-011; ER11-4027-009; ER13-1143-005; ER13-1144-005; ER14-152-008; ER15-1657-005; ER17-1849-001.

    Applicants: Cogentrix Virginia Financing Holding Com, Elgin Energy Center, LLC, Essential Power OPP, LLC, Essential Power Rock Springs, LLC, James River Genco, LLC, Nautilus Power, LLC, Rocky Road Power, LLC, SEPG Energy Marketing Services, LLC, Tilton Energy LLC, Lakewood Cogeneration, L.P.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Cogentrix Virginia Financing Holding Company, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 8/4/17.

    Accession Number: 20170804-5216.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/25/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2248-000.

    Applicants: Sierra Pacific Power Company.

    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Emergency Services Agreement of Sierra Pacific Power Company.

    Filed Date: 8/4/17.

    Accession Number: 20170804-5230.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/25/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2249-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Duke Energy Indiana, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-08-07_DEI-DEI WDS Termination to be effective 8/8/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170807-5072.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 7, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16957 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9034-6] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 07/31/2017 Through 08/04/2017 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

    EIS No. 20170150, Final Supplement, DOS, ND, Line 67 Expansion (previously known as the Alberta Clipper Pipeline), Contact: Mary D. Hassell 202-736-7428. EIS No. 20170151, Draft, USFS, MN, School Trust Land Exchange, Comment Period Ends: 10/10/2017, Contact: Peter Taylor 218-626-4368. EIS No. 20170152, Draft, BR, CA, San Luis Low Point Improvement Project, Comment Period Ends: 09/25/2017, Contact: Nicole Johnson 916-978-5085. EIS No. 20170153, Final, ARS, ID, U.S. Sheep Experimental Station Grazing and Associated Activities Project, Review Period Ends: 09/11/2017, Contact: Gary Mayo 202-260-9494. Dated: August 8, 2017. Dawn Roberts, Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17018 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9965-41-Region 10] Public Notice of State of Idaho National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program Submission for EPA Approval AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comment; notice of public hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requesting comments on and will hold public hearings for the State of Idaho's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program application (to be referred to as the “IPDES program application” or the “application”). The Governor of the State of Idaho submitted the application to the EPA Region 10 Administrator pursuant to section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA or `the Act'). With this submission, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) seeks approval to administer the Idaho Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (IPDES) program regulating discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States under its jurisdiction. The State's request includes an implementation plan to transfer from the EPA to IDEQ the administration of specific program components in four phases over a four-year period beginning July 1, 2018, or upon program approval, whichever is later. If the EPA approves the IPDES program, IDEQ will administer this program, subject to continuing EPA oversight and enforcement authority, in place of the NPDES program now administered by the EPA. The EPA will retain permitting authority over all facilities that are located within a tribal reservation and/or facilities that discharge to tribal waters. Today, the EPA is requesting comments on the State's application and providing notice of public hearings that will be held at locations throughout the state. At the close of the public comment period, the EPA will review all the public comments received and will either approve or disapprove the State's request for program approval. If approved, the NPDES program authority will begin to transfer from the EPA to IDEQ on or after July 1, 2018, with the final program phase being transferred to IDEQ on or after July 1, 2021.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Location of Informational Meetings and Public Hearings: EPA Region 10 will hold five information meetings, with each followed by a public hearing on the following dates and times. Please check the Web site at https://www.epa.gov/npdes-permits/idaho-npdes-program-authorization prior to the scheduled dates for any updates to this information.

    Table I-1—Locations for Informational and Public Meetings Informational meeting and public hearing city/location/address/phone number Date and time Idaho Falls Central Public Library, 457 W Broadway St., Idaho Falls, ID 83402, (208) 612-8460 September 11, 2017: Duration: 4:00 p.m. until no later than 8:00 p.m. (MT).
  • Information meeting at 4:00 p.m. until 5:30 p.m.
  • Hearing will begin promptly at 6:00 p.m., until testimony is complete.
  • Twin Falls Twin Falls Public Library, 201 Fourth Avenue East, Twin Falls, ID 83301, (208) 733-2964 September 12, 2017: Duration: 4:00 p.m. until no later than 8:00 p.m. (MT).
  • Information meeting at 4:00 p.m. until 5:30 p.m.
  • Hearing will begin promptly at 6:00 p.m., until testimony is complete.
  • Boise Boise Public Library, 715 S Capitol Blvd., Boise, ID 83702, (208) 972-8200 September 13, 2017: Duration: 4:00 p.m. until no later than 8:00 p.m. (MT).
  • Information meeting at 4:00 p.m. until 5:30 p.m.
  • Hearing will begin promptly at 6:00 p.m., until testimony is complete.
  • Lewiston Lewiston Community Center, 1424 Main St., Lewiston, ID 83501, (208) 746-2313 September 14, 2017: Duration: 4:00 p.m. until no later than 8:00 p.m. (PT).
  • Information meeting at 4:00 p.m. until 5:30 p.m.
  • Hearing will begin promptly at 6:00 p.m., until testimony is complete.
  • Coeur d'Alene Coeur d'Alene Public Library, 702 E Front Ave., Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814, (208) 769-2315 September 15, 2017: Duration: 2:00 p.m. until no later than 6:00 p.m. (PT).
  • Information meeting at 2:00 p.m. until 3:30 p.m.
  • Hearing will begin promptly at 4:00 p.m., until testimony is complete.
  • Providing Comments. The EPA will consider comments on the IPDES program application before making a final decision. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    By Email: Send comments by email to [email protected],

    By Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Deliver comment to U.S. EPA, Attn: Idaho NPDES Comments, Office of Water and Watersheds, Mail Stop OWW-191, 1200 Sixth Ave., Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101-3140.

    Viewing and/or Obtaining Copies of Documents. A copy of the application and related documents may be viewed or downloaded, at no cost, from the EPA Web site at https://www.epa.gov/npdes-permits/idaho-npdes-program-authorization. Copies of documents are also available for viewing or copying at the EPA Region 10 Library, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 M/S OMP-0102, Seattle, WA 98101 and at the EPA Idaho Operations Office, 950 W Bannock, Suite 900, Boise, ID 83702 or call 208-378-5746. The R10 library is open Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays, 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m., and 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. For information about the cost of obtaining a copy or other information refer to EPA's Web page at https://www.epa.gov/libraries/region-10-library-services or call (206) 553-1289. IDEQ will provide copies of the application available for viewing at their Boise office and on their Web site. The application, related documents and program development documents can be viewed or downloaded, at no cost, from the IDEQ Web site http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/ipdes/program-application/. The IDEQ contact is Mary Anne Nelson, IPDES Program Manager; [email protected]; (208) 373-0291.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Visit https://www.epa.gov/npdes-permits/idaho-npdes-program-authorization or contact Karen Burgess, NPDES Permits Unit, EPA Region 10; (206) 553-1644; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this action are: The EPA; territorial, and tribal programs; and the regulated community and citizens within the state of Idaho. This table is not intended to be exhaustive; rather, it provides a guide for readers regarding entities that this action is likely to regulate.

    Table I-2—Entities Potentially Affected by This Proposed Approval Category Examples of potentially affected entities State, Territorial, and Indian Tribal Governments States, Territories, and Indian Tribes that provide certification under section 401 of the CWA; States, Territories, and Indian Tribes that own or operate treatment works. Municipalities POTWs required to apply for or seek coverage under an NPDES individual or general permit and to perform routine monitoring as a condition of an NPDES permit. Industry Facilities required to apply for or seek coverage under an NPDES individual or general permit and to perform routine monitoring as a condition of an NPDES permit. NPDES Stakeholders Any party that may review and provide comments on NPDES permits. Citizens of the state of Idaho Any party that may review and provide comments on NPDES permits.

    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    B. What action is the EPA taking?

    The State of Idaho submitted a complete description of their IPDES program and associated documents to the EPA. In accordance with CWA section 402(b), 33 U.S.C. 1342(b), and NPDES regulations at 40 CFR part 123, the EPA shall approve a submitted program unless adequate authority does not exist as required by the CWA.

    C. What is the EPA's authority for taking this action?

    CWA section 402 established the NPDES permitting program and gives the EPA authority to approve state NPDES programs. 33 U.S.C. 1342(b).

    State Permit Program Approval: Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1342, created the NPDES program under which the EPA may issue permits authorizing the point source discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States under conditions required by the Act. The CWA Section 402(b), 33 U.S.C. 1342(b), provides that the EPA shall approve a State to administer its own permit program, upon the Governor's request, provided the State has appropriate legal authority and a program sufficient to meet the Act's requirements. The regulatory requirements for state program approval are set forth in 40 CFR part 123 (https://www.ecfr.gov/), and subpart B provides the requirements of state program submissions, which IDEQ refers to as the IPDES program application.

    Decision Process: Pursuant to 40 CFR 123.21 and 123.61(b), the EPA must approve or disapprove the submitted IPDES program, which has been determined to be complete, within 90 days of receipt, unless this review period is extended by mutual agreement between the EPA and the State. The State must show, among other things that it has the authority to issue permits which comply with the Act, authority to impose civil and criminal penalties for permit violations, and authority to ensure that the public is given notice and an opportunity for a hearing on each proposed permit. After the close of the public comment period and completion of the required consultations, the Regional Administrator for EPA Region 10 will make a decision to approve or disapprove the IPDES program based on the requirements of section 402 of the CWA and 40 CFR part 123. If the Regional Administrator approves the IPDES program, the Regional Administrator will so notify the State and sign the proposed Memorandum of Agreement between the EPA and IDEQ (MOA). Notice would be published in the Federal Register and, as of the date of program approval, the EPA would suspend issuance of NPDES permits in Idaho in accordance with the State's approved schedule to transfer NPDES program authority in accordance with the phased implementation plan. If the Regional Administrator disapproves the IPDES program, IDEQ will be notified of the reasons for disapproval and of any revisions or modifications to the program that are necessary to obtain approval. The EPA will not make a final decision on IPDES program approval until after: (1) Considering all public comments provided during the public comment period and from the public hearings, and preparing a responsiveness summary and (2) completion of government to government tribal consultations, as requested, with federally recognized tribes in Idaho.

    Informational Meetings: Informational meetings will include a technical overview of both the federal and state programs and provide an opportunity for question and answer. IDEQ will participate with EPA during these meetings. Questions and answers following the informational meeting will not be entered into the official record. Comments for the official record must be made in accordance with the public hearings procedures and/or submitted as written comments before the end of the comment period.

    Public Hearing Procedures. The public hearings will be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 124.12 and will provide interested parties with the opportunity to give written and/or oral testimony into the official record. The following procedures will be used at the public hearings. (1) The Presiding Officer shall conduct the hearing in a manner which will allow all interested persons wishing to make oral statements an opportunity to do so; however, the Presiding Officer may inform attendees of any time limitations during the opening statement of the hearing. (2) Any person may submit written statements or documents for the hearing record. (3) The transcript taken at the hearing, together with copies of all submitted statements and documents, shall become a part of the record submitted to the Regional Administrator. (4) The hearing record shall be left open until the deadline for receipt of comments specified at the beginning of this Notice to allow any person time to submit additional written statements or to present views or evidence tending to rebut testimony presented at the public hearing. (5) Hearing statements may be oral or written. Written copies of oral statements are urged for accuracy of the record and for use of the Hearing Panel and other interested persons. Persons wishing to make oral testimony supporting their written comments are encouraged to give a summary of their points rather than reading lengthy written comments verbatim into the record. All comments received by the EPA in accordance with the instructions for `Providing Comments' by the ending date of the comment period and/or presented at the public hearing, will be considered by the EPA before final IPDES program approval.

    IPDES Program Application Summary: By letter dated, and received by the EPA on August 31, 2016, the Governor of Idaho submitted the IPDES program application for program approval. The application consisted of five main components required under 40 CFR 123.21: (1) A letter from the governor requesting approval of the state's application, (2) a program description that describes how the state will issue IPDES permits, ensure compliance with permit conditions, conduct enforcement, as well as fund and manage the program including programmatic information and data, (3) a statement from the Attorney General's office certifying that the state's laws and regulations provide sufficient authority to the state to implement the discharge, pretreatment, and biosolids components of the NPDES program, (4) a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the state and EPA which establishes, in part, timeframes for a phased approach for the state to assume authority, (5) copies of all applicable statutes and regulations including those that govern the state administrative procedures, which the state adopted to ensure the necessary authority for implementing the IPDES program, including Idaho House Bill 406 directing IDEQ to pursue permitting authority. IDEQ submitted their Continuing Planning Process (CPP) as required under 40 CFR 130.5 for program approval. Appendices to the Program Description include other IPDES program documents including guidance, forms and templates that IDEQ will use to implement their program.

    The EPA deemed the application complete on September 30, 2016, in a letter that also identified initial issues to be addressed before program approval. In accordance with 40 CFR 123.21(d), IDEQ requested to extend the statutory review period for the application until June 30, 2018. The EPA and IDEQ will use the period of time until program approval to address issues, complete the public process, develop the IPDES program and build capacity for both permitting and enforcement functions.

    IPDES Program Summary: As required under section 402(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1342(b), and 40 CFR 123.22, the IPDES program description specifies how IDEQ will administer the NPDES program. IDEQ will issue IPDES permits under their jurisdiction; conduct compliance and enforcement activities; gather and maintain NPDES records and report to the EPA; and oversee the regulated activities of all IPDES-permitted facilities. The EPA will retain the authority to issue NPDES permits for facilities located on tribal lands and/or discharging to tribal waters. The scope of IDEQ permitting authority includes individual and general permits for discharges to waters of the United States from facilities or activities, including industrial (e.g., commercial, mining, oil and gas, and silviculture discharges; animal feeding operations; and aquatic animal production facilities) and municipal wastewater treatment facilities (e.g., publicly and privately owned treatment works); discharges to waters of the United States from federal facilities; storm water discharges, including municipal storm sewer systems (combined and separate); construction and industrial storm water general permits; and individual permits for storm water discharges; sewage sludge (biosolids) under 40 CFR part 503 and the pretreatment program under 40 CFR part 403. IDEQ's program will not include permitting of discharges incidental to the normal operation of a non-military, non-recreational vessel operating in a capacity as a means of transportation; the EPA will continue to issue permits under CWA section 402 to regulate such discharges from non-military, non-recreational vessels greater than 79 feet in length and all ballast water discharges.

    IDEQ will assume permitting and compliance authority for the NPDES program in four phases. The EPA will retain full permitting and compliance authority over facilities until that authority is transferred to IDEQ in accordance with the following schedule:

    Phase I—Individual Municipal Permits and Pretreatment upon gaining program authority (anticipated July 1, 2018).

    Phase II—Individual Industrial Permits, one year after program authorization (anticipated July 1, 2019).

    Phase III—General Permits (Aquaculture, Pesticide, CAFO, Suction Dredge, Remediation), two years after program authorization (anticipated July 1, 2020).

    Phase IV—Federal Facilities, General and Individual Stormwater Permits and Biosolids, three years after program authorization (anticipated July 1, 2021).

    Authority:

    This action is taken under the authority of section 402 of the Clean Water Act as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1342. I hereby provide public notice of the application by the State of Idaho for approval to administer the State NPDES program, in accordance with 40 CFR 123.61.

    Dated: July 17, 2017. Daniel D. Opalski, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA, Region 10.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16822 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Privacy Act of 1974; Matching Program AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a new matching program.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (“Privacy Act”), this document announces the establishment of a computer matching program the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission” or “Agency”) and the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) will conduct with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The purpose of this matching program is to verify the eligibility of applicants to and subscribers of the Universal Service Fund (USF) Lifeline program, which is administered by USAC under the direction of the FCC.

    DATES:

    Written comments are due on or before September 11, 2017. This computer matching program will commence on September 11, 2017 unless comments are received that require a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to Mr. Leslie F. Smith, Privacy Manager, Information Technology (IT), Room 1-C216, FCC, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, or to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Leslie F. Smith, (202) 418-0217, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Lifeline program provides support for discounted broadband and voice services to low-income consumers. Lifeline is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) under FCC direction. Consumers qualify for Lifeline through proof of income or participation in a qualifying program, such as Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), Federal Public Housing Assistance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or Veterans and Survivors Pension Benefit. In a Report and Order adopted on March 31, 2016, the Commission ordered USAC to create a National Lifeline Eligibility Verifier (“National Verifier”), including the National Lifeline Eligibility Database (LED), that would match data about Lifeline applicants and subscribers with other data sources to verify the eligibility of an applicant or subscriber. The Commission found that the National Verifier would reduce compliance costs for Lifeline service providers, improve service for Lifeline subscribers, and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the program.

    PARTICIPATING AGENCY: The Department of Housing and Urban Development—Enterprise Income Verification System (EIV) (HUD/PIH-05), Inventory Management System (IMS/PIC) (HUD/PIH-01), and Tenant Rental Assistance Certification Systems (TRACS) (HUD/H-11); AUTHORITY FOR CONDUCTING THE MATCHING PROGRAM:

    47 U.S.C. 254; 47 CFR 54.400 et seq.; Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, et al., Third Report and Order, Further Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration, 31 FCC Rcd 3962, 4006-21, paras. 126-66 (2016) (2016 Lifeline Modernization Order).

    PURPOSE(S):

    In the 2016 Lifeline Modernization Order, the FCC required USAC to develop and operate a National Lifeline Eligibility Verifier (National Verifier) to improve efficiency and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline program. The stated purpose of the National Verifier is “to increase the integrity and improve the performance of the Lifeline program for the benefit of a variety of Lifeline participants, including Lifeline providers, subscribers, states, community-based organizations, USAC, and the Commission.” 31 FCC Rcd 3962, 4006, para. 126. To help determine whether Lifeline applicants and subscribers are eligible for Lifeline benefits, the Order contemplates that a USAC-operated Lifeline Eligibility Database (LED) will communicate with information systems and databases operated by other Federal and State agencies. Id. at 4011-2, paras. 135-7.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS:

    The categories of individuals whose information is involved in this matching program include, but are not limited to, those individuals (residing in a single household) who have applied for Lifeline benefits; are currently receiving Lifeline benefits; are individuals who enable another individual in their household to qualify for Lifeline benefits; are minors whose status qualifies a parent or guardian for Lifeline benefits; are individuals who have received Lifeline benefits; or are individuals acting on behalf of an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) who have enrolled individuals in the Lifeline program.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS:

    The categories of records involved in the matching program include, but are not limited to, a Lifeline applicant or subscriber's full name; physical and mailing addresses; partial Social Security number or Tribal ID number; date of birth; qualifying person's full name (if qualifying person is different from subscriber); qualifying person's physical and mailing addresses; qualifying person's partial Social Security number or Tribal ID number, and qualifying person's date of birth. The National Verifier will transfer these data elements to the source agencies, which will respond either “yes” or “no” that the individual is enrolled in a Lifeline-qualifying assistance program.

    SYSTEM(S) OF RECORDS:

    The USAC records shared as part of this matching program reside in the Lifeline system of records, FCC/WCB-1, Lifeline Program, a notice of which the FCC published at 78 FR 73535 (Dec. 6, 2013). The FCC is in the process of publishing an update to this system of records that reflects the new uses involved in operating this matching program.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16963 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Privacy Act of 1974; Matching Program AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a new matching program.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (“Privacy Act”), this notice announces the establishment of a computer matching program the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission” or “Agency”) and the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) will conduct with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The purpose of this matching program is to verify the eligibility of applicants to and subscribers of the Universal Service Fund (USF) Lifeline program, which is administered by USAC under the direction of the FCC.

    DATES:

    Written comments are due on or before September 11, 2017. This computer matching program will commence on September 11, 2017 unless comments are received that require a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to Mr. Leslie F. Smith, Privacy Manager, Information Technology (IT), Room 1-C216, FCC, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, or to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Leslie F. Smith, (202) 418-0217, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Lifeline program provides support for discounted broadband and voice services to low-income consumers. Lifeline is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) under FCC direction. Consumers qualify for Lifeline through proof of income or participation in a qualifying program, such as Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), Federal Public Housing Assistance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or Veterans and Survivors Pension Benefit. In a Report and Order adopted on March 31, 2016, the Commission ordered USAC to create a National Lifeline Eligibility Verifier (“National Verifier”), including the National Lifeline Eligibility Database (LED), that would match data about Lifeline applicants and subscribers with other data sources to verify the eligibility of an applicant or subscriber. The Commission found that the National Verifier would reduce compliance costs for Lifeline service providers, improve service for Lifeline subscribers, and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the program.

    PARTICIPATING AGENCY:

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development—Enterprise Income Verification System (EIV) (HUD/PIH-05), Inventory Management System (IMS/PIC) (HUD/PIH-01), and Tenant Rental Assistance Certification Systems (TRACS) (HUD/H-11);

    AUTHORITY FOR CONDUCTING THE MATCHING PROGRAM:

    47 U.S.C. 254; 47 CFR 54.400 et seq.; Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, et al., Third Report and Order, Further Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration, 31 FCC Rcd 3962, 4006-21, paras. 126-66 (2016) (2016 Lifeline Modernization Order).

    PURPOSE(S):

    In the 2016 Lifeline Modernization Order, the FCC required USAC to develop and operate a National Lifeline Eligibility Verifier (National Verifier) to improve efficiency and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline program. The stated purpose of the National Verifier is “to increase the integrity and improve the performance of the Lifeline program for the benefit of a variety of Lifeline participants, including Lifeline providers, subscribers, states, community-based organizations, USAC, and the Commission.” 31 FCC Rcd 3962, 4006, para. 126. To help determine whether Lifeline applicants and subscribers are eligible for Lifeline benefits, the Order contemplates that a USAC-operated Lifeline Eligibility Database (LED) will communicate with information systems and databases operated by other Federal and State agencies. Id. at 4011-2, paras. 135-7.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS:

    The categories of individuals whose information is involved in this matching program include, but are not limited to, those individuals (residing in a single household) who have applied for Lifeline benefits; are currently receiving Lifeline benefits; are individuals who enable another individual in their household to qualify for Lifeline benefits; are minors whose status qualifies a parent or guardian for Lifeline benefits; are individuals who have received Lifeline benefits; or are individuals acting on behalf of an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) who have enrolled individuals in the Lifeline program.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS:

    The categories of records involved in the matching program include, but are not limited to, a Lifeline applicant or subscriber's full name; physical and mailing addresses; partial Social Security number or Tribal ID number; date of birth; qualifying person's full name (if qualifying person is different from subscriber); qualifying person's physical and mailing addresses; qualifying person's partial Social Security number or Tribal ID number, and qualifying person's date of birth. The National Verifier will transfer these data elements to the source agencies, which will respond either “yes” or “no” that the individual is enrolled in a Lifeline-qualifying assistance program.

    SYSTEM(S) OF RECORDS:

    The USAC records shared as part of this matching program reside in the Lifeline system of records, FCC/WCB-1, Lifeline Program, a notice of which the FCC published at 78 FR 73535 (Dec. 6, 2013). The FCC is in the process of publishing an update to this system of records that reflects the new uses involved in operating this matching program.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17006 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0812] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before October 10, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0812.

    Title: Regulatory Fee True-Up, Waiver or Exemption.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit and Not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 19,674 respondents and 19,774 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.25 hour-1 hour.

    Frequency of Response: Annual, on occasion and one-time reporting requirements; recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 158 and 47 U.S.C. 159, Sections 4(i), 4(j) 8,9, and 303(r) of the Communications Act, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 10,016 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Licensees or regulatees concerned about disclosure of sensitive information in any submissions to the Commission may request confidential treatment pursuant to 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) after this 60-day comment period in order to obtain the full three-year clearance from them.

    This information collection consolidates and revises the currently approved information collection requirements under OMB Control Numbers 3060-0655 and 3060-1064 into 3060-0812.

    The Commission provides broadcast licensees and commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) licensees with a “true-up” opportunity to update or otherwise correct their assessed fee amounts well before the actual due date for payment of regulatory fees. Providing a “true-up” opportunity is necessary because the data sources that are used to generate the fee assessments are subject to change at time of transfer or assignment of the license. The “true-up” is also an opportunity for regulatees to correct inaccuracies.

    Per 47 CFR 1.1119 and 1.1166, the FCC may, upon a properly submitted written request, waive or defer collection of an application fee or waive, reduce, or defer payment of a regulatory fee in a specific instance for good cause shown where such action would promote the public interest. When submitting the request, no specific form is required.

    FCC requires that when licensees or regulates request exemption from regulatory fees based on their non-profit status, they must file a one-time documentation sufficient to establish their non-profit status. The documentation may take the form of an IRS Determination Letter, a state charter indicating non-profit status, proof of church affiliation indicating tax exempt status, etc.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16932 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-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 25, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:

    1. MBC Trust, Santa Barbara, California; and its Trustees Craig Zimmerman, Michelle Konoske and Joshua Rabinowitz, all of Santa Barbara, California; to acquire voting shares of Montecito Bancorp, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Montecito Bank & Trust, both of Santa Barbara, California.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. David R. Holloway, Sublette, Kansas, individually, to acquire voting shares of Santa Fe Trail Banc Shares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Centera Bank, Sublette, Kansas.

    In addition, David R. Holloway, Sublette, Kansas, MaryAnn H. Miller, and Kenneth D. Miller, Cimarron, Kansas have applied to acquire and/or retain shares of Santa Fe Trail Banc Shares, Inc., Sublette, Kansas, and for approval as members of the Holloway family group acting in concert, to control shares of Santa Fe Trail Banc Shares, Inc., Sublette, Kansas.

    2. Joe D. Butcher Trust No. 1 and Joe D. Butcher as Trustee, the Donna L. Butcher Trust No. 1 and Donna L. Butcher as Trustee, and Kimberly J. Fairbank, all of Cimarron, Kansas; to retain shares of Santa Fe Trail Banc Shares, Inc., Sublette, Kansas, and for approval as members of the Butcher family group acting in concert, to control Santa Fe Trail Banc Shares, Inc., Sublette, Kansas and thereby control shares of Centera Bank, Sublette, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 7, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16909 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 5, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. Equity Bancshares, Inc., Wichita, Kansas; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Cache Holdings, Inc., parent of Patriot Bank, both of Tulsa, Oklahoma.

    2. Equity Bancshares, Inc., Wichita, Kansas; to acquire, through its subsidiary, ENB Merger Sub, Inc., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 100 percent of the voting shares of Eastman National Bancshares, Inc., and thereby acquire The Eastman National Bank of Newkirk, both of Newkirk, Oklahoma.

    In connection with this application, ENB Merger Sub, Inc., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, has applied to become a bank holding company

    3. National Bank Holdings Corporation, Greenwood Village, Colorado; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Peoples, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas, and thereby indirectly acquire Peoples National Bank, Colorado Springs, Colorado, and Peoples Bank, Lawrence, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 7, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16908 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    ACTION:

    Notice, request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invites comment on a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the mandatory Notifications Related to Community Development and Public Welfare Investments of State Member Banks (FR H-6; OMB No. 7100-0278).

    On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before October 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by FR H-6, by any of the following methods:

    • Agency Web site: http://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx.

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

    Email: [email protected] Include OMB number in the subject line of the message.

    FAX: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.

    Mail: Ann E. Misback, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551.

    All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper form in Room 3515, 1801 K Street (between 18th and 19th Streets NW.) Washington, DC 20006 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.

    Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportforms/review.aspx or may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears below.

    Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Request for Comment on Information Collection Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Proposal To Approve Under OMB Delegated Authority the Extension for Three Years, Without Revision, of the Following Report

    Report title: Notifications Related to Community Development and Public Welfare Investments of State Member Banks.

    Agency form number: FR H-6.

    OMB control number: 7100-0278.

    Frequency: Event-generated.

    Respondents: State member banks.

    Estimated number of respondents: Post Notification, 20; Application (Prior Approval), 71; and Extension of divestiture period, 1.

    Estimated average hours per response: Post Notification, 2 hours; Application (Prior Approval) 5 hours; and Extension of divestiture period, 5 hours.

    Estimated annual burden hours: Post Notification, 40 hours; Application (Prior Approval) 355 hours; and Extension of divestiture period, 5 hours.

    General Description of Report: Regulation H requires state member banks planning to make community development or public welfare investments to comply with the Regulation H notification requirements: (1) If the investment does not require prior Board approval, a written notice must be sent to the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank; (2) if certain criteria are not met, and the investment requires prior Board approval, a request for approval must be sent to the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank; and, (3) if the Board orders divestiture, but the bank cannot divest within the established time limit, a request or requests for extension of the divestiture period must be submitted to the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank.

    Legal authorization and confidentiality: The Board's Legal Division has determined that the public welfare investment notice, request for approval, and request for extension of the divestiture period are authorized by the Federal Reserve Act, (12 U.S.C. 338a), and by the Board's Regulation H, (12 CFR 208.22). The obligation of state member banks to make public welfare investments under both the Reserve Bank post-notice and the Board's prior approval procedure is mandatory. The request for extension of the divestiture period is required to obtain a benefit. Individual respondent data generally are not regarded as confidential. However, a bank that submits confidential proprietary information may request confidential treatment of that information pursuant to section (b)(4) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). Such a determination would be made on a case-by-case basis in response to a specific request for disclosure. If examination ratings are included in a submission, those will be considered confidential under exemption 8 of the FOIA, (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)).

    Consultation outside the agency: Given that most community development entities obtain funding from a variety of local and regional financial institutions, Board staff consults with other agencies' staff to discuss applications relating to such investments, as appropriate.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 8, 2017. Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17012 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-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 28, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:

    1. Emmet Ross Harris, Novia Kinsel Harris, Karen Ray Elliff, all of George West, Texas, Farrell Harris Saunders, Stuart Donovan Saunders, and minor children of Stuart Donovan Saunders, all of Houston, Texas; to acquire voting shares of Live Oak Bancshares Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of South Trust Bank, N.A., both of George West, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 8, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17003 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 6, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Brendan S. Murrin, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. Drayton Bancor, Inc., Drayton, North Dakota; to merge with Pembina County Bankshares Ltd. and thereby indirectly acquire Citizens State Bank-Midwest, both of Cavalier, North Dakota.

    In connection with this application, Applicant also has applied to acquire Citizens Insurance Agency, Inc., Cavalier, North Dakota, and Walhalla Insurance Agency LLC, Walhalla, North Dakota, and thereby engage in general insurance activities in towns of less than 5,000 in population pursuant to section 225.28(b)(11)(iii)(A) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 8, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17001 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.) (HOLA), Regulation LL (12 CFR part 238), and Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a savings and loan holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a savings association and nonbanking companies owned by the savings and loan holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 6, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:

    1. The Charles Schwab Corporation, San Francisco, California; to acquire voting shares of Nordstrom FSB, Scottsdale, Arizona

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 8, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17002 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [Notice-PBS-2017-01; Docket No. 2017-0002; Sequence No. 4] Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Master Plan for the Consolidation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Headquarters at the Federal Research Center at White Oak, Located in Silver Spring, MD AGENCY:

    National Capital Region, General Services Administration (GSA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, GSA Order, PBS P1095.1F, Environmental Considerations in Decision Making, dated October 19, 1999, and the GSA Public Buildings Service NEPA Desk Guide, GSA plans to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Master Plan to support the consolidation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Headquarters at the Federal Research Center at White Oak, located in Silver Spring, Maryland.

    DATES:

    Applicable: Friday, August 18, 2017.

    The public scoping meeting date is: Tuesday, September 12, 2017, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).

    ADDRESSES:

    CHI Center, 10501 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20903.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Gyamfi, GSA, National Capital Region, Public Buildings Service, Office of Planning and Design Quality, at 202-440-3405. Please contact this number if special assistance is needed to attend and participate in the scoping meeting.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    GSA intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the potential impacts resulting from the proposed Master Plan to support the FDA Headquarters consolidation at the Federal Research Center (FRC) at White Oak, located in Silver Spring, Maryland.

    Background

    In 1997, GSA completed an EIS that analyzed the impacts from the consolidation of 5,975 FDA employees at the FRC. In 2005, GSA completed a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) that analyzed the impacts of increasing the number of employees from 5,947 to 7,720 and the impacts of adding a new eastern access entrance point into the FRC. In 2009, GSA completed its second SEIS that analyzed the impacts of increasing the number of employees (from 7,720 to 8,889) needed to conduct the complex and comprehensive reviews mandated by new legislation. To accommodate future growth and further consolidate FDA operations, GSA is preparing an EIS to assess the impacts of an employee population increase, of up to an approximately 18,000 employees, over a period of 15 years.

    The purpose of the proposed action is to provide a Master Plan for the FDA Campus at FRC to accommodate the projected growth. The need for the proposed action is to continue to support the FDA Headquarters consolidation at FRC, and provide the necessary office and laboratory space, in order to conduct the complex and comprehensive reviews mandated by Congress.

    Alternatives Under Consideration

    GSA will analyze a range of alternatives (including the no action alternative) for the proposed Master Plan of the FDA Headquarters, to increase the campus population by up to an approximately 18,000 employees over 15 years. As part of the EIS, GSA will study the impacts of each alternative on the human environment.

    Scoping Process

    In accordance with NEPA, a scoping process will be conducted to aid in determining the alternatives to be considered and the scope of issues to be addressed, as well as for identifying the significant issues related to the proposed Master Plan. Scoping will be accomplished through a public scoping meeting, direct mail correspondence to potentially interested persons, agencies, and organizations, and meetings with agencies having an interest in the Master Plan. It is important that Federal, regional, State, and local agencies, and interested individuals take this opportunity to identify environmental concerns that should be addressed during the preparation of the Draft EIS.

    Public Scoping Meeting

    A public scoping meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 12, 2017, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., EDT. The meeting will be an informal open house along with a brief presentation, where visitors may come, receive information, and give comments. GSA is publishing notices in the Washington Post, Montgomery County Sentinel, and Prince George's Sentinel announcing the meeting.

    Written Comments

    Agencies and the public are encouraged to provide written comments on the scoping issues in addition to, or in lieu of, giving their comments at the public scoping meeting. Written comments regarding the environmental analysis for the proposed Master Plan must be postmarked between Monday, August 21, 2017, and Monday, September 25, 2017, and sent to the following address: General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service, Office of Planning and Design Quality, Attention: Paul Gyamfi, 301 7th Street SW., Room 4004, Washington, DC 20407. Email: [email protected] using the subject line: FDA White Oak Master Plan Comment.

    Dated: August 4, 2017. Mina Wright, Director, Office of Planning and Design Quality, Public Buildings Service, National Capital Region, General Services Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16945 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-Y1-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifiers: CMS-10454] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, and to allow a second opportunity for public comment on the notice. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, the accuracy of the estimated burden, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by September 11, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806 OR, Email: [email protected]

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at Web site address at https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/PaperworkReductionActof1995/PRA-Listing.html.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Parham at (410) 786-4669.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. No comments were received in response to the 60-day comment period. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Disclosure of State Rating Requirements; Use: The final rule “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Health Insurance Market Rules; Rate Review” implements sections 2701, 2702, and 2703 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), as added and amended by the Affordable Care Act, and sections 1302(e) and 1312(c) of the Affordable Care Act. The rule directs that states submit to CMS certain information about state rating and risk pooling requirements for their individual, small group, and large group markets, as applicable. Specifically, states will inform CMS of age rating ratios that are narrower than 3:1 for adults; tobacco use rating ratios that are narrower than 1.5:1; a state-established uniform age curve; geographic rating areas; whether premiums in the small and large group market are required to be based on average enrollee amounts (also known as composite premiums); and, in states that do not permit any rating variation based on age or tobacco use, uniform family tier structures and corresponding multipliers. In addition, states that elect to merge their individual and small group market risk pools into a combined pool will notify CMS of such election. This information will allow CMS to determine whether state-specific rules apply or Federal default rules apply. It will also support the accuracy of the Federal risk adjustment methodology. Form Number: CMS-10454 (OMB control number: 0938-1258); Frequency: On Occasion; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments, Private Sector; Number of Respondents: 47; Total Annual Responses: 47; Total Annual Hours: 2,239. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Russell Tipps at 301-492-4371.)

    Dated: August 8, 2017. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17020 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS-7046-N] Health Insurance Marketplace SM, Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs; Meeting of the Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education (APOE), September 13, 2017 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the next meeting of the Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education (APOE) (the Panel) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Panel advises and makes recommendations to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of consumer education strategies concerning the Health Insurance Marketplace SM, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). This meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    Meeting Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2017, 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. eastern daylight time (e.d.t).

    Deadline for Meeting Registration, Presentations, Special Accommodations and Comments: Wednesday, August 30, 2017, 5:00 p.m. (e.d.t.).

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting Location: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Room 505A, Conference Room, Washington, DC 20201.

    Presentations and Written Comments: Presentations and written comments should be submitted to: Thomas Dudley, Designated Federal Official (DFO), Office of Communications, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Mailstop S1-05-06, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 or via email at [email protected]

    Registration: The meeting is open to the public, but attendance is limited to the space available. Persons wishing to attend this meeting must register at the Web site https://www.regonline.com/apoesept2017meeting or by contacting the DFO as listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice, by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation or other special accommodations should contact the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Dudley, Designated Federal Official, Office of Communications, CMS, 7500 Security Boulevard, Mail Stop S1-05-06, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850, 410-786-1442, email [email protected] Additional information about the APOE is available on the Internet at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/FACA/APOE.html. Press inquiries are handled through the CMS Press Office at (202) 690-6145.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Advisory Panel for Outreach and Education (APOE) (the Panel) is governed by the provisions of Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees. The Panel is authorized by section 1114(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1314(f)) and section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a).

    The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (the Secretary) signed the charter establishing the Citizen's Advisory Panel on Medicare Education 1 (the predecessor to the APOE) on January 21, 1999 (64 FR 7899, February 17, 1999) to advise and make recommendations to the Secretary and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on the effective implementation of national Medicare education programs, including with respect to the Medicare+Choice (M+C) program added by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33).

    1 We note that the Citizen's Advisory Panel on Medicare Education is also referred to as the Advisory Panel on Medicare Education (65 FR 4617). The name was updated in the Second Amended Charter approved on July 24, 2000.

    The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173) expanded the existing health plan options and benefits available under the M+C program and renamed it the Medicare Advantage (MA) program. We have had substantial responsibilities to provide information to Medicare beneficiaries about the range of health plan options available and better tools to evaluate these options. The successful MA program implementation required CMS to consider the views and policy input from a variety of private sector constituents and to develop a broad range of public-private partnerships.

    In addition, Title I of the MMA authorized the Secretary and the Administrator of CMS (by delegation) to establish the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The drug benefit allows beneficiaries to obtain qualified prescription drug coverage. In order to effectively administer the MA program and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, we have substantial responsibilities to provide information to Medicare beneficiaries about the range of health plan options and benefits available, and to develop better tools to evaluate these plans and benefits.

    The Affordable Care Act (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, and Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152) expanded the availability of other options for health care coverage and enacted a number of changes to Medicare as well as to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Qualified individuals and qualified employers are now able to purchase private health insurance coverage through a competitive marketplace, called an Affordable Insurance Exchange (also called Health Insurance MarketplaceSM,2 or MarketplaceSM). In order to effectively implement and administer these changes, we must provide information to consumers, providers, and other stakeholders through education and outreach programs regarding how existing programs will change and the expanded range of health coverage options available, including private health insurance coverage through the MarketplaceSM. The APOE allows us to consider a broad range of views and information from interested audiences in connection with this effort and to identify opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of education strategies concerning the Affordable Care Act.

    2 Health Insurance MarketplaceSM and MarketplaceSM are service marks of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

    The scope of this panel also includes advising on issues pertaining to the education of providers and stakeholders with respect to the Affordable Care Act and certain provisions of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

    On January 21, 2011, the Panel's charter was renewed and the Panel was renamed the Advisory Panel for Outreach and Education. The Panel's charter was most recently renewed on January 19, 2017, and will terminate on January 19, 2019 unless renewed by appropriate action.

    Under the current charter, the APOE will advise the Secretary and the Administrator on optimal strategies for the following:

    • Developing and implementing education and outreach programs for individuals enrolled in, or eligible for, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or coverage available through the Health Insurance MarketplaceSM and other CMS programs.

    • Enhancing the federal government's effectiveness in informing Health Insurance MarketplaceSM, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP consumers, issuers, providers, and stakeholders, through education and outreach programs, on issues regarding these programs, including the appropriate use of public-private partnerships to leverage the resources of the private sector in educating beneficiaries, providers, and stakeholders.

    • Expanding outreach to vulnerable and underserved communities, including racial and ethnic minorities, in the context of Health Insurance MarketplaceSM, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP education programs and other CMS programs as designated.

    • Assembling and sharing an information base of “best practices” for helping consumers evaluate health coverage options.

    • Building and leveraging existing community infrastructures for information, counseling, and assistance.

    • Drawing the program link between outreach and education, promoting consumer understanding of health care coverage choices, and facilitating consumer selection/enrollment, which in turn support the overarching goal of improved access to quality care, including prevention services, envisioned under the Affordable Care Act.

    The current members of the Panel are: Kellan Baker, Associate Director, Center for American Progress; Robert Blancato, President, Matz, Blancato & Associates; Dale Blasier, Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Orthopaedics, Arkansas Children's Hospital; Deborah Britt, Executive Director of Community & Public Relations, Piedmont Fayette Hospital; Deena Chisolm, Associate Professor of Pediatrics & Public Health, The Ohio State University, Nationwide Children's Hospital; Josephine DeLeon, Director, Anti-Poverty Initiatives, Catholic Charities of California; Robert Espinoza, Vice President of Policy, Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute; Louise Scherer Knight, Director, The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Roanne Osborne-Gaskin, M.D., Senior Medical Director, MDWise, Inc.; Cathy Phan, Outreach and Education Coordinator, Asian American Health Coalition DBA HOPE Clinic; Kamilah Pickett, Litigation Support, Independent Contractor; Brendan Riley, Outreach and Enrollment Coordinator, NC Community Health Center Association; Alvia Siddiqi, Medicaid Managed Care Community Network (MCCN) Medical Director, Advocate Physician Partners, Carla Smith, Executive Vice President, Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS); Tobin Van Ostern, Vice President and Co-Founder, Young Invincibles Advisors; and Paula Villescaz, Senior Consultant, Assembly Health Committee, California State Legislature.

    II. Provisions of This Notice

    In accordance with section 10(a) of the FACA, this notice announces a meeting of the APOE. The agenda for the September 13, 2017 meeting will include the following:

    • Welcome and listening session with CMS leadership • Recap of the previous (March 22, 2017) meeting • Review CMS programs and initiatives • Provide an opportunity for public comment • Summarize the meeting and review recommendations and next steps

    Individuals or organizations that wish to make a 5-minute oral presentation on an agenda topic should submit a written copy of the oral presentation to the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice. The number of oral presentations may be limited by the time available. Individuals not wishing to make an oral presentation may submit written comments to the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice.

    III. Security and Building

    The meeting is open to the public, but attendance is limited to the space available. Persons wishing to attend this meeting must register by contacting the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice or by telephone at the number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice by the date specified in the DATES section of this notice.

    Since this meeting will be held in a Federal Government Building, the Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Federal security measures are applicable. In planning your arrival time, we recommend allowing additional time to clear security. To gain access to the building, participants will be required to show a government-issued photo identification (for example, driver's license or passport), and must be listed on an approved security list before persons are permitted entrance. Persons not registered in advance will not be permitted into the Hubert H. Humphrey Building and will not be permitted to attend the Panel meeting.

    All persons entering the building must pass through a metal detector. In addition, all items brought to the Hubert H. Humphrey Building, whether personal or for the purpose of presentation, are subject to inspection. We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set-up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for the purpose of presentation.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 217a, sec. 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 1314(f), sec. 1114(f) of the Social Security Act; and Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2).

    Dated: August 2, 2017. Seema Verma, Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16979 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; 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: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Macula Degenerative Diseases

    Date: August 23, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Nataliya Gordiyenko, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5202, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301.435.1265, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 7, 2017. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16914 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Office of the Secretary; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Muscular Dystrophy Coordinating Committee (MDCC).

    The meeting will be open to the public and accessible by live webcast. Attendance is limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: Muscular Dystrophy Coordinating Committee.

    Type of meeting: Open Meeting.

    Date: October 4, 2017.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. *Eastern Time*—Approximate end time.

    Agenda: Agenda: The purpose of this meeting is to bring together committee members, representing government agencies, patient advocacy groups, other voluntary health organizations, and patients and their families to update one another on progress relevant to the Action Plan for the Muscular Dystrophies and to coordinate activities and discuss gaps and opportunities leading to better understanding of the muscular dystrophies, advances in treatments, and improvements in patients' and their families' lives. Prior to the meeting, an agenda will be posted to the MDCC meeting registration Web site: https://meetings.ninds.nih.gov/meetings/Oct42017/.

    Registration: To register, please go to: https://meetings.ninds.nih.gov/meetings/Oct42017/.

    Webcast Live: For those not able to attend in person, this meeting will be webcast at: http://videocast.nih.gov/.

    Place: Neuroscience Center, Conference Room C/D, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    Contact Person: Glen H. Nuckolls, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, Muscular Dystrophy Coordinating Committee, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NIH, 6001 Executive Boulevard, NSC 2203, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-5745, [email protected].

    Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the committee may notify the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives of organizations may submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a short description of the oral presentation. Only one representative of an organization may be allowed to present oral comments and if accepted by the committee, presentations may be limited to five minutes. Both printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding their statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    All visitors must go through a security check at the building entrance to receive a visitor's badge. A government issued photo ID is required. Further information can be found at the registration Web site: https://meetings.ninds.nih.gov/meetings/Oct42017/.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 4, 2017. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16915 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1738] Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.

    DATES:

    Comments are to be submitted on or before November 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1738, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

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

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

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

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: July 31, 2017. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    I. Non-watershed-based studies:

    Community Community map repository address City of Carson City, Nevada (Independent City) Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 17-09-0078S Preliminary Date: March 10, 2017 City of Carson City Carson City Permit Center, 108 East Proctor Street, Carson City, NV 89701.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16948 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1732 Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.

    DATES:

    Comments are to be submitted on or before November 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1732, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

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

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

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

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: July 13, 2017. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    I. Non-watershed-based studies:

    Community Community map repository address Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 14-10-0576S Preliminary Date: August 19, 2016 Matanuska-Susitna Borough Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department, 350 East Dahlia Avenue, Palmer, AK 99645.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16952 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1735] Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

    DATES:

    These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.

    From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: July 13, 2017. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. State and county Location and case No. Chief executive
  • officer of community
  • Community map
  • repository
  • Online location of letter of map revision Effective date of modification Community
  • No.
  • Alabama: Etowah City of Gadsden (16-04-6644P) The Honorable Sherman Guyton, Mayor, City of Gadsden, P.O. Box 267, Gadsden, AL 35901 City Hall, 90 Broad Street, Gadsden, AL 35901 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 6, 2017 010080 Madison City of Huntsville (16-04-8443P) The Honorable Thomas M. Battle, Jr., Mayor, City of Huntsville, 308 Fountain Circle, 8th Floor, Huntsville, AL 35801 City Hall, 308 Fountain Circle, 8th Floor, Huntsville, AL 35801 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 14, 2017 010153 Montgomery City of Montgomery (16-04-7922P) The Honorable Todd Strange, Mayor, City of Montgomery, 103 North Perry Street, Montgomery, AL 36104 Engineering Department, 25 Washington Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36104 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 28, 2017 010174 Morgan City of Hartselle (16-04-8327P) The Honorable Randy Garrison, Mayor, City of Hartselle, 200 Sparkman Street Northwest, Hartselle, AL 35640 City Hall, 200 Sparkman Street Northwest, Hartselle, AL 35640 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 21, 2017 010178 Washington Unincorporated areas of Washington County (17-04-3238P) The Honorable Allen Bailey, Chairman, Washington County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 146, Chatom, AL 36518 Washington County Engineering Department, 45 Court Street, Chatom, AL 36518 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 25, 2017 010302 Colorado: Adams Unincorporated areas of Adams County (17-08-0045P) The Honorable Eva J. Henry, Chair, Adams County, Board of Commissioners, 4430 South Adams County Parkway, 5th Floor, Suite C5000A, Brighton, CO 80601 Adams County Community and Economic Development Department, 4430 South Adams County Parkway, 1st Floor, Suite W2000, Brighton, CO 80601 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 22, 2017 080001 Arapahoe City of Centennial (17-08-0306P) The Honorable Cathy Noon, Mayor, City of Centennial, 13133 East Arapahoe Road, Centennial, CO 80112 Public Works Department, 13133 East Arapahoe Road, Centennial, CO 80112 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 6, 2017 080315 Gilpin City of Black Hawk (17-08-0165P) The Honorable David Spellman, Mayor, City of Black Hawk, P.O. Box 17, Black Hawk, CO 80422 Planning and Development Department, 211 Church Street, Black Hawk, CO 80422 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 6, 2017 080076 Jefferson City of Arvada (17-08-0045P) The Honorable Marc Williams, Mayor, City of Arvada, 8101 Ralston Road, P.O. Box 8101, Arvada, CO 80001 Engineering Department, 8101 Ralston Road, Arvada, CO 80001 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 22, 2017 085072 Unincorporated areas of Jefferson County (17-08-0045P) The Honorable Libby Szabo, Chair, Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, 100 Jefferson County Parkway, Golden, CO 80419 Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Department, 100 Jefferson County Parkway, Golden, CO 80419 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 22, 2017 080087 Florida: Bay Unincorporated areas of Bay County (17-04-2939P) The Honorable William T. Dozier, Chairman, Bay County, Board of Commissioners, 840 West 11th Street, Panama City, FL 32401 Bay County Planning and Zoning Department, 840 West 11th Street, Panama City, FL 32401 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 20, 2017 120004 Charlotte Unincorporated areas of Charlotte County (17-04-3469P) The Honorable Bill Truex, Chairman, Charlotte County Board of Commissioners, 18500 Murdock Circle, Port Charlotte, FL 33948 Charlotte County Community Development Department, 18500 Murdock Circle, Port Charlotte, FL 33948 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 4, 2017 120061 Manatee City of Bradenton (17-04-1546P) The Honorable Wayne H. Poston, Mayor, City of Bradenton, 101 Old Main Street West, Bradenton, FL 34205 Building and Construction Services Department, 101 Old Main Street West, Bradenton, FL 34205 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 19, 2017 120155 City of Holmes Beach (17-04-2767P) The Honorable Bob Johnson, Mayor, City of Holmes Beach, 5801 Marina Drive, Holmes Beach, FL 34217 Building and Zoning Department, 5801 Marina Drive, Holmes Beach, FL 34217 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 16, 2017 125114 Unincorporated areas of Manatee County (16-04-7267P) The Honorable Betsy Benac, Chair, Manatee County, Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 1000, Bradenton, FL 34205 Manatee County Building and Development Services Department, 1112 Manatee Avenue West, Bradenton, FL 34205 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 19, 2017 120153 Unincorporated areas of Manatee County (17-04-1546P) The Honorable Betsy Benac, Chair, Manatee County, Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 1000, Bradenton, FL 34206 Manatee County Building and Development Services Department, 1112 Manatee Avenue West, Bradenton, FL 34205 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 21, 2017 120153 Monroe Village of Islamorada (17-04-0974P) The Honorable Jim Mooney, Mayor, Village of Islamorada, 86800 Overseas Highway, Islamorada, FL 33036 Planning and Development Services Department, 86800 Overseas Highway, Islamorada, FL 33036 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 31, 2017 120424 Orange Unincorporated areas of Orange County (16-04-8268P) The Honorable Teresa Jacobs, Mayor, Orange County, 201 South Rosalind Avenue, Orlando, FL 32801 Orange County Stormwater Division, 4200 South John Young Parkway, Orlando, FL 32839 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 22, 2017 120179 Osceola Unincorporated areas of Osceola County (16-04-8268P) The Honorable Brandon Arrington, Chairman, Osceola County Board of Commissioners, 1 Courthouse Square, Suite 4700, Kissimmee, FL 34741 Osceola County Stormwater Division, 1 Courthouse Square, Suite 3100, Kissimmee, FL 34741 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 22, 2017 120189 Polk Unincorporated areas of Polk County (16-04-7727P) The Honorable Melony M. Bell, Chair, Polk County, Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 9005, Drawer BC01, Bartow, FL 33831 Polk County Land Development Division, 330 West Church Street, Bartow, FL 33830 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 14, 2017 120261 St. Johns Unincorporated areas of St. Johns County (17-04-1817P) The Honorable James K. Johns, Chairman, St. Johns County Board of Commissioners, 500 San Sebastian View, St. Augustine, FL 32084 St. Johns County Building Services Division, 4040 Lewis Speedway, St. Augustine, FL 32084 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 13, 2017 125147 Louisiana: Ouachita City of Monroe (17-06-1426P) The Honorable James E. Mayo, Mayor, City of Monroe, P.O. Box 123, Monroe, LA 71210 City Hall, 3901 Jackson Street, Monroe, LA 71202 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 25, 2017 220136 Maine: Oxford Town of Hiram (17-01-0730P) The Honorable Joyce Siracuse, Chair, Town of Hiram Board of Selectmen, 25 Allard Circle, Hiram, ME 04041 Town Hall, 25 Allard Circle, Hiram, ME 04041 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 18, 2017 230094 Massachusetts: Essex City of Gloucester (17-01-0964P) The Honorable Sefatia Romeo Theken, Mayor, City of Gloucester, 9 Dale Avenue, Gloucester, MA 01930 Community Development Department, 3 Pond Road, Gloucester, MA 01930 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 28, 2017 250082 North Carolina: Carteret Town of Indian Beach (17-04-0494P) The Honorable Stewart Pickett, Mayor, Town of Indian Beach, 1400 Salter Path Road, Salter Path, NC 28575 Planning and Inspections Department, 1400 Salter Path Road, Salter Path, NC 28575 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 28, 2017 370433 Unincorporated areas of Carteret County (17-04-0494P) The Honorable Mark Mansfield, Chairman, Carteret County Board of Commissioners, 302 Courthouse Square, Beaufort, NC 28516 Carteret County Planning and Inspections Department, 402 Broad Street, Beaufort, NC 28516 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 28, 2017 370043 Onslow Town of North Topsail Beach (17-04-2762P) The Honorable Fred J. Burns, Mayor, Town of North Topsail Beach, 2008 Loggerhead Court, North Topsail Beach, NC 28460 Planning Department, 2008 Loggerhead Court, North Topsail Beach, NC 28460 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 6, 2017 370466 Transylvania Unincorporated areas of Transylvania County (17-04-1024P) The Honorable Larry Chapman, Chairman, Transylvania County Board of Commissioners, 101 South Broad Street, Brevard, NC 28712 Transylvania County Inspections Department, 98 East Morgan Street, Brevard, NC 28712 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jun. 27, 2017 370230 North Dakota: Morton City of Mandan (17-08-0166P) The Honorable Tim Helbling, Mayor, City of Mandan, 203 2nd Avenue Northwest, Mandan, ND 58554 City Hall, 203 2nd Avenue Northwest, Mandan, ND 58554 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 18, 2017 380072 Oklahoma: Oklahoma City of Midwest City (17-06-0756P) The Honorable Matthew Dukes, Mayor, City of Midwest City, 100 North Midwest Boulevard, Midwest City, OK 73110 Engineering Department, 100 North Midwest Boulevard, Midwest City, OK 73110 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 16, 2017 400405 Pennsylvania: Allegheny Township of North Fayette (16-03-2516P) The Honorable James Morosetti, Chairman, Township of North Fayette Board of Supervisors, 400 North Branch Road, Oakdale, PA 15071 Community Development Department, 400 North Branch Road, Oakdale, PA 15071 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 11, 2017 421085 Texas: Bexar City of San Antonio (16-06-2628P) The Honorable Ivy R. Taylor, Mayor, City of San Antonio, P.O. Box 839966, San Antonio, TX 78283 Transportation and Capital Improvements Department, Storm Water Division, 1901 South Alamo Street, 2nd Floor, San Antonio, TX 78204 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 21, 2017 480045 City of San Antonio (17-06-1346P) The Honorable Ivy R. Taylor, Mayor, City of San Antonio, P.O. Box 839966, San Antonio, TX 78283 Transportation and Capital Improvements Department, Storm Water Division, 1901 South Alamo Street, 2nd Floor, San Antonio, TX 78204 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 29, 2017 480045 Dallas and Tarrant City of Grapevine (17-06-1387P) The Honorable William D. Tate, Mayor, City of Grapevine, P. O. Box 95104, Grapevine, TX 76099 City Hall, 200 South Main Street, Grapevine, TX 76051 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 14, 2017 480598 Denton City of The Colony (17-06-0854P) The Honorable Joe McCourry, Mayor, City of The Colony, 6800 Main Street, The Colony, TX 75056 City Hall, 6800 Main Street, The Colony, TX 75056 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 11, 2017 481581 Harris Unincorporated areas of Harris County (16-06-4008P) The Honorable Edward M. Emmett, Harris County Judge, 1001 Preston Street, Suite 911, Houston, TX 77002 Harris County Permit Office, 10555 Northwest Freeway, Suite 120, Houston, TX 77092 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 16, 2017 480287 Tarrant Town of Flower Mound (17-06-1387P) The Honorable Thomas Hayden, Mayor, Town of Flower Mound, 2121 Cross Timbers Road, Flower Mound, TX 75028 Engineering Department, 2121 Cross Timbers Road, Flower Mound, TX 75028 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 14, 2017 480777 Travis City of Austin (16-06-3748P) The Honorable Steve Adler, Mayor, City of Austin, P.O. Box 1088, Austin, TX 78767 1 Texas Center, 505 Barton Springs Road, 12th Floor, Austin, TX 78703 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 11, 2017 480624 Utah: Iron City of Cedar City (17-08-0143P) The Honorable Maile Wilson, Mayor, City of Cedar City, 10 North Main Street, Cedar City, UT 84720 City Hall, 10 North Main Street, Cedar City, UT 84720 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 12, 2017 490074 Virginia: Fauquier Unincorporated areas of Fauquier County (17-03-0226P) Mr. Paul S. McCulla, Fauquier County Administrator, 10 Hotel Street, Warrenton, VA 20186 Fauquier County Zoning and Development Services Department, 29 Ashby Street, 3rd Floor, Warrenton, VA 20186 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 12, 2017 510055 Prince William Unincorporated areas of Prince William County (17-03-0300P) Mr. Christopher E. Martino, Prince William County Executive, 1 County Complex Court, Woodbridge, VA 22192 Prince William County Department of Public Works, 5 County Complex Court, Woodbridge, VA 22192 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 21, 2017 510119
    [FR Doc. 2017-16951 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R8-ES-2017-N093; FXES11140800000-178-FF08EVEN00] Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the Morro Shoulderband Snail; Rothman Parcel, Community of Los Osos, San Luis Obispo County, California AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application from Philip R. Rothman and Pamela J. Rothman for a 10-year incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The application addresses the potential for “take” of the federally endangered Morro shoulderband snail likely to occur incidental to the construction and maintenance of a single-family residence on an existing legal parcel and associated infrastructure/landscaping in the unincorporated community of Los Osos, San Luis Obispo County, California. We invite comments from the public on the application package, which includes a draft low-effect habitat conservation plan (HCP) and draft low-effect screening form and environmental action statement, which constitutes our proposed National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by September 11, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may download a copy of the draft HCP and draft low-effect screening form and environmental action statement on the internet at http://www.fws.gov/ventura/, or you may request copies of the documents by U.S. mail to our Ventura office, or by phone (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Please address written comments to Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003. You may alternatively send comments by facsimile to (805) 644-3958.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie M. Vanderwier, Senior Fish and Wildlife Biologist, at the Ventura office address or by phone at (805) 677-3400.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We have received an application for an incidental take permit (ITP) pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The application addresses take of the federally endangered Morro shoulderband snail (Helminthoglypta walkeriana) likely to occur incidental to the construction and maintenance of a single-family residence and associated infrastructure/landscaping. The requested permit term is 10 years, and the permit would be subject to renewal. We invite comments from the public on the application package. Issuance of an ITP pursuant to this HCP has been determined to be eligible for a categorical exclusion under NEPA.

    Background

    The Morro shoulderband snail was listed as endangered on December 15, 1994 (59 FR 64613). Section 9 of the Act and its implementing regulations (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) prohibit the take of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. Under the Act, “take” is defined to include the following activities: “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532). Under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we may issue permits to authorize take of listed species if it is incidental to other lawful activities and not the purpose of carrying out that activity. The Code of Federal Regulations provides those regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22. Issuance of an incidental take permit must not jeopardize the existence of any federally listed fish, wildlife, or plant species.

    The Applicant's Proposed Project

    The project involves the construction and maintenance of a single-family residence and associated infrastructure/landscaping on an existing, legal parcel in the Cabrillo Estates subdivision of Los Osos, County of San Luis Obispo, California. The HCP provides the support necessary for the Service to issue an ITP that would authorize take, in this instance, of the Morro shoulderband snail (Helminthoglypta walkeriana). The County of San Luis Obispo requires demonstration that the property owner is in compliance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), as part of their permitting requirements.

    The draft HCP contains two alternatives to the proposed action: “No Action” and “Project Redesign.” Under the “No Action” alternative, an ITP for the Rothman single-family residence would not be issued. The Rothman single-family residence could not legally be built, and the mitigation fee would not be available to contribute to recovery actions for Morro shoulderband snails. Since the property is privately owned, there are ongoing economic considerations (e.g., payment of property taxes) associated with continued ownership of a property and its intended use. The sale of the property for purposes (e.g., as a conservation easement) other than the identified activity is not economically feasible. For these reasons, the “No Action” alternative has been rejected.

    The “Project Redesign” alternative would involve redesign of the Rothman project to reduce or avoid altogether take of Morro shoulderband snail. This alternative was not selected, due to the parcel's small size and marginal value to the long-term conservation of the Morro shoulderband snail of habitat on the site. A reduction or redesign of the project footprint would not meet the applicants' needs and would not significantly reduce the effects of the taking of Morro shoulderband snails such that there would be a greater benefit to species survival and recovery. For these reasons, the “Project Redesign” alternative has also been rejected.

    Our Preliminary Determination

    We have determined that the applicants' proposal will have a minor or negligible effect on the Morro shoulderband snail and that the HCP qualifies for processing as a low-effect plan consistent with our Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing Handbook (December 2016). Three criteria form the basis for our determination: (1) The proposed project as described in the HCP would result in minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, and/or candidate species and their habitats; (2) implementation of the HCP would result in minor negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and (3) HCP impacts, considered together with those of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in cumulatively significant effects. It is our preliminary determination that HCP approval and ITP issuance qualify for categorical exclusion under the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as provided by the Department of the Interior implementing regulations in part 46 of title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations (43 CFR 46.205, 46.210, and 46.215). However, we may revise our determination based upon review of public comments received in response to this notice.

    Next Steps

    We will evaluate the permit application, including the draft HCP and comments we receive, to determine whether it meets the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We will also evaluate whether issuance of the ITP would comply with section 7 of the Act by conducting an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7(a)(2).

    Public Review

    We request comments from the public regarding our preliminary determination that the applicant's proposal will have a minor or negligible effect on the Morro shoulderband snail and that the HCP qualifies for processing as low effect. We will evaluate comments received and make a final determination regarding whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We will incorporate the results of our intra-Service consultation, in combination with the above findings, in our final analysis to determine whether to issue the ITP. If all of our requirements are met, we will issue the ITP to the applicant. Permit issuance would not occur less than 30 days after the publication date of this notice.

    Public Comments

    If you wish to comment on the permit application, HCP, and associated documents, you may submit comments by either of the methods provided in ADDRESSES.

    Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority

    We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act and the NEPA public involvement regulations (40 CFR 1500.1(b), 1500.2(d), and 1506.6).

    Dated: August 7, 2017. Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, California.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16976 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [Docket No. FWS-HQ-IA-2017-0043; FXIA16710900000-178-FF09A30000] Endangered and Threatened Species; Receipt of Applications for Permit AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of receipt of applications for permit.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before September 11, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submitting Comments: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-HQ-IA-2017-0043.

    U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-HQ-IA-2017-0043; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

    When submitting comments, please indicate the name of the applicant and the PRT# you are commenting on. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).

    Viewing Comments: Comments and materials we receive will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone 703-358-2095.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joyce Russell, Government Information Specialist, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: IA; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone 703-358-2023; facsimile 703-358-2280.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Public Comment Procedures A. How do I request copies of applications or comment on submitted applications?

    Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. Please include the Federal Register notice publication date, the PRT-number, and the name of the applicant in your request or submission. We will not consider requests or comments sent to an email or address not listed under ADDRESSES. If you provide an email address in your request for copies of applications, we will attempt to respond to your request electronically.

    Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.

    The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see DATES) or comments delivered to an address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES).

    B. May I review comments submitted by others?

    Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under ADDRESSES. The public may review documents and other information applicants have sent in support of the application unless our allowing viewing would violate the Privacy Act or Freedom of Information Act. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    II. Background

    To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), along with Executive Order 13576, “Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government,” and the President's Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies of January 21, 2009—Transparency and Open Government (74 FR 4685; Jan. 26, 2009), which call on all Federal agencies to promote openness and transparency in Government by disclosing information to the public, we invite public comment on these permit applications before final action is taken.

    III. Permit Applications

    We invite the public to comment on applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.

    Applicant: Liliana Cortez Ortiz, Ann Arbor, MI; PRT-26524C

    The applicant requests a permit to import howler monkey (Alouatta palliata palliata) biological samples from nongovernmental organization (NGO) Asociación para el Desarrollo de Solentiname, Isla Mancarrón, El Archipielago de Solentiname, Nicaragua, for the purpose of scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

    Applicant: Zoological Society of Philadelphia, PA; PRT-31910C

    The applicant requests a permit to import one captive born female jaguar (Panthera onca) from Zoo de Granby, Quebec, Canada, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

    Applicant: Ricardo Longoria, Natalia, TX; PRT-192403

    The applicant requests renewal of a permit to authorize interstate commerce, export and cull excess barasingha (Rucervus duvaucelii), Eld's deer (Rucervus eldii), and red lechwe (Kobus lechwe) from the captive herds maintained at their facility for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

    Applicant: Cynthia Page-Karjian, Florida Atlantic Univ, Fort Pierce, FL; PRT-34054C

    The applicant requests a permit to import DNA samples from the following species: leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), and hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) for the purpose of scientific research. This notification is for a single import.

    Applicant: John Aynes, Oklahoma City, OK; PRT-29141A

    The applicant requests a renewal and amendment to a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species: Golden conure/Queen of Bavaria conure (Aratinga guarouba), which is listed as the golden parakeet; red-vented cockatoo (Cacatua haematuropygia), which is listed as the Philippine cockatoo; citron cockatoo (Cacatua sulphurea citrinocristata); and blue-throated macaw (Ara glaucogularis) to enhance the propagation or survival of the species. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

    Applicant: Jason Troxell, Eagle River, AK; PRT-32830

    The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for radiated tortoises (Astrochelys radiata) to enhance species survival. This notification covers activities conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

    Multiple Applicants Applicant: Sal Davino, Morristown, NJ; PRT-21334C Applicant: Sharon Fisher, Dorr, MI; PRT-32360C

    The applicant requests a permit to import sport-hunted trophies of a male bontebok (Damaliscus pygargus pygargus) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancing the propagation or survival of the species.

    IV. Next Steps

    If the Service decides to issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register. You may locate the Federal Register notice announcing the permit issuance date by searching in www.regulations.gov under the permit number listed in this document.

    V. Public Comments

    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this notice by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will not consider comments sent by email or fax or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES.

    If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment, including any personal identifying information, will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.

    VI. Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Joyce Russell, Government Information Specialist, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16947 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [178A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900 253G] Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation Projects AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) owns or has an interest in irrigation projects located on or associated with various Indian reservations throughout the United States. We are required to establish irrigation assessment rates to recover the costs to administer, operate, maintain, and rehabilitate these projects. We are notifying you that we have adjusted the irrigation assessment rates at several of our irrigation projects and facilities to reflect current costs of administration, operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation.

    DATES:

    The irrigation assessment rates are current as of January 1, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For details about a particular BIA irrigation project or facility, please use the tables in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section to find contacts at the regional or local office at which the project or facility is located.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A Notice of Proposed Rate Adjustment was published in the Federal Register on April 21, 2017 (82 FR 18770) to propose adjustments to the irrigation assessment rates at several BIA irrigation projects. The public and interested parties were provided an opportunity to submit written comments during the 60-day period that ended June 20, 2017.

    Did BIA defer or change any proposed rate increases?

    Yes. For the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project, the full rate increase to $33.50 as published in the proposed notice for the 2018 rate will not be implemented. The final 2018 rate will be changed from $33.50 to $29.00, with the remainder of the full rate increase to be implemented in 2019. For the Wind River Irrigation Project, the Crowheart and A Canal Units increase to $15.75 as published in the proposed notice for the 2017 rate will not be implemented. The final 2017 rate is $15.50. All other rates are to be implemented at the respective irrigation projects as published.

    Did BIA receive any comments on the proposed irrigation assessment rate adjustments?

    Yes. Written comments were received related to the proposed irrigation rate adjustment for the Flathead (FIIP) and Colorado River (CRIIP) Indian Irrigation Projects.

    What issues were of concern to the commenters?

    Commenters raised concerns on the proposed rates about the following issues:

    The Following Comments Are Specific to the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project

    Written comments relating to the proposed rate adjustment were received by letter. BIA's summary of the issues and BIA's responses are provided below.

    Comment: Several commenters expressed a position that, under the irrigation districts' repayment contracts, only irrigation districts have the power to assess themselves.

    Response: As noted in the April 21, 2017 Federal Register notice, BIA is required to establish irrigation assessment rates that recover the costs to administer, operate, maintain, and rehabilitate our projects. As owner of the FIIP, it is BIA's responsibility to ensure adequate resources are made available to meet the requirements noted above. BIA's authority to assess rates dates back to the Act of May 29, 1908, is codified at 25 U.S.C. 381 et seq., and is addressed in the BIA's regulations at 25 CFR part 171. Additionally, the repayment contracts between the irrigation districts and Interior explicitly state that operation and maintenance expenses “shall be paid . . . as provided . . . by rules made or to be made . . . by the Secretary of the Interior.” The repayment contracts between the irrigation districts and Interior capture the irrigators' obligation to pay annual assessments as well as the irrigation districts' authority to collect such assessments for payment to the United States. The authority to assess rates, however, rests solely with Interior and has not been delegated to the irrigation districts.

    Comment: Several commenters requested that the rate increase be deferred until current litigation is resolved regarding the transfer of the operation and maintenance of the FIIP.

    Response: As current project operator, BIA must plan for the 2018 season and set O&M rates at a level sufficient to cover the costs of administering, operating, maintaining and rehabilitating the FIIP. It is imperative that the project operator be able to operate and maintain the project, ensure adequate staffing levels, purchase supplies and materials, repair and/or replace existing key infrastructure, implement an invasive weed control program, maintain operating equipment, maintain an adequate equipment sinking fund for replacing vital heavy equipment, and maintain an adequate Emergency Reserve Fund. Additionally, the project operator will also need to address deferred maintenance projects on the FIIP.

    Comment: One commenter stated that a 29% increase is unwarranted at this time.

    Response: The costs associated with operating and maintaining the FIIP have historically and consistently exceeded the amount paid through assessments. Even during the timeframe during which the Cooperative Management Entity operated the FIIP, the O&M assessment rate was increased twice, in 2010 and 2011. Since reassumption, the BIA has made clear the need to increase FIIP assessments rates to address its operation and maintenance needs and has publicly noticed the need to raise rates in both 2015 and 2016 (see 80 FR 33279, June 11, 2015, and 81 FR 51927, August 5, 2016, respectively). The only reason rate increases were not implemented during these years was because of the timeframe necessary to communicate an increase to the counties that collect the O&M funds. Rate increases have been needed for many years, and FIIP's ability to address its operation and maintenance needs have been compromised by not increasing rates since 2011.

    Moreover, the methodology used by BIA to determine the 2017 O&M rate was reasonable. Based on a review of historical income receipts and expenditures, a budget of projected income receipts and expenditures is developed approximately two years before the O&M assessments are collected and expenses are incurred. BIA relies on financial reports generated by the Financial and Business Management System for reviewing past expenditures and projecting a future budget and expenditures. Procurement files and records maintained by the FIIP were also reviewed and considered.

    Comment: One commenter stated that no rate increase should be made at this time because of local agricultural economics.

    Response: BIA's projects are important economic contributors to the local communities they serve, and they contribute millions of dollars in crop value annually. Unfortunately, the costs associated with operating and maintaining an irrigation project may increase independently of prices and costs that are realized by the irrigators. Historically, BIA tempered irrigation rate increases to demonstrate sensitivity to the economic impact on water users, but that past practice resulted in a rate deficiency at some irrigation projects and BIA does not have discretionary funds to subsidize irrigation projects. Therefore, funding to operate and maintain these projects needs to come from revenues from the water users served by those projects.

    BIA's irrigation program has been the subject of several Office of Inspector General (OIG) and U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) audits. In the most recent OIG audit, No. 96-I-641, March 1996, the OIG concluded:

    Operation and maintenance revenues were insufficient to maintain the projects, and some projects had deteriorated to the extent that their continued capability to deliver water was in doubt. This occurred because operation and maintenance rates were not based on the full cost of delivering irrigation water, including the costs of systematically rehabilitating and replacing project facilities and equipment, and because project personnel did not seek regular rate increases to cover the full cost of project operation.

    A previous OIG audit performed on one of the BIA's largest irrigation projects, the Wapato Indian Irrigation Project, No. 95-I-1402, September 1995, reached the same conclusion.

    To address the issues noted in these audits, BIA must systematically review and evaluate irrigation assessment rates and adjust them, when necessary, to reflect the full costs to operate and perform all appropriate maintenance on the irrigation project or facility infrastructure to ensure safe and reliable operation. If this review and adjustment is not accomplished, a rate deficiency can accumulate over time. Rate deficiencies force BIA to raise irrigation assessment rates in larger increments over shorter periods than would have been otherwise necessary.

    Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rate increase was not discussed with the Joint Board of Control (JBC) nor the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT).

    Response: The status of the FIIP budget and the need to increase rates were communicated to the JBC as early as 2014 and have been discussed with both the JBC and CSKT numerous times since then. BIA publicly noticed its intent to increase assessment rates in both 2015 and 2016 (see 80 FR 33279, June 11, 2015, and 81 FR 51927, August 5, 2016). Regarding the 2018 proposed increase, the Project Manager provided and discussed the proposed budget information that supports the rate increase to the JBC in January 2017. This information was also provided at an April 11, 2017 water user meeting. The CSKT was also notified of the rate increase.

    Comment: One commenter recommended a gradual rate increase over the next 5 to 7 years.

    Response: BIA has projected this proposed rate increase for several years, and anticipated increasing the assessment rates in both 2015 and 2016. The FIIP O&M budget was prepared in accordance with BIA financial guidelines. BIA considers the following items when determining an irrigation's project's budget: Project personnel costs; materials and supplies; vehicle and equipment repairs; equipment; capitalization expenses; acquisition expenses; rehabilitation costs; maintenance of a reserve fund for contingencies or emergencies; and other expenses that are determined to be necessary to operate and maintain an irrigation project.

    Based on increased costs associated with administering, operating, maintaining and rehabilitating the FIIP, the need for the proposed rate increase is clear and the $7.50 increase is justified. However, given the timing of the Federal Register notice, BIA has decided to impose only a $3.00 increase in 2018 and postpone the remainder of the increase until 2019.

    The Following Comment Is Specific to the Colorado River Indian Irrigation Project

    Comment: One commenter suggested that the rate for the Colorado River Indian Tribes should be increased by 11%. Included were several reports related to previous and recent information collected regarding the Colorado River Indian Irrigation Project (CRIIP).

    Response: The recent information collected concerning the CRIIP is being evaluated to determine how this might impact the future operation and maintenance activities of the project. However, in order to implement an increase it would be necessary to propose the change and again solicit comments. For the purpose of this notice, the proposed rate as published in the Federal Register at 82 FR 18770 (April 21, 2017) will remain unchanged.

    Does this notice affect me?

    This notice affects you if you own or lease land within the assessable acreage of one of our irrigation projects or if you have a carriage agreement with one of our irrigation projects.

    Where can I get information on the regulatory and legal citations in this notice?

    You can contact the appropriate office(s) stated in the tables for the irrigation project that serves you, or you can use the Internet site for the Government Printing Office at www.thefederalregister.org.

    What authorizes you to issue this notice?

    Our authority to issue this notice is vested in the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) by 5 U.S.C. 301 and the Act of August 14, 1914 (38 Stat. 583; 25 U.S.C. 385). The Secretary has in turn delegated this authority to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs under Part 209, Chapter 8.1A, of the Department of the Interior's Departmental Manual.

    Whom can I contact for further information?

    The following tables are the regional and project/agency contacts for our irrigation facilities.

    Project name Project/agency contacts Northwest Region Contacts Stanley Speaks, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Northwest Regional Office, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4169,Telephone: (503) 231-6702. Flathead Indian Irrigation Project Pete Plant, Acting Superintendent, Pete Plant, Irrigation Project Manager, P.O. Box 40, Pablo, MT 59855, Telephones: (406) 675-2700 ext. 1300 Superintendent, (406) 745-2661 ext. 2 Project Manager. Fort Hall Irrigation Project David Bollinger, Irrigation Project Manager, Building #2 Bannock Ave., Fort Hall, ID 83203-0220, Telephone: (208) 238-6264. Wapato Irrigation Project David Shaw, Superintendent, Larry Nelson, Acting Project Administrator, P.O. Box 220, Wapato, WA 98951-0220, Telephones: (509) 865-2421 Superintendent, (509) 877-3155 Acting Project Administrator. Rocky Mountain Region Contacts Darryl LaCounte, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, 2021 4th Avenue North, Billings, MT 59101, Telephone: (406) 247-7943. Blackfeet Irrigation Project Thedis Crowe, Superintendent, Greg Tatsey, Irrigation Project Manager, Box 880, Browning, MT 59417, Telephones: (406) 338-7544, Superintendent, (406) 338-7519, Irrigation Project Manager. Crow Irrigation Project Vianna Stewart, Superintendent, John Anevski, Acting Irrigation Project Manager, P.O. Box 69, Crow Agency, MT 59022, Telephones: (406) 638-2672, Superintendent, (406) 247-7998, Acting Irrigation Project Manager. Fort Belknap Irrigation Project John St. Pierre, Superintendent, John Anevski, Acting Irrigation Project Manager (BIA), (Project operation & maintenance contracted to Tribes), R.R.1, Box 980, Harlem, MT 59526, Telephones: (406) 353-2901, Superintendent, (406) 353-8454, Irrigation Project Manager (Tribal Office). Fort Peck Irrigation Project Howard Beemer, Superintendent, Huber Wright, Acting Irrigation Project Manager, P.O. Box 637, Poplar, MT 59255, Telephones: (406) 768-5312, Superintendent, (406) 653-1752, Irrigation Project Manager. Wind River Irrigation Project Norma Gourneau, Superintendent, John Anevski, Acting Irrigation Project Manager, P.O. Box 158, Fort Washakie, WY 82514, Telephones: (307) 332-7810, Superintendent, (406) 247-7998, Acting Irrigation Project Manager. Southwest Region Contacts William T. Walker, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Southwest Regional Office, 1001 Indian School Road, Albuquerque, NM 87104, Telephone: (505) 563-3100. Pine River Irrigation Project Priscilla Bancroft, Superintendent, Vickie Begay, Irrigation Project Manager, P.O. Box 315, Ignacio, CO 81137-0315, Telephones: (970) 563-4511, Superintendent, (970) 563-9484, Irrigation Project Manager. Western Region Contacts Bryan Bowker, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western Regional Office, 2600 N. Central Ave., 4th Floor Mailroom, Phoenix, AZ 85004, Telephone: (602) 379-6600. Colorado River Irrigation Project Kellie Youngbear, Superintendent, Gary Colvin, Irrigation Project Manager, 12124 1st Avenue, Parker, AZ 85344, Telephone: (928) 669-7111. Duck Valley Irrigation Project Joseph McDade, Superintendent, (Project operation & management compacted to Tribes), 2719 Argent Ave., Suite 4, Gateway Plaza, Elko, NV 89801, Telephone: (775) 738-5165, (208) 759-3100, (Tribal Office). Yuma Project, Indian Unit Denni Shields, Superintendent, 256 South Second Avenue, Suite D, Yuma, AZ 85364, Telephone: (928) 782-1202. San Carlos Irrigation Project Indian Works and Joint Works Ferris Begay, Project Manager, Clarence Begay, Irrigation Manager, 13805 N. Arizona Boulevard, Coolidge, AZ 85128, Telephone: (520) 723-6225. Uintah Irrigation Project Antonio Pingree, Acting Superintendent, Ken Asay, Irrigation System Manager, P.O. Box 130, Fort Duchesne, UT 84026, Telephone: (435) 722-4300, (435) 722-4344. Walker River Irrigation Project Robert Eben, Superintendent, 311 E. Washington Street, Carson City, NV 89701, Telephone: (775) 887-3500 What irrigation assessments or charges are adjusted by this notice?

    The rate table below contains the current rates for all irrigation projects where we recover costs of administering, operating, maintaining, and rehabilitating them. The table also contains the final rates for the 2017 calendar year and subsequent years where applicable. An asterisk immediately following the rate category notes the irrigation projects where 2017 rates are different from the 2016 rates.

    Project name Rate
  • category
  • Final
  • 2016 rate
  • Final
  • 2017 rate
  • Final
  • 2018 rate **
  • Northwest Region Rate Table Flathead Indian Irrigation Project (See Note #1) Basic-per acre—A
  • Basic-per acre—B
  • Minimum Charge per tract
  • $26.00
  • 13.00
  • 75.00
  • $26.00
  • 13.00
  • 75.00
  • $29.00
  • 14.50
  • 75.00
  • Project name Rate
  • category
  • Final
  • 2016 rate
  • Final
  • 2017 rate
  • Fort Hall Irrigation Project Basic per acre * $52.00 $54.00 Minimum Charge per tract * 37.00 38.50 Fort Hall Irrigation Project—Minor Units Basic per acre * 31.00 32.50 Minimum Charge per tract * 37.00 38.50 Fort Hall Irrigation Project—Michaud Basic per acre * 55.00 57.50 Pressure per acre * 83.00 88.50 Minimum Charge per tract * 37.00 38.50 Wapato Irrigation Project—Toppenish/Simcoe Units Minimum Charge per bill 25.00 25.00 Basic per acre 25.00 25.00 Wapato Irrigation Project—Ahtanum Units Minimum Charge per bill 30.00 30.00 Basic per acre 30.00 30.00 Wapato Irrigation Project—Satus Unit Minimum Charge per bill 79.00 79.00 “A” Basic per acre 79.00 79.00 “B” Basic per acre 85.00 85.00 Wapato Irrigation Project—Additional Works Minimum Charge per bill * 78.00 80.00 Basic per acre * 78.00 80.00 Wapato Irrigation Project—Water Rental Minimum Charge 86.00 86.00 Basic per acre 86.00 86.00 Rocky Mountain Region Rate Table Blackfeet Irrigation Project Basic-per acre 20.00 20.00 Crow Irrigation Project—Willow Creek O&M (includes Agency, Lodge Grass #1, Lodge Grass #2, Reno, Upper Little Horn, and Forty Mile Units) Basic-per acre * 26.00 28.00 Crow Irrigation Project—All Others (includes Bighorn, Soap Creek, and Pryor Units) Basic-per acre * 26.00 28.00 Crow Irrigation Project—Two Leggins Unit Basic-per acre 14.00 14.00 Crow Irrigation Two Leggins Drainage District Basic-per acre 2.00 2.00 Fort Belknap Irrigation Project Basic-per acre 16.00 16.00 Fort Peck Irrigation Project Basic-per acre 26.00 26.50 Wind River Irrigation Project—Units 2, 3 and 4 Basic-per acre * 22.50 23.50 Wind River Irrigation Project—Unit 6 Basic-per acre 21.00 21.00 Wind River Irrigation Project—LeClair District
  • (see Note #2)
  • Basic-per acre 47.00 47.00
    Wind River Irrigation Project—Crow Heart Unit Basic-per acre 15.50 15.50 Wind River Irrigation Project—A Canal Unit Basic-per acre 15.50 15.50 Wind River Irrigation Project—Riverton Valley Irrigation District Basic-per acre * 26.00 30.65 Southwest Region Rate Table Pine River Irrigation Project Minimum Charge per tract 50.00 50.00 Basic-per acre * 18.00 19.00 Western Region Rate Table Colorado River Irrigation Project Basic per acre up to 5.75 acre-feet 54.00 54.00 Excess Water per acre-foot over 5.75 acre-feet 17.00 17.00 Duck Valley Irrigation Project Basic per acre 5.30 5.30 Yuma Project, Indian Unit (See Note #3) Basic per acre up to 5.0 acre-feet * 113.00 118.50 Excess Water per acre-foot over 5.0 acre-feet * 24.50 27.50 Basic per acre up to 5.0 acre-feet (Ranch 5) * 113.00 118.50
    Project name Rate category Final 2016 rate Final 2017 rate Final 2018 rate ** San Carlos Irrigation Project (Joint Works) (See Note #4) Basic per acre * $30.00 $25.00 $27.90. Final 2017-2018 Construction Water Rate Schedule:  Off Project Construction On Project Construction—Gravity Water On Project Construction—Pump Water. Administrative Fee $300.00 $300.00 $300.00. Usage Fee $250.00 per month No Fee $100.00 per acre foot. Excess Water Rate † $5.00 per 1,000 gal No Charge No Charge. † The excess water rate applies to all water used in excess of 50,000 gallons in any one month. Project name Rate category Final
  • 2016 rate
  • Final
  • 2017 rate
  • San Carlos Irrigation Project (Indian Works) (See Note #5) Basic per acre $81.00 $81.00 Uintah Irrigation Project Basic per acre 18.00 18.00 Minimum Bill 25.00 25.00 Walker River Irrigation Project Basic per acre 31.00 31.00 * Notes irrigation projects where rates are adjusted. ** The requirement for a final 2018 Rate is only applicable to the Flathead and San Carlos Irrigation Projects due to their specific billing requirements. Note #1: Federal Register Notice on April 06, 2017 established the 2017 rate for the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project (82 FR 16849). This notice makes final the 2018 rate for the FIIP. Note #2: The O&M rate may vary yearly based upon the budget submitted by the LeClair District. Note #3: The O&M rate for the Yuma Project, Indian Unit has two components. The first component is the O&M rate established by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the owner and operator of the Project. The BOR rate for 2017 is $115.00/acre. The second component is for the O&M rate established by BIA to cover administrative costs including billing and collections for the Project. The 2017 BIA rate is $3.50/acre. Note #4: The construction water rate schedule identifies the fees assessed for use of irrigation water for non-irrigation purposes. Federal Register Notice on April 06, 2017 established the 2017 rate for the SCIP-JW (82 FR 16849). This notice makes final the 2018 rate for the SCIP-JW. Note #5: The 2017 O&M rate for the San Carlos Irrigation Project—Indian Works has three components. The first component is the O&M rate established by the San Carlos Irrigation Project—Indian Works, the owner and operator of the Project; this rate is $50.00 per acre. The second component is for the O&M rate established by the San Carlos Irrigation Project—Joint Works and is determined to be $25.00 per acre. The third component is the O&M rate established by the San Carlos Irrigation Project Joint Control Board and is $6.00 per acre.
    Consultation and Coordination With Tribal Governments (Executive Order 13175)

    The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this notice under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria of Executive Order 13175 and have determined there to be substantial direct effects on federally recognized Tribes because the irrigation projects are located on or associated with Indian reservations. To fulfill its consultation responsibility to Tribes and Tribal organizations, BIA communicates, coordinates, and consults on a continuing basis with these entities on issues of water delivery, water availability, and costs of administration, operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of projects that concern them. This is accomplished at the individual irrigation project by project, agency, and regional representatives, as appropriate, in accordance with local protocol and procedures. This notice is one component of our overall coordination and consultation process to provide notice to, and request comments from, these entities when we adjust irrigation assessment rates.

    Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (Executive Order 13211)

    The rate adjustments are not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

    Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)

    These rate adjustments are not a significant regulatory action and do not need to be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    These rate adjustments are not a rule for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because they establish “a rule of particular applicability relating to rates.” 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    These rate adjustments do not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private sector, of more than $130 million per year. They do not have a significant or unique effect on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, the Department is not required to prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Takings (Executive Order 12630)

    These rate adjustments do not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have “takings” implications under Executive Order 12630. The rate adjustments do not deprive the public, state, or local governments of rights or property.

    Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

    Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, these rate adjustments do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement because they will not affect the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

    Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

    This notice complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, in issuing this notice, the Department has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988.

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    These rate adjustments do not affect the collections of information which have been approved by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The OMB Control Number is 1076-0141 and expires June 30, 2019.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    The Department has determined that these rate adjustments do not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370(d), pursuant to 43 CFR 46.210(i). In addition, the rate adjustments do not present any of the 12 extraordinary circumstances listed at 43 CFR 46.215.

    Data Quality Act

    In developing this notice, we did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554).

    Dated: July 27, 2017. Michael S. Black, Acting Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16910 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [178A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900 253G] Land Acquisitions; The Cherokee Nation AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs made a final agency determination to acquire 45.92 acres, more or less, located in Cherokee County, Oklahoma (Cherokee Springs Site) in trust for the Cherokee Nation for gaming and other purposes on January 19, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Bureau of Indian Affairs, MS-3657 MIB, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240, telephone (202) 219-4066.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by 209 Departmental Manual 8.1, and is published to comply with the requirements of 25 CFR 151.12 (c)(2)(ii) that notice of the decision to acquire land in trust be promptly provided in the Federal Register.

    On January 19, 2017, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs issued a decision to accept the Cherokee Springs Site, consisting of approximately 45.92 acres, more or less, of land in trust for the Nation, under the authority of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 5108. The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs determined that the Nation's request also meets the requirements of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act's “Oklahoma exception,” 25 U.S.C. 2719(a)(2)(A)(i), to the general prohibition contained in 25 U.S.C. 2719(a) on gaming on lands acquired in trust after October 17, 1988.

    The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, will immediately acquire title to the Cherokee Springs Site in the name of the United States of America in trust for the Nation upon fulfillment of Departmental requirements.

    The 45.92 acres, more or less, are located in Cherokee County, Oklahoma, and are described as follows:

    Indian Meridian, Oklahoma Township 16 North, Range 22 East

    Section 9 A tract of land situated in the SE1/4 and in the S1/2 S1/2 NE1/4 of Section 9, Township 16 North, Range 22 East of the Indian Meridian, Cherokee County, Oklahoma, being a portion of that parcel of land conveyed to Cherokee Nation Property Management, LLC in Document No. I-2012-008705 filed December 28, 2012 in Book 1055 at Pages 778-779 in the official records of the Cherokee County Clerk, said tract being more particularly described as follows:

    Commencing at the Southeast corner of said SE1/4, marked with a Mag Nail;

    Thence, N. 89° 52′ 00″ W. along the South boundary of said Section 9, a distance of 1734.91 feet;

    Thence, N. 0° 05′ 50″ W., a distance of 758.57 feet to a 3/8″ rebar capped Chaffin LS 1243 to the true POINT OF BEGINNING;

    Thence, N. 0°05′50″ W., a distance of 2117.10 feet to a 3/8″ rebar capped Chaffin LS 1243;

    Thence, N. 89°54′10″ E., a distance of 1083.04 feet to a 3/8″ rebar capped Chaffin LS 1243;

    Thence, S. 0°04′58″ W., a distance of 1215.47 feet to a 3/8″ rebar capped Chaffin LS 1243.

    Dated: June 12, 2017. Michael S. Black, Acting Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16906 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-582 and 731-TA-1377 (Preliminary)] Ripe Olives From Spain Determinations

    On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of ripe olives from Spain, provided for in subheadings 2005.70.02, 2005.70.04, 2005.70.50, 2005.70.60, 2005.70.70, and 2005.70.75 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”) and to be subsidized by the government of Spain.

    1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).

    Commencement of Final Phase Investigations

    Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the Federal Register as provided in section 207.21 of the Commission's rules, upon notice from the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) of affirmative preliminary determinations in the investigations under sections 703(b) or 733(b) of the Act, or, if the preliminary determinations are negative, upon notice of affirmative final determinations in those investigations under sections 705(a) or 735(a) of the Act. Parties that filed entries of appearance in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not enter a separate appearance for the final phase of the investigations. Industrial users, and, if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations.

    Background

    On June 22, 2017, the Coalition for Fair Trade in Ripe Olives, consisting of Bell-Carter Foods, Walnut Creek, CA, and Musco Family Olive Company, Tracy, CA, filed a petition with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV and subsidized imports of ripe olives from Spain. Accordingly, effective June 22, 2017, the Commission, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)), instituted countervailing duty investigation No. 701-TA-582 and antidumping duty investigation No. 731-TA-1377 (Preliminary).

    Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of June 28, 2017 (82 FR 29327). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on July 12, 2017, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on August 7, 2017. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4718 (August 2017), entitled Ripe Olives from Spain: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-582 and 731-TA-1377 (Preliminary).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: August 7, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16911 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES Advisory Committees on the Federal Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, and Criminal Procedure, and the Federal Rules of Evidence; Hearings on Proposed Amendments to the Appellate, Bankruptcy, Criminal, and Evidence Rules, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, and the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts AGENCY:

    Advisory Committees on the Federal Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, and Criminal Procedure, and the Federal Rules of Evidence, Judicial Conference of the United States.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed amendments and open hearings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Advisory Committees on Appellate, Bankruptcy, Criminal, and Evidence Rules have proposed amendments to the following rules and forms:

    Appellate Rules: 3, 13, 26.1, 28, and 32.

    Bankruptcy Rules: 2002, 4001, 6007, 9036, 9037, and Official Form 410.

    Criminal Rules: New Criminal Rule 16.1, Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, and Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings.

    Rules of Evidence: 807.

    The text of the proposed rules and form and the accompanying Committee Notes are posted on the Judiciary's Web site at: http://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/proposed-amendments-published-public-comment.

    All written comments and suggestions with respect to the proposed amendments may be submitted on or after the opening of the period for public comment on August 15, 2017, but no later than February 15, 2018. Written comments must be submitted electronically, following the instructions provided on the Web site. All comments submitted will be posted on the Web site and available to the public.

    Public hearings are scheduled on the proposed amendments as follows:

    • Appellate Rules in Washington, DC, on November 9, 2017, and in Phoenix, Arizona, on January 5, 2018;

    • Bankruptcy Rules in Washington, DC, on January 17, 2018, and in Pasadena, California, on January 30, 2018;

    • Criminal Rules in Chicago, Illinois, on October 24, 2017, and in Phoenix, Arizona, on January 5, 2018; and

    • Evidence Rules in Boston, Massachusetts, on October 27, 2017, and in Phoenix, Arizona, on January 5, 2018.

    Those wishing to testify must contact the Secretary by email at: [email protected], with a copy mailed to the address below, at least 30 days before the hearing.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Secretary, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE., Suite 7-240, Washington, DC 20544, Telephone (202) 502-1820.

    Dated: August 7, 2017. Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Secretary, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, Judicial Conference of the United States.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16916 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Luis C B Gomez, D.D.S. Decision and Order

    On May 5, 2017, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, DEA or Government), issued an Order to Show Cause to Luis C B Gomez, D.D.S. (hereinafter, Registrant), the holder of Certificate of Registration No. AG1976971 in Chula Vista, California, pursuant to which he is authorized to prescribe controlled substances in Schedules II through IV.1 GX 1 (Certification of Registration Status dated May 17, 2017). The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration and the denial of any pending application for renewal or modification of Registrant's registration on the ground that Registrant does not have authority to dispense controlled substances in California, the State in which he is registered. GX 3, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).

    1 The Order to Show Cause stated that Registrant was authorized to prescribe controlled substances in Schedule V.

    As the jurisdictional basis for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that Registrant's registration expires on September 30, 2017. Id.

    As the substantive grounds for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that Registrant currently lacks authority to “handle controlled substances in California,” voluntarily surrendered his California dental license “on approximately September 8, 2016,” and subsequently “signed a Stipulated Surrender of License and Order before the Dental Board of California” on November 7, 2016.2 Id. at 2. The Government asserted that Registrant's “lack of authority to handle controlled substances in the State of California constitutes grounds to revoke . . . [his] registration.” Id.

    2 The Government submitted the Stipulated Surrender of License and Order before the Dental Board of California (hereinafter, DBC), the Accusation dated May 2, 2012, the Decision and Order of the DBC dated October 4, 2013, and the DBC Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order dated July 31, 2013 with its Request for Final Agency Action (hereinafter, RFAA). GX 4 (Appendices).

    Citing 21 CFR 1301.43, the Show Cause Order notified Registrant of his right to request a hearing on the allegation or to submit a written statement while waiving his right to a hearing, the procedure for electing each option, and the consequence for failing to elect either option. Id. at 2. Citing 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C), it notified Registrant of the opportunity to submit a corrective action plan. Id. at 3.

    The lead DEA Diversion Investigator (hereinafter, DI) assigned to Registrant's matter executed a Declaration in which she stated that, on May 5, 2017, she personally served Registrant with a copy of the Order to Show Cause at his residence. GX 4, at 1. I find that the Government's service of the Show Cause Order on Registrant was legally sufficient.

    The Government submitted a Request for Final Agency Action dated June 6, 2017 and an evidentiary record to support the Show Cause Order's allegations. In the RFAA, the Government represented that, “Thirty days passed from the date of service and Respondent requested no hearing on the OTSC, nor has he filed a written statement in lieu of requesting a hearing.” RFAA, at 1.

    Based on the Government's representations and my review of the record, I find that more than 30 days have now passed since the date on which Registrant was served with the Show Cause Order and neither Registrant, nor anyone purporting to represent him, has requested a hearing or submitted a written statement while waiving his right to a hearing. Accordingly, I find that Registrant has waived his right to a hearing and his right to submit a written statement. 21 CFR 1301.43(d). I therefore issue this Decision and Order based on the record submitted by the Government. 21 CFR 1301.43(e).

    Findings of Fact Registrant's DEA Registration

    Registrant currently holds DEA practitioner registration AG1976971 authorizing him to dispense controlled substances in Schedules II through IV. GX 1, GX 2. This registration expires on September 30, 2017. Id.

    DEA practitioner registration AG1976971 is assigned to Registrant at “232 Third Avenue, Ste A, 232 3rd Ave., Chula Vista, CA 91910.” Id.

    The Status of Registrant's State License

    On November 15, 2016, the Dental Board of California ordered that Dental License No. 24551 was surrendered and accepted by the DBC. GX 4, Appendix A (Stipulated Surrender of License and Order). Pursuant to that Order, Registrant has lost “all rights and privileges as a dentist in California.” Id. at 2.

    Discussion

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of the Controlled Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA), “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license . . . suspended, revoked, or denied by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, the DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71,371 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed. Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27,616 (1978).

    This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. First, Congress defined the term “ `practitioner' [to] mean[ ] a . . . physician, dentist, . . . or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . ., to distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice . . . .” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress directed that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the CSA, the DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices. See, e.g., Hooper, 76 FR at 71,371-72; Sheran Arden Yeates, 71 FR 39,130, 39,131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR 51,104, 51,105 (1993); Bobby Watts, 53 FR 11,919, 11,920 (1988); Blanton, 43 FR at 27,616.

    Under California law, section 1626 of the Business and Professions Code provides that “[i]t is unlawful for any person to engage in the practice of dentistry in the state . . . unless the person has a valid, unexpired license or special permit from the Board.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 1626 (2017).3 Further, section 11210 of the California Health and Safety Code sets out who may lawfully prescribe controlled substances in California other than for the treatment of addicts. California licensed dentists are among those lawful prescribers.4 See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 11024 (2017).

    3 Dentistry and the practice of dentistry are addressed in Cal. Bus & Prof. Code § 1625 which states, among other things, that dentistry is the diagnosis or treatment of diseases and may include the use of “drugs.”

    4 A physician, surgeon, dentist, veterinarian, naturopathic doctor . . ., podiatrist, or pharmacist . . ., or registered nurse . . ., or physician assistant . . ., or an optometrist . . . may prescribe for, furnish to, or administer controlled substances to his or her patient when the patient is suffering from a disease, ailment, injury, or infirmities attendant upon old age, other than addiction to a controlled substance. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11210 (2017).

    In this case, pursuant to the DBC Stipulated Surrender of License and Order, Registrant has lost all rights and privileges as a dentist in California. Supra. Consequently, under California law, Registrant is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in that State. Supra. I, therefore, conclude that the record supports the revocation of Registrant's registration because he does not possess authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of California, the State in which he is registered. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3). Thus, I find that Registrant is not entitled to maintain his DEA registration. Blanton, supra. Accordingly, I will order that his registration be revoked and that any pending application for the renewal or modification of his registration be denied. Id.

    Order

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration AG1976971 issued to Luis C B Gomez, D.D.S., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending application of Luis C B Gomez, D.D.S., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application by him for registration in the State of California, be, and it hereby is, denied. This order is effective September 11, 2017.

    Dated: August 2, 2017. Chuck Rosenberg, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17011 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Bureau of Investigation [OMB Number 1110-NEW] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Existing Collection in Use Without OMB Control Number Address Verification/Change Request Form (1-797) AGENCY:

    Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division 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. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on March 16, 2017 allowing for a 60 day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encourages and will be accepted for an additional 30 day until September 11, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to Gerry Lynn Brovey, Supervisory Information Liaison Specialist, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, 1000 Custer Hollow Road; Clarksburg, WV 26306; phone: 304-625-4320 or email [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions can also be sent 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 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: Existing collection in use without OMB approval.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Address Verification/Change Request Form (1-797).

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: Agency form number: 1-797. Sponsoring component: Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The form can be used by any requester who wishes to correct or verify the address submitted on their Departmental Order 556-73 request.

    (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 720 respondents will complete each form within approximately 2 minutes.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 24 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., Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: August 8, 2017. Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16969 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1117-0003] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection, eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Previously Approved Collection ARCOS Transaction Reporting; DEA Form 333 AGENCY:

    Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 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 10, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have comments 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 Michael J. Lewis, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.

    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 proposed 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 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: ARCOS Transaction Reporting.

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: DEA Form 333. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Affected public: Business or other for-profit.

    Abstract: Section 307 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 827) requires controlled substance manufacturers and distributors to make periodic reports to the DEA regarding the sale, delivery, and other disposal of certain controlled substances. These reports help ensure a closed system of distribution for controlled substances, and are used to comply with international treaty obligations.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The below table presents information regarding the number of respondents, responses and associated burden hours.

    Number of
  • annual
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • time per
  • response
  • (hours)
  • Total annual
  • hours
  • DEA-333 (paper) 70 379 1 379 DEA-333 (electronic) 1,552 11,777 0.1667 (10 minutes) 1,963 Total 1,622 12,156 2,342

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the proposed collection: The DEA estimates that this collection takes 2,342 annual burden hours. If additional information is required please 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., Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: August 8, 2017. Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16971 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1121-0319] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Reinstatement, With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection for Which Approval Has Expired: National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2017-2018 AGENCY:

    Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-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. The proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on June 6, 2017, allowing a 60-day comment period. Following publication of the 60-day notice, the Bureau of Justice Statistics received one request for survey instruments and comments from two organizations. These comments will be addressed in the supporting statement.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until September 11, 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 Jessica Stroop, Statistician, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20531 (email: [email protected]; telephone: 202-598-7610).

    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: Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2017-2018.

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: Form numbers not available at this time. The Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice is the sponsor for the collection.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: State, Local, or Tribal Government. Other: Federal Government, Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions. The work under this clearance will be used to develop and implement surveys to produce estimates for the incidence and prevalence of sexual assault within juvenile correctional facilities as required under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-79). Juvenile facility points of contact will be asked to fill out an online survey gathering facility-level characteristics. Sampled youth in custody will be asked to complete an audio computer-assisted self-interview about their experiences inside the facility.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 354 facility points of contact will spend approximately one hour filling out the facility characteristics questionnaire. It is estimated that 8,690 youth respondents will spend approximately 7 minutes going through the assent process and 35 minutes on average responding to the survey.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 12,533 total burden hours associated with this collection (including gathering facility-level information, obtaining parental consent, administrative records, and roster processing).

    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: August 8, 2017. Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16964 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1105-NEW] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New Collection; Submission for Review: Electronic Submission Form for Requests for Corrective Action, Whistleblower Protection for Federal Bureau of Investigation Employees AGENCY:

    Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Justice Management Division, Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management (OARM), will be submitting this 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 information collection is a Request for Corrective Action Form, available on OARM's public Web site, for current and former employees of, or applicants for employment with, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) who wish to file a claim of whistleblower reprisal. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on June 6, 2017, allowing for a 60 day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until September 11, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management, 450 5th Street NW., Suite 10200, Attn: Kelly Winship, Washington, DC 20530.

    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:

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

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

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

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Existing.

    (2) Title of Form/Collection: Request for Corrective Action Form.

    (3) The agency form number, if any/the applicable component of the department sponsoring the collection: No form number/Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management, Justice Management Division, U.S. Department of Justice.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Individuals. The application form is submitted voluntarily by individuals who are current or former employees of, or applicants for employment with, the FBI who allege reprisal for their whistleblowing activities.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated to respond/reply: An average of 10 respondents per year, and an average of three hours to complete the form.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: About 30 hours.

    If additional information is required, please contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: August 8, 2017. Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16966 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-PB-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1121-0064] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection: Annual Parole Survey, Annual Probation Survey, and Annual Probation Survey (Short Form) AGENCY:

    Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-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. The proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on April 25, 2017, allowing a 60-day comment period. Following publication of the 60-day notice, the Bureau of Justice Statistics received one request for survey instruments and comments from two organizations. These comments will be addressed in the supporting statement.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until September 11, 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 Danielle Kaeble, Statistician, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20531 (email: [email protected]; telephone: 202-305-2017).

    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: Annual Parole Survey, Annual Probation Survey

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: Form numbers for the questionnaire are CJ-7 Annual Parole Survey; CJ-8 Annual Probation Survey; CJ-8a Annual Probation Survey (Short Form). The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the Office of Justice Programs.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: State departments of corrections or state probation and parole authorities. Others: The Federal Bureau of Prisons, city and county courts and probation offices for which a central reporting authority does not exist. For the CJ-7 form, the affected public consists of 53 respondents including 51 central reporters (two state respondents in Pennsylvania, and one each from the remaining states), the District of Columbia, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons responsible for keeping records on parolees. For the CJ-8 form, the affected public includes 305 reporters including 35 state respondents, the District of Columbia, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and 268 from local authorities responsible for keeping records on probationers. For the CJ-8A form, the affected public includes 151 reporters who are all local authorities responsible for keeping records on probationers. The Annual Parole Survey and Annual Probation surveys have been used since 1977 to collect annual yearend counts and yearly movements of community corrections populations; characteristics of the community supervision population, such as gender, racial composition, ethnicity, conviction status, offense, and supervision status.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: 506 Respondents each taking an average of 1.20 hours to respond.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There is an estimated 716 total 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: August 8, 2017. Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16965 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Justice Programs [OJP (OJP) Docket No. 1742] Meeting of the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review Board AGENCY:

    Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This is an announcement of a meeting of the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review Board, primarily intended to consider nominations for the 2016-2017 Medal of Valor, and to make a limited number of recommendations for submission to the U.S. Attorney General. Additional issues of importance to the Board will also be discussed, to include but not limited to a review and approval of updates to the Board's bylaws. The meeting/conference call date and time is listed below.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, September 20, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (EST)

    ADDRESSES:

    The public may hear the proceedings of this meeting/conference call at the Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC 20531.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gregory Joy, Policy Advisor, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, at (202) 514-1369, toll free (866) 859-2687, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review Board carries out those advisory functions specified in 42 U.S.C. 15202. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 15201, the President of the United States is authorized to award the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor, the highest national award for valor by a public safety officer. This meeting is open to the public at the Office of Justice Programs. For security purposes, members of the public who wish to participate must register at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting/conference call by contacting Mr. Joy. All interested participants will be required to meet at the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs; 810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC, and will be required to sign in at the front desk. Note: Photo identification will be required for admission. Additional identification documents may be required.

    Access to the meeting will not be allowed without prior registration. Anyone requiring special accommodations should contact Mr. Joy at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting. Please submit in writing, any comments or statements for consideration by the Review Board, at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting date.

    Gregory Joy, Policy Advisor/Designated Federal Officer, Bureau of Justice Assistance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16978 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Proposal Review Panel for Computing and Communication Foundations; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:

    Name and Committee Code: Proposal Review Panel for Computing and Communication Foundations—Expeditions in Computing (EIC) Program (#1192) Site Visit.

    Date and Time: October 27, 2017; 8:00 a.m.-6:30 p.m.

    Place: Cornell University, Institute for Computational Sustainability/CompSustNet, 340 Gates Hall, Ithaca, NY 14850.

    Type of Meeting: Part-Open.

    Contact Person: Mitra Basu, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1115, Arlington, VA 22230; Telephone: (703) 292-8910.

    Purpose of Meeting: Site visit to assess the progress of the EIC Award: CCF-1522054, “Collaborative Research: CompSustNet: Expanding the Horizons of Computational Sustainability”, and to provide advice and recommendations concerning further NSF support for the project.

    Agenda Friday, Oct 27, 2017; 8:00 a.m.-6:30 p.m.

    8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.: OPEN; Presentations by Awardee Institution, faculty staff and students to Site Team and NSF Staff. Discussions and question and answer sessions.

    1:30 p.m.-6:30 p.m.: CLOSED; Response and feedback to presentations by Site Team and NSF Staff. Discussions and question and answer sessions. Draft report on education and research activities. Complete written site visit report with preliminary recommendations.

    Reason for Closing: The work being reviewed during closed portions of the site review include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the project. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: August 7, 2017. Crystal Robinson, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16918 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 AGENCY:

    National Science Foundation.

    ACTION:

    Notice of permit issued.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541. This is the required notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Or by email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On May 25, 2017, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of a permit application received. The permit was issued on August 2, 2017 to: Dr. William R. Fraser, Permit No. 2018-002.

    Nadene G. Kennedy, Polar Coordination Specialist, Office of Polar Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16907 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2017-0001] Sunshine Act Meeting Notice DATE:

    Weeks of August 14, 21, 28, September 4, 11, 18, 2017.

    PLACE:

    Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

    STATUS:

    Public and Closed.

    Week of August 14, 2017 Thursday, August 17, 2017 10:30 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative), Final Rule: Medical Use of Byproduct Material—Medical Event Definitions, Training and Experience, and Clarifying Amendments (RIN 3150-AI63; NRC-2008-0175) (Tentative) Week of August 21, 2017—Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 21, 2017.

    Week of August 28, 2017—Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 28, 2017.

    Week of September 4, 2017—Tentative Wednesday, September 6, 2017 1:30 p.m. NRC All Employees Meeting (Public Meeting), Marriott Bethesda North Hotel, 5701 Marinelli Road, Rockville, MD 20852 Thursday, September 7, 2017 10:00 a.m. Briefing on NRC International Activities (Closed—Ex. 1 & 9) Week of September 11, 2017—Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 11, 2017.

    Week of September 18, 2017—Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 18, 2017.

    The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at [email protected]

    The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/schedule.html.

    The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g., braille, large print), please notify Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability Program Manager, at 301-287-0739, by videophone at 240-428-3217, or by email at [email protected] Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email [email protected] or [email protected]

    Dated: August 9, 2017. Denise L. McGovern, Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17158 Filed 8-9-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Civil Service Retirement System Board of Actuaries Meeting AGENCY:

    Office of Personnel Management.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Civil Service Retirement System Board of Actuaries plans to meet on Thursday, September 7, 2017. The meeting will start at 1:00 p.m. EDT and will be held at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), 1900 E Street NW., Room 4332, Washington, DC 20415.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gregory Kissel, Senior Actuary for Retirement Programs, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 4316, Washington, DC 20415. Phone (202) 606-0722 or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is for the Board to review the actuarial methods and assumptions used in the valuations of the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF), in the event of a change in applicable law or regulations governing the selection of actuarial assumptions.

    The agenda is as follows:

    1. Summary of changes established after June 1, 2017, in legislation or regulations 2. Review of actuarial assumptions if warranted by such changes: a. Demographic Assumptions b. Economic Assumptions Persons desiring to attend this meeting of the Civil Service Retirement System Board of Actuaries, or to make a statement for consideration at the meeting, should contact OPM at least 5 business days in advance of the meeting date at the address shown below. The manner and time for any material presented to the Board may be limited.

    For the Board of Actuaries.

    Kathleen M. McGettigan, Acting Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16972 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-63-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. CP2017-257; CP2017-258; CP2017-259; MC2017-167; CP2017-260; MC2017-168; and CP2017-261] 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 15, 2017 (Comment due date applies to CP2017-257; CP2017-258); August 16, 2017 (Comment due date applies to CP2017-259; MC2017-167; CP2017-260; MC2017-168; CP2017-261).

    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).: CP2017-257; Filing Title: Notice of the United States Postal Service of Filing a Functionally Equivalent Global Plus 1D Negotiated Service Agreement and Application for Non-Public Treatment of Materials Filed Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: August 4, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 CFR 3015.5; Public Representative: Christopher C. Mohr; Comments Due: August 15, 2017.

    2. Docket No(s).: CP2017-258; Filing Title: Notice of the United States Postal Service of Filing a Functionally Equivalent Global Plus 3 Negotiated Service Agreement and Application for Non-Public Treatment of Materials Filed Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: August 4, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 CFR 3015.5; Public Representative: Jennaca D. Upperman; Comments Due: August 15, 2017.

    3. Docket No(s).: CP2017-259; Filing Title: Notice of the United States Postal Service of Filing a Functionally Equivalent Global Plus 3 Negotiated Service Agreement and Application for Non-Public Treatment of Materials Filed Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: August 4, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 CFR 3015.5; Public Representative: Jennaca D. Upperman; Comments Due: August 16, 2017.

    4. Docket No(s).: MC2017-167 and CP2017-260; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 339 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: August 4, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 CFR 3015.5; Public Representative: Matthew R. Ashford; Comments Due: August 16, 2017.

    5. Docket No(s).: MC2017-168 and CP2017-261; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 21 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: August 4, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 CFR 3020.30; Public Representative: Matthew R. Ashford; Comments Due: August 16, 2017.

    This notice will be published in the Federal Register.

    Stacy L. Ruble, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16935 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-81324; File No. SR-PEARL-2017-33] Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MIAX PEARL Rules 504, Trading Halts, and 521, Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions Including Obvious Errors August 7, 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 August 2, 2017, MIAX PEARL, LLC (“MIAX PEARL” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the 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 proposes to amend Exchange Rules 504, Trading Halts, and 521, Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions including Obvious Errors.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/pearl at MIAX PEARL'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 Background

    The Exchange and other options exchanges recently adopted a new, harmonized rule related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions, including a specific provision related to coordination in connection with large-scale events involving erroneous options transactions.3 The Exchange believes that the changes the options exchanges implemented with the new, harmonized rule have led to increased transparency and finality with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. However, as part of the initial initiative, the Exchange and other options exchanges deferred a few specific matters for further discussion. Specifically, as described in the Initial Filing, the Exchange and all other options exchanges have been working to further improve the review of potentially erroneous transactions as well as their subsequent adjustment by creating an objective and universal way to determine Theoretical Price in the event a reliable NBBO is not available. Because this initiative required additional exchange and industry discussion as well as additional time for development and implementation, the Exchange and the other options exchanges determined to proceed with the Initial Filing and to undergo a secondary initiative to complete any additional improvements to the applicable rule. In this filing, the Exchange proposes to adopt procedures that will lead to a more objective and uniform way to determine Theoretical Price in the event a reliable NBBO is not available. In addition to this change, the Exchange has proposed two additional minor changes to its rules. The Exchange's proposal mirrors that of Bats BZX, which the Commission approved on July 6, 2017,4 and those that the other options exchanges intend to or have filed. Finally, the Exchange notes that options exchanges that offer complex orders on their options platforms either already have in place rules for handling the adjustment and nullification of erroneous complex order transactions in place or have filed proposals related to such rules, which proposals have recently been approved by the Commission or filed on an immediately effective basis.5

    3 The Exchange's application for registration as a national securities exchange, as approved by the Commission, incorporated the changes made previously by the other options exchanges. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79543 (December 13, 2016), 81 FR 92901 (December 20, 2016) (the “Initial Filing”).

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81084 (July 6, 2017), 82 FR 32216 (July 12, 2017) (granting approval of Bats BZX proposal).

    5See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 80040 (February 14, 2017), 82 FR 11248 (February 21, 2017) (SR-CBOE-2016-088) (granting approval of CBOE proposal related to the nullification and adjustment of complex orders); 80298 (March 22, 2017), 82 FR 15393 (March 28, 2017) (SR-C2-2017-011) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of C2 proposal related to the nullification and adjustment of complex orders); 80284 (March 21, 2017), 82 FR 15251 (March 27, 2017) (SR-MIAX-2017-13) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of MIAX proposal related to the nullification and adjustment of complex orders).

    Calculation of Theoretical Price Using a Third Party Provider

    Under the harmonized rule, when reviewing a transaction as potentially erroneous, the Exchange needs to first determine the “Theoretical Price” of the option, i.e., the Exchange's estimate of the correct market price for the option. Pursuant to Rule 521, if the applicable option series is traded on at least one other options exchange, then the Theoretical Price of an option series is the last national best bid (“NBB”) just prior to the trade in question with respect to an erroneous sell transaction or the last national best offer (“NBO”) just prior to the trade in question with respect to an erroneous buy transaction unless one of the exceptions described below exists. Thus, whenever the Exchange has a reliable NBB or NBO, as applicable, just prior to the transaction, then the Exchange uses this NBB or NBO as the Theoretical Price.

    The Rule also contains various provisions governing specific situations where the NBB or NBO is not available or may not be reliable. Specifically, the Rule specifies situations in which there are no quotes or no valid quotes for comparison purposes, when the national best bid or offer (“NBBO”) is determined to be too wide to be reliable, and at the open of trading on each trading day. In each of these circumstances, in turn, because the NBB or NBO is not available or is deemed to be unreliable, the Exchange determines Theoretical Price. Under the current Rule, when determining Theoretical Price, Exchange personnel generally consult and refer to data such as the prices of related series, especially the closest strikes in the option in question. Exchange personnel may also take into account the price of the underlying security and the volatility characteristics of the option as well as historical pricing of the option and/or similar options. Although the Rule is administered by experienced personnel and the Exchange believes the process is currently appropriate, the Exchange recognizes that it is also subjective and could lead to disparate results for a transaction that spans multiple options exchanges.

    The Exchange proposes to adopt Interpretation and Policy .03 to specify how the Exchange will determine Theoretical Price when required by sub-paragraphs (b)(1)-(3) of the Rule (i.e., at the open, when there are no valid quotes or when there is a wide quote). In particular, the Exchange has been working with other options exchanges to identify and select a reliable third party vendor (“TP Provider”) that would provide Theoretical Price to the Exchange whenever one or more transactions is under review pursuant to Rule 521 and the NBBO is unavailable or deemed unreliable pursuant to Rule 521(b). The Exchange and other options exchanges have selected CBOE Livevol, LLC (“Livevol”) as the TP Provider, as described below. As further described below, proposed Interpretation and Policy .03 would codify the use of the TP Provider as well as limited exceptions where the Exchange would be able to deviate from the Theoretical Price given by the TP Provider.

    Pursuant to proposed Interpretation and Policy .03, when the Exchange must determine Theoretical Price pursuant to the sub-paragraphs (b)(1)-(3) of the Rule, the Exchange will request Theoretical Price from the third party vendor to which the Exchange and all other options exchanges have subscribed. Thus, as set forth in this proposed language, Theoretical Price would be provided to the Exchange by the TP Provider on request and not through a streaming data feed.6 This language also makes clear that the Exchange and all other options exchanges will use the same TP Provider.

    6 Though the Exchange and other options exchanges considered a streaming feed, it was determined that it would be more feasible to develop and implement an on demand service and that such a service would satisfy the goals of the initiative.

    As noted above, the proposed TP Provider selected by the Exchange and other options exchanges is Livevol. The Exchange proposes to codify this selection in proposed paragraph (d) to Interpretation and Policy .03. As such, the Exchange would file a rule proposal and would provide notice to the options industry of any proposed change to the TP Provider.

    The Exchange and other options exchanges have selected Livevol as the proposed TP Provider after diligence into various alternatives. Livevol has, since 2009, been the options industry leader in providing equity and index options market data and analytics services.7 The Exchange believes that Livevol has established itself within the options industry as a trusted provider of such services and notes that it and all other options exchanges already subscribe to various Livevol services. In connection with this proposal, Livevol will develop a new tool based on its existing technology and services that will supply Theoretical Price to the Exchange and other options exchanges upon request. The Theoretical Price tool will leverage current market data and surrounding strikes to assist in a relative value pricing approach to generating a Theoretical Price. When relative value methods are incapable of generating a valid Theoretical Price, the Theoretical Price tool will utilize historical trade and quote data to calculate Theoretical Price.

    7 The Exchange notes that in 2015, Livevol was acquired by CBOE Holdings, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Chicago Board Options Exchange (“CBOE”) and C2 Options Exchange (“C2”).

    Because the purpose of the proposal is to move away from a subjective determination by Exchange personnel when the NBBO is unavailable or unreliable, the Exchange intends to use the Theoretical Price provided by the TP Provider in all such circumstances. However, the Exchange believes it is necessary to retain the ability to contact the TP Provider if it believes that the Theoretical Price provided is fundamentally incorrect and to determine the Theoretical Price in the limited circumstance of a systems issue experienced by the TP Provider, as described below.

    As proposed, to the extent an Official 8 of the Exchange believes that the Theoretical Price provided by the TP Provider is fundamentally incorrect and cannot be used consistent with the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, the Official shall contact the TP Provider to notify the TP Provider of the reason the Official believes such Theoretical Price is inaccurate and to request a review and correction of the calculated Theoretical Price. For example, if an Official received from the TP Provider a Theoretical Price of $80 in a series that the Official might expect to be instead in the range of $8 to $10 because of a recent corporate action in the underlying, the Official would request that the TP Provider review and confirm its calculation and determine whether it had appropriately accounted for the corporate action. In order to ensure that other options exchanges that may potentially be relying on the same Theoretical Price that, in turn, the Official believes to be fundamentally incorrect, the Exchange also proposes to promptly provide notice to other options exchanges that the TP Provider has been contacted to review and correct the calculated Theoretical Price at issue and to include a brief explanation of the reason for the request.9 Although not directly addressed by the proposed Rule, the Exchange expects that all other options exchanges once in receipt of this notification would await the determination of the TP Provider and would use the corrected price as soon as it is available. The Exchange further notes that it expects the TP Provider to cooperate with, but to be independent of, the Exchange and other options exchanges.10

    8 For purposes of the Rule, an Official is an Officer of the Exchange or such other employee designee of the Exchange that is trained in the application of Rule 521.

    9See proposed paragraph (b) to Interpretation and Policy .03.

    10 The Exchange expects any TP Provider selected by the Exchange and other options exchanges to act independently in its determination and calculation of Theoretical Price. With respect to Livevol specifically, the Exchange again notes that Livevol is a subsidiary of CBOE Holdings, Inc., which is also the ultimate parent company of multiple options exchanges. The Exchange expects Livevol to calculate Theoretical Price independent of its affiliated exchanges in the same way it will calculate Theoretical Price independent of non-affiliated exchanges.

    The Exchange believes that the proposed provision to allow an Official to contact the TP Provider if he or she believes the provided Theoretical Price is fundamentally incorrect is necessary, particularly because the Exchange and other options exchanges will be using the new process for the first time. Although the exchanges have conducted thorough diligence with respect to Livevol as the selected TP Provider and would do so with any potential replacement TP Provider, the Exchange is concerned that certain scenarios could arise where the Theoretical Price generated by the TP Provider does not take into account relevant factors and would result in an unfair result for market participants involved in a transaction. The Exchange notes that if such situations do indeed arise, to the extent practicable the Exchange will also work with the TP Provider and other options exchanges to improve the TP Provider's calculation of Theoretical Price in future situations. For instance, if the Exchange determines that a particular type of corporate action is not being appropriately captured by the TP Provider when such provider is generating Theoretical Price, while the Exchange believes that it needs the ability to request a review and correction of the Theoretical Price in connection with a specific review in order to provide a timely decision to market participants, the Exchange would share information regarding the specific situation with the TP Provider and other options exchanges in an effort to improve the Theoretical Price service for future use. The Exchange notes that it does not anticipate needing to rely on this provision frequently, if at all, but believes the provision is necessary nonetheless to best prepare for all potential circumstances. Further, the Theoretical Price used by the Exchange in connection with its rulings will always be that received from the TP Provider and the Exchange has not proposed the ability to deviate from such price.11

    11 To the extent the TP Provider has been contacted by an Official of the Exchange, reviews the Theoretical Price provided but disagrees that there has been any error, then the Exchange would be bound to use the Theoretical Price provided by the TP Provider.

    Pursuant to proposed paragraph (c) to Interpretation and Policy .03, an Official of the Exchange may determine the Theoretical Price if the TP Provider has experienced a systems issue that has rendered its services unavailable to accurately calculate Theoretical Price and such issue cannot be corrected in a timely manner. The Exchange notes that it does not anticipate needing to rely on this provision frequently, if at all, but believes the provision is necessary nonetheless to best prepare for all potential circumstances. Further, consistent with existing text in Rule 521(e)(4), the Exchange has not proposed a specific time by which the service must be available in order to be considered timely.12 The Exchange expects that it would await the TP Provider's services becoming available again so long as the Exchange was able to obtain information regarding the issue and the TP Provider had a reasonable expectation of being able to resume normal operations within the next several hours based on communications with the TP Provider. More specifically with respect to Livevol, Livevol has business continuity and disaster recovery procedures that will help to ensure that the Theoretical Price tool remains available or, in the event of an outage, that service is restored in a timely manner.

    12 In the context of a Significant Market Event, the Exchange may determine, “in consultation with other options exchanges . . . that timely adjustment is not feasible due to the extraordinary nature of the situation.” See Rule 521(e)(4).

    The Exchange also notes that if a wide-scale event occurred, even if such event did not qualify as a “Significant Market Event” pursuant to Rule 521(e), and the TP Provider was unavailable or otherwise experiencing difficulty, the Exchange believes that it and other options exchanges would seek to coordinate to the extent possible. In particular, the Exchange and other options exchanges now have a process, administered by the Options Clearing Corporation, to invoke a discussion amongst all options exchanges in the event of any widespread or significant market events. The Exchange believes that this process could be used in the event necessary if there were an issue with the TP Provider.

    The Exchange also proposes to adopt language in paragraph (d) of Interpretation and Policy .03 to Rule 521 to disclaim the liability of the Exchange and the TP Provider in connection with the proposed Rule, the TP Provider's calculation of Theoretical Price, and the Exchange's use of such Theoretical Price. Specifically, the proposed rule would state that neither the Exchange, the TP Provider, nor any affiliate of the TP Provider (the TP Provider and its affiliates are referred to collectively as the “TP Provider”), makes any warranty, express or implied, as to the results to be obtained by any person or entity from the use of the TP Provider pursuant to Interpretation .03. The proposed rule would further state that the TP Provider does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the calculated Theoretical Price and that the TP Provider disclaims all warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or use with respect to such Theoretical Price. Finally, the proposed Rule would state that neither the Exchange nor the TP Provider shall have any liability for any damages, claims, losses (including any indirect or consequential losses), expenses, or delays, whether direct or indirect, foreseen or unforeseen, suffered by any person arising out of any circumstance or occurrence relating to the use of such Theoretical Price or arising out of any errors or delays in calculating such Theoretical Price. This proposed language is modeled after existing language in Exchange Rules regarding “reporting authorities” that calculate indices.13

    13See, e.g., MIAX PEARL Rule 526, which relates to index options potentially listed and traded on the Exchange and disclaims liability for a reporting authority and their affiliates.

    In connection with the proposed change described above, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 521 to state that the Exchange will rely on paragraph (b) and Interpretation and Policy .03 when determining Theoretical Price.

    No Valid Quotes—Market Participant Quoting on Multiple Exchanges

    As described above, one of the times where the NBB or NBO is deemed to be unreliable for purposes of Theoretical Price is when there are no quotes or no valid quotes for the affected series. In addition to when there are no quotes, the Exchange does not consider the following to be valid quotes: (i) All quotes in the applicable option series published at a time where the last NBB is higher than the last NBO in such series (a “crossed market”); (ii) quotes published by the Exchange that were submitted by either party to the transaction in question; and (iii) quotes published by another options exchange against which the Exchange has declared self-help. In recognition of today's market structure where certain participants actively provide liquidity on multiple exchanges simultaneously, the Exchange proposes to add an additional category of invalid quotes. Specifically, in order to avoid a situation where a market participant has established the market at an erroneous price on multiple exchanges, the Exchange proposes to consider as invalid the quotes in a series published by another options exchange if either party to the transaction in question submitted the quotes in the series representing such options exchange's best bid or offer. Thus, similar to being able to ignore for purposes of the Rule the quotes published by the Exchange if submitted by either party to the transaction in question, the Exchange would be able to ignore for purposes of the rule quotations on other options exchanges by that same market participant.

    In order to continue to apply the Rule in a timely and organized fashion, however, the Exchange proposes to initially limit the scope of this proposed provision in two ways. First, because the process will take considerable coordination with other options exchanges to confirm that the quotations in question on an away options exchange were indeed submitted by a party to a transaction on the Exchange, the Exchange proposes to limit this provision to apply to up to twenty-five (25) total options series (i.e., whether such series all relate to the same underlying security or multiple underlying securities). Second, the Exchange proposes to require the party that believes it established the best bid or offer on one or more other options exchanges to identify to the Exchange the quotes which were submitted by such party and published by other options exchanges. In other words, as proposed, the burden will be on the party seeking that the Exchange disregard their quotations on other options exchanges to identify such quotations. In turn, the Exchange will verify with such other options exchanges that such quotations were indeed submitted by such party.

    Below are examples of both the current rule and the rule as proposed to be amended.

    Example 1—Current Rule, Member Erroneously Quotes on One Exchange Assumptions

    For purposes of this example, assume the following:

    • A Member acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange (“Market Maker A”) is quoting in twenty series of options underlying security ABCD on the Exchange (and only the Exchange).

    • Market Maker A makes an error in calculating the market for options on ABCD, and publishes quotes in all twenty series to buy options at $1.00 and to sell options at $1.05.

    • In fact, options on ABCD in these series are nearly worthless and no other market participant is quoting in such series.

    • Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty series at issue is $1.00 × $1.05 (with the Exchange representing the NBBO based on Market Maker A's quotes).

    • Assume Member A immediately enters sell orders and executes against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.

    • Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange a timely request for review of the trades with Member A as potentially erroneous transactions to buy.

    Result

    • Based on the Exchange's current rules, the Exchange would identify Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and would consider Market Maker A's quotations invalid pursuant to Rule 521(b)(2).

    • As there were no other valid quotes to use as a reference price, the Exchange would then determine Theoretical Price.

    • Assume the Exchange determines a Theoretical Price of $0.05.

    ○ The execution price of $1.00 exceeds the $0.25 minimum amount set forth in the Exchange's table to determine whether an obvious error has occurred (i.e., $0.05 + $0.25 = $0.30) so any execution at or above this price is an obvious error.

    ○ Accordingly, the executions in all series would be adjusted by the Exchange to executions at $0.20 per contract (Theoretical Price of $0.05 plus $0.15) to the extent the incoming orders submitted by Member A were non-Customer orders.

    ○ The executions in all series would be nullified to the extent the incoming orders submitted by Member A were Customer orders.

    Example 2—Current Rule, Member Erroneously Quotes on Multiple Exchanges Assumptions

    For purposes of this example, assume the following:

    • A Member acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange (“Market Maker A”) is quoting in twenty series of options underlying security ABCD on the Exchange and on a second exchange (“Away Exchange”).

    • Market Maker A makes an error in calculating the market for options on ABCD, and publishes quotes on both the Exchange and the Away Exchange in all twenty series to buy options at $1.00 and to sell options at $1.05.

    • In fact, options on ABCD in these series are nearly worthless and no other market participant is quoting in such series.

    • Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty series at issue is $1.00 × $1.05 (with the Exchange and the Away Exchange representing the NBBO based on Market Maker A's quotes).

    • Assume Member A immediately enters sell orders and executes against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.

    • Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange and to the Away Exchange timely requests for review of the trades with Member A as potentially erroneous transactions to buy.

    Result

    • Based on the Exchange's current rules, the Exchange would identify Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and would consider Market Maker A's quotations on the Exchange invalid pursuant to Rule 521(b)(2). The Exchange, however, would view the Away Exchange's quotations as valid, and would thus determine Theoretical Price to be $1.05 (i.e., the NBO in the case of a potentially erroneous buy transaction).

    • The execution price of $1.00 does not exceed the $0.25 minimum amount set forth in the Exchange's table to determine whether an obvious error has occurred (i.e., $1.05 + $0.25 = $1.30) so any execution at or above this price is an obvious error.

    • The transactions on the Exchange would not be nullified or adjusted.

    • As the Exchange and all other options exchanges have identical rules with respect to the process described above, the transactions on the Away Exchange would not be nullified or adjusted.

    Example 3—Proposed Rule, Member Erroneously Quotes on Multiple Exchanges 14

    14 The Exchange notes that its proposed rule will not impact the proposed handling of a request for review where a market participant is quoting only on the Exchange, thus, the Exchange has not included a separate example for such a fact-pattern.

    Assumptions

    For purposes of this example, assume the following:

    • A Member acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange (“Market Maker A”) is quoting in twenty series of options underlying security ABCD on the Exchange and on a second exchange (“Away Exchange”).15

    15 The Exchange notes that the proposed rule would operate the same if Market Maker A was quoting on more than two exchanges. The Exchange has limited the example to two exchanges for simplicity.

    • Market Maker A makes an error in calculating the market for options on ABCD, and publishes quotes on both the Exchange and the Away Exchange in all twenty series to buy options at $1.00 and to sell options at $1.05.

    • In fact, options on ABCD in these series are nearly worthless and no other market participant is quoting in such series.

    • Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty series at issue is $1.00 × $1.05 (with the Exchange and the Away Exchange representing the NBBO based on Market Maker A's quotes).

    • Assume Member A immediately enters sell orders and executes against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.

    • Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange and to the Away Exchange timely requests for review of the trades with Member A as potentially erroneous transactions to buy. At the time of submitting the requests for review to the Exchange and the Away Exchange, Market Maker A identifies to the Exchange the quotes on the Away Exchange as quotes also represented by Market Maker A (and to the Away Exchange, the quotes on the Exchange as quotes also represented by Market Maker A).

    Result

    • Based on the proposed rules, the Exchange would identify Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and would consider Market Maker A's quotations on the Exchange invalid pursuant to Rule 521(b)(2).

    • The Exchange and the Away Exchange would also coordinate to confirm that the quotations identified by Market Maker A on the other exchange were indeed Market Maker A's quotations. Once confirmed, each of the Exchange and the Away Exchange would also consider invalid the quotations published on the other exchange.

    • As there were no other valid quotes to use as a reference price, the Exchange would then determine Theoretical Price.

    • Assume the Exchange determines a Theoretical Price of $0.05.

    ○ The execution price of $1.00 exceeds the $0.25 minimum amount set forth in the Exchange's table to determine whether an obvious error has occurred (i.e., $0.05 + $0.25 = $0.30) so any execution at or above this price is an obvious error.

    ○ Accordingly, the executions in all series would be adjusted by the Exchange to executions at $0.20 per contract (Theoretical Price of $0.05 plus $0.15) to the extent the incoming orders submitted by Member A were non-Customer orders.

    ○ The executions in all series would be nullified to the extent the incoming orders submitted by Member A were Customer orders.

    • As the Exchange and all other options exchanges would have identical rules with respect to the process described above, as other options exchanges intend to adopt the same rule if the proposed rule is approved, the transactions on the Away Exchange would also be nullified or adjusted as set forth above.

    • If this example was instead modified such that Market Maker A was quoting in 200 series rather than 20, the Exchange notes that Market Maker A could only request that the Exchange consider as invalid their quotations in 25 of those series on other exchanges. As noted above, the Exchange has proposed to limit the proposed rule to 25 series in order to continue to process requests for review in a timely and organized fashion in order to provide certainty to market participants. This is due to the amount of coordination that will be necessary in such a scenario to confirm that the quotations in question on an away options exchange were indeed submitted by a party to a transaction on the Exchange.

    Trading Halts—Clarifying Change to Rules 504 and 521(f)

    Exchange Rules 504 and 521(f) describe the Exchange's authority to declare trading halts in one or more options traded on the Exchange. Currently, Rule 521(f) and Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule 504 both state that the Exchange shall nullify any transaction that occurs during a trading halt in the affected option on the Exchange or, with respect to equity options, during a trading halt on the primary listing market for the underlying security. The Exchange proposes to make clear with respect to equity options that it shall nullify any transaction that occurs during a regulatory halt as declared by the primary listing market for the underlying security. The Exchange believes this change is necessary to distinguish a declared regulatory halt, where the underlying security should not be actively trading on any venue, from an operational issue on the primary listing exchange where the security continues to safely trade on other trading venues.

    Implementation Date

    The Exchange proposes to delay the operative date of this proposal to a date within ninety (90) days after the Commission approved the Bats BZX proposal on July 6, 2017.16 The Exchange will announce the operative date in a Regulatory Alert made available to its Members.

    16See supra, note 4.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.17 Specifically, the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 18 because it would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.

    17 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    18 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    As described above, the Exchange and other options exchanges are seeking to further modify their harmonized rules related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. The Exchange believes that the proposal to utilize a TP Provider in the event the NBBO is unavailable or unreliable will provide greater transparency and clarity with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. Particularly, the proposed changes seek to achieve consistent results for participants across U.S. options exchanges while maintaining a fair and orderly market, protecting investors and protecting the public interest. Thus, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 19 in that the proposed Rule will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and facilitating transactions.

    19Id.

    The Exchange again reiterates that it has retained the standard of the current rule for most reviews of options transactions pursuant to Rule 521, which is to rely on the NBBO to determine Theoretical Price if such NBBO can reasonably be relied upon. The proposal to use a TP Provider when the NBBO is unavailable or unreliable is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 20 in that the proposed Rule will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and facilitating transactions by further reducing the possibility of disparate results between options exchanges and increasing the objectivity of the application of Rule 521. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed Rule is transparent with respect to the limited circumstances under which the Exchange will request a review and correction of Theoretical Price from the TP Provider, and has sought to limit such circumstances as much as possible. The Exchange notes that under the current Rule, Exchange personnel are required to determine Theoretical Price in certain circumstances and yet rarely do so because such circumstances have already been significantly limited under the harmonized rule (for example, because the wide quote provision of the harmonized rule only applies if the quote was narrower and then gapped but does not apply if the quote had been persistently wide). Thus, the Exchange believes it will need to request Theoretical Price from the TP Provider only in very rare circumstances and in turn, the Exchange anticipates that the need to contact the TP Provider for additional review of the Theoretical Price provided by the TP Provider will be even rarer. Similarly, the Exchange believes it is unlikely that an Exchange Official will ever be required to determine Theoretical Price, as such circumstance would only be in the event of a systems issue that has rendered the TP Provider's services unavailable and such issue cannot be corrected in a timely manner.

    20Id.

    The Exchange also believes its proposal to adopt language in paragraph (d) of Interpretation and Policy .03 to Rule 521 to disclaim the liability of the Exchange and the TP Provider in connection with the proposed Rule, the TP Provider's calculation of Theoretical Price, and the Exchange's use of such Theoretical Price is consistent with the Act. As noted above, this proposed language is modeled after existing language in Exchange Rules regarding “reporting authorities” that calculate indices,21 and is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 22 in that the proposed Rule will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and facilitating transactions.

    21See supra, note 13.

    22 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    As described above, the Exchange proposes a modification to the valid quotes provision to also exclude quotes in a series published by another options exchange if either party to the transaction in question submitted the orders or quotes in the series representing such options exchange's best bid or offer. The Exchange believes this proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 23 because the application of the rule will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and facilitating transactions by allowing the Exchange to coordinate with other options exchanges to determine whether a market participant that is party to a potentially erroneous transaction on the Exchange established the market in an option on other options exchanges; to the extent this can be established, the Exchange believes such participant's quotes should be excluded in the same way such quotes are excluded on the Exchange. The Exchange also believes it is reasonable to limit the scope of this provision to twenty-five (25) series and to require the party that believes it established the best bid or offer on one or more other options exchanges to identify to the Exchange the quotes which were submitted by that party and published by other options exchanges. The Exchange believes these limitations are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 24 because they will ensure that the Exchange is able to continue to apply the Rule in a timely and organized fashion, thus fostering cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and facilitating transactions and also removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.

    23 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    24 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    Finally, with respect to the proposed modification to the Exchange's trading halt rules, Rule 504 and Rule 521(f), the Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 25 because such proposal clarifies the provision by distinguishing between a trading halt in an underlying security where the security has halted trading across the industry (i.e., a regulatory halt) from a situation where the primary exchange has experienced a technical issue but the underlying security continues to trade on other equities platforms. The Exchange notes that this distinction is already clear in the rules of certain other options exchanges, and thus, has been found to be consistent with the Act.26

    25Id.

    26See, e.g., Interpretation and Policy .07 to CBOE Rule 6.3.

    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 entire proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act 27 in that it does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as explained below.

    27 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).

    Importantly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose a burden on intermarket competition but rather that it will alleviate any burden on competition because it is the result of a collaborative effort by all options exchanges to further harmonize and improve the process related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. The Exchange does not believe that the rules applicable to such process in [sic] an area where options exchanges should compete, but rather, that all options exchanges should have consistent rules to the extent possible. Particularly where a market participant trades on several different exchanges and an erroneous trade may occur on multiple markets nearly simultaneously, the Exchange believes that a participant should have a consistent experience with respect to the nullification or adjustment of transactions. To that end, the selection and implementation of a TP Provider utilized by all options exchanges will further reduce the possibility that participants with potentially erroneous transactions that span multiple options exchanges are handled differently on such exchanges. Similarly, the proposed ability to consider quotations invalid on another options exchange if ultimately originating from a party to a potentially erroneous transaction on the Exchange represents a proposal intended to further foster cooperation by the options exchanges with respect to market events. The Exchange understands that all other options exchanges either have or they intend to file proposals that are substantially similar to this proposal.

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes a burden on intramarket competition because the proposed provisions apply to all market participants 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 after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 28 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 29 thereunder.

    28 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    29 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, 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 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-PEARL-2017-33 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PEARL-2017-33. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing 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-PEARL-2017-33, and should be submitted on or before September 1, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.30

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.

    30 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    [FR Doc. 2017-16927 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-81325; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2017-82] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change in Connection With the September 5, 2017 Compliance Date for the Shortening of the Standard Settlement Cycle From Three Business Days After the Trade Date to Two Business Days After the Trade Date August 7, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 notice is hereby given that, on July 26, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) 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 self-regulatory organization. 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 15 U.S.C. 78a.

    3 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes in connection with the September 5, 2017, compliance date for the shortening of the standard settlement cycle from three business days after the trade date (“T+3”) to two business days after the trade date (“T+2”), to (1) delete NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.4 (Ex-Dividend or Ex-Right Dates); (2) delete the preamble and “T” modifier from NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.4T (“Rule 7.4T”); and (3) establish the operative date of Rule 7.4T. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization 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 those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    In connection with the September 5, 2017, compliance date for shortening of the standard settlement cycle from T+3 to T+2, the Exchange proposes to (1) delete NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.4 (“Rule 7.4”); (2) delete the preamble and “T” modifier from Rule 7.4T; and (3) establish the operative date of Rule 7.4T as September 5, 2017.

    Background

    On September 28, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) proposed amendments to Rule 15c6-1(a) to shorten the standard settlement cycle from T+3 to T+2.4 Following this action by the SEC, the Exchange adopted a new Rule 7.4 with the modifier “T” to reflect a T+2 settlement cycle.5 Because the Exchange would not implement Rule 7.4T until after the final implementation of T+2, the Exchange retained the version of Rule 7.4 reflecting T+3 settlement on its books. In order to reduce the potential for confusion regarding which version of the rule governs, the Exchange added explanatory preambles to Rule 7.4 and Rule 7.4T.

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78962 (September 28, 2016), 81 FR 69240 (October 5, 2016) (File No. S7-22-16).

    5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79732 (January 4, 2017), 82 FR 3042 (January 10, 2017) (SR-NYSEArca-2016-145).

    In particular, the following preamble was added to Rule 7.4:

    This version of Rule 7.4 will remain operative until the Exchange files separate proposed rule changes as necessary to establish the operative date of “Rule 7.4T. Ex-Dividend or Ex-Right Dates,” to delete this version of Rule 7.4 and preamble, and to remove the preamble text from the version of Rule 7.4T. In addition to filing the necessary proposed rule changes, the Exchange will announce via Information Memo the operative date of the deletion of this Rule and implementation of “Rule 7.4T. Ex-Dividend or Ex-Right Dates.”

    The following preamble was added to Rule 7.4T:

    The Exchange will file separate proposed rule changes to establish the operative date of Rule 7.4T, to delete “Rule 7.4. Ex-Dividend or Ex-Right Dates” and the preamble text from Rule 7.4, and to remove the preamble text from the version of Rule 7.4T. Until such time, “Rule 7.4. Ex-Dividend or Ex-Right Dates” will remain operative. In addition to filing the necessary proposed rule changes, the Exchange will announce via Information Memo the implementation of this Rule and the operative date of the deletion of “Rule 7.4. Ex-Dividend or Ex-Right Dates.”

    On March 22, 2017, the SEC adopted the proposed amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) under the Act 6 with a compliance date of September 5, 2017.7

    6See 17 CFR 240.15c6-1(a).

    7See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80295 (March 22, 2017), 82 FR 15564 (March 29, 2017) (File No. S7-22-16).

    Proposed Rule Change

    In order to comply with the September 5, 2017, transition to T+2 settlement, the Exchange proposes to:

    • Delete Rule 7.4, including the preamble, in its entirety;

    • delete the preamble to Rule 7.4T; and

    • delete the “T” modifier in Rule 7.4T, which distinguished it from Rule 7.4.

    The Exchange proposes that the changes described herein would take effect on September 5, 2017, to coincide with the transition to T+2. The Exchange will announce via Information Memo the implementation of Rule 7.4T and the operative date of the deletion of Rule 7.4.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,8 in general, and further the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,9 in particular, because it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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.

    8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by adding clarity as to which rules are operative and when, thereby reducing potential confusion, and making the Exchange's rules easier to navigate. The Exchange also believes that eliminating obsolete material from its rulebook also removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by removing confusion that may result from having obsolete material in the Exchange's rulebook. The Exchange believes that eliminating such obsolete material would not be inconsistent with the public interest and the protection of investors because investors will not be harmed and in fact would benefit from increased transparency, thereby reducing potential confusion.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather facilitate the industry's transition to a T+2 regular-way settlement cycle. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change will serve to promote clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor protection.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to 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) of the Act 10 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.11

    10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    11 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 its 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 shall 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-NYSEARCA-2017-82 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2017-82. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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-NYSEARCA-2017-82 and should be submitted on or before September 1, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.12

    12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16928 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 1:00 p.m., in the Auditorium (L-002) at the Commission's headquarters building, to hear oral argument in an appeal from an initial decision of an administrative law judge by respondents Frank H. Chiappone, Andrew G. Guzzetti, William F. Lex, Thomas E. Livingston, Brian T. Mayer, and Philip S. Rabinovich, formerly registered representatives associated with former broker-dealer McGinn, Smith & Co., Inc.

    On February 25, 2015, the ALJ found that Chiappone, Lex, Livington, Mayer, and Rabinovich violated antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws by recommending that customers purchase securities without conducting a reasonable investigation into the offerings as well as provisions of the securities laws prohibiting unregistered offers and sales of securities. The ALJ barred or suspended these respondents from certain associations in the securities industry and ordered them to pay third-tier civil money penalties, to pay disgorgement of commissions received for their sales in violation of the antifraud provisions plus prejudgment interest, and to cease and desist from further violations of the securities laws. The ALJ found that Guzzetti failed reasonably to supervise the other respondents, ordered him to pay a third-tier civil money penalty, and suspended him from association in certain capacities in the securities industry.

    Respondents appealed the ALJ's findings of liability and the sanctions imposed to the Commission. The issues likely to be considered at oral argument include, among other things, whether the findings of liability should be sustained, and what sanctions, if any, are appropriate in the public interest, as well as respondents' arguments that the proceeding violated various Constitutional, statutory, and regulatory requirements.

    For further information, please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: August 8, 2017. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17070 Filed 8-9-17; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-81322; File No. SR-ISE-2017-76] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 720, Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions Including Obvious Errors August 7, 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 26, 2017, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the 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 proposes to amend Rule 720, Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions including Obvious Errors.

    While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the proposed amendments to be operative on a date that is within ninety (90) days after the Commission approved a similar proposal filed by Bats BZX on July 6, 2017.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.ise.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange and other options exchanges recently adopted a new, harmonized rule related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions, including a specific provision related to coordination in connection with large-scale events involving erroneous options transactions.3 The Exchange believes that the changes the options exchanges implemented with the new, harmonized rule have led to increased transparency and finality with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. However, as part of the initial initiative, the Exchange and other options exchanges deferred a few specific matters for further discussion. Specifically, as described in the Initial Filing, the Exchange and all other options exchanges have been working to further improve the review of potentially erroneous transactions as well as their subsequent adjustment by creating an objective and universal way to determine Theoretical Price in the event a reliable NBBO is not available. Because this initiative required additional exchange and industry discussion as well as additional time for development and implementation, the Exchange and the other options exchanges determined to proceed with the Initial Filing and to undergo a secondary initiative to complete any additional improvements to the applicable rule. In this filing, the Exchange proposes to adopt procedures that will lead to a more objective and uniform way to determine Theoretical Price in the event a reliable NBBO is not available. In addition to this change, the Exchange has proposed two additional minor changes to its rules. The Exchange's proposal mirrors that of Bats BZX, which the Exchange [sic] approved on July 6, 2017,4 and those that the other options exchanges intend to file, except that it omits the section of the proposal that pertains to trading halts due to the fact that the Supplementary Material to Exchange Rule 702 already includes the applicable language.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-74896 (May 7, 2015); 80 FR 27373 (May 13, 2015) (SR-ISE-2015-18) (the “Initial Filing”).

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-81084 (July 6, 2017) (granting approval of Bats BZX proposal), 82 FR 32216 (July 12, 2017); 82 FR 23684 (May 23, 2017) (SR-BatsBZX-2017-035) (notice of filing of Bats BZX proposal).

    Calculation of Theoretical Price Using a Third Party Provider

    Under the harmonized rule, when reviewing a transaction as potentially erroneous, the Exchange needs to first determine the “Theoretical Price” of the option, i.e., the Exchange's estimate of the correct market price for the option. Pursuant to Rule 720, if the applicable option series is traded on at least one other options exchange, then the Theoretical Price of an option series is the last national best bid (“NBB”) just prior to the trade in question with respect to an erroneous sell transaction or the last national best offer (“NBO”) just prior to the trade in question with respect to an erroneous buy transaction unless one of the exceptions described below exists. Thus, whenever the Exchange has a reliable NBB or NBO, as applicable, just prior to the transaction, then the Exchange uses this NBB or NBO as the Theoretical Price.

    The Rule also contains various provisions governing specific situations where the NBB or NBO is not available or may not be reliable. Specifically, the Rule specifies situations in which there are no quotes or no valid quotes for comparison purposes, when the national best bid or offer (“NBBO”) is determined to be too wide to be reliable, and at the open of trading on each trading day. In each of these circumstances, in turn, because the NBB or NBO is not available or is deemed to be unreliable, the Exchange determines Theoretical Price. Under the current Rule, when determining Theoretical Price, Exchange personnel generally consult and refer to data such as the prices of related series, especially the closest strikes in the option in question. Exchange personnel may also take into account the price of the underlying security and the volatility characteristics of the option as well as historical pricing of the option and/or similar options. Although the Rule is administered by experienced personnel and the Exchange believes the process is currently appropriate, the Exchange recognizes that it is also subjective and could lead to disparate results for a transaction that spans multiple options exchanges.

    The Exchange proposes to adopt Supplementary Material to Rule 720, Item .06 to specify how the Exchange will determine Theoretical Price when required by sub-paragraphs (b)(1)-(3) of the Rule (i.e., at the open, when there are no valid quotes or when there is a wide quote). In particular, the Exchange has been working with other options exchanges to identify and select a reliable third party vendor (“TP Provider”) that would provide Theoretical Price to the Exchange whenever one or more transactions is under review pursuant to Rule 720 and the NBBO is unavailable or deemed unreliable pursuant to Rule 720(b). The Exchange and other options exchanges have selected CBOE Livevol, LLC (“Livevol”) as the TP Provider, as described below. As further described below, proposed Supplementary Material to Rule 720, Item .06 would codify the use of the TP Provider as well as limited exceptions where the Exchange would be able to deviate from the Theoretical Price given by the TP Provider.

    Pursuant to proposed Supplementary Material to Rule 720, Item .06, when the Exchange must determine Theoretical Price pursuant to the sub-paragraphs (b)(1)-(3) of the Rule, the Exchange will request Theoretical Price from the third party vendor to which the Exchange and all other options exchanges have subscribed. Thus, as set forth in this proposed language, Theoretical Price would be provided to the Exchange by the TP Provider on request and not through a streaming data feed.5 This language also makes clear that the Exchange and all other options exchanges will use the same TP Provider.

    5 Though the Exchange and other options exchanges considered a streaming feed, it was determined that it would be more feasible to develop and implement an on demand service and that such a service would satisfy the goals of the initiative.

    As noted above, the proposed TP Provider selected by the Exchange and other options exchanges is Livevol. The Exchange proposes to codify this selection in proposed paragraph (d) to Supplementary Material to Rule 720, Item .06. As such, the Exchange would file a rule proposal and would provide notice to the options industry of any proposed change to the TP Provider.

    The Exchange and other options exchanges have selected Livevol as the proposed TP Provider after diligence into various alternatives. Livevol has, since 2009, been the options industry leader in providing equity and index options market data and analytics services.6 The Exchange believes that Livevol has established itself within the options industry as a trusted provider of such services and notes that it and all other options exchanges already subscribe to various Livevol services. In connection with this proposal, Livevol will develop a new tool based on its existing technology and services that will supply Theoretical Price to the Exchange and other options exchanges upon request. The Theoretical Price tool will leverage current market data and surrounding strikes to assist in a relative value pricing approach to generating a Theoretical Price. When relative value methods are incapable of generating a valid Theoretical Price, the Theoretical Price tool will utilize historical trade and quote data to calculate Theoretical Price.

    6 The Exchange notes that in 2015, Livevol was acquired by CBOE Holdings, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Chicago Board Options Exchange (“CBOE”) and C2 Options Exchange (“C2”).

    Because the purpose of the proposal is to move away from a subjective determination by Exchange personnel when the NBBO is unavailable or unreliable, the Exchange intends to use the Theoretical Price provided by the TP Provider in all such circumstances. However, the Exchange believes it is necessary to retain the ability to contact the TP Provider if it believes that the Theoretical Price provided is fundamentally incorrect and to determine the Theoretical Price in the limited circumstance of a systems issue experienced by the TP Provider, as described below.

    As proposed, to the extent an Official 7 of the Exchange believes that the Theoretical Price provided by the TP Provider is fundamentally incorrect and cannot be used consistent with the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, the Official shall contact the TP Provider to notify the TP Provider of the reason the Official believes such Theoretical Price is inaccurate and to request a review and correction of the calculated Theoretical Price. For example, if an Official received from the TP Provider a Theoretical Price of $80 in a series that the Official might expect to be instead in the range of $8 to $10 because of a recent corporate action in the underlying, the Official would request that the TP Provider review and confirm its calculation and determine whether it had appropriately accounted for the corporate action. In order to ensure that other options exchanges that may potentially be relying on the same Theoretical Price that, in turn, the Official believes to be fundamentally incorrect, the Exchange also proposes to promptly provide notice to other options exchanges that the TP Provider has been contacted to review and correct the calculated Theoretical Price at issue and to include a brief explanation of the reason for the request.8 Although not directly addressed by the proposed Rule, the Exchange expects that all other options exchanges once in receipt of this notification would await the determination of the TP Provider and would use the corrected price as soon as it is available. The Exchange further notes that it expects the TP Provider to cooperate with, but to be independent of, the Exchange and other options exchanges.9

    7 For purposes of the Rule, an Official is an Officer of the Exchange or such other employee designee of the Exchange that is trained in the application of this Rule. See Rule 720(a)(3).

    8See proposed paragraph (b) to Supplementary Material to Rule 720, Item .06.

    9 The Exchange expects any TP Provider selected by the Exchange and other options exchanges to act independently in its determination and calculation of Theoretical Price. With respect to Livevol specifically, the Exchange again notes that Livevol is a subsidiary of CBOE Holdings, Inc., which is also the ultimate parent company of multiple options exchanges. The Exchange expects Livevol to calculate Theoretical Price independent of its affiliated exchanges in the same way it will calculate Theoretical Price independent of non-affiliated exchanges.

    The Exchange believes that the proposed provision to allow an Official to contact the TP Provider if he or she believes the provided Theoretical Price is fundamentally incorrect is necessary, particularly because the Exchange and other options exchanges will be using the new process for the first time. Although the exchanges have conducted thorough diligence with respect to Livevol as the selected TP Provider and would do so with any potential replacement TP Provider, the Exchange is concerned that certain scenarios could arise where the Theoretical Price generated by the TP Provider does not take into account relevant factors and would result in an unfair result for market participants involved in a transaction. The Exchange notes that if such situations do indeed arise, to the extent practicable the Exchange will also work with the TP Provider and other options exchanges to improve the TP Provider's calculation of Theoretical Price in future situations. For instance, if the Exchange determines that a particular type of corporate action is not being appropriately captured by the TP Provider when such provider is generating Theoretical Price, while the Exchange believes that it needs the ability to request a review and correction of the Theoretical Price in connection with a specific review in order to provide a timely decision to market participants, the Exchange would share information regarding the specific situation with the TP Provider and other options exchanges in an effort to improve the Theoretical Price service for future use. The Exchange notes that it does not anticipate needing to rely on this provision frequently, if at all, but believes the provision is necessary nonetheless to best prepare for all potential circumstances. Further, the Theoretical Price used by the Exchange in connection with its rulings will always be that received from the TP Provider and the Exchange has not proposed the ability to deviate from such price.10

    10 To the extent the TP Provider has been contacted by an Official of the Exchange, reviews the Theoretical Price provided but disagrees that there has been any error, then the Exchange would be bound to use the Theoretical Price provided by the TP Provider.

    Pursuant to proposed paragraph (c) to Supplementary Material to Rule 720, Item .06, an Official of the Exchange may determine the Theoretical Price if the TP Provider has experienced a systems issue that has rendered its services unavailable to accurately calculate Theoretical Price and such issue cannot be corrected in a timely manner. The Exchange notes that it does not anticipate needing to rely on this provision frequently, if at all, but believes the provision is necessary nonetheless to best prepare for all potential circumstances. Further, consistent with existing text in Rule 720(e)(4), the Exchange has not proposed a specific time by which the service must be available in order to be considered timely.11 The Exchange expects that it would await the TP Provider's services becoming available again so long as the Exchange was able to obtain information regarding the issue and the TP Provider had a reasonable expectation of being able to resume normal operations within the next several hours based on communications with the TP Provider. More specifically with respect to Livevol, Livevol has business continuity and disaster recovery procedures that will help to ensure that the Theoretical Price tool remains available or, in the event of an outage, that service is restored in a timely manner.

    11 In the context of a Significant Market Event, the Exchange may determine, “in consultation with other options exchanges . . . that timely adjustment is not feasible due to the extraordinary nature of the situation.” See Rule 720(e)(4).

    The Exchange also notes that if a wide-scale event occurred, even if such event did not qualify as a “Significant Market Event” pursuant to Rule 720(e), and the TP Provider was unavailable or otherwise experiencing difficulty, the Exchange believes that it and other options exchanges would seek to coordinate to the extent possible. In particular, the Exchange and other options exchanges now have a process, administered by the Options Clearing Corporation, to invoke a discussion amongst all options exchanges in the event of any widespread or significant market events. The Exchange believes that this process could be used in the event necessary if there were an issue with the TP Provider.

    The Exchange also proposes to adopt language in paragraph (d) of Supplementary Material to Rule 720, Item .06 to Rule 720 to disclaim the liability of the Exchange and the TP Provider in connection with the proposed Rule, the TP Provider's calculation of Theoretical Price, and the Exchange's use of such Theoretical Price. Specifically, the proposed rule would state that neither the Exchange, the TP Provider, nor any affiliate of the TP Provider (the TP Provider and its affiliates are referred to collectively as the “TP Provider”), makes any warranty, express or implied, as to the results to be obtained by any person or entity from the use of the TP Provider pursuant to Supplementary Material to Rule 720, Item .06. The proposed rule would further state that the TP Provider does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the calculated Theoretical Price and that the TP Provider disclaims all warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or use with respect to such Theoretical Price. Finally, the proposed Rule would state that neither the Exchange nor the TP Provider shall have any liability for any damages, claims, losses (including any indirect or consequential losses), expenses, or delays, whether direct or indirect, foreseen or unforeseen, suffered by any person arising out of any circumstance or occurrence relating to the use of such Theoretical Price or arising out of any errors or delays in calculating such Theoretical Price. This proposed language is modeled after existing language in Exchange Rules regarding “reporting authorities” that calculate indices.12

    12See, e.g., Rule 2011, which relates to index options potentially listed and traded on the Exchange and disclaims liability for a reporting authority and their affiliates.

    In connection with the proposed change described above, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 720 to state that the Exchange will rely on paragraph (b) and Supplementary Material to Rule 720, Item .06 when determining Theoretical Price.

    No Valid Quotes—Market Participant Quoting on Multiple Exchanges

    As described above, one of the times where the NBB or NBO is deemed to be unreliable for purposes of Theoretical Price is when there are no quotes or no valid quotes for the affected series. In addition to when there are no quotes, the Exchange does not consider the following to be valid quotes: (i) All quotes in the applicable option series published at a time where the last NBB is higher than the last NBO in such series (a “crossed market”); (ii) quotes published by the Exchange that were submitted by either party to the transaction in question; and (iii) quotes published by another options exchange against which the Exchange has declared self-help. In recognition of today's market structure where certain participants actively provide liquidity on multiple exchanges simultaneously, the Exchange proposes to add an additional category of invalid quotes. Specifically, in order to avoid a situation where a market participant has established the market at an erroneous price on multiple exchanges, the Exchange proposes to consider as invalid the quotes in a series published by another options exchange if either party to the transaction in question submitted the quotes in the series representing such options exchange's best bid or offer. Thus, similar to being able to ignore for purposes of the Rule the quotes published by the Exchange if submitted by either party to the transaction in question, the Exchange would be able to ignore for purposes of the rule quotations on other options exchanges by that same market participant.

    In order to continue to apply the Rule in a timely and organized fashion, however, the Exchange proposes to initially limit the scope of this proposed provision in two ways. First, because the process will take considerable coordination with other options exchanges to confirm that the quotations in question on an away options exchange were indeed submitted by a party to a transaction on the Exchange, the Exchange proposes to limit this provision to apply to up to twenty-five (25) total options series (i.e., whether such series all relate to the same underlying security or multiple underlying securities). Second, the Exchange proposes to require the party that believes it established the best bid or offer on one or more other options exchanges to identify to the Exchange the quotes which were submitted by such party and published by other options exchanges. In other words, as proposed, the burden will be on the party seeking that the Exchange disregard their quotations on other options exchanges to identify such quotations. In turn, the Exchange will verify with such other options exchanges that such quotations were indeed submitted by such party.

    Below are examples of both the current rule and the rule as proposed to be amended.

    Example 1—Current Rule, Member Erroneously Quotes on One Exchange Assumptions

    For purposes of this example, assume the following:

    • A Member acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange (“Market Maker A”) is quoting in twenty series of options underlying security ABCD on the Exchange (and only the Exchange).

    • Market Maker A makes an error in calculating the market for options on ABCD, and publishes quotes in all twenty series to buy options at $1.00 and to sell options at $1.05.

    • In fact, options on ABCD in these series are nearly worthless and no other market participant is quoting in such series.

    • Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty series at issue is $1.00 × $1.05 (with the Exchange representing the NBBO based on Market Maker A's quotes).

    • Assume Member A immediately enters sell orders and executes against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.

    • Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange a timely request for review of the trades with Member A as potentially erroneous transactions to buy.

    Result

    • Based on the Exchange's current rules, the Exchange would identify Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and would consider Market Maker A's quotations invalid pursuant to Rule 720(b)(2).

    • As there were no other valid quotes to use as a reference price, the Exchange would then determine Theoretical Price.

    • Assume the Exchange determines a Theoretical Price of $0.05.

    • The execution price of $1.00 exceeds the $0.25 minimum amount set forth in the Exchange's table to determine whether an obvious error has occurred (i.e., $0.05 + $0.25 = $0.30) so any execution at or above this price is an obvious error.

    • Accordingly, the executions in all series would be adjusted by the Exchange to executions at $0.20 per contract (Theoretical Price of $0.05 plus $0.15) to the extent the incoming orders submitted by Member A were non-Customer orders.

    • The executions in all series would be nullified to the extent the incoming orders submitted by Member A were Customer orders.

    Example 2—Current Rule, Member Erroneously Quotes on Multiple Exchanges Assumptions

    For purposes of this example, assume the following:

    • A Member acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange (“Market Maker A”) is quoting in twenty series of options underlying security ABCD on the Exchange and on a second exchange (“Away Exchange”).

    • Market Maker A makes an error in calculating the market for options on ABCD, and publishes quotes on both the Exchange and the Away Exchange in all twenty series to buy options at $1.00 and to sell options at $1.05.

    • In fact, options on ABCD in these series are nearly worthless and no other market participant is quoting in such series.

    • Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty series at issue is $1.00 × $1.05 (with the Exchange and the Away Exchange representing the NBBO based on Market Maker A's quotes).

    • Assume Member A immediately enters sell orders and executes against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.

    • Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange and to the Away Exchange timely requests for review of the trades with Member A as potentially erroneous transactions to buy.

    Result

    • Based on the Exchange's current rules, the Exchange would identify Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and would consider Market Maker A's quotations on the Exchange invalid pursuant to Rule 720(b)(2). The Exchange, however, would view the Away Exchange's quotations as valid, and would thus determine Theoretical Price to be $1.05 (i.e., the NBO in the case of a potentially erroneous buy transaction).

    • The execution price of $1.00 does not exceed the $0.25 minimum amount set forth in the Exchange's table to determine whether an obvious error has occurred (i.e., $1.05 + $0.25 = $1.30) so any execution at or above this price is an obvious error.

    • The transactions on the Exchange would not be nullified or adjusted.

    • As the Exchange and all other options exchanges have identical rules with respect to the process described above, the transactions on the Away Exchange would not be nullified or adjusted.

    Example 3—Proposed Rule, Member Erroneously Quotes on Multiple Exchanges 13

    13 The Exchange notes that its proposed rule will not impact the proposed handling of a request for review where a market participant is quoting only on the Exchange, thus, the Exchange has not included a separate example for such a fact pattern.

    Assumptions

    For purposes of this example, assume the following:

    • A Member acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange (“Market Maker A”) is quoting in twenty series of options underlying security ABCD on the Exchange and on a second exchange (“Away Exchange”).14

    14 The Exchange notes that the proposed rule would operate the same if Market Maker A was quoting on more than two exchanges. The Exchange has limited the example to two exchanges for simplicity.

    • Market Maker A makes an error in calculating the market for options on ABCD, and publishes quotes on both the Exchange and the Away Exchange in all twenty series to buy options at $1.00 and to sell options at $1.05.

    • In fact, options on ABCD in these series are nearly worthless and no other market participant is quoting in such series.

    • Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty series at issue is $1.00 × $1.05 (with the Exchange and the Away Exchange representing the NBBO based on Market Maker A's quotes).

    • Assume Member A immediately enters sell orders and executes against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.

    • Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange and to the Away Exchange timely requests for review of the trades with Member A as potentially erroneous transactions to buy. At the time of submitting the requests for review to the Exchange and the Away Exchange, Market Maker A identifies to the Exchange the quotes on the Away Exchange as quotes also represented by Market Maker A (and to the Away Exchange, the quotes on the Exchange as quotes also represented by Market Maker A).

    Result

    • Based on the proposed rules, the Exchange would identify Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and would consider Market Maker A's quotations on the Exchange invalid pursuant to Rule 720(b)(2).

    • The Exchange and the Away Exchange would also coordinate to confirm that the quotations identified by Market Maker A on the other exchange were indeed Market Maker A's quotations. Once confirmed, each of the Exchange and the Away Exchange would also consider invalid the quotations published on the other exchange.

    • As there were no other valid quotes to use as a reference price, the Exchange would then determine Theoretical Price.

    • Assume the Exchange determines a Theoretical Price of $0.05.

    • The execution price of $1.00 exceeds the $0.25 minimum amount set forth in the Exchange's table to determine whether an obvious error has occurred (i.e., $0.05 + $0.25 = $0.30) so any execution at or above this price is an obvious error.

    • Accordingly, the executions in all series would be adjusted by the Exchange to executions at $0.20 per contract (Theoretical Price of $0.05 plus $0.15) to the extent the incoming orders submitted by Member A were non-Customer orders.

    • The executions in all series would be nullified to the extent the incoming orders submitted by Member A were Customer orders.

    • As the Exchange and all other options exchanges would have identical rules with respect to the process described above, as other options exchanges intend to adopt the same rule if the proposed rule is approved, the transactions on the Away Exchange would also be nullified or adjusted as set forth above.

    • If this example was instead modified such that Market Maker A was quoting in 200 series rather than 20, the Exchange notes that Market Maker A could only request that the Exchange consider as invalid their quotations in 25 of those series on other exchanges. As noted above, the Exchange has proposed to limit the proposed rule to 25 series in order to continue to process requests for review in a timely and organized fashion in order to provide certainty to market participants. This is due to the amount of coordination that will be necessary in such a scenario to confirm that the quotations in question on an away options exchange were indeed submitted by a party to a transaction on the Exchange.

    Implementation Date

    The Exchange proposes to delay the operative date of this proposal to a date within ninety (90) days after the Commission approved the Bats BZX proposal on July 6, 2017. The Exchange will announce the operative date in a Regulatory Alert made available to its Members.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.15 Specifically, the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 16 because it would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.

    15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    As described above, the Exchange and other options exchanges are seeking to further modify their harmonized rules related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. The Exchange believes that the proposal to utilize a TP Provider in the event the NBBO is unavailable or unreliable will provide greater transparency and clarity with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. Particularly, the proposed changes seek to achieve consistent results for participants across U.S. options exchanges while maintaining a fair and orderly market, protecting investors and protecting the public interest. Thus, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 17 in that the proposed Rule will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and facilitating transactions.

    17Id.

    The Exchange again reiterates that it has retained the standard of the current rule for most reviews of options transactions pursuant to Rule 720, which is to rely on the NBBO to determine Theoretical Price if such NBBO can reasonably be relied upon. The proposal to use a TP Provider when the NBBO is unavailable or unreliable is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 18 in that the proposed Rule will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and facilitating transactions by further reducing the possibility of disparate results between options exchanges and increasing the objectivity of the application of Rule 720. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed Rule is transparent with respect to the limited circumstances under which the Exchange will request a review and correction of Theoretical Price from the TP Provider, and has sought to limit such circumstances as much as possible. The Exchange notes that under the current Rule, Exchange personnel are required to determine Theoretical Price in certain circumstances and yet rarely do so because such circumstances have already been significantly limited under the harmonized rule (for example, because the wide quote provision of the harmonized rule only applies if the quote was narrower and then gapped but does not apply if the quote had been persistently wide). Thus, the Exchange believes it will need to request Theoretical Price from the TP Provider only in very rare circumstances and in turn, the Exchange anticipates that the need to contact the TP Provider for additional review of the Theoretical Price provided by the TP Provider will be even rarer. Similarly, the Exchange believes it is unlikely that an Exchange Official will ever be required to determine Theoretical Price, as such circumstance would only be in the event of a systems issue that has rendered the TP Provider's services unavailable and such issue cannot be corrected in a timely manner.

    18Id.

    The Exchange also believes its proposal to adopt language in paragraph (d) of Supplementary Material to Rule 720, Item .06 to Rule 720 to disclaim the liability of the Exchange and the TP Provider in connection with the proposed Rule, the TP Provider's calculation of Theoretical Price, and the Exchange's use of such Theoretical Price is consistent with the Act. As noted above, this proposed language is modeled after existing language in Exchange Rules regarding “reporting authorities” that calculate indices,19 and is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 20 in that the proposed Rule will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and facilitating transactions.

    19See supra, note 12.

    20 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    As described above, the Exchange proposes a modification to the valid quotes provision to also exclude quotes in a series published by another options exchange if either party to the transaction in question submitted the orders or quotes in the series representing such options exchange's best bid or offer. The Exchange believes this proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 21 because the application of the rule will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and facilitating transactions by allowing the Exchange to coordinate with other options exchanges to determine whether a market participant that is party to a potentially erroneous transaction on the Exchange established the market in an option on other options exchanges; to the extent this can be established, the Exchange believes such participant's quotes should be excluded in the same way such quotes are excluded on the Exchange. The Exchange also believes it is reasonable to limit the scope of this provision to twenty-five (25) series and to require the party that believes it established the best bid or offer on one or more other options exchanges to identify to the Exchange the quotes which were submitted by that party and published by other options exchanges. The Exchange believes these limitations are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 22 because they will ensure that the Exchange is able to continue to apply the Rule in a timely and organized fashion, thus fostering cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and facilitating transactions and also removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.

    21 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    22Id.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange believes the entire proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act 23 in that it does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as explained below.

    23 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).

    Importantly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose a burden on intermarket competition but rather that it will alleviate any burden on competition because it is the result of a collaborative effort by all options exchanges to further harmonize and improve the process related to the adjustment and nullification o [sic] erroneous options transactions. The Exchange does not believe that the rules applicable to such process is an area where options exchanges should compete, but rather, that all options exchanges should have consistent rules to the extent possible. Particularly where a market participant trades on several different exchanges and an erroneous trade may occur on multiple markets nearly simultaneously, the Exchange believes that a participant should have a consistent experience with respect to the nullification or adjustment of transactions. To that end, the selection and implementation of a TP Provider utilized by all options exchanges will further reduce the possibility that participants with potentially erroneous transactions that span multiple options exchanges are handled differently on such exchanges. Similarly, the proposed ability to consider quotations invalid on another options exchange if ultimately originating from a party to a potentially erroneous transaction on the Exchange represents a proposal intended to further foster cooperation by the options exchanges with respect to market events. The Exchange understands that all other options exchanges either have or they intend to file proposals that are substantially similar to this proposal.

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes a burden on intramarket competition because the proposed provisions apply to all market participants equally.

    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

    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 24 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.25

    24 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).

    25 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, 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: (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-ISE-2017-76 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2017-76. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2017-76, and should be submitted on or before September 1, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.26

    26 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16925 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-81321; File No. SR-MIAX-2017-38] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MIAX Options Rules 504, Trading Halts, and 521, Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions Including Obvious Errors August 7, 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 August 1, 2017, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (“MIAX Options” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the 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 proposes to amend Exchange Rules 504, Trading Halts, and 521, Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions including Obvious Errors.

    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 Background

    The Exchange and other options exchanges recently adopted a new, harmonized rule related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions, including a specific provision related to coordination in connection with large-scale events involving erroneous options transactions.3 The Exchange believes that the changes the options exchanges implemented with the new, harmonized rule have led to increased transparency and finality with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. However, as part of the initial initiative, the Exchange and other options exchanges deferred a few specific matters for further discussion. Specifically, as described in the Initial Filing, the Exchange and all other options exchanges have been working to further improve the review of potentially erroneous transactions as well as their subsequent adjustment by creating an objective and universal way to determine Theoretical Price in the event a reliable NBBO is not available. Because this initiative required additional exchange and industry discussion as well as additional time for development and implementation, the Exchange and the other options exchanges determined to proceed with the Initial Filing and to undergo a secondary initiative to complete any additional improvements to the applicable rule. In this filing, the Exchange proposes to adopt procedures that will lead to a more objective and uniform way to determine Theoretical Price in the event a reliable NBBO is not available. In addition to this change, the Exchange has proposed two additional minor changes to its rules. The Exchange's proposal mirrors that of Bats BZX, which the Commission approved on July 6, 2017,4 and those that the other options exchanges intend to or have filed. Finally, the Exchange notes that options exchanges that offer complex orders on their options platforms either already have in place rules for handling the adjustment and nullification of erroneous complex order transactions in place or have filed proposals related to such rules, which proposals have recently been approved by the Commission or filed on an immediately effective basis.5

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74918 (May 8, 2015), 80 FR 27781 (May 14, 2015) (SR-MIAX-2015-35); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73884 (December 18, 2014), 79 FR 77557 (December 24, 2014) (the “Initial Filing”).

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81084 (July 6, 2017), 82 FR 32216 (July 12, 2017) (granting approval of Bats BZX proposal).

    5See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 80040 (February 14, 2017), 82 FR 11248 (February 21, 2017) (SR-CBOE-2016-088) (granting approval of CBOE proposal related to the nullification and adjustment of complex orders); 80298 (March 22, 2017), 82 FR 15393 (March 28, 2017) (SR-C2-2017-011) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of C2 proposal related to the nullification and adjustment of complex orders); 80284 (March 21, 2017), 82 FR 15251 (March 27, 2017) (SR-MIAX-2017-13) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of MIAX proposal related to the nullification and adjustment of complex orders).

    Calculation of Theoretical Price Using a Third Party Provider

    Under the harmonized rule, when reviewing a transaction as potentially erroneous, the Exchange needs to first determine the “Theoretical Price” of the option, i.e., the Exchange's estimate of the correct market price for the option. Pursuant to Rule 521, if the applicable option series is traded on at least one other options exchange, then the Theoretical Price of an option series is the last national best bid (“NBB”) just prior to the trade in question with respect to an erroneous sell transaction or the last national best offer (“NBO”) just prior to the trade in question with respect to an erroneous buy transaction unless one of the exceptions described below exists. Thus, whenever the Exchange has a reliable NBB or NBO, as applicable, just prior to the transaction, then the Exchange uses this NBB or NBO as the Theoretical Price. The Rule also contains various provisions governing specific situations where the NBB or NBO is not available or may not be reliable. Specifically, the Rule specifies situations in which there are no quotes or no valid quotes for comparison purposes, when the national best bid or offer (“NBBO”) is determined to be too wide to be reliable, and at the open of trading on each trading day. In each of these circumstances, in turn, because the NBB or NBO is not available or is deemed to be unreliable, the Exchange determines Theoretical Price. Under the current Rule, when determining Theoretical Price, Exchange personnel generally consult and refer to data such as the prices of related series, especially the closest strikes in the option in question. Exchange personnel may also take into account the price of the underlying security and the volatility characteristics of the option as well as historical pricing of the option and/or similar options. Although the Rule is administered by experienced personnel and the Exchange believes the process is currently appropriate, the Exchange recognizes that it is also subjective and could lead to disparate results for a transaction that spans multiple options exchanges.

    The Exchange proposes to adopt Interpretation and Policy .04 to specify how the Exchange will determine Theoretical Price when required by sub-paragraphs (b)(1)-(3) of the Rule (i.e., at the open, when there are no valid quotes or when there is a wide quote). In particular, the Exchange has been working with other options exchanges to identify and select a reliable third party vendor (“TP Provider”) that would provide Theoretical Price to the Exchange whenever one or more transactions is under review pursuant to Rule 521 and the NBBO is unavailable or deemed unreliable pursuant to Rule 521(b). The Exchange and other options exchanges have selected CBOE Livevol, LLC (“Livevol”) as the TP Provider, as described below. As further described below, proposed Interpretation and Policy .04 would codify the use of the TP Provider as well as limited exceptions where the Exchange would be able to deviate from the Theoretical Price given by the TP Provider.

    Pursuant to proposed Interpretation and Policy .04, when the Exchange must determine Theoretical Price pursuant to the sub-paragraphs (b)(1)-(3) of the Rule, the Exchange will request Theoretical Price from the third party vendor to which the Exchange and all other options exchanges have subscribed. Thus, as set forth in this proposed language, Theoretical Price would be provided to the Exchange by the TP Provider on request and not through a streaming data feed.6 This language also makes clear that the Exchange and all other options exchanges will use the same TP Provider.

    6 Though the Exchange and other options exchanges considered a streaming feed, it was determined that it would be more feasible to develop and implement an on demand service and that such a service would satisfy the goals of the initiative.

    As noted above, the proposed TP Provider selected by the Exchange and other options exchanges is Livevol. The Exchange proposes to codify this selection in proposed paragraph (d) to Interpretation and Policy .04. As such, the Exchange would file a rule proposal and would provide notice to the options industry of any proposed change to the TP Provider. The Exchange and other options exchanges have selected Livevol as the proposed TP Provider after diligence into various alternatives. Livevol has, since 2009, been the options industry leader in providing equity and index options market data and analytics services.7 The Exchange believes that Livevol has established itself within the options industry as a trusted provider of such services and notes that it and all other options exchanges already subscribe to various Livevol services. In connection with this proposal, Livevol will develop a new tool based on its existing technology and services that will supply Theoretical Price to the Exchange and other options exchanges upon request. The Theoretical Price tool will leverage current market data and surrounding strikes to assist in a relative value pricing approach to generating a Theoretical Price. When relative value methods are incapable of generating a valid Theoretical Price, the Theoretical Price tool will utilize historical trade and quote data to calculate Theoretical Price. Because the purpose of the proposal is to move away from a subjective determination by Exchange personnel when the NBBO is unavailable or unreliable, the Exchange intends to use the Theoretical Price provided by the TP Provider in all such circumstances. However, the Exchange believes it is necessary to retain the ability to contact the TP Provider if it believes that the Theoretical Price provided is fundamentally incorrect and to determine the Theoretical Price in the limited circumstance of a systems issue experienced by the TP Provider, as described below.

    7 The Exchange notes that in 2015, Livevol was acquired by CBOE Holdings, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Chicago Board Options Exchange (“CBOE”) and C2 Options Exchange (“C2”).

    As proposed, to the extent an Official 8 of the Exchange believes that the Theoretical Price provided by the TP Provider is fundamentally incorrect and cannot be used consistent with the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, the Official shall contact the TP Provider to notify the TP Provider of the reason the Official believes such Theoretical Price is inaccurate and to request a review and correction of the calculated Theoretical Price. For example, if an Official received from the TP Provider a Theoretical Price of $80 in a series that the Official might expect to be instead in the range of $8 to $10 because of a recent corporate action in the underlying, the Official would request that the TP Provider review and confirm its calculation and determine whether it had appropriately accounted for the corporate action. In order to ensure that other options exchanges that may potentially be relying on the same Theoretical Price that, in turn, the Official believes to be fundamentally incorrect, the Exchange also proposes to promptly provide notice to other options exchanges that the TP Provider has been contacted to review and correct the calculated Theoretical Price at issue and to include a brief explanation of the reason for the request.9 Although not directly addressed by the proposed Rule, the Exchange expects that all other options exchanges once in receipt of this notification would await the determination of the TP Provider and would use the corrected price as soon as it is available. The Exchange further notes that it expects the TP Provider to cooperate with, but to be independent of, the Exchange and other options exchanges.10

    8 For purposes of the Rule, an Official is an Officer of the Exchange or such other employee designee of the Exchange that is trained in the application of Rule 521.

    9See proposed paragraph (b) to Interpretation and Policy .04.

    10 The Exchange expects any TP Provider selected by the Exchange and other options exchanges to act independently in its determination and calculation of Theoretical Price. With respect to Livevol specifically, the Exchange again notes that Livevol is a subsidiary of CBOE Holdings, Inc., which is also the ultimate parent company of multiple options exchanges. The Exchange expects Livevol to calculate Theoretical Price independent of its affiliated exchanges in the same way it will calculate Theoretical Price independent of non-affiliated exchanges.

    The Exchange believes that the proposed provision to allow an Official to contact the TP Provider if he or she believes the provided Theoretical Price is fundamentally incorrect is necessary, particularly because the Exchange and other options exchanges will be using the new process for the first time. Although the exchanges have conducted thorough diligence with respect to Livevol as the selected TP Provider and would do so with any potential replacement TP Provider, the Exchange is concerned that certain scenarios could arise where the Theoretical Price generated by the TP Provider does not take into account relevant factors and would result in an unfair result for market participants involved in a transaction. The Exchange notes that if such situations do indeed arise, to the extent practicable the Exchange will also work with the TP Provider and other options exchanges to improve the TP Provider's calculation of Theoretical Price in future situations. For instance, if the Exchange determines that a particular type of corporate action is not being appropriately captured by the TP Provider when such provider is generating Theoretical Price, while the Exchange believes that it needs the ability to request a review and correction of the Theoretical Price in connection with a specific review in order to provide a timely decision to market participants, the Exchange would share information regarding the specific situation with the TP Provider and other options exchanges in an effort to improve the Theoretical Price service for future use. The Exchange notes that it does not anticipate needing to rely on this provision frequently, if at all, but believes the provision is necessary nonetheless to best prepare for all potential circumstances. Further, the Theoretical Price used by the Exchange in connection with its rulings will always be that received from the TP Provider and the Exchange has not proposed the ability to deviate from such price.11

    11 To the extent the TP Provider has been contacted by an Official of the Exchange, reviews the Theoretical Price provided but disagrees that there has been any error, then the Exchange would be bound to use the Theoretical Price provided by the TP Provider.

    Pursuant to proposed paragraph (c) to Interpretation and Policy .04, an Official of the Exchange may determine the Theoretical Price if the TP Provider has experienced a systems issue that has rendered its services unavailable to accurately calculate Theoretical Price and such issue cannot be corrected in a timely manner. The Exchange notes that it does not anticipate needing to rely on this provision frequently, if at all, but believes the provision is necessary nonetheless to best prepare for all potential circumstances. Further, consistent with existing text in Rule 521(e)(4), the Exchange has not proposed a specific time by which the service must be available in order to be considered timely.12 The Exchange expects that it would await the TP Provider's services becoming available again so long as the Exchange was able to obtain information regarding the issue and the TP Provider had a reasonable expectation of being able to resume normal operations within the next several hours based on communications with the TP Provider. More specifically with respect to Livevol, Livevol has business continuity and disaster recovery procedures that will help to ensure that the Theoretical Price tool remains available or, in the event of an outage, that service is restored in a timely manner.

    12 In the context of a Significant Market Event, the Exchange may determine, “in consultation with other options exchanges . . . that timely adjustment is not feasible due to the extraordinary nature of the situation.” See Rule 521(e)(4).

    The Exchange also notes that if a wide-scale event occurred, even if such event did not qualify as a “Significant Market Event” pursuant to Rule 521(e), and the TP Provider was unavailable or otherwise experiencing difficulty, the Exchange believes that it and other options exchanges would seek to coordinate to the extent possible. In particular, the Exchange and other options exchanges now have a process, administered by the Options Clearing Corporation, to invoke a discussion amongst all options exchanges in the event of any widespread or significant market events. The Exchange believes that this process could be used in the event necessary if there were an issue with the TP Provider.

    The Exchange also proposes to adopt language in paragraph (d) of Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule 521 to disclaim the liability of the Exchange and the TP Provider in connection with the proposed Rule, the TP Provider's calculation of Theoretical Price, and the Exchange's use of such Theoretical Price. Specifically, the proposed rule would state that neither the Exchange, the TP Provider, nor any affiliate of the TP Provider (the TP Provider and its affiliates are referred to collectively as the “TP Provider”), makes any warranty, express or implied, as to the results to be obtained by any person or entity from the use of the TP Provider pursuant to Interpretation .04. The proposed rule would further state that the TP Provider does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the calculated Theoretical Price and that the TP Provider disclaims all warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or use with respect to such Theoretical Price. Finally, the proposed Rule would state that neither the Exchange nor the TP Provider shall have any liability for any damages, claims, losses (including any indirect or consequential losses), expenses, or delays, whether direct or indirect, foreseen or unforeseen, suffered by any person arising out of any circumstance or occurrence relating to the use of such Theoretical Price or arising out of any errors or delays in calculating such Theoretical Price. This proposed language is modeled after existing language in Exchange Rules regarding “reporting authorities” that calculate indices.13

    13See, e.g., MIAX Rule 526, which relates to index options potentially listed and traded on the Exchange and disclaims liability for a reporting authority and their affiliates.

    In connection with the proposed change described above, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 521 to state that the Exchange will rely on paragraph (b) and Interpretation and Policy .04 when determining Theoretical Price.

    No Valid Quotes—Market Participant Quoting on Multiple Exchanges

    As described above, one of the times where the NBB or NBO is deemed to be unreliable for purposes of Theoretical Price is when there are no quotes or no valid quotes for the affected series. In addition to when there are no quotes, the Exchange does not consider the following to be valid quotes: (i) All quotes in the applicable option series published at a time where the last NBB is higher than the last NBO in such series (a “crossed market”); (ii) quotes published by the Exchange that were submitted by either party to the transaction in question; and (iii) quotes published by another options exchange against which the Exchange has declared self-help. In recognition of today's market structure where certain participants actively provide liquidity on multiple exchanges simultaneously, the Exchange proposes to add an additional category of invalid quotes. Specifically, in order to avoid a situation where a market participant has established the market at an erroneous price on multiple exchanges, the Exchange proposes to consider as invalid the quotes in a series published by another options exchange if either party to the transaction in question submitted the quotes in the series representing such options exchange's best bid or offer. Thus, similar to being able to ignore for purposes of the Rule the quotes published by the Exchange if submitted by either party to the transaction in question, the Exchange would be able to ignore for purposes of the rule quotations on other options exchanges by that same market participant.

    In order to continue to apply the Rule in a timely and organized fashion, however, the Exchange proposes to initially limit the scope of this proposed provision in two ways. First, because the process will take considerable coordination with other options exchanges to confirm that the quotations in question on an away options exchange were indeed submitted by a party to a transaction on the Exchange, the Exchange proposes to limit this provision to apply to up to twenty-five (25) total options series (i.e., whether such series all relate to the same underlying security or multiple underlying securities). Second, the Exchange proposes to require the party that believes it established the best bid or offer on one or more other options exchanges to identify to the Exchange the quotes which were submitted by such party and published by other options exchanges. In other words, as proposed, the burden will be on the party seeking that the Exchange disregard their quotations on other options exchanges to identify such quotations. In turn, the Exchange will verify with such other options exchanges that such quotations were indeed submitted by such party.

    Below are examples of both the current rule and the rule as proposed to be amended.

    Example 1—Current Rule, Member Erroneously Quotes on One Exchange Assumptions

    For purposes of this example, assume the following:

    • A Member acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange (“Market Maker A”) is quoting in twenty series of options underlying security ABCD on the Exchange (and only the Exchange).

    • Market Maker A makes an error in calculating the market for options on ABCD, and publishes quotes in all twenty series to buy options at $1.00 and to sell options at $1.05.

    • In fact, options on ABCD in these series are nearly worthless and no other market participant is quoting in such series.

    • Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty series at issue is $1.00 × $1.05 (with the Exchange representing the NBBO based on Market Maker A's quotes).

    • Assume Member A immediately enters sell orders and executes against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.

    • Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange a timely request for review of the trades with Member A as potentially erroneous transactions to buy.

    Result

    • Based on the Exchange's current rules, the Exchange would identify Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and would consider Market Maker A's quotations invalid pursuant to Rule 521(b)(2).

    • As there were no other valid quotes to use as a reference price, the Exchange would then determine Theoretical Price.

    • Assume the Exchange determines a Theoretical Price of $0.05.

    ○ The execution price of $1.00 exceeds the $0.25 minimum amount set forth in the Exchange's table to determine whether an obvious error has occurred (i.e., $0.05 + $0.25 = $0.30) so any execution at or above this price is an obvious error.

    ○ Accordingly, the executions in all series would be adjusted by the Exchange to executions at $0.20 per contract (Theoretical Price of $0.05 plus $0.15) to the extent the incoming orders submitted by Member A were non-Customer orders.

    ○ The executions in all series would be nullified to the extent the incoming orders submitted by Member A were Customer orders.

    Example 2—Current Rule, Member Erroneously Quotes on Multiple Exchanges Assumptions

    For purposes of this example, assume the following:

    • A Member acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange (“Market Maker A”) is quoting in twenty series of options underlying security ABCD on the Exchange and on a second exchange (“Away Exchange”).

    • Market Maker A makes an error in calculating the market for options on ABCD, and publishes quotes on both the Exchange and the Away Exchange in all twenty series to buy options at $1.00 and to sell options at $1.05.

    • In fact, options on ABCD in these series are nearly worthless and no other market participant is quoting in such series.

    • Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty series at issue is $1.00 × $1.05 (with the Exchange and the Away Exchange representing the NBBO based on Market Maker A's quotes).

    • Assume Member A immediately enters sell orders and executes against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.

    • Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange and to the Away Exchange timely requests for review of the trades with Member A as potentially erroneous transactions to buy.

    Result

    • Based on the Exchange's current rules, the Exchange would identify Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and would consider Market Maker A's quotations on the Exchange invalid pursuant to Rule 521(b)(2). The Exchange, however, would view the Away Exchange's quotations as valid, and would thus determine Theoretical Price to be $1.05 (i.e., the NBO in the case of a potentially erroneous buy transaction).

    • The execution price of $1.00 does not exceed the $0.25 minimum amount set forth in the Exchange's table to determine whether an obvious error has occurred (i.e., $1.05 + $0.25 = $1.30) so any execution at or above this price is an obvious error.

    • The transactions on the Exchange would not be nullified or adjusted.

    • As the Exchange and all other options exchanges have identical rules with respect to the process described above, the transactions on the Away Exchange would not be nullified or adjusted.

    Example 3—Proposed Rule, Member Erroneously Quotes on Multiple Exchanges 14

    14 The Exchange notes that its proposed rule will not impact the proposed handling of a request for review where a market participant is quoting only on the Exchange, thus, the Exchange has not included a separate example for such a fact-pattern.

    Assumptions

    For purposes of this example, assume the following:

    • A Member acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange (“Market Maker A”) is quoting in twenty series of options underlying security ABCD on the Exchange and on a second exchange (“Away Exchange”).15

    15 The Exchange notes that the proposed rule would operate the same if Market Maker A was quoting on more than two exchanges. The Exchange has limited the example to two exchanges for simplicity.

    • Market Maker A makes an error in calculating the market for options on ABCD, and publishes quotes on both the Exchange and the Away Exchange in all twenty series to buy options at $1.00 and to sell options at $1.05.

    • In fact, options on ABCD in these series are nearly worthless and no other market participant is quoting in such series.

    • Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty series at issue is $1.00 × $1.05 (with the Exchange and the Away Exchange representing the NBBO based on Market Maker A's quotes).

    • Assume Member A immediately enters sell orders and executes against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.

    • Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange and to the Away Exchange timely requests for review of the trades with Member A as potentially erroneous transactions to buy. At the time of submitting the requests for review to the Exchange and the Away Exchange, Market Maker A identifies to the Exchange the quotes on the Away Exchange as quotes also represented by Market Maker A (and to the Away Exchange, the quotes on the Exchange as quotes also represented by Market Maker A).

    Result

    • Based on the proposed rules, the Exchange would identify Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and would consider Market Maker A's quotations on the Exchange invalid pursuant to Rule 521(b)(2).

    • The Exchange and the Away Exchange would also coordinate to confirm that the quotations identified by Market Maker A on the other exchange were indeed Market Maker A's quotations. Once confirmed, each of the Exchange and the Away Exchange would also consider invalid the quotations published on the other exchange.

    • As there were no other valid quotes to use as a reference price, the Exchange would then determine Theoretical Price.

    • Assume the Exchange determines a Theoretical Price of $0.05.

    ○ The execution price of $1.00 exceeds the $0.25 minimum amount set forth in the Exchange's table to determine whether an obvious error has occurred (i.e., $0.05 + $0.25 = $0.30) so any execution at or above this price is an obvious error.

    ○ Accordingly, the executions in all series would be adjusted by the Exchange to executions at $0.20 per contract (Theoretical Price of $0.05 plus $0.15) to the extent the incoming orders submitted by Member A were non-Customer orders.

    ○ The executions in all series would be nullified to the extent the incoming orders submitted by Member A were Customer orders.

    • As the Exchange and all other options exchanges would have identical rules with respect to the process described above, as other options exchanges intend to adopt the same rule if the proposed rule is approved, the transactions on the Away Exchange would also be nullified or adjusted as set forth above.

    • If this example was instead modified such that Market Maker A was quoting in 200 series rather than 20, the Exchange notes that Market Maker A could only request that the Exchange consider as invalid their quotations in 25 of those series on other exchanges. As noted above, the Exchange has proposed to limit the proposed rule to 25 series in order to continue to process requests for review in a timely and organized fashion in order to provide certainty to market participants. This is due to the amount of coordination that will be necessary in such a scenario to confirm that the quotations in question on an away options exchange were indeed submitted by a party to a transaction on the Exchange.

    Trading Halts—Clarifying Change to Rules 504 and 521(f)

    Exchange Rules 504 and 521(f) describe the Exchange's authority to declare trading halts in one or more options traded on the Exchange. Currently, Rule 521(f) and Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule 504 both state that the Exchange shall nullify any transaction that occurs during a trading halt in the affected option on the Exchange or, with respect to equity options, during a trading halt on the primary listing market for the underlying security. The Exchange proposes to make clear with respect to equity options that it shall nullify any transaction that occurs during a regulatory halt as declared by the primary listing market for the underlying security. The Exchange believes this change is necessary to distinguish a declared regulatory halt, where the underlying security should not be actively trading on any venue, from an operational issue on the primary listing exchange where the security continues to safely trade on other trading venues.

    Implementation Date

    The Exchange proposes to delay the operative date of this proposal to a date within ninety (90) days after the Commission approved the Bats BZX proposal on July 6, 2017.16 The Exchange will announce the operative date in a Regulatory Alert made available to its Members.

    16See supra, note 4.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.17 Specifically, the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 18 because it would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.

    17 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    18 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    As described above, the Exchange and other options exchanges are seeking to further modify their harmonized rules related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. The Exchange believes that the proposal to utilize a TP Provider in the event the NBBO is unavailable or unreliable will provide greater transparency and clarity with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. Particularly, the proposed changes seek to achieve consistent results for participants across U.S. options exchanges while maintaining a fair and orderly market, protecting investors and protecting the public interest. Thus, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 19 in that the proposed Rule will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and facilitating transactions.

    19Id.

    The Exchange again reiterates that it has retained the standard of the current rule for most reviews of options transactions pursuant to Rule 521, which is to rely on the NBBO to determine Theoretical Price if such NBBO can reasonably be relied upon. The proposal to use a TP Provider when the NBBO is unavailable or unreliable is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 20 in that the proposed Rule will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and facilitating transactions by further reducing the possibility of disparate results between options exchanges and increasing the objectivity of the application of Rule 521. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed Rule is transparent with respect to the limited circumstances under which the Exchange will request a review and correction of Theoretical Price from the TP Provider, and has sought to limit such circumstances as much as possible. The Exchange notes that under the current Rule, Exchange personnel are required to determine Theoretical Price in certain circumstances and yet rarely do so because such circumstances have already been significantly limited under the harmonized rule (for example, because the wide quote provision of the harmonized rule only applies if the quote was narrower and then gapped but does not apply if the quote had been persistently wide). Thus, the Exchange believes it will need to request Theoretical Price from the TP Provider only in very rare circumstances and in turn, the Exchange anticipates that the need to contact the TP Provider for additional review of the Theoretical Price provided by the TP Provider will be even rarer. Similarly, the Exchange believes it is unlikely that an Exchange Official will ever be required to determine Theoretical Price, as such circumstance would only be in the event of a systems issue that has rendered the TP Provider's services unavailable and such issue cannot be corrected in a timely manner.

    20Id.

    The Exchange also believes its proposal to adopt language in paragraph (d) of Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule 521 to disclaim the liability of the Exchange and the TP Provider in connection with the proposed Rule, the TP Provider's calculation of Theoretical Price, and the Exchange's use of such Theoretical Price is consistent with the Act. As noted above, this proposed language is modeled after existing language in Exchange Rules regarding “reporting authorities” that calculate indices,21 and is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 22 in that the proposed Rule will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and facilitating transactions.

    21See supra, note 13.

    22 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    As described above, the Exchange proposes a modification to the valid quotes provision to also exclude quotes in a series published by another options exchange if either party to the transaction in question submitted the orders or quotes in the series representing such options exchange's best bid or offer. The Exchange believes this proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 23 because the application of the rule will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and facilitating transactions by allowing the Exchange to coordinate with other options exchanges to determine whether a market participant that is party to a potentially erroneous transaction on the Exchange established the market in an option on other options exchanges; to the extent this can be established, the Exchange believes such participant's quotes should be excluded in the same way such quotes are excluded on the Exchange. The Exchange also believes it is reasonable to limit the scope of this provision to twenty-five (25) series and to require the party that believes it established the best bid or offer on one or more other options exchanges to identify to the Exchange the quotes which were submitted by that party and published by other options exchanges. The Exchange believes these limitations are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 24 because they will ensure that the Exchange is able to continue to apply the Rule in a timely and organized fashion, thus fostering cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and facilitating transactions and also removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.

    23 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    24 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    Finally, with respect to the proposed modification to the Exchange's trading halt rules, Rule 504 and Rule 521(f), the Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 25 because such proposal clarifies the provision by distinguishing between a trading halt in an underlying security where the security has halted trading across the industry (i.e., a regulatory halt) from a situation where the primary exchange has experienced a technical issue but the underlying security continues to trade on other equities platforms. The Exchange notes that this distinction is already clear in the rules of certain other options exchanges, and thus, has been found to be consistent with the Act.26

    25Id.

    26See, e.g., Interpretation and Policy .07 to CBOE Rule 6.3.

    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 entire proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act 27 in that it does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as explained below.

    27 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).

    Importantly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose a burden on intermarket competition but rather that it will alleviate any burden on competition because it is the result of a collaborative effort by all options exchanges to further harmonize and improve the process related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. The Exchange does not believe that the rules applicable to such process in [sic] an area where options exchanges should compete, but rather, that all options exchanges should have consistent rules to the extent possible. Particularly where a market participant trades on several different exchanges and an erroneous trade may occur on multiple markets nearly simultaneously, the Exchange believes that a participant should have a consistent experience with respect to the nullification or adjustment of transactions. To that end, the selection and implementation of a TP Provider utilized by all options exchanges will further reduce the possibility that participants with potentially erroneous transactions that span multiple options exchanges are handled differently on such exchanges. Similarly, the proposed ability to consider quotations invalid on another options exchange if ultimately originating from a party to a potentially erroneous transaction on the Exchange represents a proposal intended to further foster cooperation by the options exchanges with respect to market events. The Exchange understands that all other options exchanges either have or they intend to file proposals that are substantially similar to this proposal.

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes a burden on intramarket competition because the proposed provisions apply to all market participants 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 after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 28 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 29 thereunder.

    28 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    29 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, 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 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-2017-38 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2017-38. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing 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-2017-38, and should be submitted on or before September 1, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.30

    30 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16924 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-81323; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2017-078] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Chapter V, Section 6, Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions Including Obvious Errors August 7, 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 26, 2017, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the 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 proposes to amend Chapter V, Section 6 of the Exchange's Options Rules (the “Rules”), entitled “Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions including Obvious Errors.”

    While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the proposed amendments to be operative on a date that is within ninety (90) days after the Commission approved a similar proposal filed by Bats BZX on July 6, 2017.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange and other options exchanges recently adopted a new, harmonized rule related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions, including a specific provision related to coordination in connection with large-scale events involving erroneous options transactions.3 The Exchange believes that the changes the options exchanges implemented with the new, harmonized rule have led to increased transparency and finality with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. However, as part of the initial initiative, the Exchange and other options exchanges deferred a few specific matters for further discussion. Specifically, as described in the Initial Filing, the Exchange and all other options exchanges have been working to further improve the review of potentially erroneous transactions as well as their subsequent adjustment by creating an objective and universal way to determine Theoretical Price in the event a reliable NBBO is not available. Because this initiative required additional exchange and industry discussion as well as additional time for development and implementation, the Exchange and the other options exchanges determined to proceed with the Initial Filing and to undergo a secondary initiative to complete any additional improvements to the applicable rule. In this filing, the Exchange proposes to adopt procedures that will lead to a more objective and uniform way to determine Theoretical Price in the event a reliable NBBO is not available. In addition to this change, the Exchange has proposed two additional minor changes to its rules. The Exchange's proposal mirrors that of Bats BZX, which the Exchange [sic] approved on July 6, 2017,4 and those that the other options exchanges intend to file.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-74915 (May 8, 2015); 80 FR 27801 (May 14, 2015) (SR-NASDAQ-2015-054) (the “Initial Filing”).

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-81084 (July 6, 2017) (granting approval of Bats BZX proposal), 82 FR 32216 (July 12, 2017); 82 FR 23684 (May 23, 2017) (SR-BatsBZX-2017-035) (notice of filing of Bats BZX proposal).

    Calculation of Theoretical Price Using a Third Party Provider

    Under the harmonized rule, when reviewing a transaction as potentially erroneous, the Exchange needs to first determine the “Theoretical Price” of the option, i.e., the Exchange's estimate of the correct market price for the option. Pursuant to Chapter V, Section 6 of the Rules, if the applicable option series is traded on at least one other options exchange, then the Theoretical Price of an option series is the last national best bid (“NBB”) just prior to the trade in question with respect to an erroneous sell transaction or the last national best offer (“NBO”) just prior to the trade in question with respect to an erroneous buy transaction unless one of the exceptions described below exists. Thus, whenever the Exchange has a reliable NBB or NBO, as applicable, just prior to the transaction, then the Exchange uses this NBB or NBO as the Theoretical Price.

    The Rule also contains various provisions governing specific situations where the NBB or NBO is not available or may not be reliable. Specifically, the Rule specifies situations in which there are no quotes or no valid quotes for comparison purposes, when the national best bid or offer (“NBBO”) is determined to be too wide to be reliable, and at the open of trading on each trading day. In each of these circumstances, in turn, because the NBB or NBO is not available or is deemed to be unreliable, the Exchange determines Theoretical Price. Under the current Rule, when determining Theoretical Price, Exchange personnel generally consult and refer to data such as the prices of related series, especially the closest strikes in the option in question. Exchange personnel may also take into account the price of the underlying security and the volatility characteristics of the option as well as historical pricing of the option and/or similar options. Although the Rule is administered by experienced personnel and the Exchange believes the process is currently appropriate, the Exchange recognizes that it is also subjective and could lead to disparate results for a transaction that spans multiple options exchanges.

    The Exchange proposes to adopt Commentary .04 to specify how the Exchange will determine Theoretical Price when required by sub-paragraphs (b)(1)-(3) of the Rule (i.e., at the open, when there are no valid quotes or when there is a wide quote). In particular, the Exchange has been working with other options exchanges to identify and select a reliable third party vendor (“TP Provider”) that would provide Theoretical Price to the Exchange whenever one or more transactions is under review pursuant to Chapter V, Section 6 of the Rules and the NBBO is unavailable or deemed unreliable pursuant to Chapter V, Section 6(b) of the Rules. The Exchange and other options exchanges have selected CBOE Livevol, LLC (“Livevol”) as the TP Provider, as described below. As further described below, proposed Commentary .04 would codify the use of the TP Provider as well as limited exceptions where the Exchange would be able to deviate from the Theoretical Price given by the TP Provider.

    Pursuant to proposed Commentary .04, when the Exchange must determine Theoretical Price pursuant to the sub-paragraphs (b)(1)-(3) of the Rule, the Exchange will request Theoretical Price from the third party vendor to which the Exchange and all other options exchanges have subscribed. Thus, as set forth in this proposed language, Theoretical Price would be provided to the Exchange by the TP Provider on request and not through a streaming data feed.5 This language also makes clear that the Exchange and all other options exchanges will use the same TP Provider.

    5 Though the Exchange and other options exchanges considered a streaming feed, it was determined that it would be more feasible to develop and implement an on demand service and that such a service would satisfy the goals of the initiative.

    As noted above, the proposed TP Provider selected by the Exchange and other options exchanges is Livevol. The Exchange proposes to codify this selection in proposed paragraph (d) to Commentary .04. As such, the Exchange would file a rule proposal and would provide notice to the options industry of any proposed change to the TP Provider.

    The Exchange and other options exchanges have selected Livevol as the proposed TP Provider after diligence into various alternatives. Livevol has, since 2009, been the options industry leader in providing equity and index options market data and analytics services.6 The Exchange believes that Livevol has established itself within the options industry as a trusted provider of such services and notes that it and all other options exchanges already subscribe to various Livevol services. In connection with this proposal, Livevol will develop a new tool based on its existing technology and services that will supply Theoretical Price to the Exchange and other options exchanges upon request. The Theoretical Price tool will leverage current market data and surrounding strikes to assist in a relative value pricing approach to generating a Theoretical Price. When relative value methods are incapable of generating a valid Theoretical Price, the Theoretical Price tool will utilize historical trade and quote data to calculate Theoretical Price.

    6 The Exchange notes that in 2015, Livevol was acquired by CBOE Holdings, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Chicago Board Options Exchange (“CBOE”) and C2 Options Exchange (“C2”).

    Because the purpose of the proposal is to move away from a subjective determination by Exchange personnel when the NBBO is unavailable or unreliable, the Exchange intends to use the Theoretical Price provided by the TP Provider in all such circumstances. However, the Exchange believes it is necessary to retain the ability to contact the TP Provider if it believes that the Theoretical Price provided is fundamentally incorrect and to determine the Theoretical Price in the limited circumstance of a systems issue experienced by the TP Provider, as described below.

    As proposed, to the extent an Official 7 of the Exchange believes that the Theoretical Price provided by the TP Provider is fundamentally incorrect and cannot be used consistent with the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, the Official shall contact the TP Provider to notify the TP Provider of the reason the Official believes such Theoretical Price is inaccurate and to request a review and correction of the calculated Theoretical Price. For example, if an Official received from the TP Provider a Theoretical Price of $80 in a series that the Official might expect to be instead in the range of $8 to $10 because of a recent corporate action in the underlying, the Official would request that the TP Provider review and confirm its calculation and determine whether it had appropriately accounted for the corporate action. In order to ensure that other options exchanges that may potentially be relying on the same Theoretical Price that, in turn, the Official believes to be fundamentally incorrect, the Exchange also proposes to promptly provide notice to other options exchanges that the TP Provider has been contacted to review and correct the calculated Theoretical Price at issue and to include a brief explanation of the reason for the request.8 Although not directly addressed by the proposed Rule, the Exchange expects that all other options exchanges once in receipt of this notification would await the determination of the TP Provider and would use the corrected price as soon as it is available. The Exchange further notes that it expects the TP Provider to cooperate with, but to be independent of, the Exchange and other options exchanges.9

    7 For purposes of the Rule, an Official is an Exchange staff member or contract employee designated as such by the Chief Regulatory Officer. See NOM Rules, Chapter V, Sec. 6(a)(3).

    8See proposed paragraph (b) to Commentary .04.

    9 The Exchange expects any TP Provider selected by the Exchange and other options exchanges to act independently in its determination and calculation of Theoretical Price. With respect to Livevol specifically, the Exchange again notes that Livevol is a subsidiary of CBOE Holdings, Inc., which is also the ultimate parent company of multiple options exchanges. The Exchange expects Livevol to calculate Theoretical Price independent of its affiliated exchanges in the same way it will calculate Theoretical Price independent of non-affiliated exchanges.

    The Exchange believes that the proposed provision to allow an Official to contact the TP Provider if he or she believes the provided Theoretical Price is fundamentally incorrect is necessary, particularly because the Exchange and other options exchanges will be using the new process for the first time. Although the exchanges have conducted thorough diligence with respect to Livevol as the selected TP Provider and would do so with any potential replacement TP Provider, the Exchange is concerned that certain scenarios could arise where the Theoretical Price generated by the TP Provider does not take into account relevant factors and would result in an unfair result for market participants involved in a transaction. The Exchange notes that if such situations do indeed arise, to the extent practicable the Exchange will also work with the TP Provider and other options exchanges to improve the TP Provider's calculation of Theoretical Price in future situations. For instance, if the Exchange determines that a particular type of corporate action is not being appropriately captured by the TP Provider when such provider is generating Theoretical Price, while the Exchange believes that it needs the ability to request a review and correction of the Theoretical Price in connection with a specific review in order to provide a timely decision to market participants, the Exchange woul